Posted by 27 January 2012 by Senator Percy Downe
Did you know?
Between 2009 and 2011, there were 430 federal government jobs lost in Atlantic Canada?
Yet, in stark contrast, there was a 5% increase in federal government employment in Ottawa and a 3% increase Nationwide
(excluding Atlantic Canada).
Why did our Cabinet representatives Ministers Gail Shea and Peter MacKay allow this to happen?
(Statistics provided by Government of Canada, Treasury Board)
Since 2009, Federal Government spending increased by over 13% (Canada’s Performance Report 2008-2009 and 2010-2011), and, with the exception of Atlantic Canada, the size of the federal public service has increased by 3%.
Yet, Atlantic Canada suffered badly over the last three years, with a reduction of federal government employment amounting to 430 jobs; during the same time period, federal government employment was rapidly growing elsewhere in Canada. Now, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that he intends to cut the number of federal government employees.
As these statistics indicate, although Atlantic Canada did not participate in the expansion of federal government employment, it would appear that we shall continue to participate in the cutbacks. Prince Edward Island lost 119 jobs between 2009 and 2011, and this was before the job cuts that are now under consideration.
This disturbing trend leads one to ask: Why were we losing jobs when the Government was on a hiring spree?
It is obvious that Government alone can’t solve the economic problems of Atlantic Canada, and a robust private sector is absolutely essential for any kind of meaningful economic development, however, federal government employment provides a dependable core of stable, good-paying jobs, which are tremendously beneficial, particularly in the smaller economies of Atlantic Canada.
Each one of the jobs lost in the province and transferred to Ottawa means that the employee’s spending power with regard to buying a home, a vehicle and other forms of provincial economic contribution are being spent in Ontario, and not in Prince Edward Island.
Atlantic Canadians want to be treated fairly and deserve the same opportunities as the other regions of Canada, and it is only by having our voices heard now that we may be able to reduce the impact of the impending job cuts.
The federal government must recognize that it is responsible for – and to – the whole of Canada. Fairness dictates that Atlantic Canada should not suffer disproportionately as a result of the upcoming federal cutbacks.
The Government of Canada is making these decisions now and we need our Federal Cabinet Ministers to stand up for our region.
Contact Information :
Minister Gail Shea: Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
E-mail: gail.shea@parl.gc.ca E-mail: stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
Posted by 26 January 2012 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I want to congratulate the new batch of 7 Senators and welcome them to this remarkable place. I also want to encourage their reported fervour for reform.
As good as our Parliamentary system is (it is the most successful system of government on the face of the earth today having lasted for literally hundreds of years), it needs to evolve always as it has done successfully over the years.
While electing Senators and limiting them to one term of 9 years duration are alluring politically, they are not without a number of risks which really have not been considered by their advocates:
1. An elected Senate would be inclined to exercise its considerable powers. Every piece of legislation and budget have to be passed by the Senate. If elected, the Senate would be much more inclined to defeat them creating impasses for which there is no mechanism to resolve. We need to create one if we are to avoid grid-lock.
2. An elected Senate flexing it powers will gut the power of the Prime Minister and the House of Commons. Who will be more powerful, for example, 6 Senators in Alberta or the 28 MPs? It will also reduce the power of the Premiers who are now the more significant regional spokespeople. Just look at the stature of the Senate in the US. I am not saying that these shifts in power are good or bad; I am saying that we have not had a debate as Canadians about whether we think they are good or bad.
3. Alberta and other provinces will not gain greater regional power than we have now. In fact, it will be diluted. Alberta has a greater percentage of the seats in the House of Commons than in the Senate now - 9.1% compared to only 5.7%. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have 10 seats each; Alberta has 6. The Atlantic region has 30 seats; the West has only 24. So, before elected Senators being to exercise their considerable powers, this distribution of seats needs to be revisited.
4. Finally, if Senators are to be elected, why should they only get one term? Why should the electorate not decide how many terms their Senators should get, like with every other elected office in Canada?
And, of course, there is a real constitutional question as to whether these changes can be made without the consent of the provinces. And, Quebec and possibly other provinces will take this question to the Supreme Court.
So, in the absence of clear answers to these questions, why do we not do some reforms in the Senate that we can actually do ourselves and that will enhance openness and accountability in the way that the Conservatives say they want to.
I think the most important change we could make would be to webcast the proceedings of the Senate Chamber. Senate committee meetings are already televised and webcast, so I see no reason why we cannot at least webcast the Chamber proceedings. I think webcasting is preferable to televising because it is radically cheaper at about $120,000 to set up and $33,000 per year to run. Not much really for greater openness and accountability.
The Senate truly does great work. It is unacceptable that Canadians do not have open, modern-day access to it.
Posted by 16 December 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Senator Tommy Banks is sitting beside me this Friday morning in the Senate for the last time. After 11 years and 8 months in the Senate, he is forced to retire because he is turning 75 tomorrow.
I have dreaded this moment for a long time. I will not say that I have dreaded it since I got here, 6 years ago, because I did not have a full appreciation of what he had been doing as a Senator when I first arrived. But very shortly after arriving here, I began to get what it is that Senator Banks is as a Senator and how brilliantly he has fulfilled that role.
Tommy Banks is acknowledged by his Senate colleagues for his integrity, courage, determination to do what is right, intelligence and grasp of the issues. I have marveled at how he could grasp the nuance and complexity of an eclectic range of public policy issues. It has been a thing of beauty to share the table at various committees and to see him get exactly to the heart of a given issue in way that nobody else had seen, express it clearly, and ultimately propose a solution.
Amidst all of the "to-ing and fro-ing" in the political arenas, Tommy Banks has remained above the partisan fray, has remained respected by all sides and has engendered a great deal of fondness amongst colleagues.
He is truly irreplaceable and he will truly be missed.
(Click here to read tributes to the Honorable Tommy Banks)
Posted by 8 December 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I remember many years ago being approached by a former Edmonton Eskimo football player (interesting as I wrote this on Grey Cup day) who was selling a personal development program of some kind. I do not remember what the program was but I do remember the technique he used to get my interest.
He gave me a card with a paragraph written on it. He asked me to read it and count the number of "f"s in it. I did so, gave him a number and he said I had missed 3 or 4 "f"s. Would I try it again? I did and still could not find the 3 or 4 "f"s I had missed. He then showed me why. These were "f"s in the word "of" that appeared 3 or 4 times in the text. It is spelt "o" "f", but it sounds "o" "v", "ov". For some reason, the majority of people given this test miss these "f"s all the time. They see "f", but lose that in hearing "v".
The point it made in that context was that we are often so limited by what are our preconceived or "grooved" perceptions of the world, and the way we process them, that we can miss the obvious.
It has struck me recently that this observation may help explain some of the incomprehensible misconceptions that surround the climate change issue and prohibit action to fix it in spite of the risks and lost opportunities of not doing so:
1. Those opposed to action say it will kill those jobs that come from the fossil fuel industries. But how will investing in alternative energy kill jobs in the fossil fuel industry? How? If the projected demand for energy for India and China, just for starters, is even close to reality, we are going to need pretty much all the sources we can find and certainly Canada will be able to sell all the oil we can produce. Why would we not want to take advantage of new and emerging markets to diversify our economy. Would we somehow not want to produce Blackberry’s because they are not of the conventional oil industry? Do we have a government that simply cannot imagine doing things in addition to the traditional oil industry?
2. One pervasive conventional wisdom (or should we start saying "politically correct" statement) seems to be that government should not be investing in alternative fuels as this will cause taxes to rise, or government intervention is unacceptable, and/or these fuels are not commercially viable.
Yet, the oil sands were kick-started in the 1970's with direct government involvement through an equity stake in Syncrude and later in the 1990's by government action to give them special tax advantages. They have been supported by massive government funding of technology development.
Moreover, I can remember visiting the oil sands in around 1990 and being told that it was costing about $25 per to produce a barrel of oil sands oil and the selling price at the time was $10 per barrel. They were prepared to lose $15 per barrel because someone had the vision that technology improvements, economies of scale and price rises would mean that the oil sands would become the future engine of our economy.
Why is it that alternative fuels development and serious conservation initiatives do not warrant the same patience, government involvement and leadership and vision?
3. The jobs argument is invoked as an endless mantra in defence of all things big oil. But what about all the jobs that will be lost due to climate change and are already being lost? Why can we not work to protect both energy jobs and other jobs hurt by climate change, like forestry, agricultural and fisheries jobs?
4. Economist Jeffrey Rubin made the case that the real catalyst for the 2008 meltdown was the rapid rise of oil prices to $150 per barrel. It makes sense in the context of peak oil analysis. How can an economy, world and other wise, sustain energy costs at that level? It is a given that we have to keep costs down in our economy to remain competitive. Yet, this government cannot see that alternative fuels and conservation initiatives would provide competition and reduce demand for fossil fuels, keeping prices lower. When do we start to realize that the current structure of energy in the world may be unsustainable from an input cost point of view?
5. The government put almost none of its stimulus money into green, climate change fighting projects. Why is building a bridge seen to be stimulating but developing liquid natural gas fuel stations infrastructure for freight transportation is not?
6. The Conservatives make the implicit argument (sometimes explicitly) that with the emerging economies of China and India, there is really little point in Canada trying to fix climate change and we would never be able to influence change in their behaviour that would lessen or fix the problem. This is just such defeatism. Canada has so often "punched above its weight" in world affairs. From developing peace keeping in the 1950's to winning at Vimy, to creating the G20, etc, we have lead the world. Why not with climate change? Are we not simply saying to future generations "that we did not fix the problem because it looked too hard to do?" Since when would we ever say to our children, it is OK to give up before you even try? What kind of value is that?
It is hard to answer these questions, but there are probably many reasons why what is clear but not obvious cannot be seen:
1. Change is a threat to what appears to be comfortable and in this case, it is taken as a threat by some of the most powerful economic interests in our economy and society.
2. Change means new risk to business.
I wish I had the answer to the question of why in the face of all kinds of evidence to the contrary, this government simply cannot break out of its tired, old and terribly dangerous paradigms and lead Canada to a new and exciting future with untold opportunities, jobs and health and other benefits.
Posted by 16 November 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I met with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students recently. There were three of them, each very impressive. They are fighting for a variety of matters which they capture in the title of their booklet, “Public Education for the Public Good”.
They have 5 core recommendations: develop a national vision for high quality and affordable post-secondary education; reduce student debt; fund research and graduate studies; fund Aboriginal education; and measure results. They remind us how important a fair and accessible education system is to the strength of our society.
It dawns on me that there might be some good reason why young people are not particularly interested in politics. Perhaps they see a system based on the baby-boomers’ interests that is dumping fiscal and climate change disaster on them; making it increasingly difficult for them to afford a post-secondary education; putting them in undergraduate classes with 500 students if they can find the money; and making it impossible to find career track jobs once they graduate. And, not even allowing them to vote on-line. Why would they be engaged with politics?
Posted by 15 November 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
On November 2, 2011 the Minister of Energy from Norway visited Ottawa on his way to Alberta. He and his officials met with the members of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. He is a very impressive person in his own right and his country's energy, environmental and "heritage fund" policies are very enlightened and unique.
Norway is a huge energy producer, both oil and gas, most of it offshore. Originally, they spent most of their oil revenues internally in Norway. But, that proved to be a bad idea because it stimulated inflation and hurt other exporting industries. So, they started over and created their equivalent of Alberta's heritage savings fund and restricted how much of it that can be invested or spent in Norway. In fact, they take 4% out of it each year for these purposes and the rest they invest outside of Norway. Today, its total value is $600 billion. They have rigorous ethical investing guidelines on the fund too.
What is very interesting is how much they (government) take out of total oil revenues. They tax companies at 78% and take between 20% and 30% equity positions in each project. The Minister indicated that the public gets around 90% of the profits. Quite a different from the experience here. Interestingly, they reimburse companies with 78% of their capital costs. Interestingly also, they say that there are many companies that are happy to be active in their oil and gas sector despite this royalty structure.
It is also true that they have a very enlightened climate change policy, having had a carbon tax since the early 1990's. They are working rigorously on conservation and alternative energies as well.
Posted by 7 November 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Comments to the Interfaith Committee on Climate Change
Thank you for the invitation to speak. I am here because I believe this important work.
There was a suggestion that my comments, in part, should deal with Bill C-311. And it fits in with what I really want say, so I thought I would. Bill C-311 was the climate change bill presented by the NDPs Bruce Hyer and passed by the opposition to Harper's minority government last year. I sponsored it and it was defeated by the Conservative majority in the Senate.
It was said that I called the vote and that somehow that forced the Conservatives to defeat the bill. There are two problems with that: opposition in the Senate cannot call a vote even when we had a majority, and, of course, nobody, least of all me, made the Conservatives defeat it. In fact, I wish I could have taken credit for calling the vote. Because, had they not become frazzled and called the vote, the Conservatives would have defeated it by allowing it to die on the order paper without it ever coming to a vote at all.
The remarkable thing about this is that that bill, like the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act before it (which I sponsored and also got passed), was all but benign to a government intent on doing little to nothing on climate change. Even if passed, it would have helped climate change progress very little and altered the government's trajectory on climate change inaction not at all.
Private members’ bills cannot be money bills and so they cannot demand very much of government by way of concrete action. Both these bills called upon the government only to report on progress toward certain GHG reduction objectives. In the case of the Kyoto bill, they have been doing that for several years to literally no effect.
Killing bill C-311 was one of the most confounding and frustrating moments in my political career.
Despite what most of us take to be such clear proof of the need to act and the advantages of action over inaction, we could not even get a bill passed that did barely more than acknowledge the existence of climate change.
We know that the science of climate change is overwhelming. There is probably more consensus on this science than there is on many of the things we stake our lives on all day long: like those pharmaceutical drugs which work only some of the time on some of the people. Yet the purveyors of the "bad science" mantra have all but stymied real progress on climate change.
And we do not even have to rely on science. We see it on the news and feel it in our own lives when it is 28 degrees in Toronto in mid-October.
There is the irrefutable, logical truth that climate change will be infinitely damaging to economies and will kill and is probably already in the process of killing many more jobs than traditional development will ever be able to create. And yet, somehow the argument prevails that the industrial development that produces unrelenting GHG emissions is the only way to create jobs, that there is no other alternative.
The obvious is that we fundamentally restructured our economy to win the Second World War and that did not wreck the economy or destroy jobs. The economist, Mark Jaccard, and others show that achieving reasonable GHG reduction goals will not damage Canada's economy at all; and that it can be done without net economic outflows from one region to another.
We also know that even the oil sands produced oil at a significant loss for the better part of 25 or 30 years before economies of scale, the ingenuity of continued technology improvement and rising prices allowed them to turn a profit. Why not the same patience and vision for hydrogen, or wind or solar? And yet, current cost and rising taxes are successfully invoked as the reason that almost every alternative form of energy is dismissed, diminished, and discounted.
I am always struck by the intensity with which we focus on the "tough on crime" agenda without a moment's consideration for what climate change will steal from us all.
It’s clearly time to change the frame in which we think about climate change.
I remember an instance during the 2008 election where one very senior environmentalist said that Stephane Dion had the right idea with the green shift, but was critical of him because he did such a poor job of communicating it. This from a leading environmentalist who has been trying to communicate the same message and other ones like it for the last 40 yrs and, by definition, ironically, hasn’t done any better.
George Lakoff talks about this failure of progressives to communicate and convince and how it has been caused by a conscious technique which has at the same time fuelled the rise of the right wing in the US. It applies here in Canada now. If you have not read him, I really recommend you get his book "Don’t Think of an Elephant" and start there.
He says that the Conservative right figured out long ago that they could trump rationale argument with what has become brilliant reframing of issues. Progressives are driven and thwarted in our efforts to discuss, communicate and convince by the emergence of the new framing about this and so many other issues: "Bad science", "Taxes", "Jobs" hamstring the debate on climate change. Other issues are equally thwarted by: "Soft on crime"; "Family values"; "Big government"; “Tax and spend whatever".
Lakoff says that the progressives don't get it - we still think you can win a debate with rational argument.
It was in light of these observations that I had an epiphany some months ago: it struck me suddenly that we really do not need more technologies to reduce GHG emissions. We have more than enough of that. What we really need are new technologies to convince people that we need to reduce GHG emissions.
To paraphrase George Lakoff, we need to reframe this issue of climate change in a way that is conducive to progressive thought and action.
That's the beauty of the initiative by the Interfaith Committee on Climate Justice in Ottawa today and tomorrow to announce, describe and celebrate. It is a very powerful departure from the frame that we progressives have found ourselves arguing within.
For a couple of reasons:
1. Faith appeals to our higher values and motivations. It emphasizes that humility should replace hubris; that obligation to others should trump our inclination to selfishness; that service to others causes us to be bigger people; and that above all else we have a profound intergenerational responsibility to our children and grand-children.
We wonder why the younger generation, whatever letter we use to name it today, is alienated from the political process created in our the baby-boomers' interests. We are dumping fiscal disaster on them; the cost of getting an education is becoming prohibitive and when you get one it is diminished by being in classes with 500 hundred other undergraduates and you can't get a real job anyway. And, we are dumping climate disaster on them. Believe me, we have intergenerational responsibility.
2. The appeal to faith cuts across the left right continuum that captivates the climate change debate - people of faith come from all political perspectives and when it comes to faith they agree on much more than they disagree on. In fact, we might say that there is a Trojan Horse effect here - because so much of the current government's support is from people of faith whose opinion deeply matters to the electoral future of the Conservative party.
So, this call to action is very real start in a new and promising direction. A direction where perhaps minds can be changed, obligations understood and significant action taken. There is hope in this, a great place to start. Now we have to do whatever it takes to make it work.
Please click here to read Senator Mitchell's statement on this subject
Posted by 28 October 2011 by Senator James Cowan
Please click the link below to read a copy of a letter that I delivered to Senator LeBreton yesterday afternoon, requesting that the Clerk of the Privy Council appear before the Senate in Committee of the Whole to explain the process by which Mr. Michael Ferguson was selected as Auditor General nominee.
Letter Regarding Appointment of Auditor General
Posted by 27 October 2011 by Senator Claudette Tardif
I would like to congratulate Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, who has been awarded a World of Difference 100 Award from the International Alliance for Women (TIAW) for her efforts to promote the advancement of women in Canada. By granting the award to Senator Hervieux-Payette, the TIAW has not only chosen an excellent advocate for the advancement of women, but also a woman who has led by example in her own career and blazed a trail for many women to follow.
Please click here to visit the TIAW website for more information
Posted by 3 October 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I had a remarkable experience in Wainwright, Alberta, several weeks ago. I spent two days with the Canadian militia in a massive war game exercise, and then the better part of two days with senior military staff and members of the Senate and House of Commons Defence committees that culminated in our observation of a live fire exercise.
The war game exercise involved about 1,000 members of the militia. The military has a very highly sophisticated system of laser sensor technology which is worn by all participants and is attached to vehicle as well. Each weapon shoots laser beams as it fires blank (loud) ammunition. The technology determines who is "killed" and "injured" and whether vehicles are damaged or destroyed. Artillery is layered over the game by computer model.
The military planners had created a scenario where one country had invaded its neigbour owing to longstanding tensions over border disputes and disputed gas fields. The scenario had NATO forces being called in to push the invaders back. Canada had a large sector to clear and secure and there were a number of key points where it was believed that there were significant concentrations of the invaders.
I was attached to an armored reconnaissance unit. I was able to observe the briefing and planning process as it went from Colonel to the captains, to the lieutenants and the NCOs and on to the troopers. Then, at 10:00PM that night I left with the company in a four person "G-Wagon" for a reconnaissance mission. Our task was to set up an observation post to observe and report on activity at a bridge which would be the objective of a unit of infantry the next day.
Our three teams in three G-Wagons, drove across the prairie in the pitch dark, without lights, found a shallow ravine to set up a "hide" in, waited and patrolled all night and fed back information key to a successful attack. Our challenge was to do all this without being seen by the "enemy". The enemies too were military personnel who were armed with the laser technology so we would know who had "won" any encounter.
I was left with so many strong impressions. I recall the leadership of the young master corporal who commanded the vehicle I was in and the other two soldiers who I shared it with. He was clear, firm, thoughtful, competent, and action oriented. He knew how to lead and each of us knew implicitly we could trust and depend on him and his judgment. He had been regular force for 7 years and had served at a forward base in Afghanistan. He is now in the militia and finishing his degree in philosophy and psychology.
I was immensely impressed by how the next most senior level would not impose a plan on the next level of leadership down. Each commander laid out the objective and required their next level of leadership reporting to them to develop the plan to achieve it. They want soldiers who can think for themselves.
I remember the young soldier who I shared sentry duty with, getting almost no sleep and withstanding what was a very cold night. I remember how absolutely dark it was and yet how efficiently the soldiers functioned in these conditions. I was part of the team that first swept the site we had determined we would use for our hide. I literally could not see the person 2 feet in front of me. I recall the women who were equal members of the unit, integrated fully into this combat unit as front-line soldiers.
Perhaps, the strongest impression for me was the level of leadership. This is a force of leaders; leadership is the engine of everything that they do; and they are very good at it.
The next day our infantry unit took the bridge.
The live fire exercise was also a powerful experience in so many ways. It involved a "mock" attack on a position several kilometers across a shallow valley. It started with a live artillery barrage, followed by Leopard I tanks who fired live ammunition from their guns just meters from where we were observing. Then, the LAVs fired their cannons and their heavy machine guns. Soon all this mechanized force was charging into the valley, unloading the infantry, taking the position, aiding "wounded" soldiers, firing all the while.
It too was a memorable experience. The professionalism of the soldiers, this time regular force, was so evident, managing the intricacies of doing at high speed what they were doing, while coordinating massive live fire. It was also evident how violent this business is. The firing of the tank gun sends shock waves and heat that you can feel many meters away. You can hardly imagine the havoc and horror it all wreaks when at the receiving end. It underlined for me just how significant a decision it is to go to war.
I was struck also by how humble our soldiers are in the face of the raw power that they wield. I heard no glorifying of what they do; no glorifying of war here.
I have no sense from all of this that we need to be the kind of "warrior nation" that the Prime Minister talks of. Canada is a nation that has never been of that mind set. To be sure, if we have to fight, we fight. We have a proud tradition of doing that in the most difficult of circumstances, but it is not our first inclination and it never should be.
Posted by 21 September 2011 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
“The International Day of Peace offers a cessation of violence and conflict throughout the world, and the related importance of achieving the broadest possible awareness and observance of the International Day of Peace among the global community”
-UN General Assembly
Since 1981, September 21st has been marked as the International Day of Peace. Established by the United Nations, this day represents the importance of coming together and working towards the goal of creating peaceful environments for men, women and children all around the world. Today, as we reflect on the importance of working towards peace, I would like to draw attention to the unique role women play in achieving this very end.
On October 31st 2000 the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. This resolution specifically addresses the impact armed conflict has on women and girls. It calls for not only for women’s full and equal participation in decision making but ensures that’s the rights of women and girls are protected. Resolution 1325 is the first of its kind to deal exclusively with issues of women’s peace and security, and results from many years of work.
In Canada, both government and civil society have a clear desire to see Resolution 1325 implemented to the fullest possible extent. From 2002 to 2005 I was given the privilege of serving as the Chair of the Canadian Committee on Women, Peace and Security. While working in this capacity I also served as the Special Envoy to the peace process in Sudan where I witnessed firsthand the important role women play in peace negotiations. While in Sudan I often found myself asking where all the women were. When I realized that women were not a part of the peace negotiations I knew that this had to be changed. After a lot of hard work and convincing, over 17 women were brought to the table in Abuja. Here I watched with amazement as the entire peace process changed. All of the women who participated in the negotiations brought a very valuable perspective to the table one that had great practical significance.
On a day where the international community celebrates peace let us hear the cries of women in the Congo who continue to be victims of what has been called a war against women. Let us give a voice to young women in Afghanistan who are routinely robbed of the most basic and fundamental human rights. Let us finally acknowledge that the only way that real, sustainable peace will be achieved is if all of these women are a part of the equation.
Posted by 19 September 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
On Saturday, Sep 10, 2011, my wife, Teresa, and I attended a dinner for the “Portraits of Honour” tour. This is a tour sponsored by Kin Canada, the Kinsmen and Kinettes, of a huge and powerful mural of the portraits of all the Canadian Afghanistan war, military fallen. All 157 of the fallen men and (one) woman have been painted by Dave Sopha, an artist who has spent much of his life commemorating our military with his art.
They are also touring the “Seventh Book of Remembrance” which records the names of all Canadian military personnel who have died in the line of duty since October 1, 1947. It follows the other six such books in which all of Canada’s war dead are noted. All seven books are kept in the chapel at the base of the Peace Tower in Ottawa. This apparently the first time that one of the books has been allowed to leave and travel across Canada.
Dinners like this are being held by Kin Canada in many places in Canada. This one, and I expect the others, are attended by families of the fallen, military personnel, members of other protective services and concerned and interested members of the public. It was a very moving and appropriate event that caught both the sadness of what that mural represents and the pride and honour that it equally reflects.
General J.H. Vance was the featured guest speaker. His talk captured the important balance between sadness and pride and he gave some very important insights into this war. He made the point that in “traditional” wars there were clearly definitive victories. While there were always casualties, the beach would be taken or some other objective would be captured. Casualties could therefore be judged in the context of a victory. In Afghanistan, while there were often casualties, there was often not the same kind of objective “wins”. This puts additional pressures on the war effort and the military and challenges our perceptions of the progress of such a war effort. He made the point that in Afghanistan, he evaluated victory in the numbers of girls attending schools, markets open, road projects being completed, vaccinations being given, etc. It said to me that ours is both an effective and very sophisticated military.
He was also very careful never to glorify war. He said that our military set out each day in Afghanistan, not to be heroic, but simply to do their job that day; to meet that Afghan leader, to help a village, to clear an area. To do the right thing.
Thanks to Kin Canada and to all the families of the military, the fallen and wounded especially, and our military personnel.
Posted by 9 September 2011 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
Every single year roughly 2 million girls under the age of eleven are victims of female genital mutilation. This invasive and dangerous procedure, which calls for the partial or complete removal of a female’s external genitalia, is a common ritual in 27 countries in Africa, 7 countries in Asia and another 7 countries in the Middle East. Those who are the victims of this practice are susceptible to several complications which include hemorrhaging, excessive bleeding, incontinence, infertility, infection and often death.
Throughout my career I have had the opportunity to work on the issue of female genital mutilation both in Canada and abroad. Just recently I travelled to a small Maasai community located in Kajiado, Kenya where I worked with local Maasai women on FGM. It was here that I learned that several grassroots organizations were working on the ground to raise awareness on this gross human rights violation. Organizations like Amani Communities Africa, which I have had the privilege of working with, have worked diligently to empower these women and generate awareness and understanding the human and legal rights of women, while at the same time providing them with the tools they need to respond effectively to abuses and violations.
This morning I was extremely pleased to read that Kenya has become the latest African country to ban female genital mutilation making it illegal to practice or procure it or take somebody abroad for cutting. In addition this law also prohibits derogatory remarks about women whom have already been victimized by the practice.
I would like to congratulate the government of Kenya as well as all of those who have worked so diligently to ban the practice of female genital mutilation. Although I understand that this will not put an end to the practice all together it certainly is a great stride towards changing the attitudes which surround this gross human rights violation.
With that being said, we must also remain mindful of the fact that female genital mutilation still exists in Canada as young Canadian girls are still being exposed to this practice. Although this is indeed a great victory for Kenya we still have a lot of work to do.
Posted by 23 August 2011 by Liberal Senate Caucus
Liberal Leader Bob Rae made the following statement today on the death of NDP Leader Jack Layton:
“Like all Canadians, Arlene and I are deeply saddened by the death of Jack Layton. He was a friend of ours for many years, and despite our political differences his decency, good humour and extraordinary resilience earned our deep admiration. We remained friends throughout our political lives.
On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary Caucus, I express our deep condolences to Olivia and Jack’s family, as well as to his colleagues and friends in the New Democratic Party. He leaves a powerful legacy of a commitment to social justice in his work in Toronto as a city councillor and as a national leader.
Peace and comfort to all. When David Lewis passed away Stanley Knowles ended his eulogy with the words “shalom chaver, shalom.” Peace, brother, peace.”
Please click here to read a tribute to the Late Honourable Jack Layton by Senator James Cowan, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
Posted by 18 August 2011 by Senator Grant Mitchell
In the context of climate change science, it increasingly easy to see the evidence of climate change happening and its very concerning trajectory. Denying the science is like denying gravity. In this context, I am often reminded of the iconic Monty Python skit in which a parrot owner returns to the store where he bought the now dead parrot, asking for his money back. He is confronted by a clerk in the store who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the bird's demise (the dead parrot is in the owner's hand, inert, not breathing, and unresponsive when banged on the counter, etc), continuously and adamantly responds that the parrot is not dead, just sleeping.
While officially on the record as supporting the science of climate change, the government’s actions speak louder than words. The Prime Minister has twice said internationally that he supports the science to limit GHG emissions to levels consistent with limiting temperature increase to 2 degrees on average. But, while saying that, he is systematically dismantling Environment Canada destroying its ability to do much of anything, let alone much of anything on climate change. Recently, the Conservatives announced layoffs of 10% of the department's staff, many of whom are scientists critical to any effective climate change initiatives. On the last day of the spring Senate session, a Conservative Senator made a statement in the Chamber which clearly questioned the science of climate change, without a peep from Harper. Can you imagine if a Senator had stated that Canada does not need the F35s?
And, of course, the proof is really in the policy pudding. Harper's government has done less than nothing about climate change beyond some largely symbolic initiatives. There is no measurable progress against their stated 2020 objective for emission reductions.
It is also strange that while many in the energy industry argue for a carbon price as the preferred way of dealing with the problem, the government’s preferred strategy is regulation. Even the National Post has pointed out that this is the most interventionist possible approach, particularly odd for a party that would ideologically have little to none of that kind of intervention.
This leads me to the conclusion that we will not see regulated reductions from this government. Mr. Kent, an intelligent and well-intentioned person, is in the same impossible situation faced by his myriad of predecessors. He sees the issue, knows we have to do something significant, and will struggle over his tenure in the portfolio to maintain even a shred of credibility while government policy constrains his actions.
Of course, it is difficult to see how the Government plans to launch its promised regulations when it laid off 700 of its staff from Environment Canada.
We all know that talk is cheap. What Canadians are realizing from the flooding, the drought, the violent weather events, the pine beetle infestations etc. is that climate change is not.