The post Protect journalism in Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The protesters had initially been seeking to prevent the destruction of the last treed green space in central Istanbul – Gezi Park – that was slated be covered over by a shopping mall development. Heavily armoured Turkish police using tear gas and rubber bullets over-reacted, injuring and hospitalizing many of the protesters. This in turn triggered a much larger series of protests across the country over the continuing deterioration of civil liberties and freedom of the press under the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey currently has the dubious distinction of having the largest number of reporters in jail of any other country and its mainstream media organizations have mainly ignored four days of widespread civilian protests which have now claimed their first fatality. The public information gap has consequently been filled by social media organs that Prime Minister Erdogan attacked as a “social menace.” President of Turkey Abdullah Gul has taken a more conciliatory approach calling peaceful protest a democratic right.

“Social media is not the menace in Turkey or elsewhere,” commented May. “It is governments that think that, just because they have majority power, they try to get away with whatever they can between and during elections.”

International Affairs Critic Eric Walton called on the Turkish government to demonstrate why they deserve a place in the European Union by listening and learning from democratic voices – because this will be expected if their goal to join the E.U is eventually successful.

The post Green Party Questions Harper Government Silence on Turkish Democracy Crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Parliamentary democracy in Canada has been on the ropes for awhile. The Prime Minister does not act as ‘first among equals’, but increasingly like a Roman Emperor. The Prime Minister and his cabinet do not respect principles of the supremacy of Parliament, but act in arrogant and unaccountable ways—denying Parliament key information, even information as essential to good government as basic background to fiscal decisions.

RELATED: Elizabeth May Tables Bill Targeting Excessive Party Discipline

Fundamental to these dangerous trends is the rise in control of MPs by political parties. The political party overlay on Westminster parliamentary democracy is a relatively new and growing phenomenon. Not until the late 1960s did the name of the candidates’ political party appear on the ballot. Simultaneous with that development, the Elections Act was amended to require the leader’s signature to verify that a candidate was properly from the party claimed. A seemingly innocuous change has led to the ability of leaders of political parties to use the threat, that nomination papers will not be signed, to keep their MPs in line.

And the role of leaders of parties has started to ape the US system to such an extent that federal (and provincial) election campaigns are run as though the ballot choice was the election of a Prime Minister (or Premier). We do not elect Prime Ministers in Canada, but this confusion is undermining the essence of representative democracy.

Compounding these trends, which to greater or lesser degree pre-date Stephen Harper’s administration, we now have the political arm of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) reaching into previously off-limit areas. The PMO operatives are bullying the civil service into corrupting the policy making process with blatant spin and doctoring of evidence.

When Kevin Page, Canada’s first Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), spoke on April 4 at a Green Party sponsored lecture at UVic (well worth watching in its entirety on Youtube: http://www.andrewjweaver.ca/video_an_evening_with_kevin_page), he noted that ‘every Parliamentary institution is under assault.’ His two take-away messages: that the control of the public purse must return to the House, and that decisions must be based on evidence.

The Court Ruling

For a while, knowledgeable commentators have taken to pondering if Canadian democracy has a pulse. Then on April 22 and 23, two unrelated events took place, quickening the pulse of Canadian democracy.

The first was the ruling of the Federal Court of Canada on the lawsuit launched by the PBO. Kevin Page refused to accept the refusal of the Clerk of Privy Council, shamefully telling the PBO that none of what he wanted was available; accepting commands from the PMO and denying that the impacts of the falling of the axe must be transparent to MPs and to Canadians.

And so Kevin Page went to court. The court ruled that the PBO was within its mandate to request information about the impact of the cuts in the 2012 budget. The Federal Court confirmed the supremacy of Parliament, the right of each MP to have access to information: about where the budget cuts landed and what effect they have on government programmes. In fact, the court ruled this information should be available to any back-bencher.

Thanks to Kevin Page, the right of any MP, and the PBO itself, to access documentation about government finances has been confirmed. The court went on to find that Page had not fully demanded the information after the clerk said he couldn’t have the information. So, on that technicality, it might appear Page lost. But the right to access that information has led the acting PBO to demand the information.

The SO31 ‘Game’ – Not

The very next day, the Speaker ruled on a recent complaint by Mark Warawa, Conservative MP from Langley, BC. To understand his complaint, you need to know that for 15 minutes every day in the House of Commons, there is something called Members statements (under Standing Order 31, so sometimes called “SO31s”). An SO31 allows a member 60 seconds to make an uninterrupted statement. They are usually about events in the riding, or eulogies for recently departed local heroes. Lately, the Conservatives have mis-used the opportunity for prepared attacks on the NDP claiming they want a $21 billion carbon tax.

Each party whip coordinates which MPs are going to make their SO31s. Apparently, the Conservative whip also vets (and censors) the statements. One day, Mark Warawa was told his statement was unacceptable and his chance to speak was withdrawn. He did something unprecedented in the life of Mr. Harper’s reign. He complained to the Speaker.

Over a few weeks, many MPs supported the complaint, making the case that MPs have the right of free speech. Of course, I spoke in support of Warawa’s complaint, but so did about 7 other Conservative MPs.

The Chief Government Whip argued that the Speaker was a mere ‘referee’ and that the party leader and his operatives were like the coach with the right to decide which players to play.

On April 23, Speaker Scheer’s ruling supported the right of free speech. He completely rejected the sports metaphor and confirmed that only the Speaker has the right to recognize MPs. The convention of the party whips in giving the Speaker a list of MPs to call on was only adopted to assist a previous speaker who had difficulty remembering names (or so goes the story).

The Speaker’s ruling confirmed the absolute right of Members of Parliament to free speech. And it is the duty of the Speaker to maximize that right of free speech. The Speaker, similar to the PBO court ruling, went on to find that Mark Warawa had not tried to speak, by catching the speaker’s eye and trying to get the floor. As such, the Speaker found his rights had not been infringed.

Nevertheless, two rulings, back to back have confirmed the absolute right of free speech and of the right of all MPs to have fiscal information essential to the role of the Parliament as a whole to govern.

We have a pulse!

The post Canadian democracy – pulse found! appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It is increasingly clear that the chilling effect of the bully-boy tactic of threatening all non-government groups and all charities with as yet unspecified “new sanctions” (promised at p, 205 of the 2012 budget) is working to silence critics. Where I would expect a phalanx of Executive Directors of the country’s major national conservation and environmental groups blasting back with one voice at the unravelling of decades of environmental protections, there has been a fairly small roar from only the bravest.  This is not intended as any criticism of my former colleagues. When you don’t know what the new rules will be, when you have an obligation to your organization to stay in the black and when money is scarce and threats abundant, it is hard to know how to respond.

Then there is ForestEthics.  Valerie Langer – she of the Kennedy Lake blockade, putting herself in a precarious position chained to a log suspended out over open space, then rallying thousands to the burnt over clear-cuts of Clayoquot Sound over the summer of 1993 to halt the logging of the ancient coastal temperate rainforest, and she, my dear friend of many years – stood up bravely.  Valerie has been working with ForestEthics for years.  Far from the civil disobedience of the early 1990s, she and Forest Ethics had pioneered in market based campaigns, tackling catalogue giant Victoria’s Secret and developing a local economy through toy building with Heiltsuk First Nation.

ForestEthics had found ways to find consensus with the forest industry at the board room tables.  ForestEthics is too effective for the Harper regime. Clayton Ruby has agreed to head up ForestEthics Advocacy – a new organization that will not seek any charitable dollars for its work.  Ruby declared “what we need now is more advocacy for the environment, not less advocacy for the environment.  We need more speech, not less speech.”

The announcement was barely made before the spin doctors of the Prime Minister’s Office issued the following “Info Alert”:

From: Alerte-Info-Alert [mailto:Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 07:03 PM
To: Alerte-Info-Alert <Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
Subject: Legitimate Charities/Organismes caritatifs
 
Legitimate Charities

After all, legitimate organizations carrying out legitimate charitable activities would have no reason to do anything differently. From: Alerte-Info-Alert [mailto:Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca]

Right you are.  Only those with something to fear would be willing to stop being afraid.  Only people with something to hide will object to the warrant-less access to their email address and phone numbers and ISP information.  Right, only someone who is doing wrong will object to mandatory minimum sentences or pre-emptive arrest.

And when a conservation group, unsure how to speak in this Brave New World where the 10% legal advocacy by charities leads to endless harassment with threats of loss of charitable status, decides to voluntarily relinquish its charitable status, it will stand condemned by the PMO. 

This is my country. The actions of this PMO belong in some other county.  Maybe one described by George Orwell where an “Info Alert” could be a tool of propaganda and smear. This PMO spends more on “information officers” than any previous PMO.  Talk about abuse of taxpayers’ dollars; this bunch spends $10 million/year in shadowy political operatives and “Info Alerts.”   This PMO does not belong in Canada.

The post How Orwellian traps are laid appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I also deplore the use of private information as a tool of intimidation against any member of the House. That is a valid point of privilege.

I appreciate the clarity with which my friend from Windsor—Tecumseh identified the reason that I felt discomfort yesterday as the hon. minister put forward a claim of privilege in relation to his office being swamped with calls. One hopes in a vibrant democracy that our offices are always swamped with calls, that our mailboxes are full, that petitions are sent and that Canadians rise up and speak clearly when they find that something we have done as their member of Parliament offends them. We must never think that it is a matter of privilege to stop the public from exercising its right to free speech.

The post Question of Privilege – Alleged Interference of Minister’s Ability to Discharge Responsibilities 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.

I hope I will not prolong this episode, which I think has been unpleasant and worrying for all of us, by asking if the member’s apology is predicated on the notion that the registry had anything to do with confiscating weapons.

The Acting Speaker: It is not the practice of the House that we debate the content of what a member is rising on in a point of order. It is the practice of the House that, when a member rises and withdraws remarks and/or apologizes, we accept that and move forward. If members would like to discuss this among themselves, that is at their discretion.

The post Point of Order – Comments by the Member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Canadians, who for the most part have never lived under any kind of totalitarian regime, tend to be complacent. Press censorship happens in places like Uganda or Iran. It could never happen here – for one thing, we have a charter of rights, which would prevent such an unthinkable idea. During the 2011 general election, the media (with the probable exception of the CBC) refused to allow Elizabeth May, of the Green Party, to be part of the televised leaders’ debates. This worked well for Harper, as he fears Elizabeth May more than any other leader – certainly more than Michael Ignatieff, and even more than Jack Layton. He, and other Conservative big shots, put in a tremendous effort to try to prevent Elizabeth May’s election. A truly free and independent media would have refused Harper’s demand. If one were to examine the relationship between Levant and the Harper Government, Sun Media, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Enbridge, Trans Canada Pipelines and Big Oil in general, one finds one massive echo chamber, with everyone repeating and endorsing everyone else.

View the full original article >>

The post What’s Happening to Freedom in Canada? Media Control, Ethical Oil? 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.