On a related but different point, I want to thank him for raising in question period yesterday the need to support our firefighters. Motion No. 388 went through, although we seem to have no action to bring it into place, and that relates to terrorist acts, as we noted in the Boston Marathon. Everyone was amazed to see the first responders run toward danger when everyone else was running in the other direction.

However, I stand with him in finding, despite my concerns about terrorism, that this current law, Bill S-7, goes too far, and that the existing tools and law in the Criminal Code are more than adequate. I stand with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, the international civil liberties organizations, as well as with the concerns expressed at committee by the Canadian Bar Association, in believing that the bill potentially violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will therefore be struck down later.

I wonder if he could comment on the futility of passing laws in this place when there are significant doubts that they are charter compliant.

Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I stand in somewhat the same place on this issue. The NDP has had this question for a long time. When legislation is introduced, the Minister of Justice has a responsibility to certify that it would not violate the charter, but the minister has set a very low bar: we have heard reports that if there is even a 5% chance that the law will be upheld in the courts, the government is willing to go ahead and introduce that bill.

I also want to thank my colleague for raising the issue of first responders. The Conservatives say that we have the resources we need, that we have done the things we need to do. Firefighters would be one of our most important resources in any terrorist attack and they were one of the most important resources in Boston, so it shocks me that in this country we have failed to implement a compensation fund for the families of fallen firefighters. The only argument made by the government yesterday against this fund was that it would be simply too expensive. I was disappointed to hear that argument. It was quite a shocking statement, because the tragic loss of firefighters has a cost, and right now those costs are borne by their families.

The post Combating Terrorism Act (Bill S-7) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights made the point that “…human rights are not, and can never be, a luxury to be cast aside at times of difficulty.”

I believe there are adequate mechanisms within the current Criminal Code, and this legislation goes too far. I ask my friend from Lac-Saint-Louis if he would not prefer if the bill had been amended to change the term “likely to carry out a terrorist activity”. Twice in the legislation, people face sanctions of up to 10 years’ imprisonment if they have in any way harboured or assisted someone who is “likely to engage”. How is that defined, and should we not have taken the advice of the Canadian Bar Association and changed that language to “intend to undertake terrorist activity”?

Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is discussing the part of the bill that refers to purpose, for example, in the case where someone would be serving a meal to or harbouring someone who has committed a terrorist act or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

From what I recall in the legislative summary of the bill, it was deemed that the idea of having to discuss “purpose” was not necessary according to other legal experts. I will look into this a bit more, but I do remember it coming up.

The post Combating Terrorism Act (Bill S-7) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It seems particularly cruel to target such an event, but the kind of evil that targets innocent people with bombs is by definition cruel.

My thoughts and prayers are with those injured, the families who have lost loved ones, and the police and health care workers who have had to cope with this dreadful tragedy.

The post Statement on the Boston Marathon Tragedy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It also occurred to me that the process of intending to leave the country could become a terrorist act. In conjunction with that, if we look at clause 83.23, we then have by association others drawn in, “A person who knowingly harbours or conceals any person who they know to be a person who has carried out a terrorist act or facilitates it”.

By extension, if planning to leave the country to go overseas for what is alleged to be a terrorist activity, such as camp training, would this sweep bring in others who, in normal context, would be seen to be doing an innocent activity?

Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, was discussed a little in the Senate hearings.

The general principles of the Criminal Code that connect one offence to other acts, such as complicity, various forms of aiding and abetting, they all apply. The question of a broader circle of people being drawn into the criminality that these new provisions would enact is very real.

The official government witnesses before the Senate committee tiptoed around this. They acknowledged that it was a real issue but there was a sense that we did not really want to criminalize other’s assistance.

Now, of course, all the intention standards would have to be there. If one innocently helps a person leave the country by helping out with the person’s passport but does not know why the person is leaving, then there is no connection. However, the moment one knows why, one would absolutely be drawn into the orbit.

One of the witnesses, I believe it was Mr. Fadden but it might have been another witness, commented along the lines that we should not be naive about how many people actually do assist others to leave for this purpose.

The idea of a wider circle beyond the person leaving does appear to be in contemplation.

The post Combating Terrorism Act (S-7) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Why then would we bring back measures that we have not had for a number of years and that did not cause any trouble by their absence but could now become part of the fabric of Canadian law-making and creep into other areas of criminal investigation? I think it is dangerous. I would appreciate my colleague’s comments on that.

Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, those measures have already been in the fabric of Canadian law and they will become part of that fabric again but only on a temporary basis because they will sunset.

This is obviously a complex issue. It is important to keep in mind that these measures do seem to be charter-proof based on what I understand of court decisions. We have to take that into account. We often get up in the House and say we cannot vote for this or that because it is against the charter, and that is all very well and good. That is the way it should be. However, when something is charter-proof, it becomes difficult to argue that we are tearing the fabric of Canadian society in an irreparable way.

I understand that these are serious questions and they have to be studied in committee.

The post Combating Terrorism Act (S-7) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On September 26, we tabled before this House a Canada-China nuclear safety agreement, which will not come before this House for debate but which is related to this issue of nuclear safety.

I am very concerned that the agreement is not sufficient for Canada to meet the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the sale of Canadian uranium to Chinese facilities. Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we must be able to verify at all times that Canadian uranium will not go to nuclear weapons. A one-page promise from China, to me, does not meet the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I wonder if my colleagues from the official opposition share those concerns.

Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, we do indeed share these kinds of concerns. However, I would like to suggest that my colleague wait until I give my speech on Bill S-9 this afternoon. I do not want to give her a scoop because it is against my principles.

Right now, we are talking about Bill S-7, and Bill S-9 will be debated this afternoon. We do in fact have concerns about it, and we will see how all that plays out in Bill S-9.

The post Combating Terrorism Act (S-7) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[-XxJFBe-WTE]

Most opposition members, certainly the Green Party and from what I hear the hon. member for Mount Royal and the Liberal Party, support the section relating to the proceeds of terrorism and the ability to go after people who commit terrorist attacks with civil suits seeking financial remedies. This process would have been made much simpler had the government been prepared to consider amendments when the hon. member for Mount Royal first moved them.

That said, I find it unfortunate that we are closing down debate once again on this bill. Would the hon. Minister of Justice reconsider and allow other sections of the bill to be reopened at this time?

Hon. Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would be hard-pressed in all the years I have been here to come up with another piece of legislation that has had as much debate as Bill C-10 has had.

If we spent another four years debating this, would the member change her mind? Let us be honest. The day before yesterday the member said that people were criticizing the bill because more criminals might be on the streets. On another day members say that everybody is going to be locked up. Those members cannot make up their minds.

Ultimately, they should be supporting this legislation because it is the right thing to do. The legislation goes after drug traffickers, the people who are bringing heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine into this country. It sends out the message that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable. That is why the member and everyone else should support this important piece of legislation.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to begin my brief remarks by paying tribute to one extraordinarily brave Canadian woman, Maureen Basnicki, whose great courage and perseverance in the face of losing her husband, Ken, in the disaster of 9/11 inspires us all.

I had a chance to talk to Maureen in the justice committee hearings. This was during the time we were transfixed by a government motion to end debate and push the whole bill through that day. She was disheartened, as an individual Canadian, that so much in the bill was caught up in an omnibus bill. As much as I support the efforts to allow Canadians, such as Maureen, who ever experienced the tragedy of personal loss to an act of terrorism overseas, and as much as it is quite right and appropriate, Canadians should be able to seek civil remedies overseas.

There is much in the bill that changes the characteristics of Canada and the values of Canadians in ways that do not reflect the kind of country we are. In fact, one of the trite things said after 9/11 was that if we abandoned civil liberties, if we changed what we were as a country, we had let the terrorists win.

To throw people in jail on mandatory minimums without the discretion of a judge who sees the person before him or her, without the opportunity of the criminal justice system to work toward restorative justice, without the opportunities that a compassionate justice system has to figure out if the person deserves jail time, or needs mental health facility where he or she can get the help needed, or is a victim of systemic racism or is someone for whom only criminal justice will work, needs revision. Putting forward my first amendment, which relates to the victims of terrorism act, is an important improvement in Canadian law and I support it. The amendment I have added today, should it be passed, will only expand the ambit of those Canadians who have been damaged by acts that fall well below the rule of law.

My amendment would add to the definition of terrorism that we would also recognize an act of torture to be something for which Canadians could seek redress overseas. It would apply to the case of someone like Mahar Arar. He was taken, in violation of all that is decent and in violation of all rule of law, not in recognition of his Canadian citizenship at all, and subjected to torture. He too would have redress to these civil remedies.

Since I have the opportunity to speak to the bill, as the hon. member from the official opposition has done, let me also speak to the broader problem. In the view of every criminologist, expert, academic who appeared before the justice committee and who commented on this through the media and in learned articles and so on, no one who has an experience of mandatory minimums believes they work. They do not believe they will reduce crime. They believe they will drive up the cost of our system and impose on the provinces. As has been so well pointed out by the provincial justice minister for the province of Quebec, there could be untold billions of dollars in the cost of new prisons.

We already have overcrowded prisons. To crowd them further will impose other problems. The state of California needed a court order to release prisoners because the overcrowding constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of its bill of rights. We do not want that situation in Canada.

I want to raise a very specific point that did not come up in committee. I believe it is very important for all Canadians to recognize that every member of the House of Commons favours law-abiding citizens. Every member of the House of Commons wants to do better than the bill does in supporting victims of crime.

However, the legislation will not deliver safer streets. I cannot say that forcefully enough. One of the aspects of this, which I do not think has received adequate attention, comes from the experience in the United States, when the Americans removed judicial discretion with mandatory minimums and gave power in the hands of prosecutors to exact plea bargains.

Plea bargains have become far and away more common than criminal trials, which means that presumption of innocence goes out the window. There is generally a sense that if one insists on one’s innocence and goes to trial, one will be punished down the road with a mandatory minimum. That is how prosecutors exact plea bargains. They say that if people go to trial, they will increase the offence. If they are found guilty, they will go to jail for 20 years instead of 2 years.

I will quote an article from the New York Times, on September 25, 2011, titled “Sentencing Shift Gives New Leverage to Prosecutors”, and a legal scholar, who was a former conservative federal judge and prosecutor and now law professor. I want to emphasize this and I hope members of Parliament will reconsider it and give weight to this last moment we have at report stage to fix this bill and get rid of mandatory minimums.

This is what former judge Paul Cassell said:

Judges have lost discretion, and that discretion has accumulated in the hands of prosecutors, who now have the ultimate ability to shape the outcome. With mandatory minimums and other sentencing enhancements out there, prosecutors can often dictate the sentence that will be imposed.

The story goes on to say:

Without question, plea bargains benefit many defendants who have committed crimes and receive lighter sentences than they might after trial.

In other words, taking discretion away from judges does not guarantee, as those on the government benches so desire to see, that people who are guilty of crimes will be put behind bars. They may get the perverse result that I am sure they do not want, that mandatory minimums drive us to a completely new system in which prosecutors have the ability to plea bargain. In that process, people who would have been found guilty before a judge and jury, and be subjected to a harsher sentence, would get a lighter sentence.

Yes, we will overcrowd our jails. Without the safety valve provisions in the amendments that we will be reviewing today, without an ability to say “mandatory minimums should not apply here”, without that, we will be crowding our jails.

We know as of now we are not putting sufficient resources into programs for mental health or to help people with addictions. We know that so many of the problems that occur in crimes on the streets have to do with systemic problems of poverty, lack of access to mental health resources, treatment and care and addiction. If we are not dealing with those, we are merely throwing people from the streets, where there are problems, into jails. Jails are not a solution to mental health problems. Jails are no solution to the absence of affordable housing.

This is not legislation that will work for Canadians. It will not make safer streets; it will make meaner streets. This is not a bill that deals with Canadian values. This speaks to some other country that I do not know. I do not want to live in a country that thinks it is better to impose stark mandatory minimums rather than have a criminal justice system rooted in the rule of law that recognizes the primacy of the value that goes back to the times of common law, before the existence of our great country of Canada. We recognize the presumption of innocence. We must not lose that.

We must not live in a country where a member of a governing cabinet can look across the floor of the House and accuse an opposition member, as if it were a crime, to have worked as a lawyer for the defence. The defence of people accused of crime is essential in a criminal justice system. As we know from Donald Marshall Jr. and the Milgaard case, innocent people get accused of crimes. Those people who defend them in court are an essential part of the fabric of a civilized society that understands the rule of law.

I do not think I have ever been so deeply shocked by anything I have heard in the House of Commons as an accusation that the hon. member, who now stands as the official opposition House leader, was somehow a bad person because before entering politics, while practising law, he defended people accused of crimes. We should remember that when someone is accused of a crime we do not say a person is “defending criminals”. The presumption of innocence is an essential part of the fabric of a civilized society. I fear we are losing that.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act – Speech appeared first on Elizabeth May.

First, let me say to the hon. government benches and the members here where we agree. I would happily vote for the victim of terrorism act, and I would vote to change the Criminal Records Act to replace the word “pardon” with “record suspension”. However, I will be forced to vote against this legislation if it comes packaged with sections that would cause this country nothing but grief.

I wish to say to all hon. members on the government side whose talking points have repeatedly forced them to say that those who question the flawed premise of mandatory minimum sentences have somehow sided with criminals against victims. Nothing could be further from the truth. Members of my family are involved in law enforcement. People close to me have been murdered. It is not as though we side with criminals when we recognize a piece of legislation is so egregiously flawed that this place should say no.

We look at all the evidence from criminologists, not just one or two, but all of them. We look at evidence from our own Department of Justice that studied this matter in 2002. We look at what is happening in the U.S., not only at the fact that its prisons are full of people but its prisons are full of people who are disproportionately low-income and Black. We also look at what could happen in this country. We have seen the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the report on the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. We know that with this legislation, without many changes, we would disproportionately fill our jails with people who should not be in jail.

We also know that this legislation would cost us billions, which has not been fully costed.

Yet, at the end of the day, it may actually result in weaker sentences for those who deserve higher sentences because we would ruin the opportunity for judicial discretion.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Antiterrorism Act clauses, brought in after the 9-11 attacks, expired in 2007.  They allow police to make arrests without warrants and hold people for up to three days without charges if they suspected a terrorist act.  They also allow judges to compel witnesses to testify under penalty of jail for refusing.

Speaking on the anniversary of the 9-11 tragedy, Prime Minister Harper stated that “the major threat to Canada is still Islamicism,” leading to widespread outrage.  “Greens stand with the other opposition parties that find this type of fear-mongering to be disrespectful and distasteful,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May.  “If Mr. Harper wants to get real, he should recognize that climate is the biggest security threat, as a Pentagon-commissioned study has said.”

Joe Foster, Green Human Rights critic, observed, “Greens have growing concerns about the alarming erosion of basic freedoms and human rights in Canada.  Scapegoating an entire religious group simply promotes intolerance and provides support for the few destructive elements in society who promote divergence rather than harmony.”

“Harper is attempting to rile fear against an entire religious group in order to bring back police-state type security measures.  This is moving towards a Big Brother form of government where fundamental civil rights and freedoms are incrementally extinguished in the name of national security.  This is exactly the response terrorists are attempting to trigger in order to turn people against government,” said Green International Affairs Critic Eric Walton.

The post The real issues of security: jobs and pensions, not Islam appeared first on Elizabeth May.