Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1249
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 10:17 [p.18507]
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present three petitions.
The first petition deals with the proposed northern gateway project, which increasingly has the people of British Columbia, the government of British Columbia and the first nations of British Columbia standing against it. These petitions are signed by residents of the Montreal area.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 10:18 [p.18507]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the Toronto area who are calling upon the government to refuse to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty. This treaty would lock Canada in, and future governments, for a period of not less than 31 years after ratification. It is time to step back from ratification and actually study that treaty.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 10:18 [p.18507]
Mr. Speaker, the last petition, and I am encouraged by its support from across the aisles, is primarily from petitioners in the Surrey area who are in support of my private member's Bill C-442, which calls for a national strategy to deal with the dreadful human tragedy that is Lyme disease.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 10:45 [p.18512]
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly support the bill. I think Canada needs to bring our enforcement standards to the level that the OECD would see as the highest level of enforcement.
My question is a more general one. I think we have to face the fact that we have some problems that we never thought we would see as Canadians where corruption is becoming a larger issue. People are seeing it. We have the instance of SNC-Lavalin, we know that AECL used officials in the past. They say they were arm's-length, but we did have a South Korean contractor go to jail for the work in trying to entice that country to buy a CANDU reactor.
We have fallen on the Transparency International corruption index from sixth place, but we are still among the best in the world at tenth place, but at the time when we see charges of bribery and arrests of municipal officials in different places across Canada, we have seen a disturbing trend of lack of ethics, the kinds of things that are not governed by a rule book, but come from the sense that we actually care about how we are seen in the world and conduct ourselves in ways we would be proud for our children to hear about, not just in the way that we hope we are alright if we do not get caught.
Is there something more than can be done in terms of leadership to clean up our act as a society and practise good ethics, habituate ourselves to values instead of to vices in the way we organize our lives?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 11:11 [p.18516]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could respond to the same question I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier.
I think we are seeing a general problem. I never thought I would see the day, for instance, when academics would forge their research in order to get grants. There is a decline in our general sense of "all I have is my good name", which people used to say in my grandfather's day. It used to mean something.
Celebrities seem to think that as long as they are in the media, it does not matter if the stories they are telling about themselves are good, bad or indifferent. The standard to which we hold ourselves is falling. There is no question about that.
The response from the minister was as if the member for Ottawa Centre had said something outrageous. Analogies, irony and metaphor have a place, even here.
My question to him is what would he do, and what would all Canadians do, when we hold up a mirror and look at ourselves, to know that Canada is the ethical country we think it is? How do we get rid of corruption, which seems to be on the increase across Canada?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 11:45 [p.18519]
Mr. Speaker, it seems that we are increasingly seeing bills come before us in the House that properly should have begun in the House and then gone to the Senate. I am finding it strange. It has been raised before, but I am wondering if the hon. colleague from Charlottetown, having served much longer than I have in this place, could shed light on how it is that we are seeing this increased number of bills coming from the Senate as opposed to originating where they should, in the House.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 15:03 [p.18547]
Mr. Speaker, I raised this point of order some time ago. The tradition and the principles behind the Standing Order 31 rule are that it allows members of Parliament to raise issues of concern to their constituents. I raised the point many months ago that they were now being used increasingly for crass partisan purposes, and now they are increasingly being used for personal attacks.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that you might consider at some point ruling on it. Perhaps over the summer you could give it some thought, and we could start in the fall with some guidance on this point.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 16:52 [p.18559]
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. Minister of Justice for interrupting. However, when we are on a motion, which by its terms requires us to speak to procedure on time allocation, I do wish the Minister of Justice would stick to the relevance and not accuse those of us in opposition for being irrelevant when we speak to the point at hand, which is time allocation, a matter of procedure.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 17:11 [p.18562]
Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister wants to address the substance of the bill, having been at committee when the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan testified, I was surprised that among her many amendments that would have spoke to what victims wanted, so many of the measures were not included in Bill C-54. It was very clear from the victims rights groups that testified at committee. Most of them saw the very compelling need to ensure adequate mental health services, that we had more in place for prevention and that the not criminally responsible sections that were most important to victims were the ones about notification. These are not the ones who are most under assault by those who are expert in clinical psychology, forensic psychology, review boards and legal experts.
There was a way forward to respond to victims' needs and to also respect the system that, according to all the experts, was working well in the stream of not criminally responsible people who were then monitored closely. Why did the minister not pursue a compromise in which victims' rights and the rights of mentally ill people who found themselves in the NCR system were both respected?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-18 19:40 [p.18577]
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the official opposition is supporting this bill as is.
I read it carefully and studied it, and I still do not find that it achieves the right balance in its approach to the not criminally response system. There is currently no empirical evidence whatsoever that the system is not working for Canadians.
I am very supportive of the sections that give advance notice to victims. I think we could have done a better job of balancing the interests for victims' rights. At the same time, we did not need to include, for instance, the word "brutal". “Brutal” is now a word that would mean one or the other for the high-risk accused. If the crime committed is of a brutal category, even if it does not result in death or another serious crime, the brutality of the offence is in the act as a single reason to put someone in the high-risk accused category.
The word “brutal” has no definition in criminal law, nor does it have a definition in the field of mental health or in academic and scientific understanding. Therefore, it creates a vast uncertainty for people who might be assigned high risk accused.
I ask my friend about that weakness in the bill.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-17 21:43 [p.18485]
Mr. Speaker, as members will know, I am planning to support this bill, but I have concerns. One of them is that initially I thought $25 million was a good amount for distributing and sharing exhibits with more of our regional museums across the country. I recently met with some folks who knew what it really costs to put together an exhibit. The First Peoples Hall had initially cost $20 million, so $25 million begins to sound as if it would not be sufficient to get the exhibits and share them with museums.
Does the hon. member for Wild Rose have any idea if there is thought to augmenting the budget to ensure that pieces of our history, including women's history, first nations history and the complex dimensions of our history, are actually sufficiently funded to meet all the demands of smaller regional museums across Canada?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-17 22:30 [p.18491]
Mr. Speaker, I was able to participate in some of the justice committee meetings and I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak in those sessions. One of the things that struck me were the witnesses on behalf of victims. No one could be untouched by the devastating and harrowing personal stories of people who have been affected by crimes committed by people with mental health issues, but they really were not relevant to the empirical question of whether people within the not criminally responsible system are returning in what was referred to as some sort of revolving door.
By the way, I would like to single out my hon. colleague for having tried to put forward more amendments brought forward from victims' groups, particularly those of Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. There was an attempt by this New Democratic Party member to put her testimony into amendments to give victims more notice and more information, but they were not accepted by the Conservative members on the committee. I would have supported these if I had been allowed to vote, by the way.
My question is this. When we look at the evidence of misleading statistics, there is a new report on the correction to data, which the member referred to in his speech, from key experts. They notified the Minister of Justice back in March, and it appears that we are still using the wrong numbers. For instance, the original report said that 38.1% of sex offenders found not criminally responsible and accused of sex offences had at least one prior NCR finding, but the accurate number is almost a quarter of that, 9.5%. How is it we are still talking about this issue and using the wrong numbers?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-17 23:31 [p.18499]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise to thank the hon. member for Burlington again for the very collegial way in which he navigated the committee hearings on the bill, and also for the fact that, rather unusually, two opposition amendments were accepted. Again, I thank the member for allowing me to speak at the committee.
I still, as members may imagine, have grave concerns about the direction of this bill, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Burlington a question.
Does he have any theories as to why it was that a bill of this importance, dealing with the not criminally responsible regime, was brought to the floor of the House and developed by the Department of Justice without any consultation at all with the not criminally responsible review boards?
Mr. Schneider, who testified last week to this issue, said that the review boards were not consulted at all. I think this may be a case of the Conservative administration thinking that if something is not broken, it is going to fix it until it is.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-14 12:02 [p.18377]
Mr. Speaker, in all the din and disrespect of the last few sessions of question period, actually going back weeks, Canadians would never see what I see, which is that the vast majority of members of Parliament are decent, hard-working people who, when asked a question, would never, except when they are handed a talking point, turn around and try to cast blame and throw scandals at everybody else.
This tactic of throwing mud around is going to bring all parliamentarians and democracy itself into disrespect and disrepute, essentially saying that everybody does it.
I really would beg the government ministers to answer this question now. Will the Prime Minister please take responsibility and call an inquiry?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-06-14 12:03 [p.18377]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. It is true that the RCMP are investigating the Prime Minister's Office, which I think is a first in the history of this country.
My question goes to the partisanship, which of course is endemic to politics, but can we not rise above it in question period and in our talking points to media, and stop trying to make minor molehill incidents into major mountains?
We need to show some respect for the Canadian public and not continue to let this place degenerate.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1249 | Page: 1 of 84

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data