House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2025, with 59% of the vote.
The Environment February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, what the no development party has done is voted against the eco-energy retrofit program. It has voted against any sort of measure that makes sense to support our energy sector from a sustainable development perspective, and it lobbies against Canadian jobs.
We have a sector by sector robust regulatory program for greenhouse gas emissions. We also support the over 500,000 people who work in our energy sector. That is something my colleague opposite cannot say.
The Environment February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, in the last budget we committed almost $870 million to Canada's clean air agenda, including $252 million to support regulatory activities to address climate change sustainable development technology, but my colleague opposite voted against it.
The Environment February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, that is very rich coming from a party whose former leader said that his party did not get the job done on climate change.
We are so proud of our team of scientists at Environment Canada and the work that they do. In fact, last year I believe they conducted over 1,000 interviews with the media. We continue to support the work they are doing at Environment Canada. We are proud of our international leadership in this area.
The Environment February 16th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, our country has an excellent environmental regulatory system in which the public can participate in a law-abiding way. However, any groups or individuals who resort to criminality or violence will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
My colleague opposite knows that we have a very robust environmental regulatory system here and policies whereby we invest in climate change or adaptation research. Yet she goes and lobbies against our jobs in the U.S.
That begs the question: Does she believe in job creation or is she a job-creation denier?
The Environment February 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague opposite that his party continually votes against any budgetary measures to assess any part of this country.
With regard to environmental assessment processes, our government takes those very seriously. They are rigorous processes and we are committed to ensuring the integrity of them and the timeliness of them. I would ask my colleague opposite to support that principle in other major projects, including our energy sector.
The Environment February 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how my colleague opposite and her party can have any credibility when they consistently work against Canadian jobs in our energy sector.
With regard to the Kyoto protocol, our government has been very clear in saying that in order to see real reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, we need a new international agreement, which includes all major emitters, including those that were not included under the Kyoto protocol. This is what we are striving for. We are continuing the good work that we saw in Copenhagen, in Cancun, and now in Durban.
The Environment February 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague opposite that shale gas development as well as natural resource development are primarily issues of provincial concern and provincial jurisdiction.
I would also like to encourage her to take a look at what some of the industry is doing. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers recently announced voluntary disclosure of fracking fluids. This is a very positive development.
Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity During Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act February 8th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of private member's Bill C-309 introduced in the House of Commons on October 3.
In my remarks today, I will explain why Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity), is consistent with our government's commitment to protect law-abiding citizens and keep our communities safe.
When my colleague from Wild Rose introduced the bill, he indicated two reasons for doing so. The first reason was to create two new offences to discourage the wearing of a mask to conceal identity during an unlawful assembly or riot. Second, my colleague indicated that these offences would facilitate the arrest of rioters at early stages of the commission of these offence.
Why is this important?
First, the results of the bill would be safer communities, which, again, is our government's commitment, and to protect those who lawfully assemble with peaceful intentions, as well as to protect the businesses and properties that are surrounded during protests or other activities.
The volatility and danger of riots has long been recognized at common law. This criminal behaviour is made more serious by wearing a mask for the express purpose of making it more difficult to identify the persons taking part in riots and unlawful assemblies.
As members know, it is quite easy to pull out a digital camera on a BlackBerry or an iPhone, which is why we have seen over the last year people wearing masks during riots. There is an express intent to conceal their identity during criminal behaviour. The bill has been introduced to deal with this issue, to deter people from escalating into the cause of rioting and to hold them accountable for such actions.
The Criminal Code already contains the offence of being a member of an unlawful assembly and taking part in a riot. However, this bill would add a new offence to each of these provisions to address wearing a mask or a disguise to conceal identity without lawful excuse during the commission of either of these offences. It would also provide new penalties to reflect the more serious nature of the new offences.
At the present time, taking part in a riot is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment of two years. The new offence in the bill for taking part in a riot while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal the identity without lawful excuse would be an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.
Similarly, the current offence for being a member of an unlawful assembly is a summary conviction offence, which is less serious than an indictable offence, with a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine and/or a maximum term of imprisonment of six months. This difference in penalty reflects the fact that an unlawful assembly precedes a riot.
Bill C-309 would create a new offence of being a member of an unlawful assembly while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal identity without lawful excuse. The new offence would be a dual procedure offence with a maximum penalty of $5,000 and six months' imprisonment if the prosecution elects to proceed by summary conviction and a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment if the offence is proceeded with as an indictable offence.
It should be noted that Bill C-309 would fill a gap in the current law. At the present time, persons who wear masks or disguises with the intent to commit an indictable offence, including taking part of a riot, is subject to an offence under subsection 351(2) of the Criminal Code and is liable to a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
However, subsection 351(2) does not apply to summary conviction offences. This means that the Criminal Code does not specifically address the situation of persons participating in an unlawful assembly who wear a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse.
Essentially, what this means is that when someone participating in a riot knows that he or she will be captured on video on a cellphone and puts on that mask, we now have a way to hold him or her to account in a much clearer way than is currently outlined in common law.
To harmonize maximum penalties available for wearing a mask to disguise while taking part in a riot, and I believe my colleague opposite had discussed this earlier, this government will support an amendment to raise the maximum penalty for the new offence in the bill from 5 years to 10 years.
I want to assure members of this House that the new bill would not target people who wear masks or costumes that may conceal their identity while they are engaged in lawful protests, marches, gatherings or other activities commonly associated with the exercise of freedom and expression of lawful assembly. I will re-emphasize that this would not affect people who are protesting peacefully or are within the context of a law-abiding activity. This would affect people, when the riot act has been called, who don a mask to conceal their identity.
The rights to freedom of expression and lawful assembly are specifically and expressly recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will explain why this bill would not endanger any of these freedoms.
First, a person cannot be charged with either of the new offences in the bill unless he or she is already engaged in committing the criminal offence of being a member of an unlawful assembly or taking part in a riot. It is only during the commission of either of these offences that the new offence provisions may apply.
A second requirement is that the wearing of the mask or other disguise during the commission of the offence of being part of a riot or unlawful assembly must be done for a specific purpose. This level of intent is referred to as “specific intent” and it is a higher level of intent than general intent.
The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was wearing the mask or other disguise for the purpose of concealing his or her identity while engaged in criminal activity. Implied in this is the concept that the person is concealing his or her identity for an unlawful purpose. Specifically, the person is concealing his or her identity to make it more difficult to be identified for the lawful purpose of law enforcement. As I will discuss in more detail in a moment, this is important because a person who wears a mask for a lawful purpose, such as safety reasons, does not have the specific intent to conceal his or her identity.
The reference to “without a lawful excuse” of each of the new offences in Bill C-309 confirms that the defence of lawful excuse applies to the new offences. This means that even if a person is wearing a mask or disguise to conceal his or her identity while committing the criminal offence of taking part in a riot or participating in an unlawful assembly, he or she would have a defence if the reason for concealing his or her identity is a lawful one. I will explain what I mean by this.
Although the situation may arise, in rare cases there may be circumstances where a person taking part in a riot is, for example, wearing a mask to conceal his or her identity to ensure that he or she is not recognized by someone at the riot who is a threat to his or her personal safety. I expect that in most cases it would be clear from the circumstances that the person is wearing a mask or disguise for the purpose of facilitating his or her anonymous participation in the riot.
As with all criminal offences, the prosecution would be required to prove the intent element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the defence of lawful excuses are available to ensure that the new offences with higher penalties do not apply to people who wear masks for lawful purposes, even if they are a member of an unlawful assembly or take part in a riot.
I would like to stress that although these people may not be liable to be charged with one of the new offences in the bill, the current Criminal Code provisions still apply and, thus, these people remain accountable to Canadians for their criminal behaviour.
In closing, I believe this legislation is important because it fills a gap in the current law and clearly denounces the wearing of masks or other disguises to conceal identity without lawful excuse during an unlawful assembly or riot. By denouncing this behaviour that is the antithesis of lawful expression and assembly, the bill underscores the Canadian values of freedom, tolerance, respect and rule of law.
Therefore, for those who have been saying that this would hinder people who are participating in peaceful protest, I believe that it would the opposite. It would deter those who would come, escalate the situation into a riot and then try to conceal their identity so that they are not held accountable to law-abiding Canadian citizens.
At the end of the day, I think a lot of Canadians were shocked by the riotous activity that occurred in two Canadian cities over the last year. This bill is in response to that. As a government, we want to send a strong message to Canadians that we are committed to safe streets and safe communities, and to ensuring that businesses are protected and that the activity of peaceful protest can go on as part of Canadians' rights and freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, that leads me to wonder why my colleague opposite continues to vote against budgetary measures which support research and development. We are looking at our research and development system. We are asking how we can be more competitive internationally. However, that is also saying that we are competitive here at home. We have many things that we are working on here and can be proud of. Certainly in Alberta, we can look at some of the technologies that are coming out of academic institutions which have a direct impact on environmental cleanup systems.
My colleague opposite has asked the international community, on a national television program, to ignore our country. Instead of doing that, I would ask her to get on board with the things, like our oil sands monitoring framework and budgetary support for environmental systems.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about a mystery. I will try to clear up the mystery. I will refer to the environment committee testimony which happened before we broke in late December.
We discussed the ozone monitoring program. The minister and I stood in the House numerous times and talked about the fact that this capacity will be maintained. The assistant deputy minister of the science and technology branch, Dr. Karen Dodds, said:
There are no reductions to the monitoring, to the results, that Environment Canada needs to provide to meet our obligations to Canadians. How we provide those results is something that we're having discussions inside about to best use the dollars available to us.
I would like to read another quote from Dr. Dodds to emphasize this. She said:
Environment Canada will continue to monitor the ozone in the upper atmosphere, also known as the stratospheric ozone, in order for Canada to meet its obligations for the surveillance of ozone and the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
I think that is pretty clear. It re-emphasizes points that we have made repeatedly in the House.
I would like to take the opportunity to talk about my colleague's comment about being blinded to reality. That is very much part of her talking points, which would see the decimation of our energy sector in our country. We as a government do have a plan to ensure monitoring of our environment. I would like to draw her attention to the oil sands monitoring framework that was announced last week. The commissioner of the environment noted in committee that this was an ambitious and significant plan. It was developed by an arm's length panel. We are taking real leadership to have that monitoring in place.
I want to draw her attention to the fact that when she lobbies against our jobs in the energy sector, in spite of the fact that we have a robust and bold plan to deal with things like climate change, it hurts her constituents as well. The very programs that she talks about sustaining in Environment Canada, government, and social programs, depend on revenue from important industrial sectors, such as the energy sector. Therefore, it boggles my mind that she just refuses to admit that we can do it.
Our government is developing a plan which would see ensuring both the sustainable development of the wealth of natural resources that we have in our country, and ensuring environmental stewardship. We have done that. This is evidenced by our sector-to-sector regulatory approach. This is evidenced by the millions of dollars that we have put into environmental protection, that I note she has voted against, and the clean energy sector that is emerging in the country.
I ask her to think a bit about her talking points and think about the future of the country before entering into this rhetoric.