Mr. Speaker, we were all moved enormously and inspired by the words of Malala Yousafzai in this place just hours ago.

In her words, will the Prime Minister make girls’ education the central theme of his upcoming G7 presidency? Will he use the influence of Canada to help fill the global education funding gap? Will Canada offer to host the upcoming replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education? Will Canada prioritize 12 years of school for every refugee child?

Justin Trudeau – Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, it was a tremendous honour today to welcome Malala Yousafzai in this House, and I agree with the member opposite that it was a historic moment. It challenges us all to do more and to be more.

I can assure all members of the House that next year, in our G7 presidency, there will be a strong emphasis on gender equality and opportunity for women and girls across the world and here at home, including an emphasis on education.

I look forward to working with the Global Partnership for Education to ensure that we are investing properly in education right around the world, specifically for girls. I know that ensuring K-12 education for all girls around the world is one of the paths forward to creating peace and prosperity around the world, opportunity for all, and economic growth for our country and for the developing world. That is what we will do.

The post Parliament: Question to PM Trudeau on Supporting Global Education Efforts appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Throughout the program, participants work together in a collaborative environment to develop strategies for teaching about Parliament, democracy, governance and citizenship.

Participants are officially recognized for their excellence in teaching.

For more information, to apply (by April 30th), or to receive free educational resources, please visit the following websites:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/teachers
http://www.parl.gc.ca/education

The post Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[3FEWggTkrbA]

The fact that she was targeted, and we all feel this so keenly, I wish, as my friend from Mount Royal said, to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Ottawa South, my esteemed colleague from Mount Royal and my friend from the Bloc.

We stand in a non-partisan sense as Canadians whose values embrace the absolute right of young women to be the equivalent, the equals, of any man in their society. To have the right of education is something so fundamental that all of us are shocked to our core by what has happened to Malala.

It seems that in Pakistan the events have turned the tide against the Taliban, because people across various parts of that society recognize the evil in targeting a 14-year-old girl who wants nothing more than to be able to read, to write, to pursue her education and to pursue a life as a full-fledged member of that society.

Since there are very few words to add, I wonder if I could have the permission of my friends on all sides of the House to not think of Malala as a symbol but Malala as a 14-year-old girl who is lying in a hospital bed and, if we could, rise for a moment in contemplation and, if it moves us, in prayer, collectively as a House, to urge Malala’s well-being and to pray for her health.

The post Malala Yousufzai appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Green Party advocates changes that would enhance both teaching and learning.  We have called for a universal, child-care program for pre-schoolers.  We also have policies relating to the growing number of youths dropping out of school with no job prospects.  And, while education is a provincial matter, we believe the federal government should provide funding to increase the number of spaces at post-secondary institutions along with needs-based scholarships and bursaries to reduce financial barriers for potential students.  (Too many of our young graduates are facing terrible debt.)  We also support lifelong-learning programs.

Canada is transitioning into an information-based society – and, if the majority of Canadians have their way, a green economy.  These require research, creativity, and innovation.  They also depend on well-trained and respected teachers.  The Green Party thanks and salutes our teachers!

The post Teachers Day Statement appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Elizabeth May’s Health Care Solutions appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Our planet’s population reached 7 billion last October,” observed Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “Because of this, many try to blame ‘over-population’ for increasing global suffering, but it is more about political will.”

May noted that the Harper Conservatives’ slashing of $377.7 million from CIDA and Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) indicates that their political will is seriously lacking when it comes to honouring Canada’s stated commitment to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

The Goals, endorsed by Canada and 188 other UN members in 2000, vowed to minimize extreme poverty, hunger, and disease, and promote gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.  Even in 2010, Harper urged world leaders at a major UN summit on development aid to focus on results, not “lofty promises.”  He argued that:  “Together, we must keep our promises and work towards practical, durable solutions.”

The Harper Conservatives have also taken a dangerously wrong turn concerning access to legal abortions in the developing world.  Every year, at least 330,000 women die from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth.  Of these, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that almost 70,000 women die due to complications caused by unsafe abortions. 

During the 2010 G-8 Summit, the Harper Conservatives promised up to $1 billion in nutrition and health-care initiatives to promote maternal and child health in the developing world.  However, they also ended Canada’s traditional funding for legal abortions – ignoring global data showing that such restrictions only serve to increase the number of unsafe abortion procedures and complications.

“As the Harper Conservatives break in another CIDA minister, this is an excellent time for them to reverse their backward and cruel policy on legal abortion funding,” said May.  “This would help improveCanada’s increasingly negative international reputation – as well as saving lives,” May said.

Harper will also have an opportunity to develop more humane policies during a Family Planning Summit to be held in London, UK, on July 11. 

“I urge the Conservatives to use this summit to announce increased funding for sexual and reproductive health rights, including the rights of women and girls to have access to contraceptive information, services, and supplies, without coercion or discrimination,” said May.

The post World Population Day appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“As with all Canadians, the month of June begins with Canada’s Aboriginal communities wondering about the future of their natural surroundings, their healthcare, and their democracy,” said May.  “The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Shawn A-in-chut Atleo has denounced Bill C-38 as a disrespectful assault on First Nations’ constitutionally enshrined rights.

“The curtailing of consultation with First Nations in the Environmental Assessment process, gutting the Fisheries Act, decreased monitoring of pulp mill and mine effluent, opening up oil and gas exploration in a fragile section of the Arctic, and, of course, the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline-and-tanker scheme are just a few examples of how the Harper Conservatives are recklessly imperilling Canada’s original citizens.”

Aboriginal Affairs will see cuts of $26 million this year, $60 million in 2013, and $165 million in 2014.  Although the budget promised $275 million for education, at least 100 reserve schools are unsafe and in need of renovation – so this is a token gesture at best. 

The government has also committed $165 million a year for two years to build or renovate water and wastewater infrastructure, but this is inadequate.  There are only 12 water quality stations for Canada’s 3,000 First Nations communities, and just one federal monitoring station operating downstream from the oil sands, which concentrates on pulp mill pollution.

The First Nations Statistical Institute has had its funding cut.  It has been a central location for first-nations communities to access and store data securely and confidentially. 

Health Canada has cut all funding for the National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO) which will close on June 30 after 12 years. NAHO’s mandate was to advocate for and address the health needs of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit. 

“Cuts to Aboriginal services and support systems come at a time when the suicide rate is eleven times the national rate among the Inuit and seven times higher among the Aboriginal community,” May pointed out. “One in four First Nations children lives in poverty on- and off-reserve in remote and urban areas.”

Even the Special UN Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter was shocked after travelling to remote Aboriginal communities in Manitoba and Alberta and commented on the “very desperate conditions and people who are in extremely dire straits.”

“Nationally and internationally, Canada’s treatment of Aboriginal communities is a scandal,” said May.

“Canada signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples last year in June.  However, that commitment to uphold rights has yielded nothing in terms of results from this government for most of 2011 and 2012,” said Lorraine Rekmans, Aboriginal Affairs Critic for the Green Party of Canada.  “The shockingly desperate condition of the people of Attawapiskat last winter was brought to light even after Canada made promises to build a future in which Aboriginal families and communities are healthy, safe, self-sufficient, and prosperous within Canada.

“National Aboriginal History month is an opportunity for us to learn from the past and take lessons for a better future by shifting Canada’s relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to a positive track.  This reflection of the past is a sad look at the racist and colonial policies of yesterday, but it should also be a time for us to hope Canada will stand by its promises to make things right.”

The post National Aboriginal History Month Marred By Harper Cuts: First Nations “Hardest Hit by Harper Conservatives” appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We believe in the general principles of technological protection measures, but it has to be defined in a very clear manner. If we link the breaking of a technical protection measure to infringement, then that is breaking the law. However, we see that the hon. member is getting right down to how to negotiate a contract with Rogers or whomever on a PVR signal.

I am worried about the implications of going to that level of specificity in terms of unintended consequences. I find it is the same with her position on education and the idea that we would turn it over to the Governor in Council to define education. This has been one of the most difficult issues we have found.

The Supreme Court has dealt with the overall issue of how to define fair dealing, and we also have the Copyright Board to adjudicate these matters. The New Democratic Party is certainly very uncomfortable with the idea of giving that decision-making power to government. The member says it will be more nimble and flexible, but we are worried about accountability and actually doing it on the basis of evidence.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there could have been better solutions, perhaps during committee and so on. However, I think we have to ask ourselves whether we really want the meaning of “education” and the context of fair dealing to be a matter for the courts when we still have an opportunity to get some control over those aspects during the legislative process.

I agree with the member that having it go to the Governor in Council, which is essentially the cabinet, may not be as satisfactory as having the legislature come up with the definition, but in looking at who has access to the courts, who is most likely to take this to the Supreme Court and how the intent of fair dealing might be distorted through this process, I would refer to the advice and the citation that my hon. friend used, which were not my words but the words of Prof. D’Agostino from Osgoode Hall and York University. I think it is worth a chance.

In the meantime, of course I would be grateful for any support the official opposition gives to any of my amendments. I accept that the opposition finds some of them troublesome.

The post Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-11, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 17 the following:

“(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations defining “education” for the purposes of subsection (1).” 

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 23 with the following:

“paragraph (3)(a) to reproduce the lesson for non-infringing purposes.” 

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting line 42 on page 23 to line 3 on page 24.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for the second time to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Copyright Act. The first time I had the occasion to speak to the bill was at second reading, on November 22 last year. I had hoped at that time we would see significant improvements made to the bill through the committee process.

There have been several tries at amending copyright law. The first attempt to bring copyright law into the digital age was made back in 2005 by the previous Liberal government. Subsequent bills were brought forward, most recently, Bill C-32, which is what we see now, pretty much unchanged, as Bill C-11. In the process between the previous Liberal government’s attempt in 2005 and the bill presented by the current Conservative majority government, we have seen a leaning toward the rights primarily of U.S.-based entertainment industries.

I am not a member of the parliamentary committees, and I certainly am not making that point to complain. I understand my position here as leader of the Green Party of Canada. The Green Party is a recognized party in the House, but my rights, obligations and opportunities are closely aligned with those I would have had if I had been an independent member, a member of no party at all. Strangely enough, that gives me superior abilities at report stage to bring forward amendments that are substantive, which I could not have brought forward today had I been a member of the committee.

With that small digression I will just mention that although I am not a member of the committee, I tracked very closely what occurred at committee. Thanks to the able assistance of the wonderful young people who work on my team, and I am very grateful for their help, I was able to carefully monitor the evidence and review the testimony of expert witnesses who came before the committee. It was very compelling testimony from very knowledgeable experts in the field of copyright law in the digital age, which admittedly is a complex field.

One of those experts who is often cited and has made valiant efforts to see this legislation improved is one of the country’s leading experts, Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa. He has been saying for some time, and I invoked his words when I first spoke to this bill at second reading, that the bill was “flawed but fixable”.

We had a chance to fix it at committee and we did not. It is my hope that the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage, who I think deserves a lot of credit for the bulk of what he has done on this legislation, will allow Conservative Party members to consider favourably amendments being put forward now so that the bill, when passed, will not just be new copyright legislation, but will be excellent copyright legislation. We have that possibility but we will need amendments to get there.

The 18 amendments that I am putting forward today fall into two general areas. The Speaker has grouped them as such, and I recognize that, but I propose to speak to both groups at once. The two areas are to improve the clarity around the term “fair dealing”, particularly in relation to the new insertion of educational provisions, and to address the overly onerous provisions to protect material against digital locks. Digital locks are referred to in the law as technological protection measures, TPMs.

I propose to try to explain these in layman’s language in the next few minutes to make sure they have a fair chance of being accepted by other members of the House who, like me, were not on the committee, but perhaps, unlike me, were not following the evidence as closely.

“Fair dealing” is a very straightforward term, but it does not have the meaning one may think. “Dealing” sounds as though we are making a deal with someone. This is basically copyright law, so we are asking whether the way one uses someone else’s creative work is fair. We have a lot of case law on fair dealing. We cannot define what it is or is not. It is not a question of being able to quote a paragraph or a page and acknowledge who the author was. In certain circumstances we could quote a page, and in other circumstances we cannot quote a paragraph. It depends on what the purpose and intent is and whether the intent infringes the creator’s rights under copyright law.

In the concept of whether one is using someone else’s creative work fairly, we have changes in the legislation which, for the most part, are quite good. We are now saying one can use someone else’s work if the purpose is for parody or satire. Those words are not creating any problems for us today at report stage.

However, the government threw in “education, parody or satire”, and the use of the word “education” does create some concern, primarily because “education”, as a term or exception under copyright use under fair dealing, has not been previously defined in the courts. It could lead to significant litigation to expand or narrow the meaning in ways that would be prejudicial to the average person who wants to use the material. Given that those people who might want to change the law in ways that restrict consumer access and normal opportunities to use materials are those with the greatest and the deepest pockets to go to court to prove this, it seems that down the road we might want to improve the way the bill currently reads and to create an opportunity by regulation for the Governor in Council to provide a definition of “education”, which is currently not in the bill, in order to leave that flexibility in place down the road. That is what my Motion No. 3 stands for: that the Governor in Council may make regulations defining “education”.

This very specific amendment comes from testimony by Giuseppina D’Agostino, a professor in intellectual property at Ogoode Hall Law School. She also teaches at York University. Back in 2010, when this legislation was Bill C-32, the comment that Professor D’Agostino made to explain this amendment was this:

This would allow for a more evidence-based approach and allow government departments with expertise to helpfully collect evidence and be specific on what they need to cure by legislation, and to be nimble and flexible in making adjustments to copyright problems in the educational sector as they arise from time to time.

That is all I propose to say on fair dealing. It is a big topic, but I want to move on to the question of digital locks. Most of my amendments relate to this problem.

Digital locks make sense. The whole scheme of this legislation is about protecting the rights of a creator and balancing the rights of the creator with the rights of the consumer.

This legislation attempts to bring Canadian law up to speed with the international obligations that Canada has undertaken through what is generally called the WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, copyright treaty.

The problem I have with Bill C-11 is that it extends well beyond WIPO requirements; in fact, the scheme it would create would be among the most restrictive schemes anywhere in the world. The plain common sense explanation of this is to imagine that an individual has the right to put on a lock on something to protect it if that individual has the right to do so. No one has a right to break the lock if that is the person’s property, and getting through that lock is the same as stealing.

However, we have exceptions in the bill that say people’s intellectual property can be used for creative purposes, for satire and for parody.

What if the individual does not have the right to lock it away? Under this legislation, breaking the lock would still be illegal.

It was explained well by John Lutz of the Canadian Historical Association when he was testifying about previous Bill C-32 before committee. He said that the new law brings copyright legislation last amended in 1997 into the digital age: “Consumers will, for example, be able to make private copies of digital works to carry on different devices like an iPod, a smart phone or a laptop without breaking copyright. There is, however, one important exception, and that is if the vendor does not want you to make a copy. All a vendor has to do is make otherwise legal uses illegal is put a digital lock on it. A digital lock…”, and he goes on to describe it.

This legislation not only indicates that a digital lock cannot be broken but also indicates that it would be illegal to produce the kind of equipment or technology that would help someone break a digital lock.

I will not go through each of my amendments one at a time. They essentially speak to the following principle: if in all other circumstances under the bill the use of the material under a digital lock would be legal, an individual should be allowed to break the digital lock. A digital lock should not trump all other rights under the bill when it is fair dealing, when it is otherwise appropriate and someone wants to get access to that material.

It could be as simple as a mistake I once made in Amsterdam: I bought a movie that I really wanted to watch and when I arrived back in Canada I could not watch it. I still cannot see it.

I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage to consider these circumstances in which no one has any intention of breaking copyright. They just want to be able to view or access something that they normally would have a legal right to do. Digital locks should not trump all other rights.

I commend the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his hard work. I ask him to please consider amendments at report stage to improve this legislation.

The post Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May, National Green Party leader and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, spoke to a packed house at Dwight International School Tuesday, April 17.

She was invited as part of the school’s Earth Week celebrations and lunched with a group of students before addressing a crowd that also included members of the public and a group of students from Shawnigan Lake School.

Well-known as a lively speaker, May started off with humour.

“We are the only political party in Canada that has political parties of the same name all around the world. The social democrats try to say it but the Green parties all around the world use the name ‘green’ because not only is it a good name, but it’s very easy to translate,” she said.

View the full original article >>

The post You are the leaders of now: May appeared first on Elizabeth May.