Colleen BEAUMIER

BEAUMIER, Colleen, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Brampton West (Ontario)
Birth Date
November 8, 1944
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Beaumier
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=d0b90287-81b1-472f-9be6-3ad4429a7851&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
businesswoman

Parliamentary Career

October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
LIB
  Brampton (Ontario)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
LIB
  Brampton West--Mississauga (Ontario)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
LIB
  Brampton West--Mississauga (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (January 13, 2003 - December 11, 2003)
June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
LIB
  Brampton West (Ontario)
January 23, 2006 - September 7, 2008
LIB
  Brampton West (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 44)


November 15, 2007

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite amazing that everyone in the House pretends to be an expert on Islam. Of course the Muslim member for Don Valley East would know very little about it.

As Christians, we can stand here and say that we are going to heaven and they are going to hell because the man who teaches us interprets the Bible better than their preacher does.

We talk about Islam being a custom and not a religious requirement. I have heard the kirpan referred to in the past as a custom, not a religious requirement. This was settled in court and the court ruled that it was a religious requirement.

The member said that he spoke to a number of Muslims. Was it 50, 100, 500? That does not make him an expert on Islam. It does not make him an expert on whether this is a custom or a religious requirement.

He said that the members of the Muslim community asked for this. I am sure they did not ask for it because this non-issue has became a major issue. Is that not true? Did they come before or after we made this an issue?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Canada Elections Act
Full View Permalink

November 14, 2007

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the principle of Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment for substance abuse).

As many members of the House are aware, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which the bill aims to amend, already permits police officers or crown counsel to refer a young person to an addiction counselling program instead of rushing him or her off to judicial proceedings.

However, it does not do so explicitly and the bill would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act in a way which emphasizes this extra judicial alternative. In doing so, it explicitly acknowledges that addiction treatment rather than addiction punishment should be the Government of Canada's first priority.

Essentially, the bill acknowledges that drug addiction is, first and foremost, a mental health issue, not an issue of criminal justice. It is an important message to communicate explicitly to our law enforcement community. For this reason, I support sending this well-intentioned bill to committee for further scrutiny and refinement.

Nevertheless, however well-intentioned the bill may be, I am concerned that the present minority Conservative government does not truly understand or support the principle motivating the bill. To substantiate this worry, one need look no further than the government's recently announced anti-drug strategy that unnecessarily ratchets up the rhetoric of righteous wrath and retreats from the harm reduction measures favoured by Canadians.

Any strategy that focuses so much attention on the goal of punishment and so little attention on addiction treatment and harm reduction will not make our streets safer, our communities healthier or reduce our overpopulated prisons.

Canadians believe in a balanced approach to drug addiction. The heavy-handed approach recently advocated by the minority Conservative government is not in accord with the values of most Canadians or the fine principle at the heart of the bill. This is a worry worth expressing because, however well-intentioned the bill may be, if the Conservative government does not truly believe in the principles at the heart of the bill, little will be done for the well-being of young persons who get caught up in criminal activities because of a drug addiction.

There is little reason to pass a bill that recommends addiction counselling if the Government of Canada is unwilling to provide the resources necessary to fund such counselling. There is little reason to pass a bill that signals to our law enforcement community that the treatment of addiction is our top priority if the Government of Canada trumpets a heavy-handed, punishment focused approach to drug addiction.

As everyone in the House well knows, the present government is prepared to say anything to confuse Canadians on issues of principle and value and I am worried that any support expressed by the Conservative government for the bill will be one more instance of it trying to mislead Canadians about its true intentions.

Let us vote to send the bill to committee but let us be very clear on why we are doing so. The bill sends a strong signal that addiction should be treated as a mental health issue and not as an issue of criminal justice. We should all work to ensure that the present minority Conservative government always acts in accord with this principle.

Topic:   Private Members' Business
Subtopic:   Youth Criminal Justice Act
Full View Permalink

November 14, 2007

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Laval—Les Îles.

Topic:   Private Members' Business
Subtopic:   Youth Criminal Justice Act
Full View Permalink

October 23, 2007

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Liberal government brought it in. The intent of that bill was to alleviate poverty among seniors.

The member asked why the Liberals did not bring this in when they were in government. I do not know, maybe you were not born then either, but in 1993 when the Liberals came to power we were left a horrendous mess to deal with. These things have been on the list.

In 1951--

Topic:   Private Members' Business
Subtopic:   Old Age Security Act
Full View Permalink

October 23, 2007

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The Liberal government did bring in the Old Age Security Act, with the rules and regulations, in 1951, and I mean gee, just think, it was not perfect then--

Topic:   Private Members' Business
Subtopic:   Old Age Security Act
Full View Permalink