Posted by 31 August 2010 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
Many people don’t know this about me but I am the daughter of a politician. My father was a Member of Parliament in Uganda for almost a decade. For as long as I can remember, I have been immersed in political culture and to this day I am grateful to my father for nurturing the interest in politics that I developed as a young woman. The skills that I acquired and the lessons I learned while I was by my father’s side are ones that I still carry with me today.
Now I understand that not everyone is as fortunate as I was and this is why I often invite young people into the political arena and present them with opportunities to get involved. Over the past few months I have had the honour of hosting several groups of young Canadians who have come to visit Parliament from all corners of the country. During their time here these young men and women have explored the halls of Parliament, gained insight into the political process and have engaged in stimulating discussions about how our country is governed.
The event that kicked off the summer was one called “Youth on the Hill.” This event, which is held annually, is one that brings Ismaili youth onto the hill to engage in discussion with Parliamentarians. This past June the Youth on the Hill event brought roughly 40 young men and women to the hill and presented them with an opportunity to participate in discussions led by MP Yasmin Ratansi, MP Keith Martin and The Honourable Mauril Belanger. I can quite confidently say that we were all impressed with what these young people had to say and took pride in their interest in what happens in chambers we work in.
In addition to the Youth on the Hill event, I have also hosted two other groups of young people this summer who have approached their visit to the Hill with great enthusiasm. All of the young individuals that I have met this summer have demonstrated great promise and potential and I am quite confident that the future of our country is in good hands.
Young people have an abundance of great ideas and offer a unique perspective. It is imperative that we provide these young people with an outlet to express themselves so that their ideas and opinions can be developed further. I think it is extremely important that we all remember that the young people of today are the leaders of tomorrow. My father’s passion for politics was passed on to me, and I am committed to making sure that I too pass down my passion for politics to today’s youth.
Posted by 20 August 2010 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
The migrant ship carrying Tamil migrants that arrived in BC last week presents an interesting conundrum, highlighting the difficult issues Canada faces in relation to its immigration policy. The approximately 490 Tamil individuals aboard the migrant ship have been travelling for 4 months in unsafe conditions. Horrifyingly, the Tamil migrants say they are fleeing "mass murder" in Sri Lanka, a country that recently ended a 25-year-civil war. Among the migrant ship passengers are 25 women and 44 children.
Yet, the Canadian government is still deciding what to do. Canada's reaction is complicated by the fact that those on board may be connected to the Tamil Tigers terrorist group. The migrant ship – a cargo ship refurbished to cram in 500 people – may present a case of human smuggling in connection with a criminal group. The ship may simply be a "test" – those who sent it could be watching how Canada reacts before sending more migrants forward. Some argue that, if granted refugee status, the Tamils are jumping the queue to migrate to Canada (see CBC report: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/16/tamil-migrant-ship-toews.html)
With this in mind, our government must decide whether or not to grant the Tamil migrants refugee status, while determining whether or not they are connected to a larger criminal group. It must also consider national security concerns that result from the arrival of a ship filled with individuals who have unclear identities.
Even if the Tamil migrants have been smuggled into Canada, they may have chosen to come in this way because they are fleeing persecution. People are smuggled into Canada on a daily basis. What makes this case unique is that these individuals have been brought on a ship and in large numbers. We need to formally assess whether or not the migrants are indeed facing persecution and at the same time find ways to punish the smugglers. The migrants demand our compassion.
Links to web sites not under the control of the Liberal Senate Caucus are provided solely for the convenience of users. The Liberal Senate Caucus is not responsible for the accuracy, currency or the reliability of the content. The Liberal Senate Caucus does not offer any guarantee in that regard and is not responsible for the information found through these links, nor does it endorse the sites and their content.
Users should be aware that information offered by external sites that are not subject to the Official Languages Act and to which the Liberal Senate Forum links, may be available only in the language(s) used by the sites in question.
(Please note: Links to documents housed on external sites will open in a new browser window.)
Posted by 20 August 2010 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
Over the past few weeks Omar Khadr’s trail has been full of surprises to say the least.
The highlight of the pre-trial that took place on Monday August 9th was the judge ruling that confessions Khadr made during his detention as well as the video of him constructing IED’s would be admitted into evidence.
The following Tuesday and Wednesday were dedicated to jury selection. The military commission system operates a jury made up of military personnel. Though only a minimum of 5 members are needed for a trial to proceed, the list of potential candidates to choose from is much larger. As such, 15 members of all four branches of the US armed services were flown to Guantanamo Bay from around the world for Khadr’s trial. They were interviewed by both the prosecution and defense on a variety of issues to determine their suitability for the case.
In the end, seven members were chosen – three females and four males. The make-up was quite diverse. As the Toronto Star reports, it included (in order of rank):
-a female Marine colonel who is a Purple Heart recipient and served in Iraq
-a male Navy captain who believes Guantanamo Bay is a ‘no win’ situation for the US
-a male Navy commander
-a male Army lieutenant-colonel who has worked as a health administrator in a US detention centre
-a female Army lieutenant-colonel who has served in Haiti
-a male lieutenant-commander submariner in the Navy
-a female Army major
Thursday, the 12th of August, was the first official day of Omar Khadr’s trial. In the morning, both counsels presented their opening arguments. Lt. Col. Jon Jackson – Khadr’s lone US defense attorney – advised the jury that his client didn’t kill Sgt. 1st class Christopher Speers and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. He added that the only reason his client was in the firefight was because Khadr’s father had told him to be there. Furthermore, Jackson argued that Khadr only confessed to throwing the grenade that killed Speers because he was “threatened with rape and murder” during his interrogation reports CBC.
The prosecution in there opening suggested that Khadr in fact confessed on his own free will, not under torture or mistreatment. They referred to Khadr as “a terrorist trained by al-Qaeda.” They urged the jury to convict Khadr on all five war crime charges laid against him.
Thursday also saw the testimony of the first prosecution witness - a solider only referred to as Col. W - who was in the 2002 firefight that killed Sgt. Speers. He described the day’s events leading to his colleague’s death. He also described how he saw Khadr in the rubble after the grenade was thrown and how he found two wounds in Khadr’s chest from gun shots. Col. W addressed a long standing point of contention surrounding his initial notes of the event. Originally, he had written that Khadr had been killed in the firefight. However, he later changed his notes to say that Khadr was wounded instead. He suggested that at first, while Khadr was being brought to Bagram, he believed Khadr would die due to his serious injuries. However, upon finding out that Khadr survived, he changed his notes.
During cross examination of a prosecution witness (it is not clear if it is Col. W), Lt. Col. Jackson didn’t feel so well and asked the judge for a brief recess. While walking back to his desk, Jackson unexpectedly collapsed. He awoke a minute later and was taken by ambulance to a base hospital. The trial was adjourned for the day.
Jackson was in hospital on Thursday night and on Friday was sent to the US mainland where he would be fully examined. It was on Friday as well that it was announced that the trial would be suspended for 30 days while Jackson obtains medical treatment and recovers. Many speculate that Jackson’s incident was related to gall bladder surgery he had a few weeks prior to the trail.
Lt. Col. Jackson is Khadr’s only defense lawyer. As such, it was suggested that the trial would wait for him to come back before proceeding. The jury members will be sent home during this period with instructions not to read or speak about this case until they come back to Guantanamo Bay next month.
Posted by 19 August 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
The long form census is critical to getting reliable information on any number of important social groups and issues. It is this data that helps to analyze, for example, the needs of seniors, health concerns facing different groups of Canadians, the funding for francophone groups and the particular needs of certain immigrant groups. Of course, if we do not have this data, then how do we define these groups and their needs?
And if we cannot do that, then their needs can simply slip out of view and any imperative to fund these groups slips out of view too. That is, government does not have to deal with a problem if it has taken steps to make sure that there is no way to define that problem. Cancelling the long form census could be a way to diminish social program spending while minimizing political damage. Out of sight – out of mind.
Posted by 18 August 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
On May 4, 2009, I published a blog on this site that outlined my thinking at that time on the Conservative’s Senate reform proposals. I have been giving further thought to these ideas and wanted to do an update for this blog.
I had argued last year that while reform was in order (if not inevitable), we had better be careful to consider possible unintended consequences (i.e. be careful what you wish for; you might just get it). My arguments were then and remain:
1. Because the Senate has to approve all legislation and budgets before they come into law, an elected Senate, freed from the constraint of not wanting to overturn the work of the elected House of Commons, could completely hamstring government. So, before electing, we might want to work out a way to break impasses between the two Houses of Parliament.
2. Electing Senators will not redress regional imbalance and grievance in the way that many people, Albertans in particular, think it will. Once elected, Senators will exercise their considerable powers on the basis of the current seat allocation which sees Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with 10 seats each compared to the Western provinces with 6 each, and the Atlantic region with 30 seats compared to the other three regions with 24 each.
3. Electing Senators will cause a massive shift of power from the Prime Minister, from the House of Commons and from provincial Premiers to the Senate. As elected Senators they can (and they will) hold up legislation and budgets which will diminish the power of the House of Commons. Since there are, for example, only 6 Senators in Alberta compared to 28 MPs, they will have more prominence and the power that goes with it. When elected, Senators will more aggressively exercise their role in representing regional rights and will take the power to do that from where it resides now, with the Premiers. I often ask people to name 5 members of the US House of Representatives, 5 Governors and then 5 US Senators. For most, it is way easier to name Senators than either Governors or a Congress Person. That’s because the US Senate, elected as it is, is the most powerful institution in US government.
I now have several new considerations to add to these arguments:
1. If the government wants to elect Senators, why would they limit them to just one term of 8 years? This limitation is not the case with any other elected office in Canada. And, clearly, that is because the electorate can limit a representative to however many terms they choose. Democracy would dictate deferring to the electorate. Or, is the government going to propose limiting the terms of MPs? Moreover, it is said that this reform is necessary to enhance accountability. But how is anyone accountable if they never get to run again and answer to the electorate?
2. There is no evidence that there will be real integrity in the electoral process. Clearly, many, if not all provinces, will have nothing to do with it. If they do, there is no evidence of any rigorous effort to ensure consistency in how elections are run. It was striking that Alberta, the only province to ever hold an election, decided not to hold the one scheduled for 2010. Why? It would seem that the provincial government is afraid that a Senate election would be won by the popular new party, the Alberta Wildrose Party.
3. It is not clear that there is an actual obligation for the Prime Minister to appoint the winner of a Senate election. For example, if the seats were tied 52 Conservatives to 52 Liberals, but the winner were a Liberal, would a Conservative Prime Minister hand a Senate majority to the opposition? And vice versa?
4. What about election financing? A candidate for MP can spend in the order of $80,000 for an election. There seems to be no limits placed on Senate election financing. Imagine this example. In Alberta there are 28 MP ridings. Since each Senator would represent the whole province, would they be allowed to spend 28 times the normal limit for one MP riding? That would suggest a limit of almost $1,800,000. If that is the case, will that not skew elections to those elites who have access to networks with money? Or, given the size of Senate constituencies (which in most cases is an entire Province), will the limit of $1,100 per donor be reasonable to allow them to raise enough to mount a reasonable campaign. Why has the government not considered/announced financing rules?
5. There is also a potential disadvantage against rural candidates and issues in favour of urban ones. For example, who will have the better chance based on name recognition alone, a former mayor of a big city or the former mayor of a small town? Where will the campaigning likely focus? Probably in populations centers where people can be most easily reached and this will tend to elevate urban issues.
I believe that there is room for reform. It has to be properly thought out however and should of necessity involve direct discussions with the provinces. In the meantime, there are some reforms that are easy and will open the Senate up to public scrutiny and greater accountability. I am speaking of bringing the digital age to the Senate.
1. All sessions of the Senate should be webcast live, if not televised. Committee meetings are televised now although not at particularly enviable times. Webcasting would mean that anyone could see sessions live. This does not have to be very costly, but would allow Canadians to see what the Senate does, and to provide their comments and advice on that.
2. All video records of the Senate could then be archived and made “searchable” so Canadians could see them later and use them for research. Whether people want to believe it or not, there is tremendous work done by Senators who have lifetimes of expertise and experience.
3. Specialized, issue based web sites can be set up (this is just starting) to not just inform the public about given issues, but to seek their input on it. The Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources is setting up such a web site on the Canadian Energy Strategy study that they are doing.
Posted by 17 August 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
In the most recent session of the Senate, Bill S-8 was debated and ultimately passed. This bill laid out rules for dealing with matrimonial property in the event of marital break-up or the death of one or both partners in a relationship.
The issue is complicated because of several features of aboriginal culture and community structure:
1. The land in question is aboriginal land which in almost all cases is communally owned. That means that while someone can build a house on it, they cannot own that land. So, when a relationship breaks up, what is there to transfer?
2. It is particularly problematic if one of the spouses, particularly the woman, is non-aboriginal and therefore can establish no claim to stay on aboriginal land without living with an aboriginal partner.
3. In some cases, there are no rules governing how long an estranged spouse can live in the matrimonial property and who should leave the property.
The bill, now a law, calls for:
1. A “temporary” matrimonial property regime imposed by the government on aboriginal lands including specified periods of time that a spouse can remain in a home if they are not aboriginal.
2. Then, aboriginal reserves are to develop their own matrimonial property structures.
3. There will be a “center of excellence” established to assist aboriginal groups to develop rules.
4. Once they have a proposal, that proposal will have to be approved by a government appointed official and subjected to a community referendum in which at least 25% of the electorate vote.
When the debate started, I was quite convinced that something had to be done to deal with the problems that gaps in matrimonial property rules have caused in many places for a long time. I am, as are most, very concerned that aboriginal women have been disadvantaged by the gap in matrimonial property rules on most first nations land. I was hopeful that this bill would address them in an effective way.
However, as I listened to witnesses before the Senate Human Rights Committee, I became more and more convinced that the bill was flawed:
1. All aboriginal groups but one opposed the bill. The one support group is considered the representative of urban aboriginals who are subject to provincial laws because they do not live on aboriginal lands.
2. It was claimed that this law will reduce violence against women. It is not clear that the new law will do anything to support that objective. It deals with what happens to the house and property after the breakdown of a relationship.
3. While the law calls for aboriginal groups to set out a proposal for their own matrimonial property laws, there is no funding to support developing these rules. There was no budget figure presented for the “center of excellence” which would not in any event meet the need for resources required to make rules by each first nation.
4. However, the most compelling revelation for me was the opportunity to observe the difference in some fundamental cultural values. Over and over again, the point was made that this law imposes the broader Canadian concept of individual rights on the aboriginal concept of collective rights. If we have learned anything in situations like these, it is that it simply does not work to impose profoundly differing views of the world in such a condescending way, no matter how well intended the effort may be. Compounding the condescending attitude inherent in this bill, are the provisions for having a government appointee approve whatever rules package an aboriginal group might develop (reminiscent of the Indian Agent system), requiring a vote on the proposal (what other jurisdiction in Canada is required to do that?), and failing to provide resources to the aboriginal groups to develop their own system.
In the end, I just could not accept that this bill, now law, would do what it was designed to do and I had great difficulty with the fact that it does not recognize and honour the difference in rights views that are so critical to the aboriginal way of life and culture. We will not solve any problems if we do not understand the critical impact of cultural differences and respect them.
Posted by 27 July 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
The recent BP offshore drilling disaster has raised the proverbial red flag on Canadian offshore drilling operations. It has raised the question as to whether our offshore drilling policies, procedures, regulatory regime and technologies are sufficiently better than those in the US. Are the risks of a similar disaster in Canadian waters really less than they are in the US?
I should say at the outset, that the Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources , Conservative Senator David Angus, brought the idea of studying the offshore drilling issue to me, as Deputy Chair of the Committee, shortly after the BP problem began. Our committee has been involved in a lengthy and in-depth study of the need for an energy strategy in Canada, considering supply and demand questions, security and the impact of climate change. He suggested that we detour, if only slightly, to give a timely look at the offshore drilling situation in Canada.
Senate committees are noted for the excellent work they do, largely in a spirit of non-partisanship. Our committee heard from many witnesses, from industry, government, and environmental groups over about a 4 week period.
One observation that raises the stakes on this issue is that 13% of Canada’s conventional production comes from offshore sites. A concern noted by Senator Angus was that polls were saying that the majority of Canadians want drilling offshore stopped.
On the one hand, there were some reassuring things. Notably, right now, there is only one discovery (as opposed to production) drilling operation in Canada’s waters. It is located far off the coast of Newfoundland. There are none in the north right now. Moreover, I got the impression that the NEB (the National Energy Board) which has a role in the regulation of this drilling has a history of great experience and competence. We have had in Canada a culture of rigorous regulation unlike what some are suggesting may have been the case in the US.
There is no doubt that the companies we heard from care greatly about doing this work properly and have a high degree of professionalism and competence. They are aware of the risks and take great precautions. We learned that the ships that are used for some offshore drilling have three sets of emergency shut-off technologies. That is the case with the one well being drilled offshore in Canada at this time.
Reassuring in a perverse way also is that Canadians now have the chance to study the BP case and see where our approaches have been better and where we might have to improve.
On the other hand, there are questions that have to be answered before Canadians can be reassured that the procedures, policies, regulatory regime and/or technologies are sufficiently different between Canada and the US that we can have some comfort that what happened there will not happen here or, if it does, we can cap the problem quickly. One major issue is the differences incumbent to drilling in the north where very cold water and ice cover makes for problems not encountered in the Gulf case. Another issue is whether there is a clear chain of command amongst the NEB, the two provincial offshore drilling regulatory boards and industry should a worst case scenario happen. This appeared to be a problem with the Gulf case.
We got many sincere answers from witnesses. And, many of these answers were from industry participants. But, in the face of their reassurances that we have nothing to worry about, really, Senator Tommy Banks kept saying: “Yes, but BP probably was saying the same things right up until the blowout.” The real issues are whether we are really different in critical ways. There will always be some risk but how do we assess what risk we are prepared to take?
This summer, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources released its report on the state of offshore drilling in Canada. Please click here for the report (pdf).
Posted by 20 July 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I am honored to be the Senate sponsor of Bill C-311 which is designed to compel climate change action from the government. The bill passed several months ago in the House of Commons and has come to the Senate and begun the second stage of the legislative process. Bruce Hyer, an NDP MP from Ontario who sponsored the bill in the House, asked me to sponsor the legislation. I am very concerned about the inaction of the government on climate change and jumped at the chance to be the bill’s sponsor.
Bruce has done a great job in managing C-311 through the House and in building support for it across the country. He received the support of the Liberals and the Bloc to pass it through the House and onto the Senate. The Liberals also presented a motion demanding action by the government.
I wanted to provide some information about the bill in the hope that it might clear up some of the misinformation about its scope and potential economic impact.
The bill calls for the government to establish successive 5 year emission reductions plans. The plans have to build to a mandatory objective of 80% reduction of 1990 levels by 2050. The bill also mentions a non-binding objective of 25% reduction by 2020 of 1990 emission levels. The target plans will be reviewed by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) for the likelihood that they will meet Canada’s emission reduction goals. The bill also requires that the Minister of the Environment to report annually on Canada’s progress in meeting the target plans, and for the NRTEE to publically review the report. Furthermore, the Commissioner of the Environment must also review Canada’s progress every two years.
There is a great urgency to deal with climate change. If there are economic disadvantages in climate action, they will pale by comparison to the consequences of doing nothing or too little. There is much more economic opportunity in climate change action, however, than there is economic risk. The world understands that climate change is occurring and we need to keep up to the economic opportunities that this is creating, avoid the international reputational costs in not keeping up, and fulfill our obligation to future generations.
Here are my arguments about why this bill needs to be passed:
1. Opponents say the objectives in the bill are too aggressive and would cause economic damage. This is simply not true. The bill states that in making its plans the government is not bound by the 2020 objective at all. It can establish whatever 2020 objective it would like.
2. In any event, the long term objective reflects the emission cuts that are necessary to limit the planet’s temperature increase to 2 degrees, which the Prime Minister has endorsed in the Copenhagen Accord.
3. While the bill calls for review and monitoring of the plans and progress by the Commissioner of the Environment and the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, these organizations are already doing this.
4. In conclusion, this is not an unreasonable bill at all. It is a bill that would cause the government to focus on this important issue and make some real progress. (Ironically, the government could actually support this bill to great political advantage and end up not being pushed to do much more than it already says it is prepared to do).
The bill is now stalled in the Senate. I spoke to the bill at second reading on June 1, 2010, shortly after we had received it. Senator Banks spoke shortly after as we waited for the Conservative “critic” to speak. The tradition is that at least one member from each party in the Senate, and certainly the critic, speak to each bill before it goes to a committee for further study. Should they have wanted to, the government side in the Senate could have spoken at any time to further debate. For now, the bill is in limbo until the government speaks on it.
Posted by 12 July 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Or, to put it another way, how did a Liberal minority on the Finance Committee manage to defeat 4 parts of a government bill?
The Senate Finance Committee has spent several weeks reviewing the government’s budget implementation bill, Bill C-9. All bills that come from the House of Commons have to pass through three readings and committee stage in the Senate. Many senators were very concerned that the bill had serious flaws that required examination. The committee heard from over 100 witnesses and deliberated for over 60 hours. While I am not a regular member of this committee, I have been in the past and I sat on it as a replacement for one of our members for the last two weeks.
Liberal senators felt that the basic problem with the bill is that it is a flagrant abuse of parliamentary process. An omnibus bill at 900 pages, 2200 clauses, and 24 parts, it is longer by far than any budget bill ever before. It contains, moreover, many provisions that have nothing to do with the budget. The contention is that the government has used this bill as a “Trojan horse” for getting through legislation it would be unable to pass in a minority parliament without the “hammer” of non-confidence if defeated.
Budget bills are required to implement those features of a budget that require some form of legislative change to authorize their implementation, but they should be short and limited to budget matters. (Budget implementation bills should not be confused with the many kinds of “supply” bills that authorize the actual money to be spent as a result of a budget.)
In addition to our concern that this bill is an abuse of process, we also found some serious substantive weaknesses in it, including:
1. The bill redefines certain financial services as being eligible for GST and then makes that tax retroactive 20 years.
2. It seriously weakens the environmental impact assessment process by allowing the minister to greatly diminish the scope of assessments. When I asked the minister if he would assure us that he would ensure that climate change implications of major projects would be reviewed, he would not make that commitment.
3. The government has carte blanche to sell the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada without any review or any evident conditions. About the time that nuclear energy is becoming increasingly important in the world due to climate change fears, this government is getting us out of it without a clear vision of what is to come.
4. The bill confirms private sector involvement in international mail services which is seen by some as eroding the market monopoly of Canada Post.
Each of these concerns represents a provision that has no reason for being in a budget implementation bill.
So, the particularly significant feature of this process was that we were able to overturn those four sections even though we did not have a majority. Here is how it happened. In fact, on the committee of 12 members, the Conservatives have 7 places and we have 5. Senator Lowell Murray is a Progressive Conservative who is widely respected and the Conservatives had selected him for one of their spaces. He then decided to vote with us because he shared our concern with the nature of this omnibus bill and with some of our substantive concerns.
So, when these four sections were called for vote, the votes were a 6/6 tie. And, under Senate rules, a tie reverts to the status quo and so the sections were defeated. One amendment advanced by Senator Murray was defeated in the same way, on the same tie. The rest of the bill passed “on division” meaning there was opposition but not with the intention of defeating the bill.
C-9 is now back in the Senate for third reading. We’ll soon find out whether these amendments will pass in the Chamber, which would send the bill back to the House of Commons for their approval.
Posted by 22 June 2010 by Senator Dennis Dawson
The Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communication, which
I am honoured to Chair, has just published its latest report entitled, Plan for a Digital Canada.ca.
The Committee and I are very proud of the work that was accomplished
through this report. It sheds light on such subjects as Canada’s fall
from grace as a leader in wireless and Internet technology. The report
also includes a number of Committee recommendations to help Canada be a
frontrunner in these fields once again.
I invite you to visit the report’s Website for more information:
www.planforadigitalcanada.ca
Posted by 3 June 2010 by Senator James Cowan
Yesterday, an article in La Presse quoted the Prime Minister’s spokesperson accusing the Senate of not having passed any bills since the beginning of this session, including the budget bill. This is clearly incorrect as the budget bill is not yet before us, having not passed the House of Commons, and we have passed six bills this session.
I have written this morning to the Prime Minister, with a copy to Senator LeBreton, asking him to correct the record. I attach a copy of my letter.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
June 3, 2010
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
I am writing to correct certain misrepresentations of fact made by your spokesperson, Mr. Dimitri Soudas, in an interview with La Presse, as reported on June 2.
I have never previously written to you about misstatements by your spokespersons. I have always assumed that you are busy with serious matters of state, and that you, as do I, would wish matters involving political staff to be handled directly by them.
However, your new policy of refusing to allow staff to be responsible for their actions before Parliament has apparently emboldened your spokesperson to misrepresent with impunity certain facts about Parliament. Since your new policy states that it is the Minister to whom the staff member reports who is to be held responsible, I feel I have no choice but to write to you to correct the misrepresentations.
In the La Presse article, Mr. Soudas sought to justify the expected rapid appointment of a replacement for retiring Senator Michael Pitfield. He said: "Nous sommes minoritaires au Sénat et depuis que le Parlement est revenu, il n'y a pas un seul projet de loi, incluant le budget, qui a été adopté pour devenir loi par le Sénat."
Prime Minister, it is disappointing that you would try to justify your decision to appoint another Conservative senator by so misrepresenting facts about the current Senate. First of all, as you are well aware, Bill C-9, the budget bill, has not yet passed the House of Commons. It has not yet arrived in the Senate. I am at a loss to understand how the Senate could have passed the budget bill, while it was still being debated in the House of Commons. Furthermore, you are undoubtedly aware that our offer to pre-study the bill was rejected by Senator Gerstein, the Vice-Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Contrary to Mr. Soudas’ statement, the Senate has passed six bills this Session.They are:
- Bill S-2, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act;
- Bill S-3, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010;
- Bill C-6, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2010;
- Bill C-7, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2011;
- Bill S-210, an Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament);
- Bill S-215, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings);
I am surprised to learn that your spokesperson, and therefore, under your new policy, you as well, dismiss all of these bills as so insignificant that their passage by the Senate did not merit your notice.
Prime Minister, I realize that you have an agenda to promote reform of the Senate. I respect any serious desire to improve governance in Canada, including reforms of the Senate. However, Canadians expect their democratic institutions to be accorded respect, particularly from the Prime Minister of their country. It is unbecoming the office of Prime Minister to blatantly misrepresent the work of Parliament, particularly when those misrepresentations are so clearly motivated by nothing more than callous political advantage.
I was disappointed a few months ago to see the Minister of Justice engage in similar conduct, and on February 4, I wrote to him, a copy of which was provided to you, to set the record straight. I said, “As our country’s Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it.” The Prime Minister’s duty to the truth is no less.
I look forward to receiving a correction for the record.
Yours very truly,
James S. Cowan
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate
*For the purposes of this distribution, the English translation of Mr. Soudas’ quotation is as follows:
"We have a minority in the Senate, and since Parliament has resumed, not a single bill, including the budget bill, has been passed into law by the Senate."
Posted by 7 May 2010 by Senator James Cowan
On March 30, Conservative Senator Doug Finley, the National Campaign Director for the Conservative Party of Canada, launched a debate in the Senate on the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada.
In view of how secretive this government has become, it was a surprising initiative.
Click here to read my contribution to that debate, from May 4, 2010. I would welcome any comments you may have on this important issue.
Posted by 5 May 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Recently, Senator Sharon Carstairs invited me to speak on human rights and the environment at a conference she was hosting. This was a panel discussion that included Senator Carstairs speaking about the tremendous work she is doing as Chair of an international group that works to protect politicians around the world who are being persecuted in their countries. The other participant was Senator Mobina Jaffer who is a world renowned human rights advocate and who spoke on women’s rights.
I was very flattered to speak alongside these Senators who are internationally known for their work on human rights. On the other hand, I am not an expert in this area by any measure and I had never really thought about the link between human rights and the environment or climate change, my particular focus these days. But, when Senator Carstairs asked me to consider speaking on the link between human rights and the environment, I wondered why I hadn’t connected the two before.
Well, it seems that few people have actually thought about, or at least written about, this topic, certainly as it involves climate change. Academics seem to be in a protracted debate about whether a human rights obligation can exist with someone yet to be born. They would argue that human rights involve reciprocity and you cannot have reciprocal relationships with people who do not exist yet. We have looked at climate change from the natural sciences perspective, and from an economic perspective, but the progression of the issue through academic silos seems to have stopped there.
There seems to be an obvious case to be made, however, for the human rights implications of climate change. Think about the impact of the following on our health and access to food and water: drought, erosion, changing rain patterns, glacial melt, water shortages, rising seas (due to increased temperatures causing the water to expand), violent storms, and heat. These impacts could be exacerbated by mass migration due to climate change and climate change wars.
But correlation is often not enough to compel action. Climate change could be “chalked up” simply to “erratic” weather causing the problems. And, in order to qualify as a rights issue, two causal/obligation links must be established: there has to be an obligation between generations even if it involves people not yet alive. And human activity has to be causing climate change in order for a case to be made that rights are being violated.
I think it is problematic that we cannot establish intergenerational reciprocity. If academic thought on this issue cannot keep up in a changing world, it needs to change itself. Second, many of the people whose human rights are being violated by climate change are alive today. Senator Tom Banks put the obligation this way. The climate change obligation to future generations is like a person having a $50,000 debt imposed upon them, even though it was incurred by their grandparents, and then losing their home when they cannot pay it. It seems straightforward.
The second link that has to be established is that humans are causing climate change. Admittedly, very few people now say climate change is not occurring (is this progress?). Instead they say it is occurring but we are not causing it. My answer to that is that if we are not causing it, then we are in real trouble. Because if we are not causing it, there is no chance of fixing it...unless they think that we can tinker with the sunspots to get the warming to stop at whatever precise temperature will be liveable. Their comeback is that it is normal cycles that have gone on for millions of years. But, of course, they do not seem to consider that the world has been uninhabitable for most of these millions of years and, if these cycles are the cause, then it is highly likely that they will not stop at some convenient temperature.
However, all the science tells us that natural cycles do have an effect on climate, but they do not account for a significant amount of the change we are observing. The proponents of naturally occurring climate change fail to gather sufficient evidence to support it, and then cast doubt on a solid scientific consensus. Their most famous effort involved the stolen, ten year old emails in East Anglia taken out of context. Interestingly, the Guardian and Associated Press have investigated and exonerated the scientists involved. When we have the kind of certainty about climate change that the deniers want, it will be too late. In any event, the cases that the deniers promote as evidence of faulty climate change science represent a minuscule portion of the total science. As I like to say to the deniers, if you were to find one sentence in one edition of the National Post to be incorrect would they say every issue of the National Post was without credibility?
I simply believe that it is irrefutable that climate change is occurring and that human activity is causing it. To deny this evidence is to deny gravity. And, if there is human responsibility for climate change that causes profound violation of those elements that comprise a standard list of human rights, then there is a case that in fact climate change involves human rights.
There are some advantages to the debate on climate change in invoking the human rights argument. First, the standard climate change case has been made largely within the context of the impact on states and economies. The human rights lens brings in the overdue element of the impact on people, individuals and communities and the suffering they are experiencing and will continue to experience. This may help to humanize and personalize the argument that climate change is profoundly serious. Secondly, it raises the idea of a right to information. This in turn suggests that it is the responsibility of government to clarify the confusion that many people feel about climate change science. This would give government greater political leeway to do what has to be done. Finally, human rights experience establishes a great deal of precedent for the case that we in one country often have an obligation to people in other countries.
In the end, I know that the key element is that humans are causing climate change with the prospect of catastrophic effects, and we have an obligation to our fellow earthbound inhabitants to take care of us all.
Posted by 3 May 2010 by Senator Art Eggleton
Recently, I tabled a bill in the Senate that would amend the bankruptcy process to better protect employees on long-term disability (LTD) by granting them preferred status during bankruptcy proceedings.
Approximately one million employees in Canada have LTD benefits that are self-insured by their employers, and many of these plans are underfunded. If their company goes bankrupt, LTD employees are currently ranked as unsecured creditors and could be left holding an empty bag of benefits.
If they are disabled, and cannot work they should not be shunted aside. Their needs are not over when their company goes under. They still have to pay for their medication. They still need rehabilitation. They still need treatment. All the things that long-term disability plans provide.
By bringing LTD claimants to preferred status, employees will be more likely to get their benefit coverage up to age 65, be able to pay their medical bills and continue to live outside of poverty. And it will reaffirm the premise that people who paid their dues and played by the rules will receive what was promised them.
Nowhere is this problem more starkly illustrated than in the case of the bankruptcy of Nortel. As the company does through bankruptcy, over 400 Nortel employees on long-term disability will lose their benefits forcing many onto social assistance.
Josee Marin, a former lab technologist at Nortel, and single mother, suffers from Crohn's disease, an inflammatory bowel condition, and scleroderma, a chronic autoimmune disorder. She has been on long-term disability since 2002 and doesn’t want to become a burden to taxpayers, or on her family. She just wants to be able to live the remaining years of her life in dignity. Or as she so starkly stated “I want to die in the comfort of my home not in my car or on the street.”
To help Josee and the 400 other Nortel workers this bill needs to be passed quickly. I hope that all parties will come together and do what is right and just.
By doing so some of our most vulnerable citizens will be protected and we will bring a greater degree of fairness to the bankruptcy process now and in the future.
Posted by 8 April 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
The government of BC has established that its public sector will be carbon neutral this year. To do this they will need to use carbon offsets. They have set up a crown corporation to work with the private sector to generate enough offsets to meet their zero footprint needs, which is about 1,000,000 per year.
By the way, there is a difference between a carbon credit and a carbon offset. If an emitter is under a cap and trade system and it gets its emissions below its cap (imposed on it by the government) then it can sell the amount of “extra” emission reductions to a company that could not get down to its cap. This is called a credit. If a company, however , is not subject to the cap system, let’s say because it is a wind power generator, then the company that fails to make its cap can buy a emission reductions offset created by this wind power company. So, the two are pretty much the same thing; the difference is a matter of whether the entity producing the carbon reduction is in or out of the cap system. It is possible to have a carbon market without a cap system. Then, it would be a voluntary market and everything in it would be an offset.
Carbon allocations are how carbon credits are created. When a cap and trade system starts, the authorities issue or allocations to each now regulated emitter to allow them to continue to emit to a determined level. They can issue them for free or auction them. Then each subsequent year they reduce the number of allocation that each regulated emitter will keep, thereby ratcheting down emissions. They are tradable like carbon credits.
There are several important reasons for carbon markets.
Credits and offsets mean that companies and others can buy the cheapest carbon reductions. Why should they spend more money than necessary when others might have cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions? Companies (like all of us) hire others to do work that we do not do as well. Carbon offsets and credits can be viewed as just another service or good.
Carbon markets also allow a market to set the price for carbon rather than an arbitrary bureaucratic process.
Now, the sceptics have tried to discredit offsets with all kinds of weak arguments. I would like to answer them here and add several arguments for why carbon markets are fundamentally a good idea:
Sceptics’ Argument: Credits are an excuse for big companies to avoid reducing their pollution.
If companies can reduce more carbon emissions by paying someone else to do it than they can by reducing their own emissions, then why would we not want to get more reductions for the same amount of money? And, at the same time allow emitters a period of transition until cheap credits and offsets are used up which will increase demand, raise prices and make reductions of their own emissions more compelling.
Sceptics’ Argument (this is a variation of the first one): The rich will use credits and offsets to buy their way out of changing their lifestyle to reduce their emissions.
The rich generally pay higher taxes than most and therefore pay disproportionately for all kinds of things for society.
Sceptics’ Argument: Credits/offsets markets will be scammed by unscrupulous dealers.
The industrialized world has been trading stocks and bond for decades. Many North American investors invest in stocks on European and Asian markets without concern for the integrity of the markets. We invest in the stocks of say, banks, here in Canada everyday in great numbers and it would be to say the least very difficult for most investors to really understand how a bank works. So, how do we do all of this? We have faith in these markets and in the system of developing and verifying stocks (and bonds) because there is a great infrastructure that verifies the integrity of stocks and in turn the markets they trade on. This structure involves market regulations, information transparency, and generally accepted accounting principles. There are already international agencies that verify carbon credits. And there are functioning markets. In BC, the government has set up its own group to verify carbon credits and to help develop them. This can be done effectively.
Sceptics’ Argument: The European experience with a carbon market has not worked because too many carbon allocations were given away n the first place.
If we expect every initiative in dealing with climate change to be perfect right out of the gate, then we would never get going. We hardly expect every other government initiative or business initiative to work perfectly immediately. We would never have had oil sands oil if the process of extracting it had to be economic right away. It took years for it to be economic. It took some time for Europe to get it right but we can now benefit from that experience.