The second point is that for all that CETA has more attention than the Canada-China Investment Treaty, it does not have enough either.

Unlike the Canada-China Investment Treaty, this trade deal is one the Prime Minister has not kept under a barrel.  It has already been over-hyped by PMO with Stephen Harper claiming the deal will bring $12 billion worth of benefit toCanada. Even though this figure was called into question by an assessment conducted by the European Commission, a study that put the benefits at a more conservative $3-6 billion, Mr. Harper continues to use the exaggerated figure.

The proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (known as CETA) is an ambitious attempt to cover huge aspects of our economy – impacting health care costs, supply management in agriculture, procurement, arts and culture to name a few.  As well, like the Canada-China Investment Treaty it would create opportunities for arbitration for claims for the EU investors against Canada and vice versa. It has been on a three year negotiation track with the goal of concluding negotiations by the end of this year. But Matthias Brinkmann, head of the European Union Delegation to Canada, thinks the deadline may not be met.  Speaking in Halifax on October 22, 2012,  Brinkmann confirmed that little to no progress has been made on most of the key issues.  The issues identified as among those Brinkmann describes as leaving the most difficult until last include patent protection for pharmaceuticals, procurement rules for public projects, supply management in agriculture, rules of origin and investor-state provisions.

That’s a long list to get done by the end of this year.  And then there’s the approval process.  The EU must vote to approve and so must each parliament of the 27 member states. And some member states are already angry with Canada over more restrictive Visa requirements (Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria) and quite a lot of parliamentarians, certainly all those in green Parties in the EU Parliament itself, as well as Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Italy, to name a few, are concerned about Canada’s efforts to over-turn the Carbon Fuel Standard, disrupt global climate negotiations, undermine the Kyoto Protocol,  our appalling obstruction in June 2011 at the Rotterdam Convention asbestos discussions, to name a few.  Even if this agreement were negotiated between Canada and the EU, approval is far from a sure thing.  One thing the Prime Minister cares about (CETA) could be sabotaged by his record on things he thought didn’t matter (Kyoto, climate, asbestos).

Take it as read that the Green Party will support the civil society groups that are opposed to higher prices for pharmaceutical drugs by granting greater patent protection to EU Big Pharma. We will oppose any agreement that undermines our ability to ensure municipal water systems remain public, or that undercut the Canadian arts and culture sector.  We will insist that any new trade agreement be about fair trade and a fair deal for Canadians.

There is no need to rush the negotiations to a desperate last push this year.  Given the EU approval process, it is more important to get the right deal than a rushed deal.

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Originally printed in Embassy News.

The post Get the right deal, not a rushed deal appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Because binoculars are not allowed in the public galleries, one has to squint to make out the figure of Elizabeth May tucked away in the farthest corner of the House of Commons.

But hidden away in democracy’s attic, the Green party MP is there — always — leading her party of one.

May has had to reinvent herself since winning her Saanich—Gulf Islands seat last May, her hope of working toward a coalition government giving way to the loneliest of existences, a solo voice that a Conservative majority seek to silence.

View the full original article >>

The post Meet Elizabeth May, Commons mall cop appeared first on Elizabeth May.

How else to explain the disgraceful episode last week during which Elizabeth May was denied the privilege to speak, ironically on the subject of free speech?

Picture the scene. Members of other parties had just wrapped up their tributes to playwright Vaclav Havel, the late Czech dissident-turned-president. Ms. May tried to take her turn. As the sole Green MP, she does not benefit from official party status and needs the unanimous consent of the House to proceed. But instantaneous objections arose from the Conservative benches, so Ms. May was forced to sit down, literally speechless.

View the full original article >>

The post Commons courtesy: Give Greens some oxygen appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It has been reported that unidentified members of Parliament denied Elizabeth May the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons on Monday. She wanted to pay tribute to the late and highly regarded Vaclav Havel, so I’m guessing that she was not intending to be critical of the government in any way. May has said that it was Tory MPs who prevented her from speaking and I believe her. She was also denied the opportunity last year to speak about Remembrance Day. What is it that these Tories are so afraid of?

View the full original article >>

The post What do Tories fear? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

My concerns with time allocation on Bill C-11 are similar to those of the hon. member of the official opposition. I am concerned that the government House leader and the Conservative Party members do not give the respect that is required toward the functioning of Parliament as a whole and I wish they would. I know the government House leader objected to my tribute to Vaclav Havel, for example.

Free speech in the House is something that should matter to all members. We are elected as equals. In this case we see time allocation over and over again. When we debate time allocation, the inevitable result is representatives of smaller parties, and I admit it only applies to five of us here, such as me for the Green Party, are deprived of the opportunity to debate. The House of Commons itself is the Government of Canada, not an individual party. The result of time allocation, particularly when the government House leader said that to have a full debate under Westminster parliamentary democracy would in itself represent an instability which would jeopardize our economy, suggests that the Conservatives find democracy not only inconvenient but dangerous.

Hon. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, on the topic of the legislation before us, the government is actually restoring the identical bill from the previous Parliament to where it was in the previous Parliament so we can continue consideration of it.

I know it is my hon. colleague’s first term. This is my 12th year as a member of Parliament and I can tell her that except for the Liberal government’s Bill C-2, the response to 9/11, this legislation will have had more consideration at a stand-alone legislative committee and parliamentary and public consideration with all of the tens of thousands of submissions we received from Canadians in person and in writing and the consultations we did across the country before we drafted the bill. Then we drafted the legislation.

There was reaction to Bill C-32. The committee was considering the bill. I think the committee on Bill C-32 received over 100 witnesses before it, giving us constructive criticism and feedback on how the bill could go forward. Then we had an election.

However, we want to continue all the hard work that was done on Bill C-32. We want to carry it forward with Bill C-11 and continue the process as though it was uninterrupted because there is so much at stake and so much went into the drafting of the legislation.

My hon. colleague should know that this bill will have had more consideration by Canadians at two stand-alone legislative committees and more time in the House than any bill Parliament has seen since the Liberals’ Anti-terrorism Act back in 2001. That shows our commitment to ensuring we listen to all Canadians when it comes to getting intellectual property right.

The post Copyright Modernization Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Unfortunately, this was not the case yesterday when Ms. May was prevented from paying tribute to Vaclav Havel who, ironically, was dedicated to the struggle for and protection of democratic rights.

Ms. May’s protest action is also in response to the systematic silencing of MPs since the Conservative Party gained their coveted majority government.”We have to take every opportunity which the rules of the House offer to show Canadians that their valued democratic rights are being curtailed almost daily in what was once a House where varying opinions were respected and heard.”

The post MEDIA ALERT: Standing votes on opposition amendments to Bill C-19 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In case you missed it, early Monday evening Green party leader Elizabeth May rose in the House to add a few words on the late Czech president Vaclav Havel to those already offered up by Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney, NDP foreign affair critic Hélène Laverdière, and Liberal interim leader Bob Rae.

Then a curious thing happened. As May was about to deliver her remarks, Speaker Andrew Scheer rose to ask if she had the unanimous consent of the House to speak. By all accounts, at least a pair of ‘no’ answers came from the Conservative side of the floor — you can watch the exchange on the video at right. Twitter is still rumbling with disgust, the nay sayers have yet to reveal themselves, but here are the words that an uncivil House wouldn’t let May speak.

View the full original article >>

The post The Havel speech Elizabeth May was not allowed to give appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Some unidentified MPs blocked a tribute Monday to free speech icon Vaclav Havel by Green Leader Elizabeth May.

The House of Commons paused after question period in Ottawa to praise the political playwright who helped peace-fully bring down the communist government of Czechoslovakia and became the first president of the Czech Republic.

View the full original article >>

The post Commons rules muzzle May’s speech appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

And thank you to those who have just spoken to the spirit and inspiration or an extraordinary human being. I was particularly moved by the words of my friend, the Hon. Member from Toronto Centre.  Václav Havel’s life was of the order of Nelson Mandela, or Aung San Suu Kyi.  His genius as a playwright and poet put him also in the company of Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was murdered by the Abacha regime in Nigeria. Totalitarian regimes dislike the free speech of satirists and poets.

It was a nearly miraculous change of fate that both Mandela and Havel overthrew the oppression of earlier governments to become presidents.

It is the nature of a poet, a creative genius like Havel, to refuse to accept the world as he found it.  An unlikely politician, Havel never lost sight of his complex humanity.

I wish to share his own words with you and ask that we seek to emulate them.

“Let us teach ourselves that politics can not just be the art of the possible, especially if that means the art of speculation, calculation, intrigue, secret deals and pragmatic manoeuvering, but that it can even be the art of the impossible, namely the art of improving ourselves and the world.”

Let light perpetual shine upon him and let us live inspired by his example.

The post Statement for Václav Havel appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Saanich–Gulf Islands have the unanimous consent of the House to respond to the ministerial statement?

Some hon. members: No

The Speaker: There is no consent.

[Note – Prepared text can be found here:

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/blogs/2012/02/06/statement-for-vaclav-havel/]

The post Václav Havel appeared first on Elizabeth May.