Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 133
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Gabriel.
Hello, Seth. I have read your book multiple times. I think we have an interesting moment here, because many of my colleagues, and they are all friends at this table, think that the climate crisis can be resolved through measures that are incremental and inadequate. We have recent science, even as recent as last week, that the tipping points are closer and more dangerous.
I wanted to ask you to reflect on a wonderful quote in your book from C.D. Howe. When asked, “This is costing too much. How much can we afford to spend on this war?”, he said, “If we don't win the war, nothing else matters.”
You referred moments ago to the hellscape our children would experience. Can you perhaps try to inject into this discussion, at this committee table, the risks of not acting with appropriate urgency and appropriate resources?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
On the question of just transition, former environment minister Catherine McKenna commissioned a panel chaired by Lois Corbett of New Brunswick and Hassan Yussuff, who now sits in the other place. They actually went into all of the communities where people are dependent on coal mining. I feel as though those communities must be so enraged, because they shared what they felt they would need as individual workers and as communities if and when coal was shut down.
In the 40 seconds that remain, can you tell me how duped those communities were when the Liberals have done nothing to provide a just transition after all the advice that was provided?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois.
Holy smokes, what a great day for the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois! Solidarity!
I have a question for Steven Staples from the Canadian Health Coalition.
I want to say right now, because my constituents would want me to say it, that we have a crisis. I'm 68 and I don't have a doctor. My husband is 74 and he doesn't have a doctor. We don't have a family doctor, and I worry, because although we're really young and vigorous, there are older people who have to worry.
I don't believe that the problem of health care and the crisis are solely about money. One of the doctors in my riding uses this expression: “What's the bed-to-bureaucrat ratio?” Would you use your imagination to tell us how one might construct measurable indicators of how a province spends money to make sure that we reduce the bed-to-bureaucrat ratio?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I want to get in one quick question, because I agree with you. We're in violent agreement.
How would the situation for Canada with private versus public be affected by CUSMA? While we have a health care crisis, the U.S. private health care industry looks at us as a market. How is our position different from that of, say, the U.K. or other countries in Europe?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Perhaps it's the Green Party's turn?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Hanley.
Thank you, Minister Bennett, for being here.
Many parliamentarians talk about how mental health is health. I think it's really critical we ensure we follow through on that. In my community, for example, it is a struggle. The connection between housing and mental health is leaving many behind. I turn to organizations like the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, the national voice for mental health across the country. It's a member-driven alliance of 16 mental health groups. When they talk about the kind of funding we need, they look to the Royal Society of Canada, which is talking about 12% of health care funding going towards mental health.
Minister Bennett, can you comment on whether you agree with the need for parity in funding on mental health, on whether that 12% amount is the amount you're also striving towards, and the actions you are taking to get us there?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Is there time for a brief follow-up?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In case folks around the table wonder about PV, back in the day, when I first started presenting amendments, they didn't want to use “G” for Green because it would have been confused with “Government”, which some day will be the case—you'll have a Green government and there won't be any confusion. However, for now, PV is Parti vert, and I am presenting very succinctly this amendment, which would create new language on page 6, just after line 22.
It comes from evidence that the committee has heard, largely from the community radio, community broadcasting group. I won't read it all out, but they wanted, and this amendment creates, the opportunity for a divergence of opinion and views to be heard on matters of public concern, and specifically—and this is language that I think is so good—“to directly participate in public dialogue on those matters through the community element; and...”
The amendment would inject the notion that our public broadcasters and our community broadcasters and the whole Broadcasting Act would create opportunities for respectful dialogue and to expose people to different views and also create for them not just an observational experience but a participatory experience, to participate directly in public dialogue.
I think if we had this kind of thing, we wouldn't see such low voter turnout, if people were able to engage.
That's my submission. I hope this amendment will find favour with committee members. Thank you.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
People are looking to me, Madam Chair, but under the terms of the motion passed by this committee, I am not allowed to have an opinion on whether something is friendly or not, because I'm not the mover. It was deemed moved by the apparatus that was created that brings us here today. If it were up to me, I would say that's friendly, and I like it a lot, but I'm not actually permitted to do that under your rules.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Yes, that's right.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
This amendment comes from testimony the committee heard from various organizations representing people with disabilities, and from the community perspective. Concerns were brought forward that services such as closed captioning and described audio and video make our media more accessible to people with disabilities.
In addition to that, this amendment serves a dual purpose, because it also proposes that people with disabilities have the right to self-expression. There should be opportunities for them to express themselves through the community element and other elements in our Canadian broadcasting system, so it is both to be provided with access and to develop their own content and voices.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Madam Chair, I think this would be a good time for me to take the floor, very briefly, just to say that the language of the motion that this committee passed after the last election guarantees a right to speak to each amendment, regardless of whether it has been been negatived by a previous amendment.
I want to speak to say that my next amendment, PV-3, is identical to the motion that has just been presented by the New Democrats.
Obviously, I completely support that this committee adopt the amendment as a New Democratic Party amendment. It really is important. The current term in the bill, which is “alternative television programming services” is not as clearly defined as the language that Peter Julian has just read out. I don't need to repeat it.
It would add a lot to the legislation to accept this amendment. Having said that, I don't need to take the floor again.
Thank you.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is pretty self-explanatory. It's to add a new subsection to ensure that resources that would be required under subsection 3 are made available to people who require them. That would certainly be consistent with the intent of the act, but the amendment asks the CRTC to ensure fairness and equity in the system and to ensure, particularly for people with disabilities or indigenous people, that there are resources to be able to live up to the opportunities that are going to be created under this act.
Thank you.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I would like to respond briefly to Mr. Bittle.
The CRTC itself, which has created these conditions, has in the past used cable service user fees or licensing requirements in order to fund contributions to community channels. That's what we were hoping for, and that's why we have community television and programming as much as we do. The CRTC has this capacity; it has these powers, and we're asking the CRTC to make sure that, where there are opportunities.... It's a trite statement from old common law, but an opportunity that cannot be used is not an opportunity.
Thank you.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment proposes to follow through on what we've heard from many parliamentarians, including the minister and many content creators, which is that platforms are in and users are out. This would seek to remove exemptions from proposed section 4.1 and 4.2 to ensure that this act does not apply with respect to users.
While I have the floor, in the event that I don't get a chance to share, should this not have the support of the committee, a later amendment—I believe it's PV-4.2—seeks to say, “Okay, maybe just those that are indirectly generating revenue...at least those users would not be covered by the act”. I believe that is identical to, perhaps, CPC-9.
I won't get a chance to speak to it, but that's another offering, in the event that this initial proposal doesn't have the support. The interest here is that platforms are in and users are out.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Madam Chair, on a point of order, just to clarify, an amendment amending the same clause is in the package, and we haven't gotten to the Green Party's PV-1 yet.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Could that be explained to me, please? It makes a point that's different. I understand that anything that was in conflict or negatived by my amendment would not come forward, but my amendment is compatible, not duplicative.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Procedurally, someone should have given me the floor before that took place.
Thank you.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
No. You passed a motion in this place, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to the motion you passed, because people have short memories. I'm cursed with a good memory.
It's a violation of my rights that I'm here at all. I would point that out, so that people understand. If not for a motion that this committee proactively decided to pass that gives me the right to speak to each motion.... I'm here under duress. I'd rather not be here.
I would have had the right, if this committee hadn't passed the motion, to present this amendment at report stage. That's a right I would have had. Every member of a party with fewer than 12 people is already deprived of many rights, such as sitting as a permanent member on committees. It's astonishing—and I would love it if you all reflected on it—that people in my position as members of Parliament start with fewer rights than people in parties with more than 12 members. The larger parties still find the number of residual rights that I may still have to be uncomfortable and, therefore, my rights should be continually reduced.
In this case, every committee—absolutely exposing the fiction that we claim committees are masters of their own process—magically passes an identical motion. Every word is the same. They have done this since around 2017. They did it after the 2019 election—actually, it was done in 2014, so after 2015, the same motion was passed in every committee. After 2019, the same motion was passed in every committee. After the 2021 election, the same motion was passed in every committee.
Those are the terms under which I am here under duress. I would rather not have had this committee pass that motion. I would present this amendment at report stage. I can't do that. I'm here now and I have the right to speak briefly to each amendment. I like to get it on the record every time I come before committee that this was not my idea of a good, fair and inclusive process to participate in the passage of legislation, which is the right and duty of every member of Parliament.
That said, Madam Chair, I would still like to pursue the point that's raised in PV-0.1 in your package, which was submitted under the terms of the motion passed by this committee. If I may, Madam Chair, I would like to speak to the point of difference between an excellent improvement that is about to be made in Bill C-11 in clause 2, but which could be improved if the committee decided it liked my amendment.
Can I proceed with that?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Okay. I'll speak briefly to this.
The community groups across Canada, whom I think we've all heard from, are very concerned that we actually protect community broadcasting. This comes from the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, the National Campus and Community Radio Association,
the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada and the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.
They are very concerned that we specify that what we're talking about in this section is community broadcasting that is fully community-run.
While Mr. Julian's amendment, as further improved with Mr. Bittle's amendment, speaks to “including” not-for-profit organizations, my amendment, more in keeping with what the community broadcasters want, says that the broadcasting undertaking must be “predominantly” not-for-profit or community-owned.
It's trying to carve out very specifically that when we speak, as we do in Bill C-11, of a “community element”, we are very specifically focused on predominantly the not-for-profit sector and community-owned broadcasting.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My motion, as you know, has been.... All the things you said about how motions proceed don't apply in my case. I am not allowed to table my own motion. It has been deemed to have been tabled. I am not allowed to withdraw my amendment, should it turn out that we'd rather not have it there. I can't do that. All I can do now is speak to it. I can't vote on it. I have to ask others to please consider whether we want to listen to the voices of community broadcasting and bring this motion in as part of the current package that's about to go to a vote.
Thank you very much, everyone.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
No one provided me with a copy of the subamendment that was just before the committee, so I have a hard time visualizing where I'd put it.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
No. I'm not a member of the committee. I'm here under duress, because of the motion.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I've not been provided a copy of the subamendment from Mr. Bittle.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Yes, I have it now by email. For some reason, I thought there would be a paper copy available, but I have it by email.
I understand Mr. Julian's point. I would propose that it read, “community element includes the element of the Canadian broadcasting system as part of which members of a community participate in the production of programs that are in a language used in the community, including a predominantly not-for-profit or community-owned broadcasting undertaking that is managed by a board of directors elected by the community”.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I can do that again.
Madam Chair, I regard many of the things we've done to allow virtual sessions to improve process, but being unable to have a paper copy of something I'm trying to amend is rather challenging.
Here is where I would put it, as we now have the definition of community element, “community element includes the element of the Canadian broadcasting system as part of which members of a community participate in the production of programs that are in a language used in the community, including a predominantly not-for-profit or community-owned broadcasting undertaking that is managed by a board of directors elected by the community”.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Madam Chair, I agree that my amendment can't move forward in light of the previous motion's passing. I just want the record to reflect that it was not identical.
I agree that it can't be moved. Thank you.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thanks so much, Jenica.
I'll try to ask this question as quickly as I can to Professor Huebert. You talked about the governance structure as federal and territorial and first nations governance. I'm also looking at the circumpolar governance, the question of the Arctic Council, and whether it can play a role, or if it's fatally flawed, for instance, by Russia's right now being in the chair. Does it hold promise for security and sovereignty for us?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, do I have time for one quick, additional question?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Good.
I don't know if this would go to Sara Brown or somebody else. This is much more granular. I've heard it referenced that the Canadian Rangers are our line of defence in our north, but they don't even have.... As I understand it, we don't even buy the equipment for them. They don't have snowmobiles provided.
What is the status of the Canadian Rangers, and what should we be looking toward, given an increased security threat in the north?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
When the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives talks about a just transition, it talks about including “compensation, retraining and career support, job transfers and pension bridging for affected workers.” Similarly, the task force on just transition for Canadian coal power workers, in their recommendations—which this audit noted have not been completed—talks about protecting pensions and securing “income support, education and skills building, re-employment and mobility.”
My question is for Mr. Hannaford.
If you're in the midst of working on the legislation, can you confirm that these key items recommended by both a third party and a really critical task force will be part of the prosperous or just transition legislation?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
I have one.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
I'd love to have a follow-up answer from the commissioner on what he thinks it would take to move forward to ensure that the aspects mentioned by the task force and the CCPA become part of the legislation.
In that same vein of what could be done now, is there anything, Commissioner DeMarco, you want to share in terms of what you'd like to see from the government to follow through with on substantial, prosperous transition legislation?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
I have two questions for you, Mr. Morrison. First of all, thanks for your leadership and that of your members as well. In particular, thank you for your advocacy for the housing accelerator fund to have a greater emphasis on projects that prioritize non-profit housing.
My first question is on your recommendation with respect to pushing back on Nimbyism. I'm thinking about groups across the country. In my community, for example, Waterloo Region Yes in my Backyard is a grassroots organization that advocates for more accessible and affordable housing in Waterloo region. To what extent do you think it would be constructive to allocate funds for municipalities to then deliver through to community groups like this? Is that part of what you were suggesting? I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Fantastic. Thanks for your advocacy on that. It's certainly something I'll encourage the committee to consider in their recommendations for the housing accelerator fund.
Secondly, in my community, one of the big challenges is the supply of housing needed to meet our needs, specifically family-oriented two-, three- and four-bedroom units as opposed to simply one-bedroom options. I'm wondering if you have any recommendations for the committee in terms of how the housing accelerator fund can help address the need, particularly when it comes to building non-profit co-op housing, for example, and how critical it is to be providing the kind of supply we need. The supply for whom? For families.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
I want to follow up with President Lehr.
I really appreciate some of the reflections you shared. In a conversation earlier, you spoke about compensation, in particular. We've heard other committee witnesses talk about iron and earth, for example, and a national upskilling initiative for the fossil fuel industry and indigenous workers to the tune of $10 billion over 10 years, in order to support a million workers. We've had the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speak about a just transition benefit and a just transition transfer.
I'm wondering if you would be open to sharing more insights with this committee on what kind of compensation is required as we move through a truly just transition.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
The question is for President Lehr.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Can you elaborate on what kind of compensation you feel is required to support indigenous workers in a just transition?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
I have a point of order.
Just to be clear for the committee, the vote that you had moved towards would have already been recorded under the UC that was proposed by the parliamentary secretary.
From a Green Party point of view, we think we've been clear already, at our last meeting, with respect to the rationale behind judicial discretion, and as I've stated already, that mandatory minimum penalties do not deter crime. On this unanimous consent motion, these points have already been made, in our view, and we would be very supportive of this committee moving them in one group, as has been recommended by the parliamentary secretary.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Mr. Chair, could I speak briefly?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
I will be very brief with the committee's time.
This is a critical section of the bill. We are proposing an amendment that is similar to NDP-1 with respect to broadening the language and ensuring that the opioid crisis is treated as a public health crisis and not a criminal one. Additionally, it recognizes in the diversion measures the fact that Black, indigenous and other racialized communities have been disproportionately affected by the criminal sanctions imposed in respect of the possession of drugs.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thanks so much, Mr. Collins, for your kindness here, and thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all the witnesses as well.
I will admit that I'm particularly proud tonight to see two different witnesses from Waterloo Region, Dr. Blit and Dr. MacLatchy.
I'm hoping I might have time for two questions for Dr. MacLatchy. The first builds on the ones from Mr. Bachrach earlier.
Dr. MacLatchy, I appreciate that you spoke about students who don't have access to generational wealth. I will admit, as a Laurier grad, how helpful it was that my parents were able to help, despite also being in co-op, and how significant that was in helping me get through my undergraduate time there.
You mentioned the need for graduate and post-graduate supports.
Can you share, maybe in a minute or so, some more specifics on the kinds of graduate and post-graduate supports you think the students you mentioned earlier need the most?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thanks, Dr. MacLatchy. I hope the committee will take that under advisement.
I have a last question. The grad students' association at Laurier has called out one of their core needs, and it is with respect to the cost of housing. Recognizing how that's gone through the roof across Waterloo Region and across the country, I wonder if you could speak to that so this committee could maybe keep in mind how, if we're thinking about keeping the best talent in Canada, we also need to address the cost of housing.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Yes.
Dr. MacLatchy, if you wouldn't mind sharing that in written material afterwards, it sounds like that's the only way the committee can accept it.
Thanks, Mr. Bachrach, for your attempt.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
My questions for officials are focused on the kind of advice the minister is receiving from the department on a few statements that we heard from the minister a few times.
The first is this pronouncement about net zero by 2050 being the goal as opposed to 1.5°C as the global average temperature rise that the IPCC has called for. At COP26 a number of low-lying states said that the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C was a “death sentence” for them.
Is there anyone in the department who's telling the minister that net zero by 2050 is the same as 1.5°C ?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thanks for the answer. I get very limited time ever, on this committee, so just to be clear, that goal, you're saying, is the net zero by 2050 goal and not a 1.5°C goal. Is that correct?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Great. Thank you. I just want to get one more in. I'm sorry to be so rushed.
We hear often that carbon capture and storage must be part of any plan. We also know that recent studies are showing that 32 out of 40 times, globally, carbon capture and storage actually increases emissions as opposed to decreases.
Are there any officials who are telling the minister that carbon capture and storage must be part of a science-based climate plan?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Have you seen the study that I just mentioned?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Thank you, and apologies again for how quick that had to go.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start, with all due respect and affection, by correcting you. This wasn't a House order. This was a committee motion that is a subterfuge that the Green Party objects to and has objected to since it was first used to deny us the rights we would ordinarily have at report stage. As a result of the motion, in identical language, passed in every committee every time we have an election, we now have—without proper process to change the ways in which the House of Commons works to address legislation—a bad habit, which I'm sure will soon be referred to as some kind of law, that members of Parliament who are either independent or members of parties that do not have recognized party status are required, on a very short timeline, to turn around amendments and bring them to committees without the right to vote on them, without the right to speak much on them and without the right to move them. This is why they're deemed moved, which puts me in an awkward circumstance.
I can see what's happening in this committee. I support Bill C-5, but it doesn't go far enough. We've looked at the Supreme Court decisions. We've looked at many court of appeal decisions all across the country. We know a number of things. I'll go back to when Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill under Stephen Harper, went through Parliament. I was a member of Parliament. I fought very hard against it because there was absolutely no evidence that mandatory minimums worked to reduce crime rates. There was evidence to the contrary. The State of Texas was already removing its mandatory minimums, while our Parliament was charging ahead to bring them in.
Therefore, I support removing mandatory minimums. All of my amendments, and a few others that are to a slightly different point, seek to do more to remove mandatory minimums. They are expensive and inefficient. They pass the costs of incarceration onto provinces. There are many arguments as to why they don't make any sense. Of course, the arguments we've heard a few times mentioned today are that we see disproportionate incarceration of people of colour and of indigenous people at rates that are well known, so I won't repeat that evidence here.
I will just say that my first amendment, and I can deal with it but I want to also raise a larger point, Mr. Chair, which is that if I could, seeing the painful filibuster that we've seen in the last two and a half hours, I'd say let's just take all my amendments that are inadmissible—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I'd like to apologize from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Brock.
You're quite right that it didn't meet the definition of a filibuster, but it is a definite effort to slow down the review of this legislation. I had thought that since my first amendment came up under clause 6, it would be attended to relatively early in a two-hour committee hearing, and I'm not inexperienced.
You're quite right, Mr. Brock. It doesn't meet the definition of a filibuster, but since I've brought forward most of the amendments before the committee tonight, it does place me in something of a quandary, because I don't have the right to withdraw my amendments. They are deemed put forward by the committee. That is a committee motion that you yourselves adopted, unfortunately, and every committee has done so, right through the system of the Parliament of Canada, and it does mean that I must proceed to present each and every one of these unless we can find a solution.
I wanted to open with an offering that we know that a number of my amendments will be deemed to be inadmissible, and I would like to ask the committee.... From my point of view, there's no purpose in my speaking to inadmissible motions, so I don't intend to. I want to make that clear right now. We can skip over anything inadmissible.
Certainly the first amendment I have before us is admissible and does go to what we should be doing, which is, as in the Nur case, as Chief Justice McLachlin suggested, it would be better if Parliament got rid of all mandatory minimums and reviewed the use of mandatory minimums. She didn't go as far as to say to get rid of them, but to deal with them efficiently.... Bill C-5 removes some but not all, not even all of the mandatory minimums that have already been struck down by courts.
It certainly would be preferable to find a way.... As was noted by the court, it's better for Parliament to deal with this than to sit back and simply wait for the courts to handle them in a piecemeal way. The finding, of course—which I will quote from because I think it's central to this—is that after reviewing at least 50 years of research on mandatory minimums, as the Supreme Court of Canada did in Nur, they found, “Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes....”
If we turn to Statistics Canada, we can find that from 2003—which was the peak of any crime rate in Canada—and 2020, crime rates in Canada dropped by 30% and violent crimes dropped by 23%. The discussion that's happened today in committee would lead anyone to think that we had a terrible crime wave.
Any crime is unacceptable, any violent crime, and I wish we were doing more for victims. We do not have good legislation. We do not have a good framework. We do not have good supports for victims of crime, and we should, but in the context of mandatory minimums, all we are doing is removing the discretion that a judge would use on an individual case and potentially even giving a higher and more punishing sentence, if that's what you're looking for.
If we're looking for a criminal justice system that is affordable, one that's fair and effective and reduces crime rates, this isn't it, and that's why my first amendment calls for removing the provisions that impose mandatory minimums in cases where we have.... Basically, it's the provisions on trafficking in a firearm. Bill C-5 deals with only subsection 99(3), and my amendment would add subsections 99(2) and 99(3) so that we would be more efficient in improving our criminal justice system by removing more mandatory minimums.
With that, that's the longest submission I will make. I know that under the rules you've adopted, we're to make short submissions, but I wanted to take an overarching approach this time, because we do support Bill C-5. We just don't think it goes far enough.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I have a point of order.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I object to being mischaracterized as “gutting the Criminal Code”.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Those offences are offences that would remain in the Criminal Code. We're objecting to the use of the inefficient, expensive and counterproductive measures called mandatory minimums. All of the offences my colleague finds appalling make me sick, too. They are disgusting offences, and anyone found guilty should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I prefer to leave it to a judge or the discretion of the judiciary looking at individual circumstances, and not using blanket approaches, which have been proven not to work.
I object to being put on the record, in any way, shape or form, calling for “gutting the Criminal Code”. Those are offences that will remain in the Criminal Code. Let's hope they are fully prosecuted and that the punishment fits the crime. When you use a blanket cookie cutter and just say “mandatory minimum”, you do not have a punishment fitting the crime. You reduce the discretion and ability of the prosecuting attorney to get the right sentence. You end up having some people going to jail who aren't guilty, because they're so fearful of a mandatory minimum they'll plead out even though they have not committed the crime.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I also want to put on the record that due to previous commitments and my not realizing this committee would run late, my colleague, the honourable member for Kitchener Centre, Mike Morrice, is going to take over, so I withdraw at this point, but I wanted it recognized by the committee before I left that it is acceptable for the member for Kitchener Centre to replace me on the committee.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Sure.
This is the same justification that Ms. May shared for Green Party amendment 1. It is based on the principle of judicial discretion and the fact that mandatory minimum penalties don't actually deter crime and disproportionately affect marginalized populations.
Thank you.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
On a point of order, I believe we're speaking to Green Party amendment 17.
Can the member speak to Green Party amendment 17?
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
I have a point of order.
I would like to share three brief facts with respect to amendment PV-17.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
I appreciate that.
With respect to Ms. May's PV-17, Mr. Brock brought up the Nur decision. I would like to just share for the committee that in the Nur decision, in the Supreme Court of Canada's summary with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, the quote is,“Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes.”
Second, Mr. Brock brought up his concern with the government not moving forward on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action. I'll just share for the committee call to action number 32 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is the following:
We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.
I believe Mr. Brock earlier was encouraging this committee to follow through on the calls to action of the TRC.
Finally, there was a question with respect to who else Greens are following with respect to amendments like PV-17.
I'll just note that the Black Legal Action Centre, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund have all also called for the removal of mandatory minimum penalties.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.
View Mike Morrice Profile
GP (ON)
Can I get a vote?
Results: 1 - 60 of 133 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data