text:
Quantifying and modelling decay in forecast proficiency indicates the limits of transferability in land-cover classification
Gavish, Y orcid.org/0000-0002-6025-5668, O'Connell, J and Benton, TG orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-1973 (2018) Quantifying and modelling decay in forecast proficiency indicates the limits of transferability in land-cover classification. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9 (2). pp. 235-244. ISSN 2041-210X
1. The ability to provide reliable projections for the current and future distribution of land-cover is fundamental if we wish to protect and manage our diminishing natural resources. Two inter-related revolutions make map productions feasible at unprecedented resolutions - the availability of high-resolution remotely-sensed data and the development of machine-learning algorithms. However, ground-truthed data needed for training models is in most cases spatially and temporally clustered. Therefore, map production requires extrapolation of models from one place to another and the uncertainty cost of such extrapolation is rarely explored. In other words, the focus has mainly been on projections, and less on quantifying their reliability. 2. Using the concept of 'forecast horizon', we suggest that the predictability of land-cover classification models should be quantitatively explored as a continuum against distances measured along multiple dimensions – space, time, environmental and spectral. Focusing on ten agricultural sites from England and using models specifically designed to predict multivariate decay-curves, we ask: how does a model's predictive performance decay with distance? More specifically, we explored if we could predict the proficiency (kappa statistics) of a model trained in one site when making predictions in another site based on the spatial, temporal, spectral and environmental distances between sites. 3. We found that model proficiency decays with distance between sites in each dimension. More importantly, we found for the first time, that it is possible to predict the performance a model transferred to or from a novel site will have, based on its distances from known sites. The spatial distance variables were the most important when predicting model transferability. 4. Exploring model transferability as a continuum may have multiple usages including predicting uncertainty values in space and time, prioritization of strategies for ground-truth data collection, and optimizing model characteristics for defined tasks.
Gavish, Y https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6025-5668
O'Connell, J
Benton, TG https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-1973
© 2017 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution © 2017 British Ecological Society. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Gavish, Y., O'Connell, J. and Benton, T. G. (2017), Quantifying and modelling decay in forecast proficiency indicates the limits of transferability in land-cover classification. Methods in Ecology and Evolution., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12870. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.
community similarity; earth‐observation; forecast horizon; habitat mapping; predictive ecology; random forest; remote sensing; signature extension; species‐distribution models; uncertainty
Accepted: 1 August 2017
Published (online): 17 August 2017
The University of Leeds
The University of Leeds > Faculty of Biological Sciences (Leeds) > School of Biology (Leeds)
The University of Leeds > Faculty of Environment (Leeds) > School of Geography (Leeds) > Ecology & Global Change (Leeds)
Symplectic Publications
Filename: Gavish_et_al-2017-Methods_in_Ecology_and_Evolution.pdf
Related datasets
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.s156b


text:
Q: Oracle: "super-select" over few results amazingly slow I needed to execute a select in Oracle 11G which looked like this:
select distinct p_date, column1, column2, ...
from table1 t1, table2 t2, ...
where (some join relations)
  and t1.p_date > to_date('010113','ddmmrr')

At some point, I realized that the filer over the p_date made the query very slow, while the same query without the p_date filter was almost immediate.
On top of that, I realized that the query without filter returned a small set of results, about 30 rows, so I thought about moving the date filter outside the query.
I tried these two options:
with temp as (
select distinct p_date, column1, column2, ...
from table1 t1, table2 t2, ...
where (some join relations)
) select * from temp where p_date > to_date('010113','ddmmrr')

and
select * from (
select distinct p_date, column1, column2, ...
from table1 t1, table2 t2, ...
where (some join relations)
) where p_date > to_date('010113','ddmmrr')

expecting it to be almost as fast as the inner query, since it should execute it first, and then apply the p_date filter only to the 30 rows returned.
Howerever, in both cases the execution time was enourmous (I cannot tell how much because I was not patient enough to wait for the results to come up).
Can someone tell me the why this happens?
As a side note: the table "table1" has an index over p_date which looks like not working as expected (I'm also taking care of that). But, may Oracle engine identify that and wrongly reengineer the query at runtime to try using it?
Thanks in advance,
Carles

A: *

*"some join relations"? Some description...

*You are using distinct keyword which is utilizing TEMP pretty heavily.

*If there is an index over p_date then try to use hint: /*+ INDEX */
select /*+ INDEX (table_name index_name)*/ distinct p_date, column1, column2, ...
from table1 t1, table2 t2, ...
where (some join relations)
and t1.p_date > to_date('010113','ddmmrr')

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Charlie Sheen Bombs at Detroit Debut of 'My Violent Torpedo of Truth'
Charlie Sheen practically got booed off stage at the debut of his tour.
By SHEILA MARIKAR
Charlie Sheen Impresses After Walk-Out
After fans in Detroit demand money back, Chicagoans refuse to leave Sheen show.
DETROIT, Mich.
April 3, 2011 — -- Charlie Sheen's not winning anymore.
After all but getting booed off stage at the Detroit, Mich. debut of his live show, "My Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat Is Not an Option," it's unclear if or how Sheen's month-long tour will proceed.
Anticipation ran high for the event. Ticket holders milled about the Fox Theater in downtown Detroit before the 8 p.m. start time, sometimes yelling Sheen catchphrases like "tiger blood" and "winning" to rev up fellow attendees. As of Saturday afternoon, all 4,700 seats at the theater had been sold.
Some didn't stay occupied for long. Even before Sheen took the stage close to 9 p.m., the mood in the auditorium went sour. The warm up comedian, Kurt Fox, drew a chorus of boos so loud that Sheen came out before his scheduled intro to ask the audience to play nice.
Sheen managed to up the crowd's enthusiasm for the start of his act. Before his official debut, he played a montage of video clips including scenes from "Apocalypse Now," the film starring Sheen's father that Sheen claims to be obsessed with. He then strutted on stage with his "goddesses," Rachel Oberlin and Natalie Kenly, who proceeded to engage in a passionate kiss, much to the delight of the crowd.
They then went backstage to burn a bowling shirt similar to the one Sheen wore on "Two and a Half Men." While footage of the shirt on fire in a garbage can played on the big screen behind him, Sheen urged the crowd to hold up their lighters, asking, "Doesn't anyone smoke cigarettes anymore?"
The spectacle mirrored the ranting and raving Sheen's done online and in interviews over the past few weeks. But after that, things took a turn for the weird.
Sheen stood at a podium in front of a pseudo-presidential looking seal saying "Warlock States of Sheen" and launched into a nonsensical speech seemingly directed at his critics.
He started, "Tonight I am delivered by cyber cloud, with the stomp and glisten of heaven's produce section." He then talked about burning something "down from the mount of olive" and "gasoline rainbows." He frequently damned "trolls" -- presumably, "Two and a Half Men" creator Chuck Lorre and his former bosses at CBS and Warner Brothers. He called Sarah Palin a "whore" for no apparent reason.
The audience seemed confused. They started to boo, loudly. Sheen pushed back, saying "I already got your money, dude." (All tickets stipulated that no refunds would be granted.)
After Sheen delivered his manifesto, he rolled out more movies and montages. One, called "RPG," was a film Sheen said he shot as a kid. It starred a young Johnny Depp whose character appeared distraught over not being able to develop film. Another video featured clips from Sheen's many recent interviews and parodies of those interviews. Yet another offered Sheen's take on his sit down with ABC News' Andrea Canning.
Throughout the night, the booing intensified, and people began streaming out of the theater. Things got worse when Sheen attempted to answer pre-submitted questions from the audience. Some hecklers got creative, yelling "Sheen sucks," "Bring back the goddesses," and "Where's Emilio?," referring to Emilio Estevez, Sheen's brother. (To that comment, Sheen shot back, "Pay attention to the guy you all came to see.")
At one point, Sheen asked audience members to raise their hands if they've ever done crack. When few hands went up, Sheen said he was "surprised because Detroit seems like a good place to get crack." That was met with a crush of "F*** yous."
The night's rumored special guest, rapper Snoop Dogg, didn't show. (A less well-known rapper, Dirt Nasty, did but received a worse reception than Sheen.) A little more than an hour into his act, Sheen offered up a video of Snoop singing the song they recorded together, "Winning." After that, the house lights came on; the show was over. By that point, it looked like 50-percent of the theater had emptied out.
Sheen returned with his Oberlin and Kenly 15 minutes after most of the crowd left to thank his "true fans" -- the stragglers remaining near the stage. He said that the show's still something of an experiment and it'll get better; he shook a few hands. When forlorn fans started shouting "refund," he left for good.
Sheen's due in Chicago tomorrow, in New York, Boston and more cities next week. His publicist did not immediately respond to ABCNews.com's question about whether those shows are still on, but if they go anything like his Saturday's did, many attendees may walk out echoing the refrain of one Detroit show-goer: "Joke's on us."
Retired Navy SEAL boasts of 'breaching the Capitol'

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Eduardo Elordi (Mercedes, 16 de julio de 1868-Buenos Aires, 11 de febrero de 1938) fue un político argentino que se desempeñó como gobernador del Territorio Nacional del Neuquén por cuatro períodos consecutivos entre 1906 y 1918. Desde entonces, se desempeñó como director general de Territorios Nacionales hasta su fallecimiento en 1938. En 1926, fue interventor del Territorio Nacional de Río Negro.

Biografía
Nació en Mercedes (provincia de Buenos Aires) en 1868, creciendo en la provincia de Tucumán. Fue secretario de la gobernación de Tucumán y, en 1905, asumió como diputado nacional por dicha provincia.

A comienzos de 1906 fue designado secretario de la gobernación del Neuquén, y en agosto del mismo año, fue designado gobernador del Territorio Nacional del Neuquén por el presidente José Figueroa Alcorta, sucediendo a Carlos Bouquet Roldán. Permaneció en el cargo por cuatro períodos consecutivos, hasta 1918. Durante su gestión, se llevaron a cabo las obras de irrigación del río Limay, se expandió la red de caminos y la red ferroviaria se extendió hasta Zapala, sin llegar a Chile como estaba previsto. En 1915, se reorganizó el territorio en 16 departamentos.

Al finalizar su cargo en Neuquén, fue designado director general de Territorios Nacionales en el Ministerio del Interior de la Nación, cargo que desempeñaba al momento de su fallecimiento en febrero de 1938.

En 1926, había sido designado interventor del Territorio Nacional de Río Negro por el presidente Marcelo T. de Alvear, luego de que el entonces gobernador Alfredo Viterbori fuera acusado de «malversación de fondos públicos e irregularidades administrativas» y su secretario solicitara una investigación al Gobierno Nacional. A los pocos meses, entregó el mando al nuevo gobernador, León Quaglia.

Referencias

Mercedinos
Diputados del Congreso de la Nación Argentina por Tucumán
Gobernadores de la provincia de Neuquén
Gobernadores de Río Negro

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
[![Build Status](https://secure.travis-ci.org/joelpurra/bespoke-secondary.png?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/joelpurra/bespoke-secondary) [![Coverage Status](https://coveralls.io/repos/joelpurra/bespoke-secondary/badge.png)](https://coveralls.io/r/joelpurra/bespoke-secondary)

# [bespoke-secondary](https://github.com/joelpurra/bespoke-secondary)

**Check out the [presentation/demo.](https://joelpurra.github.io/bespoke-secondary/demo/)**

Show slide notes in a secondary window/screen with [Bespoke.js](https://markdalgleish.com/projects/bespoke.js)

> ## ⚠ This project has been archived
>
> No future updates are planned. Feel free to continue using it, but expect no support.

## Download

Download the [production version][min] or the [development version][max], or use a [package manager](#package-managers).

[min]: https://raw.github.com/joelpurra/bespoke-secondary/master/dist/bespoke-secondary.min.js
[max]: https://raw.github.com/joelpurra/bespoke-secondary/master/dist/bespoke-secondary.js

## Usage

When you've followed the instructions below, load your presentation and hit the <kbd>S</kbd> key on your keyboard to toggle the secondary window. Move it to a secondary screen, and you're set!

### Scripts

This plugin is shipped in a [UMD format](https://github.com/umdjs/umd), meaning that it is available as a CommonJS/AMD module or browser global.

For example, when using CommonJS modules:

```js
var bespoke = require('bespoke'),
  secondary = require('bespoke-secondary');

bespoke.from('#presentation', [
  secondary()
]);
```

When using browser globals:

```js
bespoke.from('#presentation', [
  bespoke.plugins.secondary()
]);
```

### HTML

In your presentation, add some notes:

```html
<article>
  <section>
    <h2>Slide 1</h2>
    <!-- Put your notes inside of each slide, in an <aside> tag -->
    <aside>
      <h2>I must remember to mention this, and then that.</h2>
    </aside>
  </section>
  <section>
    <h2>Slide 2</h2>
    <aside>
      <h2>There's also a corner case I must tell everyone about.</h2>
    </aside>
  </section>
</article>
```

### You probably want to hide your notes in your actual slides.

```css
.bespoke-slide aside {
    display: none;
}
```

## Configuration

```js
bespoke.horizontal.from('article', {
  secondary: {
      // Change the selector used to find notes, in a .bespoke-slide context
      notes: ".my-notes",
      keys: {
        // https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/KeyboardEvent#Virtual_key_codes
        // Change the key used to toggle the secondary window
        toggle: 0x54, // (84) "T" key.
      }
    }
});
```

## Package managers

### npm

```bash
$ npm install bespoke-secondary
```

### Bower

```bash
$ bower install bespoke-secondary
```

## TODO

- Move the HTML for the secondary window to a separate file, and load it when needed, or a separate tag/element within the presentation.
- Add some styling to the secondary window.
- Make the presentation controllable (next, previous) from the secondary window.

## See also

You should check out [bespoke-remote prototype](https://github.com/markdalgleish/bespoke-remote-prototype), by [Mark Dalgleish][markdalgleish], who created [Bespoke.js][bespoke.js]. It also has support for notes, and an unlimited number of screens - but it requires server side software for synchronization.

The notes from bespoke-secondary should be compatible with bespoke-remote prototype, so go ahead!

## Credits

[Mark Dalgleish][markdalgleish] for [Bespoke.js][bespoke.js] and related tools. This plugin was built with [generator-bespokeplugin](https://github.com/markdalgleish/generator-bespokeplugin).

Brooklyn Museum, [brooklyn_museum on flickr](https://secure.flickr.com/photos/brooklyn_museum/), for their photo [really good idea for wikipedia loves art](https://secure.flickr.com/photos/brooklyn_museum/3264857348/) ([CC BY 2.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)).

My bestest friends, [bespoke-convenient](https://github.com/joelpurra/bespoke-convenient) and [bespoke-indexfinger](https://github.com/joelpurra/bespoke-indexfinger), for their continued support - rain and shine. I love you, guys.

## License

Copyright (c) 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, [Joel Purra](https://joelpurra.com/) All rights reserved.

When using bespoke-secondary, comply to the [MIT license](https://joelpurra.mit-license.org/2013-2014). Please see the LICENSE file for details, and the [MIT License on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License).

[bespoke.js]: https://github.com/markdalgleish/bespoke.js
[markdalgleish]: https://markdalgleish.com/

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
West Cork is a 'breeding ground' for ragwort and knotweed
By Jackie Keogh
Cllr Hurley said ragwort is ruining West Cork. It is to be added to the knotweed programme.
THE problem with noxious weeds has got out of control in West Cork.
That's according to Cllr Declan Hurley (Ind), a farmer, who has repeatedly highlighted the problem at West Cork Municipal District and County Council level.
A motion highlighting the problem once again was raised at the municipal district meeting in Dunmanway recently. The councillor called for an update on the Council's agreed plan to address the increasing problem of noxious weeds, such as ragwort on roadside verges, as per his motion 'of September 2nd 2019.'
Almost one year to the day of his previous motion, Cllr Hurley declared: 'West Cork has become a breeding ground for these noxious weeds.'
He pointed out: 'It is an offence under the Noxious Weeds Act 1936, for the owner or occupier of lands, not to prevent the growth and spread of certain weeds, such as ragwort.
'Cork County Council is,' he added, 'still charged with maintaining the roadside verges and it is due to the lack of maintenance of our verges that this noxious weed is spreading out of control.'
Council engineer Niall Chamberlain told the Council members that a trial contract for spraying ragwort is currently being compiled and is to be added to the Japanese knotweed management programme and that this would be delivered later this month or in October.
Cllr Hurley nevertheless expressed his disappointment that the problem is not being addressed 'year on year.' He said: 'The onus is on Cork County Council to begin a programme of controlling this noxious weed before it gets out of control.'
Tags used in this article
West Cork,
The Southern Star,
West Cork Municipal District,
Cllr Declan Hurley (Ind),
ragwort
Follow @https://twitter.com/KeoghJackie


What are key and current challenges facing New Zealand's organisations and events, in terms of financing from China government sources?
"To my mind, the key challenge confronting such organisations is in overcoming negative perceptions and stereotypes of what China is. While certainly there are long-standing mentalities and trends in the behaviour of the Chinese government we would wish to see changed (as is true with the behaviours of all governments worldwide), the fusion of Party and state in China, and common references to "the Communist Party of China," stir fears within the New Zealand public and paints an excessively monolithic picture of that Party, country, and government. In reality, there are about 85 million CCP members. We should be vigilant, of course, but also recognise that Party membership is not in itself or in most cases evidence of something nefarious. For most people, Party membership is about networking — connections in politics are a key part of getting ahead in China, just like everywhere else."
"With all due respect, firstly they [the organisations] do amazing work for the community. They don't want to say anything to piss of their funder, but if they want to demonstrate that these events are really independent from the Chinese government interests, what value do they place on independence? What are they willing to do to show that independence? Will they make sure there is a space for repressed minorities to be part of these events? Will they make space for people who support Taiwanese or Hong Kong independence to be part of these events? I suspect not. I'd like to be wrong about that. I think they're in a really difficult position. Essentially they're traditionalists, not human rights activists. They're trying to protect their community. They don't have the inclination to stand up to China, it makes them vulnerable to accusations that they are just owned by the Chinese government, that's what I worry about.
"The Institute absolutely recognises the need for transparency in the way we run our language and culture programmes. In addition to university line management, the Institute has an advisory board (that includes senior university staff) which examines and approves the annual work programme, and ensures that the Institute is operating within university guidelines and with university awareness of what it is doing. Most of the Chinese language teaching supported by the Institute is undertaken by Mandarin Language Assistants (MLAs) in around 140 schools in the lower part of the North Island. We work closely and openly with schools to determine and support, as much as possible, their Chinese language requirements. The professional training and development we provide to build the MLAs' teaching skills is delivered by New Zealand registered teachers and language specialists. The MLAs work under the direction of New Zealand teachers in the classroom, and the principals and trustees at the school level."
"The key challenge is that what may (or may not) have been acceptable in terms of the moral hazards of accepting funding from PRC sources yesterday, so to speak, are no longer acceptable today, and what might (or again, might not) be acceptable today will certainly not be acceptable tomorrow.
What are the constraints that Confucius Institutes, by virtue of their constitution, labour under? As well as the long-standing taboo areas of Taiwan, Tibet, and the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 (and more recently, the situation in Hong Kong and the incarceration in camps of large numbers of Uyghur people in Xinjiang), since 2013 there has also been the imposition of the "Seven Forbidden Topics" of universal values, freedom of speech, civil society, civil rights, the historical errors of the Chinese Communist Party, crony capitalism, and judicial independence.
No institution working to such constraints has any place in a New Zealand university; as a New Zealand parent, neither do I believe it acceptable that Mandarin Language Assistants working to such constraints are allowed to teach in our primary and secondary schools. Further, by opting out of actually taking full responsibility for the teaching of China, Chinese culture and Chinese language, in the manner in which we have done, we further ghettoise China.
A final important critique that can be levelled against PRC-funded institutions (such as the Confucius Institutes and the China Cultural Centre) is that their ready access to funding (some of it matched by local funding) allows them to appropriate (and thus distort) whatever existing and authentically locally-based initiatives (scholarships for study in China, Chinese festival celebrations, speech and cultural days and so on) that might have been going on."
"Sister city relationships were conceived as people-to-people relationships. They are administered within each city. For instance, Wellington has Xiamen and Beijing and Tianjin and province as its sister city and friendly areas in China.


text:
Tag: RICO
Civil complaint against attorneys
Causes of Action: Abuse of process, civil conspiracy, fraud, and racketeering
Link to PDF of 3/22/21 third-party complaint into A-21-828840-C & exhibits
Exhibit 1: Cause of action: Fraud
Cause of Action: Fraud
Fraudulent conveyance to defraud others is a crime
HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think
Nationstar Mortgage's Fraud
Exhibit 2: Cause of action: Abuse of process
Cause of Action: Abuse of Process
Interpleader Complaint was filed with an ulterior motive
Exhibit 3: Civil damages due to Racketeering
Cause of Action: RICO Damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering
What is racketeering as it relates to Nona Tobin's case?
Darcy Spears nails it about abusive HOA foreclosures
Exhibit 4: Cause of action: Conspiracy
Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy
Exhibit 5: Alleged facts
Exhibit 6: What does it take to get disbarred in Nevada?
Exhibit 7: 1st complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
1st complaint to the Nevada Attorney General & exhibits
Exhibit 8: 2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General & exhibits
Exhibit 9: Why Nationstar & its attorneys must be sanctioned & pay punitive damages
WHY NATIONSTAR & ITS ATTORNEYS MUST BE SANCTIONED AND PAY PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Exhibit 10: All declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin's claims
All declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin's claims
When all statements under oath support Nona Tobin, why does she keep losing?
Exhibit 11: What is the PUD Rider?
Exhibit 12: A Duel to the Death
A Duel to the Death
Exhibit 13: We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case
Exhibit 14: Complaints to the State Bar of Nevada Ethics & Discpline Panel vs. Brittany Wood
Exhibit 15: Complaint against Melanie Morgan
Complaint Against Melanie Morgan
Exhibit 16: Complaint to the Mortgage Lending Division
Exhibit 17: Complaint vs. Brittany Wood
Complaint vs. Brittany Wood
Exhibit : 2020 court hearings Part 1
2020 Court hearings Part 1
Exhibit 19: Complaints to law enforcement
Exhibit 20: Harassment or bullying an HOA homeowner is a crime
Exhibit 21: How the crooks steal HOA houses
Exhibit 22: Implicated Nevada law
Exhibit 23: Interpleader complaint was filed with an ulterior motive
Exhibit 24: Joseph Hong: pay Nona Tobin treble damages for stealing her house and be disbarred
Exhibit 25: Judicial Jiu-Jitsu is fraud on the court
Judicial Jiu-Jitsu is fraud on the court
Exhibit 26: Nationstar Mortgage's fraud
Exhibit 27: Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline Complaint
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline Complaint
Exhibit 28: Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure
Exhibit 29: Implicated Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct
Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct
Excerpts related to attorney misconduct in this situation as well as a link to the full Nevada rules for professional conduct. Here is a link to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions which also should weigh heavily in the Court's decision to appropriate level of discipline to impose.
Exhibit 30: Nona Tobin's Request for Judicial Notice of the property record
NONA TOBIN'S 3/15/21 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Exhibit 31: Recommendation to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
Recommendation to the Nevada Commision on Judicial Discipline
Exhibit 32: Complaints to the Nevada Attorney General
Exhibit 33: What is Lis Pendens?
What is a Lis Pendens?
Exhibit 34: Why Alternative Dispute Resolution
Author Nona TobinPosted on March 25, 2021 March 31, 2021 Categories A-21-828840-C, Causes of Action, Fraud on the CourtTags abuse of process, conspiracy, fraud, RICO, TPC
The elements of a civil claim for damages caused by racketeering are:
1. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to NRS 207.360, including (9) taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery, (18) Grand larceny; (29) Perjury or subornation of perjury; (30) Offering false evidence; (35) Any violation of NRS 205.377;
2. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of NRS 207.470;
3. Defendants, and each of them, committed at least two separate crimes relating to racketeering constituting a pattern of racketeering activity. (the "Predicate Acts");
4. Defendants' crimes are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents but are a part of a pattern of criminal activity;
5. The Defendants, and each of them, violated NRS 207.400;
6. Plaintiff Nona Tobin has suffered damages;
7. Plaintiff Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages against Defendants, and each of them. NRS 207.470(1);
8. Plaintiff Nona Tobin is entitled to an award of punitive damages; and
9. Plaintiff Nona Tobin is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs as damages. NRS 207.470(1).
A partial list of the Counter-Defendants', Cross-defendants' and third-party defendants' Predicate Acts
Nationstar LLC and/or Nationstar LLC dba Mr. Cooper recorded false claims on 12/1/14, 1/22/15, 8/17/15, 1/13/16, 6/7/16, 3/8/19 rescind and 3/8/19 assign, and 6/3/19.
Red Rock Financial Services recorded false claims on 12/14/12, 3/12/13, 4/3/13, 4/8/13, and executed the foreclosure deed Thomas Lucas recorded on 8/22/14.
Joseph Hong's clients recorded false claims on 6/9/15, 6/9/15, 12/1/15, 5/1/19, 5/23/19, 5/28/19, 7/24/19, 12/3/19, 12/27/19, and 12/27/19 and aided and abetted false claims to be recorded on 6/3/19, 6/4/19, 7/10/19, 7/17/19, 12/27/19, 2/6/20, 2/6/20, and 12/4/20.
Attorneys for Wright, Finley, Zak, aided and abetted mortgage servicing fraud of both Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage by filing into these quiet title civil actions statements known to be false and disclosing false evidence Edgar Smith (NV bar #5506) on 1/11/16, 4/12/16 DECL, 4/12/16, 5/10/16, 6/2/16, 6/3/16, 6/10/16, 3/27/17 DECL , 3/27/17, 11/9/17, 2/9/18, (Dana Johnson Nitz NV Bar #0050, Michael Kelly NV Bar #10101).
Attorneys for Akerman LLP (Melanie Morgan NV Bar #8215, Karen Whelan NV Bar #10466, Donna Wittig NV Bar #11015). 5/15/18, 2/7/19, Thera Cooper NV Bar #13468, 2/12/19, 2/12/19, 2/20/19, 2/21/19, 2/21/19, 2/27/19, 2/28/19, 2/28/19, 3/7/19, 3/12/19, 3/12/19, 3/18/19, 3/21/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/12/19, 4/15/19 (SAO signed 4/10/19), 4/19/19, 4/23/19, 4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/3/19, 5/21/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 5/31/19, 6/24/19, 6/24/19, 6/25/19, 7/1/19, 7/22/19.
Joseph Hong (NV Bar #5995) filed written false statements, filed frivolous unsupported harassing pleadings, knowingly made false verbal statements, made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts, concealed/failed to disclose material facts, conspired with others, received proceeds, on these dates, 6/9/15 DEED, 6/16/15, 6/8/16, 8/12/15, 10/16/15, 8/30/16, 9/29/16 RTRAN, 12/5/16, 12/20/16 RTRAN, 3/13/17, 3/13/17, 3/13/17, 12/5/18, 3/25/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/15/19, 4/22/19, 4/23/19 minutes, 4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/23/19 RTRAN annotated, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/1/19 DEED, 5/3/19, 5/21/19, 5/23/19 Agreement, 5/24/19, 5/29/19 video, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 video, 6/5/19, 6/5/19 video, 6/5/19 RTRAN, 6/5/19 video, 6/6/19 RTRAN, 6/24/19, 6/28/19, 8/7/19, 8/13/19, 9/3/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 video, 6/25/20, 7/1/20, 8/3/20 annotated,, 8/11/20 video, 8/11/20 RTRAN, 10/8/20, 10/8/20 annotated, 10/16/20 OST, 10/16/20 NEO, 10/29/20 RTRAN, 10/29/20 video, 11/3/20 video, 11/3/20 RTRAN.
Detailed allegations against defendants are delineated in complaints to the Nevada Attorney General on 3/14/19 and 11/10/20.
Detailed allegations against defendants are delineated in complaints to the Nevada State Bar on 2/14/21 and on 2/16/21.
Detailed allegations against multiple defendants are delineated in these publications
Specific allegations related to false claims recorded by multiple defendants in the Clark County Official property records are in this publication
Detailed allegations against Brittany Wood are delineated in these publications
Complaint to the State Bar of Nevada Ethics & Discipline Panel vs. Brittany Wood
Detailed allegations against Melanie Morgan are delineated in these publications
Nona Tobin Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury
Detailed allegations against Nationstar are delineated in these publications
This fraud on the court publication has nine videos that show exactly how the attorneys tricked the court into letting Nationstar and Joel Stokes steal Nona Tobin's house without ever putting on a case, meeting their Plaintiffs' burden of proof, or refuting Nona Tobin's claims against them.
Some allegations against Steven Scow & Brody Wight are delineated in these publications
Court records that evidence fraud on the court Joseph Hong are partially found here
2016 Court hearings
Documentary evidence of abuse of process, fraud on the court, conspiracy, and racketeering are in linked exhibits to the Nevada attorney General & to the Mortgage Lending Division
Joseph Hong: pay Nona Tobin treble damages for stealing her house and be disbarred
A fable to illustrate Joseph Hong's & Melanie Morgan's fraud on the court is in this publication
This publication of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure will be updated to highlight relevant rules related to proposed sanctions and proposed civil court reform
Nona Tobin's Cross-claims vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo and counter-claims vs. Red Rock Financial Services and motions for attorney sanctions in Nevada district court case A-21-828840-C are found in this publication
NONA TOBIN'S 2021 MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
Detailed allegations vs. Joseph Hong are in these publications
10 Reasons why to sanction Joseph Hong
Relevant Nevada case law
NRS 207.470; Stoddart v. Miller, 2008 WL 6070835 (Nev. 2008 );
Siragusa v. Brown, 114 Nev. 1384, 971 P.2d 801 (1999);
Gordon v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 12 Nev. 216, 231, 913 P.2d 240, 250-51 (1996);
Cummings v. Charter Hosp. of Las Vegas, Inc., 111 Nev. 639, 896 P.2d 1137 (1995);
Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 109 Nev. 280, 849 P.2d 297 (1993);
Hale v. Burkhardt, 104 Nev. 632, 634, 764 P.2d 866, 867 (1988).
Author Nona TobinPosted on March 22, 2021 March 22, 2021 Categories A-21-828840-C, Causes of Action, Fraud on the Court, mortgage servicing fraudTags RICO
NRS 207.360 "Crime related to racketeering" defined.
NRS 207.360 "Crime related to racketeering" defined. [Effective July 1, 2020.] "Crime related to racketeering" means the commission of, attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit any of the following crimes:
9. Taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery;
18. Grand larceny;
29. Perjury or subornation of perjury;
30. Offering false evidence;
35. Any violation of NRS 205.377;
(Added to NRS by 1983, 1495; A 1989, 18, 160; 1991, 124, 161; 1997, 493; 1999, 2642; 2001, 1100; 2003, 2951; 2005, 79; 2009, 144; 2011, 173; 2013, 2434, 3697; 2017, 511; 2019, 2632, 4443, effective July 1, 2020)
NRS 207.360
Author Nona TobinPosted on March 13, 2021 March 13, 2021 Categories recorded claims to title, Rule of lawTags NRS, RICO
Multiple false claims to title have increased penalties
NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty.
NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty. [Effective through June 30, 2020.]
1. A person shall not, in the course of an enterprise or occupation, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, engage in an act, practice or course of business or employ a device, scheme or artifice which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person by means of a false representation or omission of a material fact that:
(a) The person knows to be false or omitted;
(b) The person intends another to rely on; and
(c) Results in a loss to any person who relied on the false representation or omission,
Ê in at least two transactions that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents within 4 years and in which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $650.
2. Each act which violates subsection 1 constitutes a separate offense.
3. A person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.
4. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order a person who violates subsection 1 to pay restitution.
5. A violation of this section constitutes a deceptive trade practice for the purposes of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999, inclusive.
6. As used in this section, "enterprise" has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 207.380.
(Added to NRS by 2009, 143; A 2011, 168)
Author Nona TobinPosted on March 13, 2021 Categories recorded claims to title, Rule of lawTags NRS, RICO


Does your Moms Group or other organization want to book a private class or family event? Bunkhouse Creative is the perfect spot!
One hour classes are $12 per child. Two hour classes are $20 per child. Each class would have 3 stations, each table having a different open-ended process art invitation to create. Children would be welcome to create as they wish with a caregiver. The deposit of $100 is to hold the date and secure min. payment. You will pay the balance due the day of the event.


I was anxious to leave the city and travel through the countryside. The main highway from Havana to Cienfueges was eight lanes wide. Traffic was sparse. The road was smooth. The scenery was lovely -trees, rolling hills and mountains in the distance. The agricultual land appeared abandoned. There were no small crop farmers and I later learned that a large percentage of the productive land is not in use. There were small villages where many of the population were standing around. Unemployment is high. There were large fields of sugar cane. The state owns all the land. The farmers lease the land from the state. Individuals can now own property in Cuba but the land is leased from the state. The Canadians are reported to be developing a resort condominium complex on beach property. Foreigners will be able to purchase the condos. When Cuba opens up, there will be a huge land grab.


Evidence-based approach for the use and selection of nutraceuticals are presented as well as the need and challenges to creating a method for the standardization of these products. A systematic review was completed to analyze the impact of evidence-based and standardization of nutraceuticals. Evidence-based approach for nutraceuticals allow for the evaluation of these products. This process involves utilizing current and best evidence to provide individualized care for patients. Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) are regulations enforced by the FDA to ensure that drug manufacturing processes meet basic standards. Under these practices, design, monitoring, and control of manufacturing processes are regulated. These practices can track and provide tools to prevent contamination of products available to consumers. Using evidence-based approach for nutraceutical can provide healthcare providers and consumers with evidence that is patient specific, for a given intervention and desired outcome. The global market for nutraceuticals is growing and all manufacturers should comply with cGMP to ensure safe, quality products for consumers. The goal is to have all nutraceutical manufacturers worldwide embrace cGMP in order to provide consumers with safe, effective and high quality products.
OCHOTNY, Misty N.; PARTNEY, Tiffany N.; V. PATHAK, Yashwant. Evidence-Based Approach and Standardization of Nutraceuticals. GSTF Journal of Advances in Medical Research (JAMR), [S.l.], v. 1, n. 1, may 2018. ISSN 2345-721X. Available at: <http://dl6.globalstf.org/index.php/jamr/article/view/1574>. Date accessed: 26 apr. 2019.


Learn about a few common eye problems that affect children.
Commonly referred to as "lazy eye", amblyopia is reduced or poor vision in one or both eyes that occurs during early childhood due to lack of proper visual stimulation. Amblyopia can be a result of a variety conditions including strabismus (misalignment of the eyes)a pediatric cataract (which disrupts light passing through the eye), or most commonly a high glasses prescription that is not detected early enough. Amblyopia is much easier to treat when the child is very young, around preschool age. Amplyopia affects two to three percent of Americans.
Hyperopia, referred to as farsightedness, is when a person can see distant objects clearly but has trouble seeing up close. Myopia, referred to as nearsightedness, is the opposite of hyperopia and consists of a person being able to see close objects but having difficulty at distance. Both conditions involve light not focussing on the back of the eye properly. Often, if these conditions are left untreated at a young age, your child can develop amblyopia. s. A common treatment for these conditions include glasses or contacts when the child is old enough to handle them.
This condition, commonly known as pink eye, is either a contagious viral or bacterial infection or an allergic reaction which is not contagious. If your child experiences pink eye, then their eye will appear red and inflamed and there is usually discharge coming out of the tear ducts. If your child has pink eye, they should stay home from school for at least three days to a week depending on the severity of the condition. Once the tearing and discharge have stopped, your child can return to school.
This entry was posted on Monday, January 8th, 2018 at 11:26 am. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


Some great tips here, Nicholas. I'm terrible at not writing things down when I have a sudden flash of inspiration, so I'm going to make sure I have that notebook beside my bed every night. I wonder why it is that we always have the best ideas at the most inconvenient times? Inspiration comes to me while I'm driving, walking, in the shower, but never when I'm sitting down comfortably trying to come up with an idea! Great post, ad thanks for sharing.
Great post. My night table is armed with pens and notebooks, lol. PS, Twitter wouldn't work here?
Great post Nickolas. I am one of those people who have very creative dreams and I finally did put a note pad and pencil on top of my bedroom end table. I would like to ask, you seem to know a lot about dream stages; is there a notation about people who can continue a dream over a number of nights? I have had story dreams that continue for a week or more, each night, until the story as ended. The first book I wrote is based on an on-going dream.
this book is a series; unfortunately, the rest of the writing for this series is up to me, in daylight hours to write – no dream for far.
That's amazing! I'll wait for our guest poster to answer, but let me say that I, too, have had both recurring dreams and dreams which span months. I'd normally call them recurring but the plot moves forward, so there's a progress not normally associated with recurring ones. However, they don't come to me on a daily basis; they can be pretty spread apart.
Sleep's a fascinating topic, isn't it?
Thank you for sharing your suggestions on ways to remember dreams that inspire you. Sometimes I take a nap before I start writing as it gets me in the creative mood (It probably sounds counter productive.) I've also started writing a novel based on a vivid dream I recently had. Hope Perro gets his treat today.
I could use a voice recorder memo for remembering dreams as I wake up. Trouble is, if I wake up naturally, I remember anyway; if it's the alarm, I'm distracted and forget before I can record it.
The technique can be learned!
Using a notebook means turning on the light, which affects my ability to fall back to sleep. I use my Google home mini. It asks me what time I want the reminder (I give it a few keywords) and the morning it will do it's job.


text:
R15 cartesian system is built up from linear modules, fully assembled and tested by ST.
The first step is to decide which format you need. Usually the first axis will be the X-axis. If you need simple X-Y motion then the next axis will be the Y-axis as in diagrams A and B. This would be X-Y format. You might instead need the second axis to be vertical; this is X-Z format.
If you need three axes of motion this could be X-Y-Z format where the vertical (Z) motion is the third axis as in diagrams C and D or X-Z-Y format where the vertical motion is the second axis as in diagrams E and F.
For the second and/or third axes you can choose whether the axis is fixed with a carriage that moves carrying the payload as in diagram A or carrying the next axis as in diagrams C and E, or you can have the carriage fixed so that the whole axis moves as in diagrams B, D and F. To clarify: in the case of a Y axis a moving carriage has the axis fixed and always occupying the workspace. The Y-axis is cantilevered and the carriage moves along it as in diagrams A and C. A moving axis has its carriage fixed to and carried by the X-axis and it moves in and out such that when fully retracted it extends backwards behind the robot as in diagrams B and D.
When a very long Y axis is required you need two X-axes, one at each end of the Y-axis to support it as in diagram G. The limit for a cantilevered axis is about 500mm depending on payload and expected acceleration.
The first axis, which is always called the X-axis (even though it may be mounted vertically) has to be fairly strong to support the weight of the other axes. Usual choice is the L-type which has dual crossed roller bearings. A K-type may optionally be used; it is fast and smooth but is harder to mount. The L-type is only ever used as the first axis.
The second axis is usually a strong axis and may be a K-type or an Ultraglide as used on R19.
The third axis may be another K-type or an Ultraglide.
Finally up to 3 rotary axes may fitted, pitch, yaw and/or roll.
Possible configurations


LET HANK COME TO YOU!
Having a party at home or looking for catering at your office? Or do you have a function venue in mind? Let us take care of the food & booze. Tell us your numbers and occassion, and we will help you choose from a fresh and fun menu of finger food. From burgers and mini mac & cheese, through to a smorgasbord of 18-hour cooked brisket and beers, we have the solution for you.
Want to start chatting? Email hank@fancyhanks.com or submit an enquiry using the form below.


text:
Johannes Coenraad (Coen) Deering (Rotterdam, 6 augustus 1900 - Haaksbergen, 12 maart 1990) was een politicus van de VDB en de PvdA.

Deering was afkomstig uit het onderwijs en heeft op diverse scholen als leraar geschiedenis lesgegeven. In de VDB was hij lid van het hoofdbestuur van 1938 totdat de VDB in 1946 opging in de PvdA. In 1946 trad hij toe tot zowel de Tweede Kamer, als de Provinciale Staten van Zuid-Holland als ook tot de gemeenteraad van Voorburg. Kamerlid en raadslid zou hij echter maar twee jaar blijven. Hij trad in de Tweede kamer op als woordvoerder onderwijs. Hij was vervolgens van 1949 tot 1965 rector van het Libanon Lyceum in Rotterdam. In 1956 werd Deering opnieuw verkozen tot lid van de Tweede Kamer. Hij verliet deze echter weer snel omdat de gemeente Rotterdam weigerde hem de mogelijkheid te geven om non-actief te zijn als rector. Hij verliet daarop de Tweede Kamer en koos voor het onderwijs. Na zijn pensionering en zijn actieve politieke loopbaan stapte Deering rond 1970 als lid over naar DS'70.

PvdA-politicus (Nederland)
VDB-politicus
Tweede Kamerlid


Гости, забронировавшие номер по тарифному плану «Золотой век», должны предъявить документ, подтверждающий возраст (старше 55 лет), при регистрации заезда для получения скидки. В случае отсутствия соответствующего подтверждения при регистрации заезда взимается дополнительная плата.
From the welcome we received on check in through to our departure five days later, everything was perfect. The hotel is ideally situated just behind one of Lisbon's main arteries and within easy walking distance of the centre and of a wide choice of restaurants. What made the hotel particularly special, however, was the extraordinary service we received. Without exception, all the staff were friendly, helpful and efficient. It was a real haven after a busy day's sightseeing.
It was great - a beautiful hotel, food was delicious. Convenient for shopping.
Lovely art deco boutique hotel. Great location. Queit and comfortable. Love the port in the room!
Hotel Britania has it all!
We stayed in 2 different hotels during our Oct. 2018 vacation in Lisbon. Hotel Britania blew the other hotel (that was a new and modern 5-star hotel) away! Hotel Britania is a beautifully restored historical hotel; all the details are there -- from the gorgeous lobby, to the inviting library and bar, to the serene rooms. The staff was superb. Everyone we met, from the front desk personnel to the doorman/afternoon tea attendant, were so friendly and professional. This hotel has that warm and inviting "personal touch" that other hotels lack! Would definitely return to Hotel Britania in the future!


text:
Debates of Nov. 30th, 2012
House of Commons Hansard #189 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was terrorism.
Question Period
Nuclear Terrorism Act
Algoma University
AOE Arts Council
Operation Red Nose
National Research Council Canada
Marcel Beaudry
New Democratic Party of Canada
Employment Insurance
National Defence
Old Port of Montreal Corporation
41st General Election
Fisheries and Oceans
Points of Order
Government Response to Petitions
Committees of the House
Questions on the Order Paper
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker Mr. Barry Devolin
Is that agreed?
Links & Sharing
Some hon. members
Bill C-45—Notice of time allocation motionJobs and Growth Act, 2012Routine Proceedings
November 30th, 2012 / 12:15 p.m.
York—Simcoe Ontario
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I must advise an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had six minutes remaining in questions and comments. Questions and comments.
Seeing none, resuming debate, the hon. member for Manicouagan.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague.
Preparing this curious speech to defend the claims in a bill on nuclear terrorism was, in a sense a personal act of bravado. When I say bravado I mean that when I looked at the House calendar and saw that a question dealing with nuclear terrorism had been entered, I told myself it was a golden opportunity for me to reconnect with my old passions.
When I was a graduate student, I often took part in these types of exercises. Graduate studies at university often involve oral presentations and plenary sessions. That is why obscure topics are studied and discussed. Moreover, it is why I decided to embark on a discussion of an issue that may appear inaccessible and intangible at first.
Over the past few days, I invested some effort in reviewing case law and the definitions of "threat" and "terrorism" in the Criminal Code, as well as concepts such as criminal intent or mens rea. This helped refresh my memory of concepts that I learned during my legal training and allows me today to spend a little more time on them and investigate them more deeply.
In light of the scope of the issue, as well as its specificity, I would like to focus particularly on the concept of threat set out in this nuclear terrorism bill. A few offences are mentioned in the bill, including the threat of use of nuclear material and devices. I will focus on this specific concept.
The degree of specialization associated with the scope of the bill gradually helped direct my arguments toward highlighting the impact of the provision creating the threat offence. Here I will rely on the text of the bill. This is not something I am in the habit of doing, but considering the specialized nature of the bill, it is just as well to remain close to the text and refer to it. The bill refers to the threat to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment.
With regard to "substantial damage to property", it is important to understand that in the Criminal Code, more often than not threat is limited to two situations, either threats against persons or threats against property. I will come back to this later on, when I go into greater detail on the concept of threat, its impact and its use in this bill.
The bill before us also refers to the threat of using or altering nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or committing an act against a nuclear facility or its operation, with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act.
Here, I will focus on the concept of nuclear facility as provided in the bill before us. I will refer to it in my conclusion, when I briefly address nuclear facilities in Canada. It should already be possible to see where I am going with my speech.
Finally, the bill refers to the threat of committing an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or obtaining access or control of a nuclear facility.
This particular bill incorporates notions that are already covered by the Criminal Code, such as the definition of threat as an offence, as well as the notion of terrorism. With regard to the definition of threat—I have already taken a few steps along this path—the Criminal Code sets out two very specific cases, that is, the threat to the integrity of an individual and the threat against property. These two cases are covered here, in the bill.
In the case of threat, there is very little in the way of a defence that can be made when an accused faces this type of charge. Ultimately, the accused must show that the threat as expressed should not have been taken seriously because it was only a joke or pure fantasy.
This is the notion of threat. In my view, that is the only defence available under the Criminal Code. However, it must also be understood that the notion of threat, as it is set out in the Criminal Code, does not necessarily involve an investigation of the individual's ability to commit the act or the medium that was used to formulate and make the threat. The threat may be expressed orally or it may even be sent through an intermediary on the Internet. There are countless methods of transmitting a threat.
Ultimately, the Criminal Code does not consider the actual ability of the person making the threat. His or her actual ability to make good on a threat is not necessarily taken into account. This is what I would like to emphasize because nuclear materials and devices are quite specific.
At the very least, it might be worthwhile to introduce a degree of nuance regarding the possibility for an individual to formulate a threat relating to nuclear devices and to determine whether the individual is in fact able to get his hands on a nuclear device. Even though we support this bill at second reading, it must be understood that, once the bill has become law, the terrorism aspect will automatically apply when this variable, the nuclear aspect, enters the picture.
The offences created under this bill are far-reaching and are very likely to lead to a serious record for an individual. Therefore, we should be very careful in this regard.
While I will support this bill at second reading and despite the fact that the threat offences, as defined in the Criminal Code, disregard an offender's ability to commit the intended offence, the high level of specialization inherent in the handling of nuclear materials should militate in favour of tightening the criteria relating to the threat offence involving nuclear devices or materials.
As I was saying, these concepts are imported. The Criminal Code already contains very specific terminology and provisions relating to threats and terrorism. If we incorporate these same notions in this bill, we must ensure that the distinction is made. This is a big challenge in light of the fact that, as soon as someone is found guilty of one of the offences set out in this bill, he will automatically be labelled a terrorist, and there is quite a stigma attached to that label. These are very important matters that must be carefully examined.
As some of my colleagues mentioned this morning, this notion of threat goes far beyond Canada's international obligation. This bill was initially drafted to fulfill our international obligations, but we must not get carried away.
In conclusion, I will say—a message from our sponsors—that the greatest nuclear threat is here, in Canada. Some members of my team have told me that some plants here in Canada are storing radioactive waste, including the plants in Gentilly, Quebec, and in Toronto, Ontario. Right now, a rather large and measurable quantity of nuclear waste is being stored in Canada, right under our noses, which is a problem. The nuclear threat is hiding right here in Canada.
I humbly submit this information and hope that I have made members more aware of and interested in this issue.
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Manicouagan with great interest. We are lucky to have people in this House who have practised criminal law and are in a position to have a really very specific and very expert perspective on these particular points.
He clearly explained the two types of threats: threats against a person and threats against property. In the case of a threat to use fissile material or nuclear material, one of the issues I had not been aware of until now is the question of actual ability to act on a threat: a person could threaten to use a nuclear weapon without being in possession of such a weapon.
Can my colleague comment further on the conflict that might arise if a person were convicted of making threats to use fissile materials when they were not in possession of any such materials?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. First, I would note that I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville.
To answer my colleague's question, when I was working on this bill, I recalled my psychiatric clients. Sometimes, my clients simply stopped taking their medications, and as a result they were disorganized and made threats.
I think there are cases where someone is really not in possession of all their faculties and threatens to use a nuclear device to blow up Canada. I have heard people say things like that, but there was really no nuclear device involved. It would be worth ensuring that the bill require that people actually have the ability to get their hands on a nuclear device or nuclear material, before we think about charging them and accusing them of making threats.
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. I would also like to ask him a question about the fact that this bill comes from the other chamber, the Senate.
Perhaps he could reiterate our position on the Senate and the bill before us here, which comes from the other chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She will also be the next to speak on this subject.
We will be supporting the bill at second reading. The principle and the international obligations are of crucial importance, although the Conservatives should also be paying attention to the other international obligations they must honour. This important bill is a priority, and that is why we will be taking the path of reason and supporting it.
Bills have to go through the Senate eventually anyway.
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question concerning the fact that we should have acted urgently at the time to adopt all of the legislation and ratify these conventions.
I would like my colleague from Manicouagan to talk about the image that Canada may be projecting on the international scene when we do not act promptly.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
We have seen so many examples of fast tracking on the part of the Conservatives—in fact, I only learned the term here in the House in the past year and a half. It is important that this not become their trademark, because anytime things are done too quickly, certain aspects can be overlooked and sometimes corners are cut, as they say.
In my opinion, having studied the bill, the government was somewhat lax about this for a number of years. Now, at the last minute, the Conservatives want to fix everything. Of course that must be done, out of necessity, but it should not become their trademark. Some subjects warrant careful consideration and must be studied for many years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill S-9 at second reading. I would like to say, however, that our position on the Senate, the other chamber, is well known. That chamber has become a place of partisanship and of rewards for friends of the Conservatives, and their family members too, sometimes.
Naturally, it still bothers us to receive bills from the Senate. We disapprove of the fact that it is a completely undemocratic and unelected chamber that wastes a lot of money. At a time when we are seeing cuts everywhere, cuts to services that directly affect my constituents, that chamber is wasting money. I am not reluctant to say it is a waste, because that is what I sincerely believe.
At any rate, we are debating Bill S-9, which is a good bill in principle, and we will study it thoroughly. This bill amends the Nuclear Terrorism Act and creates four new offences in part II of the Criminal Code.
First, this legislation would make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or devices, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; use or alter nuclear material, radioactive material or a device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act; commit an indictable offence under any act of Parliament, with intent to obtain nuclear material, radioactive material or a device or to obtain access to a nuclear facility; or threaten to commit any of these three offences.
Bill S-9 also amends the Criminal Code in relation to these four new offences, and that is important as well. It also defines certain terms used in the new offences, including "environment", "nuclear facility", "nuclear material", "radioactive material", and "device". The bill also amends the definition of "terrorist activity".
The bill adds a new section to the Criminal Code to ensure that industries that commit or attempt to commit one of these offences while outside Canada can be prosecuted in Canada. It also amends the Criminal Code provisions on electronic surveillance to ensure they apply to these new offences.
The bill amends the Criminal Code so that these four new offences are considered "primary designated offences" for the purpose of DNA warrants and collection.
Finally, the bill amends Canada's rule against double jeopardy so that if an individual has been tried and convicted for the four new offences outside Canada, the rule against double jeopardy will not apply when the foreign trial did not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In such circumstances, a Canadian court may try this person again for the same offence of which he or she was convicted by a foreign court.
My party and I think it is extremely important to ratify the international conventions and agreements we have signed. This bill is the result of the ratification of agreements signed in 2005, the ICSANT and CPPNM. We ratified these agreements in 2005 but have not taken the next steps, and it is now 2012.
Of course, it is important that we act in a spirit of international co-operation and concern for the world's safety. It is important that we take action and not just make promises. Therefore, we support Bill S-9 at second reading so that it can be sent to committee and studied more thoroughly.
To date, only 56 countries have ratified the agreement and incorporated the measures included in that agreement into their respective laws.
In my opinion, it is important that Canada take the initiative and ensure that its laws comply with the conventions and agreements that it has signed and ratified. In so doing, we may be able to put pressure on countries that have not yet changed their laws to meet the requirements included in the agreements.
I would like to quote Matthew Bunn, associate professor of public policy at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He said:
At the moment, unfortunately, the mechanisms for global governance of nuclear security remain very weak. No global rules specify how secure a nuclear weapon or the material needed to make one should be. No mechanisms are in place to verify that countries are securing these stockpiles responsibly. Fukushima made clear that action is needed to strengthen both the global safety and security regimes because terrorists could do on purpose what a tsunami did by accident.
A central goal leading up to the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit must be to find ways to work together to strengthen the global framework for nuclear security and continue high-level attention on this topic after nuclear security summits stop taking place. Ratifying the conventions that are under consideration now is important, but it is only the beginning.
Matthew Bunn raises an excellent point. The Nuclear Security Summit will be held in 2014, and it is important to adjust Canadian laws in order to meet the commitments that we made in 2005 and be ready for 2014. We will thus be able to say that we did what the international community pledged to do. Now, what is the next step?
However, I would like to point out a few of our concerns about the bill. These concerns were also raised when this bill was examined by the Senate.
The first concern relates to overbreadth. The intent of the Department of Justice was to stay as close as possible to the provisions of the convention. However, some of the new offences in the Criminal Code are broader than the offences set out in the international agreements. We must therefore make sure that the overbreadth of those sections will not result in excessive criminalization and will not be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada does have such a charter. It is important that every act and every bill introduced in the House be obeyed.
The second concern raised during study of the bill in the Senate relates to sentencing. The maximum sentences that may be imposed for one of the four new offences are significant. Three of the four offences are liable to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However, that meets the requirements in the ICSANT and the CPPNM, under which member nations must make the offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
It should be noted that the bill does not impose a mandatory minimum sentence and that this continues to be a matter of concern. It will be our job to examine that question at greater length when the bill is considered by a committee of the House of Commons.
One of the amendments was proposed by the Senate, and I welcome it because, in my opinion, it is very positive: making a nuclear or radioactive device, which is prohibited by the ICSANT but was not originally prohibited by the proposed amendments to the code. The Liberals therefore put forward an amendment to include this, and I congratulate them for that. I think it is a good amendment. I am glad the bill we are now considering includes that amendment.
I will conclude by saying this. Over time, we have seen various threats to security, and the international community has to respond accordingly.
We responded accordingly after the cold war, after everything that had happened during that era in which nuclear arms were still new. That was the first time we saw this on the international scene. It is important for nations to come together and discuss at greater length what they are going to do to combat present-day threats to security.
I concur with this bill, because it is a step in the right direction.
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for her speech, which I found very informative. I enjoy listening to her.
The NDP believes that we need to have a serious look at the issue of nuclear safety and meet our international obligations in order to co-operate better with other countries with respect to strategies for fighting nuclear terrorism.
This bill was introduced in the Senate. The NDP usually opposes bills introduced in the Senate, because we believe that it is an unelected house and that these kinds of things should be examined in this House.
Can my hon. colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville explain why the NDP wants to study this bill carefully in committee?
There are several reasons we want to see this bill move forward and go to committee for further study. For instance, Canada has made certain commitments by ratifying agreements, and it is important that we act accordingly.
It is important to remember that we are seven years behind on this. The agreements were signed in 2005. Thus, we have already waited seven years to amend Canada's laws accordingly. It is important that we take action based on our obligations and what we have promised to do.
Of course, as my colleague pointed out, we take exception to the fact that so many bills are coming from the Senate, which is an undemocratic house.
At one point, the Senate opposed a bill and voted it down, even though it had been democratically passed here in this House, and all the parties had supported it. It was a bill on environmental accountability, a very important and crucial piece of legislation that would have changed all of our positions and policies on the environment. Unfortunately, the other place rejected it.
I regret and condemn that kind of undemocratic activity.
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was taken by the comment the member just made about the Senate being an anti-democratic body. The last time I looked, there were a couple of parties represented by senators and some independents. They have sessions, much as we do, with a Speaker. They have free votes in the Senate, and every senator is able to express his or her ideas on any particular subject before voting.
I would like to ask the member, unless I am really missing something, how she sees that as undemocratic, when it operates basically the same way this House does. Apart from the fact that senators are appointed rather than elected, the operation is exactly the same. She was referring to the operation as being undemocratic. I would like her to explain that.
Mr. Speaker, yes, the Senate does have some good ideas about certain things. However, I am sorry, but senators are not elected. Voting for our representatives is the very foundation of democracy.
I would remind my hon. colleague opposite that three senators—we all know who I am talking about—even said they no longer wanted to be senators and instead wanted to run for a seat in the House in the election. They were defeated. The public rejected them. And what did the Prime Minister do? He reappointed them to the Senate. That is a flagrant example of the partisanship and the lack of democracy that characterize that chamber.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to speak to Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, or the Nuclear Terrorism Act.
This bill was introduced in the Senate on March 27, 2012. It amends the Criminal Code in order to implement the criminal law requirements contained in two international treaties to combat terrorism.
The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, commonly referred to as the CPPNM, was amended in 2005 and ratified by Canada. If my memory serves me well, Canada also signed the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the ICSANT.
The Nuclear Terrorism Act includes 10 clauses that create four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code. This legislation will make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive materials or devices or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment.
Second, it will make it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive materials or devices or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act.
Third, it will make it illegal to commit an indictable offence under an act of Parliament with intent to obtain nuclear or radioactive material or a device or to obtain access to or control of a nuclear facility.
Finally, it will make it illegal to threaten to commit any of the three other offences.
These are serious offences that have dangerous consequences for the safety of Canadians. Bill S-9 was introduced to address these concerns and to comply with the requirements of the various conventions that were signed or ratified by Canada in 2005. This responds to these problems and the danger posed to the safety of Canadians by acts that could be carried out from close by or far away with nuclear materials or devices. That is why we support the bill. We hope it will be referred to committee so we can properly examine the bill and make the necessary changes, and in order for a report to be prepared.
As an aside, this is what the government should have done with Bill C-45. The government should have split the bill into a number of smaller bills so that they could be examined in committee in keeping with procedure and democracy. Unfortunately, the government did not do so.
Let us get back to Bill S-9, which is what we are talking about today. This bill finally meets Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This means that we must extend the application of international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to include protection of nuclear facilities.
This bill also reinforces Canada's obligation under UN Security Council resolution 1540 to enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons, but that is another matter.
Finally, I must point out that this law meets a requirement with which Canada has been supposed to comply since 2005. Yet, it is rather strange that it was the Senate, an unelected chamber, that finally fulfilled this obligation.
On the other side of the House, the Conservatives have been twiddling their thumbs since 2006 instead of fulfilling the obligation resulting from the international convention that Canada ratified in 2005, which seeks to implement laws and measures to prevent direct or indirect nuclear threats and ensure that Canadians are safe.
In this regard, it is important to mention that the NDP is determined to promote multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, particularly in areas of common concern, for example, everything to do with keeping Canada and the world safe from nuclear threats. We must therefore work with the other main countries working on ratifying these conventions.
Canada has also agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. Therefore, it is important to fulfill our obligations before the implementation process at the national level is completed. If I am not mistaken, that is coming very soon, in 2014. So, it was time to act. Unfortunately, as I said, I do not understand why the Conservatives dragged their feet during all that time. They have been in office since 2006 and they have done absolutely nothing. Had they asked for the NDP's co-operation, we would have helped them pass this legislation, which respects international conventions.
In fact, we want to be co-operative. That is why we are going to support this bill at second reading and examine it more thoroughly in committee, pursuant to a democratic process, as I mentioned earlier. In Canada's democratic institutions, it is absolutely necessary, critical and relevant to follow a process whereby a study is properly conducted by a committee. We must have time to prepare, to call experts, to listen to them, to weigh the pros and cons, and to write a report that is submitted to the House of Commons. Again, that was not done in the case of Bill C-45. The approach used was undemocratic, and the Conservatives are the ones who resorted to it.
It is quite telling to see that it is the Senate, an unelected body, that proposed this legislation at last. What was the Conservative government doing during all that time? Nothing. The Conservatives stood idly by. That is what is deplorable, because the NDP was prepared to co-operate with them.
We fully support respecting international conventions. Since 2005, Canada has signed two of those very important conventions. That is the direction we must take. We must properly follow a legislative and democratic process. That is why we support this bill. We want it to pass.
Incidentally, the New Democratic Party also believes that we should take a serious look at the issue of nuclear safety and meet our international obligations to co-operate more efficiently with other countries. It is important to ensure international co-operation. We have long enjoyed a good international reputation. Unfortunately, under the Conservatives, that reputation has really been tarnished, whether we are talking about compliance with conventions or the environment.
We are presently in Doha and, once again, we are collecting fossil awards because we refuse to co-operate with other countries. We now have a bad reputation on the world stage. That is not what New Democrats want. On the contrary, they want co-operation, whether the issue is nuclear safety or the environment.
I would urge the Conservatives to change their ways to ensure better co-operation with other countries. We must all support this bill to ensure the safety of Canadians and of other countries.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, it was introduced via the Senate. We had Senator Dallaire, a former general, who suggested that we needed to amend it. One of the things he made reference to, and they had moved it, was to allow for prohibiting the making of radioactive devices.
The point is, as we go into committee there is a need for us to recognize that in principle this is legislation we can and should support. However, Canada does have a larger role to play in looking at what we are doing internally, and what we could do to further enhance the strength of this legislation so we are speaking from a position of strength at the local level.
Could the member comment on that?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant question.
As I mentioned in my speech, it is very important for Canada to take a leadership role in international negotiations. Canada could show a lot more leadership and initiative in terms of nuclear security.
My colleague mentioned the support of Lieutenant-General Dallaire, whom I respect a great deal for the excellent work he has done both here and abroad. He is a very committed man and I admire him a lot.
It would be very important for Canada to take a leadership role. An NDP government would work to improve our international co-operation.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is regarding the timing. We know that both of the treaties were signed in 2005, and we are now sitting at the end of 2012. We know that the treaties cannot be ratified until domestic legislation is up to par with the needs to meet the treaty requirements. The bill is trying to do that, trying to ensure that our domestic requirements are met so we can actually ratify the treaty.
My question is twofold. One, why has it taken so long? We have had the same people in government since 2005, when the treaties were signed, and it is now 2012. Also, why was ensuring Canadian and global security against nuclear terrorism not a priority for the government?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. She also made an excellent speech on Bill S-9 earlier today.
She is absolutely right. It is completely unacceptable and it makes no sense. Why has the Conservative government been dragging its feet since 2006?
As I mentioned earlier, we would have offered our full co-operation to comply with the international conventions. We must do even more than simply complying with them; we must be a leader when it comes to negotiating treaties, whether they have to do with the environment or—as is the case here—protecting Canadians from nuclear risks.
The Conservatives dragged their feet and missed their opportunity to take responsibility for the conventions that they signed in 2005. That is why they are dealing with this fallout. The Senate finally woke up and introduced this bill, but it should have come from this House. The Conservatives have unfortunately not done their job here.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-9, which would amend the Criminal Code to implement the criminal law requirements of two international counterterrorism treaties.
The NDP does support the bill at second reading, and it is important to get the bill to committee and to study it further. It is also important to have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons to explore different issues and problems, and to work together with other MPs, regardless of political affiliation, to try to glean a better understanding of this legislation and what changes Canada needs to make to the Criminal Code to deal with nuclear terrorism. This is a good opportunity for us to come together and have a debate in the House. We will support this legislation at second reading so we can get the bill to committee and then hear from experts, and whomever we need to hear from, to make sure we are putting forward the best bill that we can.
To start off, I thought we could look at our international treaty obligations. The bill was introduced in the Senate earlier this year to implement the criminal law requirements of two international counterterrorism treaties, specifically the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. To date, Canada has not ratified either of these treaties, and that is because Canada does not yet have the legislation in place to criminalize the offences that are outlined in these two documents. In a case where the implementation of a treaty requires amendments to Canadian legislation, a treaty is ratified only when such amendments or new legislation has been passed.
The amendments in Bill S-9 would introduce into the Criminal Code, Canada's efforts to align our domestic legislation with what is required by both conventions internationally. If the amendments become law, then presumably Canada will be in a situation where we could ratify these two treaties, something that Canada as well as other countries committed to working toward, both at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C., and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Korea.
The NDP is committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern like nuclear terrorism. No one could possibly not agree that nuclear terrorism is a great common concern, no matter where one is living in the global community. We need to work with other leading countries toward ratifying these conventions.
Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. We have said out loud to the world that we would like to be bound by these conventions. It is important to fulfill those international obligations, and we cannot do that until the domestic implementation is complete. We welcome the bill and the government's attempt to implement our obligations and start down the path toward ratification.
However, we do need to talk about some important considerations concerning the bill, both in the House as well as at committee. It is interesting to note that these considerations arose during the bill's study in the Senate. It is important to look at what happened while this was being studied by the Senate because some very interesting things came out. As I pointed out, this issue is of great common concern, but it is also an issue that we need to get right. We need to fully understand how to address this issue and make sure we are putting the best piece of domestic legislation forward.
I am going to talk about three main areas that came up in the Senate study. The first is that of overbreadth.The intention of the Department of Justice drafters was probably to adhere as closely as possible to the defined terms in the convention, but some of the new Criminal Code offences are broader in scope than the offences found in these individual international agreements. We have to be certain that the overbreadth of these sections will not result in undue criminalization, and we have to make sure they will not go against our charter of rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unique to Canada. We need to spend extra time making sure we get this right.
The next subject that arose, and again it is not a huge concern, but it is of enough concern that we need to have a fulsome study and gain greater understanding of this issue, is penalties.
The maximum penalties that can be imposed for any of the four new offences are substantial. We will even see a life imprisonment maximum for three of the four offences. The penalities are substantial. They are strict. They reflect the requirement, under these two treaties, that parties make the offences punishable by penalties appropriate to the grave nature of the offences. There are no mandatory minimums in Bill S-9, and I think that is to be noted.
I am not saying that this is a piece of great alarm. I am not saying that it is something we need to throw out. I am just saying that there needs to be a very fulsome consideration of this issue at committee. I think we need to bring in as many experts as we possibly can to help us understand whether the penalties are actually appropriate to the nature of the offences, whether they go too far or whether they do not go far enough. That is something I am not prepared to make a decision on standing here. I would want to hear from experts to see whether the penalties are appropriate.
As I have indicated, the NDP supports this bill going to committee. We will vote for it at second reading. We expect to vigorously participate at committee. We expect that we will probably vote for it at third reading as well, because we are anxious to make sure we have the domestic legislation to fulfill our international treaty obligations. Overall we are completely behind this bill. It is a necessary measure of Canada's international co-operation against threats related to nuclear terrorism of various forms.
In a world of technological sophistication that increases the ability to steal material, attack installations, make radioactive devices and so on, it is impossible to overstate the importance of such co-operation. Indeed, it is impossible to overstate Canada's role in that co-operation.
We wish to see the bill become law as rapidly as possible, while, at the same time, it achieves that balance. We emphasize that we need close technical scrutiny of the bill in committee. This is still called for to ensure that it has been drafted in the best way to fulfill our obligations under these two treaties. Then we can go on. Once we ratify, we will no longer be in non-compliance.
That brings me to another issue that came up in the Senate study that I think we need to address both here in the House and at committee. That is the fact that there seems to have been a major omission in the government's bill, the bill that went to the Senate before coming to us. What was that omission?
In the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, ICSANT, article 2(1)(a) includes the offence of making a radioactive device. Bill S-9, in its original form before the Senate, did not include this activity, despite mentioning every other type of activity that was also in the two treaties: possession, use, transport, export, import, alteration and disposal. The Senate caught this omission, which is great. The mistake has been rectified, and now we do not have a problem with the bill we have before us from the Senate. I think that underlines the point that we should take a pause and ask questions.
If something as significant as making a radioactive device was missing from the original treaty, perhaps something else could have been overlooked. What if there is some accident of inaccuracy? What if we are not including something we have not thought of in the drafting of this bill?
That is exactly why we have the legislative process we have. We can debate in the House. We can go to committee. We can hear from experts and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They can be part of the legislative process. They can guide us and give us advice, whether it be technical or about their hopes and dreams or their vision for a safe country.
We need to have that exploration at committee. I do not think it is something that can be rushed. We will all look forward to that debate and discussion at committee.
Mr. Speaker, when I was addressing the issue, I made reference to the fact that these are agreements that were signed many years ago. In fact, if we look to their origins, we can date some of them back to former Prime Minister Chrétien and former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who recognized them as important issues and ultimately played a role in terms of the agreements being signed.
The issue we have to address, at least in part today, is the substance of the legislation. However, one could also call into question why it has taken the government so long to process it through the House of Commons. It seems that the support is there from all political parties in terms of the principles of trying to deal with the importance of nuclear terrorism.
Would the member provide comment as to whether she thinks the time has come to get this done?
Mr. Speaker, there is a balance required between delay and having a fulsome discussion and study. This was introduced in the last Parliament. I do not have any advice as to why the bill was not brought forward. The technical procedural elements and those kinds of delays are different from spending time looking at the legislation and hearing from witnesses with respect to it.
I do appreciate that the member brought up the point that we have signed this international obligation and that it is important for us to have domestic legislation. I do wish those requirements would have been asked with respect to other pieces of international treaties, such as the international convention on social and economic rights, which we signed in 1970. It states that there is a right to housing in Canada; yet we do not have any domestic legislation with respect to that. Therefore, I wish that in some of those other treaties we had the requirement to bring forward domestic legislation in order to ratify those treaties.
Share on Twitter or Facebook
View on Parliament's site
This is not a government site.
Not even sort of.
Debates (Hansard)
Feedback / Contact
Developers (JSON)