Charlie Angus

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and respect to my colleague.

In my 12 years, I have learned some things about this institution. Parliament may seem to be a very strong institution going back centuries, but it is also a very fragile institution. At the end of the day, it is based on the principle of the fundamental goodwill of the members to work together.

What we have seen here over this past week is a disintegration of a way of working together, which led to the unfortunate event of last night. What we need to look at is how we got there. The fact was that it was the Prime Minister who became upset at that moment, but it could have been any member. I am not going to excuse his behaviour, but we have to go back to the disintegration of what is happening in this House and talk honestly about how to go forward.

When we go to these tit-for-tat procedural wars, the fundamental trust breaks down and people end up doing things that they regret. We have to be with one another in the coming four years, and it will be tense at times, but the government does have a majority. It does have the power to get its mandate through, which is the will and the mandate that the people of Canada gave the Liberals. However, the people of Canada also gave us as parliamentarians our obligations.

It would be, for me, a very good sign of de-escalating to remove Motion No. 6. The idea that in Parliament a minister could arbitrarily end debate by saying it is over means that we as opposition members would be acting as visitors in our House. That the government could suspend for the summer simply by saying we are suspending for the summer is a breach of rules that we have never had.

I would ask my colleagues on the other side, and ask the member, what she thinks about this. We need to bring ourselves back to a place where we can restore the respect we need to show the Canadian people by working together. We have to find a way through this, and I prefer to do this now, so we can end this and find a way to show this House the dignity that it needs to have.

[Copyright Act, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, and I know my colleague has had a passion for this for years.

I was really hoping to speak to this because I would have followed up on the issue that the minister talked about, the fight that parents have. People probably do not understand the institutional blocks that are put in the way of children with disabilities. My daughter fought from grade 1 on. She has had to go to the human rights commission time and time again. These are fundamental issues. I would think it would have been a good thing to discuss.

In my 12 years here, I have never ever seen government use its power to stop opposition members from splitting their own time, except today, with what I think is the unfortunate and poisonous behaviour of the member for Winnipeg North. He would not allow our own party to participate using our own time.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks it does to the quality of debate in the House when we see such poisonous interference in a discussion that should be about building us as a Parliament into something a little more credible, a little less partisan, and a little less cheap.

[Copyright Act, May 17th, 2016]

No, Mr. Speaker, on questions and comments, but I am more than willing to be recognized.

[Copyright Act, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague.

The question before us, in terms of updating and signing onto the Marrakesh treaty, is also a question of where we need to go in terms of copyright. When we develop a copyright legislation framework in a rapidly changing technological environment, the laws that we put down one year can be superseded just by changes in the technology around us. Therefore, we have to have fundamental principles.

Works that are being made available should not be made available if it is interfering with someone's commercial right who would normally make them available, but also, we need principles around the provision to access works that would normally be considered under “fair use” provisions and the issue of the technological protection measures that are given in our copyright legislation the highest protection, superseding at times the rights of researchers, sometimes innovators, and certainly, the libraries. If something is under digital lock, they are not able to break it so that they can do a backup so it can be utilized in another format.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, given the fact that we recognized, through this treaty, that there should be a right for those to make works accessible to those with visual impairments, if we have to then consider some of the nuances of copyright overall so that other good public uses of copyright, in terms of making things accessible, have to be considered, particularly for those with other disabilities, perceptual disabilities, for example, or hearing impairment, and also in terms of whether it is applicable for research and in terms of being able to save works that are under digital lock provisions.

[Copyright Act, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was on the copyright committee when the last legislation was put forward and the government absolutely refused to make the changes in the provisions that would have made it possible for people with sight issues to access materials. There was one fundamental principle, which was that the digital lock was sacrosanct. The problem is that this has affected university institutions, research, libraries, and digital archives.

However, it is not just sighted students who are affected in these situations. Universities will tell students who have hearing disabilities that the Copyright Act overrides their right to have closed captioning.

Given the fact that these changes have been made, which are good changes, there is the issue of establishing a clear balance in the provisions of the digital locks, which will still be WIPO compliant, to ensure that libraries can do their work without facing punishment and that the rights of other individuals with perceptual disabilities not related to sight can supersede the sacrosanct provisions of the digital lock provisions in the present Copyright Act. Will those changes be brought forward?

[Indigenous Affairs, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada officials have confirmed that no money was set aside to implement Jordan's principle. This flies in the face of two rulings by the Human Rights Tribunal that ordered immediate action to end the systemic discrimination against indigenous children. The government ignored the ruling with its budget and now it has ignored the deadline with the new estimates, so there is no money to close the funding gap for child welfare and zero for Jordan's principle.

What part of the word “immediate” does the government not understand? With $30 billion in extra spending, could it not find a dime to help children who are still being denied their rights?

[Indigenous Affairs, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to be different and offer reconciliation. That rings hollow to the survivors of St. Anne's residential school who are fighting for their rights in provincial court again. They put on the record that the justice department suppressed police evidence. It protected the name of a serial predator. Then it had the cases thrown out on bogus technicalities.

Surely, the justice minister knows that suppressing police evidence is not reconciliation. It is not even legal. Will she call off the dogs, stop defending the predators, and stand up once and for all for the victims of the indescribable abuse at that institution?

[Indigenous Affairs, May 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today is indeed a historic day because this is the day the government has to implement Jordan's Principle or be found in contempt of the Human Rights Tribunal.

I have just returned from Attawapiskat and I can tell the House how badly needed those resources of Jordan's Principle are to hire child mental health workers and to augment child and family services. The budget came and went with zero dollars for Jordan's Principle, so the Human Rights Tribunal has called the government out.

Will the government meet the deadline of the Human Rights Tribunal and flow the money? If so, when will it start to flow because the children cannot wait any longer?

[Midwives, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is International Day of the Midwife. My three daughters were born at home, thanks to midwives. Back then it was not even recognized by the province, so my bandmate Jason Collett and I had to barter the services for our daughters' births by building a deck for midwife Bridget Lynch, who, of course, has gone on to be a world leader on child maternal health.

Things have changed dramatically since then. In Ontario there are over 82 midwives just serving rural and isolated regions. I would like to thank the team at Centre de santé communautaire du Témiskaming, and the teams serving James Bay, Attawapiskat, and communities like Moosonee and Fort Albany.

Amy Moland-Osborne has come home to Timmins with Boreal Midwifery.

These women offer incredible service and mentoring.

Childbirth should be a sacred time and midwives and doulas have restored the power of this moment to the mother, to the child, and the family.

Let us praise the midwives.

[Health, May 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is Mental Health Week, which reminds us that there was no new money in the budget for indigenous mental health and that last week the government was castigated by the Human Rights Tribunal for its failure to act on Jordan's principle.

In Attawapiskat, the suicide crisis continues, with young people being medevaced out. This community has been asking for a long-term child mental health worker. Some of these traumatized children are as young as six years old.

Therefore, I am asking the minister, what is her commitment to get long-term mental health services on the ground for that community and for those children?