The IDB was first celebrated on December 29 when the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on Biodiversity in 1993.  Canada played a leading role countering George Bush’s attempts to prevent it.

Just over ten years ago in 2002, the world’s leaders agreed to work on reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Sadly, they have not achieved their goal. In fact, the various factors that lead to such loss have, in too many cases, intensified.

The consequences of this global failure will impact on our water, food systems, health, environmental and physical security, including the severity of climate change, and even our planetary culture. As usual, the poor are and will continue to suffer the most as they try to eke out a living from an increasingly barren and hostile planet.

The Green Party calls on the Harper Conservatives to do much more to support, both financially and practically, the implementation of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This is not a “green” issue; it concerns the future of our earth.

The post Green Party Marks International Day for Biodiversity appeared first on Elizabeth May.

How do you re-make a country?  How do you transform values and a culture without asking permission?

It may seem a strange parallel, but what Stephen Harper is doing to Canada reminds me of what Roman Emperor Constantine did to Christianity.  He might have said “You won’t recognize Christianity when I am through with it,” although he certainly did not.  He took a clandestine and illegal religious practice and made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. (So, not so much what Harper is doing.)  Set all that aside for the bits that I find reminiscent of what is happening to Canada under Harper.

Constantine understood the importance of symbols.  The persecuted Christians celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday, and they shunned such pagan trappings of sun worship as candles, incense, processions, cloaks, and hierarchical priesthoods.  To allow Christianity to be accepted among the pagans, a few adjustments were needed.  Worship moved to Sunday (a nice nod to the sun worshippers who were said to be able from the steps of most churches to make their usual bow to their sun god on the way in to church). And all those pagan trappings – candles, incense, robes and so on moved to the heart of the Roman church.  As a practicing Christian I love all those elements of liturgy, but I grew up with them.  Imagine the shock of those previously thrown to the lions to discover that the bargain that allowed open worship was to accept wholesale the icons of another faith.

Stephen Harper is remaking Canada, one brick at a time.  The legislative fabric of the country is being decimated through omnibus bills and legislation designed, not as good public policy, but as messages suited for a focus group.  He is re-making our civil service into an arm of his PMO, filled with terrorized and demoralized men and women who hope that someday they will be permitted to do their job once again. And he has rallied Canadians to any number of Roman-like circuses to keep our minds off the activity behind the Coliseum.  In 2012, we saw $28 million splashed around for the celebration of the Bicentenary of the War of 1812.  The 60th anniversary of her Majesty’s reign cost $8 million and $5 million each for the centenaries of the Grey Cup and the Calgary Stampede.  Clearly, Stephen Harper likes whipping us up into a fervor about anniversaries of milestones in Canadian history  —  but only certain milestones….  The 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms went uncelebrated.

Which brings me to our new $20 bill.  It is repulsive to the touch.  A new shiny, polymer; gone is the texture of linen.  The claim is that it will deter counterfeits. According to the fellows with whom I chat at BC Ferries, the bills are a headache.  They stick together and they tear easily.  They are rumoured to melt near flame.  Some media coverage has lamented that the maple leaf on the new bill is an invasive species.  Gone is the Canadian sugar maple, replaced with the Norway maple.  (You’ve seen one tree, you’ve seen them all). Bank of Canada spokespeople defend the new leaf as a “stylized blend” of various Canadian maples.  Botanists are not impressed.

The loss of an indigenous tree is a perfect metaphor for the rest of the bill.  The changes are as invasive as a Norway maple.  We have lost the most iconic and inspiring piece of monetized Canadian art.  Haida artist Bill Reid’s masterpieces adorned the old bills.  Raven discovering mankind in a clam shell (a Creation myth that occurred on the beach at Masset), the “Spirit of Haida Gwaii” canoe, with its spiritual and mythical creatures, the face of the moon, the killer whale – all superimposed on the back of the twenty.  In very fine print, the words (in English and French), a quote from Quebec writer, Gabrielle Roy:

“Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?”
« Nous connaîtrions-nous seulement un peu nous-mêmes, sans les arts? »

I loved that bill, not least because I had the great privilege of knowing Bill Reid, and of visiting his warehouse on False Creek, Vancouver while Spirit Canoe was being carved.  Bill Reid’s hands shook too much from Parkinson’s at that point for him to do the carving, so an apprentice helped him.  The apprentice was brilliant Haida leader, Guujaaw, now President of the Council of the Haida Nation.  Bill had pointed out to me the symbolism of that mythical craft.  The trickster Raven held the tiller, with a dozen other spirit creatures  — Bear, Bear Mother,  Dogfish-woman, Eagle, Frog, Wolf, a Haida Watchman, and others all crammed into the canoe.  The largest of the sculptures was cast in bronze and sits in front of our embassy in Washington, DC. A Jade Spirit Canoe is in the Vancouver airport (as you go toward international departures – or for most of us — the bus connection to the ferry), while a much smaller plaster cast is in prominent position at the Ottawa-Gatineau Museum of  Civilization (now re-named the Museum of Canadian History).

And what art has replaced Bill Reid’s powerful sculptures?  The monument to Canadian death in battle in the First World War.  The Vimy Ridge Monument in France commemorates the emergence of a unified Canadian fighting force from four different divisions.  Over 7,000 Canadians were wounded in that spring 1917 assault and over 3,500 were killed.  The loss of life and the historical significance are undisputed – but why this monument (in a particularly ugly rendition)?

Stephen Harper understands symbols and icons.  In the same way that John Baird had his business cards re-made without the name of the building in which his department resides (the Lester B. Pearson Building), Stephen Harper wants us to hard-wire our patriotism to battle, blood and glory.

What more iconic statement can there be of the effort to remake our values than by taking away our mythological and spiritual symbols and replacing them with a slippery bill featuring a war monument and a non-Canadian maple?

Hang on to your old twenty dollar bills.  The new version of Canada does not fit our reality.  It’s the real counterfeit.

The post How to re-make a country appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“As a nation with such diversity, all histories need to be known, all voices need to be expressed. As someone who faced racism as a child, I know how important it is to celebrate, recognize and respect the contributions of Black Canadians to Canada,” said Georges Laraque, Green Party Deputy Leader.

“We can reflect on Black history in Canada and realize some of the immense changes that have happened over the span of a few generations. Then we can look forward to a future of even greater equality and cooperation. Black history should give us all hope that with courage and perseverance, dreams can be achieved,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The post Green Party Celebrates Black History Month appeared first on Elizabeth May.

International Day of the World’s Indigenous People was first proclaimed by the United Nations in 1994, and Canada signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples last year in June.

However, the commitment to uphold rights has yielded nothing in terms of results from the Harper Conservatives. Instead, the curtailing of consultation with First Nations in the Environmental Assessment process, cuts to Aboriginal health programmes and the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline-and-tanker scheme are just a few examples indicating that the Harper Conservatives are not interested in empowering the voices of indigenous Canadians. The treatment being given to Indigenous language speakers at the Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge Northern Gateway project is a particularly appalling example.  While many First Nations have presented at the hearings, their voices are not properly materializing in the official published transcripts.  Instead, translators are inserting placeholders indicating ‘native word’, an inaccurate and disrespectful label that demeans oral Aboriginal traditional knowledge.

The Green Party of Canada recognizes that Aboriginal cultures, languages and histories are a fundamental source of our Canadian identity. A responsible government would promote and protect indigenous media, provide protection for indigenous intellectual and artistic property rights, and support the development of Aboriginal education curricula that are language and culture specific.

The post International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am very comfortable with language about valuing Canada.  I love Canada. No doubt about it. I consider myself a patriot.  In fact, ever since receiving the honour of being made an Officer of the Order of Canada, I have taken the words of “O Canada” very seriously indeed.  “We stand on guard for thee” is personal.  And I tend to see it in terms of standing on guard for wilderness and ecosystems and future generations, which means standing on guard for environmental science and laws and policy.

But not until the details of 420 pages of C-38 came to light did I realize that Stephen Harper is doing something extraordinary for the 200^th Anniversary of the War of 1812.  That flag he has wrapped himself in is a white flag. He is surrendering.

How else to explain that 200 years after protecting the sovereignty of the land that is now Canada and ensuring it was not subsumed by our southern neighbour, we are passing legislation to allow US law enforcement agents onto Canadian territory to enforce US laws. What would Laura Secord have made of that plot?  Had she discovered it with her wandering cow, would she have turned Stephen Harper in?

The post The War of 1812 and the Surrender of 2012 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Saanich-Gulf Islands representative Elizabeth May is one of five Canadian MPs to receive all-star status and compete for votes to sit in the “hot seat” for political affairs show #FAQMP’s season finale.

The show, which airs Monday evenings on ichannel, incorporates public interest by selecting participants and asking them questions according to the input received on its website.

“Throughout the season we’ll interview the most popular MPs, using the questions you’ve sent,” promotional material for the series promises.

View the full original article >>

The post Elizabeth May makes all-star status on political affairs show appeared first on Elizabeth May.

While many First Nations have presented at the hearings, their voices are not properly materializing in the official published transcript.  Instead, translators are inserting placeholders indicating ‘native word’, an inaccurate and disrespectful label.  This is despite the offer of several First Nations to provide translation assistance.

“The significance and legality of the right to present in your original language, as well as the need to preserve, and respect Indigenous languages, cannot be overstated,” said Rekmans.  “If the panel was sincere about including oral Aboriginal traditional knowledge, these gross mistranslations in the transcripts would not be allowed to occur.”

Presentations are not being recorded in the original language, such that translations have to suffice. 

“Translations are an inadequate manner to capture the concepts presented by Aboriginal speakers, especially about such complex issues as relationships to the land.  But, they are not even attempting a high quality translation.  Frankly, the level of apathy regarding the accuracy of the official transcript is alarming,” said Rekmans. “One wonders if the need for speed is becoming foremost.  How the panel can base their decision on these deficient transcripts is inconceivable—they won’t even know what was said.”

The official transcript is riddled with this placeholder ‘native word’ which, as rabble.ca writer Tyler McCreary points out, is not respectful of the different languages being used.  He says, “People do not speak “native” any more than they speak “European” or “Asian.” People speak unique languages. They speak English and French, which likely the panel would recognize, as well as Dakelh and Wet’suwet’en languages, which apparently the panel cannot even recognize as distinct languages.”

“The panel must rectify these defects in the transcripts and improve their efforts moving forward,” said Rekmans.

The post Pipeline Hearings Disrespectful to Indigenous Languages appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Hon. John Baird: Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), missions submit advocacy project proposals to the Planning, Advocacy and Innovation Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which are then reviewed and assessed against Government of Canada priorities. It is common practice for the officials involved and our missions to have back and forth discussions regarding these proposals, before making final eligibility decisions. The recommendation from the Climate Change and Energy Division was based on current priority areas for climate change funding, including the provision of support to assist vulnerable countries in tangible ways to adapt to climate change, and to support their substantive participation in international climate change negotiations.

In response to (b)(i), on May 2, 2011, a request was forwarded by a public affairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer at the Canadian embassy in Zagreb. The exchange provided further background and discussion on the proposal.

In response to (b)(ii), the above-mentioned email communication was from a public sffairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome to the Climate Change and Energy Division, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer in the Canadian embassy in Zagreb.

In response to (b)(iii), May 2 and April 21, 2011.

In response to (c), in order to redact information requested under the Access to Information Act, DFAIT relies on recommendations from subject matter experts within the program areas who provided the records, recommendations from other involved program areas, as well as the review and discretion exercised by experienced officials within the Access to Information division. Information was redacted in certain instances where its release was determined to cause a specific, current and probably injury. Paragraph 20(1)(c) was invoked to exempt sensitive financial information belonging to a third party. Paragraph 21(1)(b) was invoked to protect the frank exchange of ideas between government officers. Subsection 15(1)–International was invoked in some instances to protect Canada’s position for the purpose of international negotiations, and in others to protect Canada’s relations with foreign governments.

In response to (d), Foreign Affairs and International Trade provides operational funds to Canadian missions to promote and defend Canada’s interests abroad in line with government priorities. While funding for the mission project proposal was identified and provisionally approved by DFAIT, upon further consultations, we did not provide funds to our mission in Zagreb. Thus funding to the artist was never given, nor was it withdrawn. Any implication of political interference involving DFAIT’s decision is false.

The post Question No. 380 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am going to approach this bill a little differently from the way some other members have. I think we need to recognize the context of where we are at second reading. This bill is going to go to committee. What I would like to do is dedicate my remarks and focus on a rather direct appeal to members on the government benches to take the opportunity to seize a victory that they could have by putting forward a bill that would have the support of all the groups that are now being critical. I do not think that is impossible at all.

We recognize that there have been some improvements. There is general agreement by all knowledgeable people in this area that we need to modernize the Copyright Act and that we have significant challenges with new technologies. I sometimes think about this place, this room, this House of Commons, and try to imagine our predecessors in Parliament in the 1930s trying to grapple with what we are speaking about today. It is all new, and it changes fast.

Almost as quickly as we might legislate this bill, we will find that we need to make additional changes to deal with new implications and new ways in which copyright becomes recognized and the way in which copyright is challenged creative rights need to be protected.

What I would like to do is concentrate my remarks not in attacking the bill so much, although I do have to attack sections of it, but with a goal of hoping that when this bill goes to committee, amendments will be allowed.

We have seen a worrying trend in this 41st Parliament; it is as though amendments to legislation after first reading are somehow incremental defeats of the government of the day, whereas in fact it is common practice in Parliaments around the world, and certainly in the Canadian Parliament, to recognize that a bill at first reading is not perfect. It can use improvement, and using the committee in as non-partisan a way as possible will bring improvements to the legislation.

When I look at this legislation and what the government has said, I see in the preamble, which always guides statutory interpretation:

…the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the protection of copyright works or other subject-matter, including through the recognition of technological protection measures,

—and this is the important part—

in a manner that promotes culture and innovation, competition and investment in the Canadian economy;

It goes on to say:

And whereas Canada’s ability….is fostered by encouraging the use of digital technologies for research and education;

A tremendous balancing is being suggested here and is being aspired to by the government in its preamble. It falls short, but we do not need to be condemnatory; there is much in the bill that is an improvement. The problems that remain tend to focus in one specific area, and that area has been referenced a good deal in the debate today: digital rights management and the use of devices and technology such as digital locks.

That is just a preamble to my point. We also see in the very beginning of the bill, in the preamble, that the Government of Canada wants our legislation to meet new global norms. It specifically refers to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which I will just refer to as WIPO. That WIPO treaty is one to which Canada wants to adhere.

However, numerous commentators have pointed out that the legislative approach in this bill exceeds anything required by WIPO. I am hoping that the government can pull back slightly–in a significant way, actually–from the parts of the bill that members on the opposite benches find unacceptable. Really, the government has accommodated a lot of concerns and has improved the bill. I know it is virtually the same as Bill C-32 in the last Parliament, but it has gone through some improvements from its first iterations. We are close.

Government members on committee, with the direction from the Prime Minister’s Office, I am sure, taking a keen interest in this bill, could actually accommodate the different concerns of critics and emerge with a bill that would earn praise across all parts of the House of Commons.

Professor Michael Geist has been referred to in the debates this afternoon. He is a professor at the University of Ottawa and is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I found his comment quite appropriate to my own sense. He criticized the bill initially as flawed but fixable. He still holds to that view–flawed but fixable–so let us fix it.

What he said he finds problematic is that as he sees it, the bill is an omnibus bill that combines two different pieces of legislation.

The first piece is the part that I think I can speak for all members of other parties, but I think it is fair to say that most members in the House find the first bit, which he described as the copyright modernization act, to be quite acceptable, generally good. Maybe some of the restrictions go too far, but overall, it is good progress in copyright modernization.

He describes the other part of the law, which we find unacceptable, and he has given it a title, “The reduce U.S. pressure copyright act”. The problems have emerged in that area.

The problems are in two areas, and I will refer to the first. Briefly, it is constitutional. The constitutional problem is simple to describe. Copyright is clearly an area of federal jurisdiction, whereas property rights are provincial. To the extent that we have intruded into property rights, we have a problem. This has been described in a learned article published by professors Crowne-Mohammed and Rozenszajn, both from the University of Windsor, in the Journal of Information, Law and Technology in which the authors describe the problem this way:

The DRM provisions of Bill C-61 represent a poorly veiled attempt by the Government to strengthen the contractual rights available to copyright owners, in the guise of copyright reform and the implementation of Canada’s international obligations.

Let us de-link them. Let us protect the rights and protect copyright reform without acceding to pressure from U.S. interests, which want to have excessively restrictive controls in the form of digital locks. That is setting aside the constitutional issue.

The next set of concerns I would like to raise really relate to public policy concerns. One of the very strong groups of critics on this matter is the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. I should confess that the Public Interest Advocacy Centre was the organization that initially brought me to Ottawa in 1985. I left a law practice in Halifax to become senior general counsel to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, not really a conflict of interest but a convergence of my history. I wish to quote their legal position:

Consumers enjoy certain rights to use content without infringing copyright. The presence of technological measures doesn’t change that, and neither should anti-circumvention laws. Consumers must be able to circumvent technological measures, like DRM, providing that their access to the underlying content does not infringe copyright.

It goes on to say, “Anti-circumvention laws shouldn’t statutorily undermine the values that are invoked in public policy goals such as consumer welfare, free speech, and innovation”. That is a public policy concern that comes from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

As members throughout the House will know, the bill has been criticized by many groups, but those criticisms are not in multiple sections of the act. They focus very clearly on the problem of digital locks.

Another group that has taken the digital lock section in its crosshairs is the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, also based at the University of Ottawa. They point out:

Unfortunately, the bill also succumbs to U.S. pressure and makes fair dealing–including the new exceptions for the many ordinary activities of Canadians–illegal whenever there is a “digital lock” on a work. A digital lock will trump all other rights, forbidding all fair dealing and keeping a work locked up even after its copyright term expires. Overall, these digital lock provisions are some of the most restrictive in the world.

This again is an issue where we are exceeding what is required of us to meet international norms under the WIPO Treaty. The digital lock provisions go too far.

We have heard from members opposite on the government benches that the bill needs to do all these things because we must protect Canadian jobs. I just want to speak to that.

The Canadian arts and culture industry, as we realize, is a very important part of our economy. It is a $46 billion industry annually. It employs over 600,000 people. The government should take note of the fact that most of the professional organizations that represent the creative force in the arts and culture community collectively and separately have called on the government to amend the legislation, have urged it to amend the legislation.

I will not read out all the names of the organizations, but there is an organization to which I also confess to belong, the Writers’ Union of Canada, but beyond that there is also the Royal Canadian Academy of the Arts, Société québécoise des auteurs dramatiques, and the Writers Guild of Canada.

Therefore, I ask the government to consider, why would it be that just about every organization in the country representing creative people appreciate some portions of the bill and find others go too far? With that, I ask the hon. members opposite to please consider amendments, improve the bill…

The post Copyright Modernization Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.