Posted by 10 March 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
During the prorogation, I had the opportunity to spend some time with junior high and high school students in schools in and around Edmonton.
At one school, a very successful Christian high school, the subject of constituency representation came up. The young man who raised it is clearly intelligent and very interested in politics. In response to something I said, he reacted with absolute surprise and said something like “You mean that a MP should not have to always do what constituents tell him (or her) to do?” Well, in fact, that is what I meant.
His reaction directly raised the dilemma inherent in representative democracy. Representative democracy means that we elect people and then let them govern on our behalf. Accountability becomes an important feature of this process since no one wants to elect someone and then let them proceed completely without some kind of restraint and guidance. So, various oversight boards can be established, like the Auditor General, to check up on what elected officials are doing. And, of course, in the Canadian case, Parliament provides checks and balances that manage what the government can do. And, frequent elections are the ultimate accountability mechanism.
The other end of the spectrum is governing by referendum where each person would get to vote on every decision. Another variation on this is expecting that elected representatives will do exactly what their constituents tell them to do.
I believe in representative democracy for these reasons:
a. One of the classic problems with direct democracy is figuring out exactly what every constituent wants is logistically very challenging. Ridings have around 100,000 constituents; representatives simply cannot communicate with everyone. And, they will receive many different thoughts and priorities from those they do hear from. Would representatives be required to poll on each issue? What would constitute a majority? These are the logistical challenges that make this type of direct democracy unworkable.
b. Moreover, there is little room in direct democracy for a representative to take positions that they believe to be right because of detailed study. These positions may not be consistent with the perspectives of constituents, in part, because constituents have not had the time or resources to study the issue with the same depth.
c. Decisions could also be skewed to regions with the biggest populations. I remember driving with a farmer while touring his farm. He made the point that representatives should only vote for the interests of their constituents. I responded with a question about him not ever wanting another paved rural road. How could urban representatives vote for rural roads? Or, what would this approach mean for the influence of central Canada which has the preponderance of representatives in the House of Commons? How could they ever vote for Western interests? The consequence would likely be what happens in the US Congress where there is continual, ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,’ politics of negotiation.
d. Direct democracy can also erode accountability. In a referendum where each of us votes in a secret ballot on some initiative or other, no can be held accountable for their decision. So, if that decision proves to be a disaster, there is no one to fire for it in the next election. People demand accountability all the time and in fact one of the great drivers in institutional reform debate is the need for greater accountability. You don’t get that with direct democracy.
Posted by 26 February 2010 by Senator James Cowan
Like most Canadians, I am engrossed in the Olympics and cheering on the great athletes who are doing us so proud in Vancouver. I am also preparing for the return of Parliament on March 3rd.
We Liberals have been busy during the past few weeks, while Mr. Harper shut down Parliament to avoid more embarrassing revelations before committees of the House of Commons.
Liberal parliamentarians have organized a series of forums in Ottawa on a variety of important public policy issues. These topics have included:
- Public safety
- The medical isotope crisis
- The independence of government agencies, boards and commissions
- Aviation safety
- The Afghan detainee situation
- Veterans affairs
- White collar crime; and
- The digital economy.
On March 1st and 2nd, there will be sessions dealing with the Accountability Act and the state of parliamentary democracy in Canada.
While the Liberal Caucus has hosted these events, they have been non partisan in nature. We have heard from many experts and stakeholders and from concerned Canadians. It has been a valuable learning experience for all of us and it will better equip us as parliamentarians to deal with these important issues.
Since Parliament last met in December, Prime Minister Harper has appointed five more Conservative Senators, giving the government a plurality but not a majority in the Senate. This will undoubtedly change the dynamic in the Senate.
We are anxious to get back to work on March 3rd and to hear the government agenda as laid out in the Speech from the Throne. We will continue to be an active and constructive opposition.
As we prepare for the session, I would welcome your comments and suggestions.
James S. Cowan, Q.C.
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Posted by 17 February 2010 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
Hello and welcome to Vancouver!
I am delighted that you are visiting my home province for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
I have been a Senator for British Columbia since 2001 and am very proud to represent the people of our wonderful province, which is currently hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. I am also pleased to welcome you as a representative of the Games’ two official languages: English and French.
Welcome as well to this small discussion forum, where people can express themselves freely and share their Olympic experiences.
We have all been preparing for this international event for years and have created special strategies so that our two official languages will be highly visible.
I have worked hard to ensure that French and English will be truly well represented during the Olympic Games.
As has often been said, this is a “golden opportunity” and a major showcase for our linguistic duality, our cultural richness and our world-renowned multiculturalism.
Over the years, I have offered the various agencies and institutions involved in organizing the Games my expertise, my experience, my personal commitment and especially my participation as a Senator from the host province.
A tremendous amount of work has gone into incorporating both of our official languages into all aspects of the Games, and I have fought to ensure that
- the buildings used for the Games have signage in English and French;
- broadcasts and the media place great importance on the French language;
- signs for roadways and public transit are in both official languages at least;
- high-quality translation services are evident everywhere.
These are only some of the projects we have brought to a successful conclusion.
Now it is your turn to think about your visit to British Columbia and share your opinions and experiences with me (and us), whether you attended the opening of the Games, the sporting events themselves, the medal award ceremonies or the closing of this magnificent Canadian event.
Please write to me about your experiences and share your impressions of the presence of English and French. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Mobina S.B. Jaffer
Posted by 9 February 2010 by Senator James Cowan
Please find below a letter that I have sent to the Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, regarding the work of the Senate as it relates to the government’s law and order legislative agenda.
February 4, 2010
The Hon. Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Justice
Room 105 EB
The House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Nicholson,
I am writing concerning several statements made by you on Friday, January 29 when defending Prime Minister Harper’s appointment of an additional five Conservative Senators. In the past 12 months, Prime Minister Harper has made an unprecedented 32 appointments to the Senate – the most Senate appointments made by any Canadian Prime Minister in a 12-month period since Confederation.
I was puzzled to read press reports in which you defended the latest Senate appointments as necessary to allow your Government “to move forward on [y]our tackling-crime agenda.” You accused the Liberal opposition of having “obstructed that agenda in the Senate.” According to a transcript of your press conference, you said:
"The Ignatieff Liberals have abused their majority in the Senate by obstructing law and order bills that are urgently needed and strongly supported by Canadians.”
I can only assume that you have been misinformed as to the progress of anti-crime legislation. In fact, as I am sure your Cabinet colleague, Senator Marjory LeBreton, would tell you, the overwhelming majority of your Government’s anti-crime bills had not even reached the Senate when Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, an honest examination of the record compels one to acknowledge that the greatest delays to implementation of your justice agenda have resulted from your own Government’s actions – sitting on bills and not bringing them forward for debate, delaying bringing legislation into force, and ultimately, of course, proroguing Parliament. That action alone caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.
As a Canadian Press report described, “Indeed, [Prime Minister] Harper himself has done far more to delay his own crime legislation, by proroguing Parliament and other stalling tactics, than Liberal senators have ever done.”
Your Government introduced 19 justice-related bills in the House of Commons. Of these, 14 were still in the House of Commons at prorogation. Of the five justice bills that passed the House of Commons and came to the Senate:
- two passed the Senate without amendment;
- one (the so-called Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime bill) was tabled by your Government in November in the Senate but not brought forward for further action after that;
- one was passed with four amendments and returned to the House of Commons which did not deal with it before Parliament was prorogued; and
- one was being studied in committee when Parliament was prorogued and all committee work shut down.
There were a further two justice bills that your Government chose to initiate in the Senate. One was passed by the Senate after 14 days, sent to the House of Commons, passed and given Royal Assent. The other was tabled in the Senate on April 1, but has not been brought forward by your Government for any further action since then.
In terms of the status of the 14 law-and-order bills in the House of Commons, that had not yet reached the Senate when Parliament was prorogued:
- Four of these bills have been sitting in the House of Commons at first reading, three in that state since October, and one since November – your Government chose not to bring any of these bills forward for second reading debate.
- Another bill, Bill C-19, was tabled in the House of Commons by your Government in March, 2009, brought forward for two days of second reading debate in June, and not brought forward for any further action since then.
- Similarly, Bill C-35 was tabled in June, brought forward for one day of second reading debate in October, and no further action taken since then.
- Seven justice-related bills were being studied in Committee in the House of Commons as of prorogation. That work, of course, was required to stop immediately upon prorogation.
- One bill – Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders bill – got as far as to be reported back from the House of Commons Committee on December 7, before dying on the Order Paper with the Government’s prorogation of Parliament.
I fail to understand how this factual record could lead you to say, as you did in your press conference that, “the record also shows that the Liberals are soft on crime” or that the Liberals in the Senate “obstructed” law and order bills. In fact, as I am sure you will now recognize, it is your Government that has failed to move forward a number of your own anti-crime bills. And, of course, by choosing to prorogue Parliament, Prime Minister Harper chose to let 18 of his Government’s 21 “tough-on-crime” bills die on the Order Paper. Comparing the numbers, Canadians would have to conclude that it is the Harper Conservatives who have chosen to obstruct law and order bills – while shamelessly trying to smear the Liberals and the Senate with the blame.
It is difficult to take a law-and-order agenda seriously when it is argued with so little respect for facts. Justice above all depends upon truth. 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. How can Canadians have any confidence in their justice system, if the person responsible for that system – the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada – is prepared to play fast and loose with the truth?
In your press conference, you pointed to three bills as evidence of Liberal Senators’ supposed “obstruction” of your Government’s agenda: Bills C-15, C-25 and C-26.
Bill C-15 was passed by the Senate with four amendments. These amendments represented our advice to the House of Commons, reflecting what we heard and concluded after listening to testimony from Canadians about the bill. That is our job as members of the second legislative House of Canada’s Parliament. We fully expected to hear back from the House of Commons with that House’s considered response to our advice. Unfortunately, that was not to be: instead, Prime Minister Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. The Senate’s work – done in the best tradition of Canadian parliamentary democracy – was lost.
While we may disagree as to whether the Senate’s amendments improved the bill (as I would say) or weakened it (as you would say) what cannot be truthfully said is that the Senate either delayed or obstructed the passage of the bill.
What “killed” the bill in the end, was not the Senate but the Prime Minister in shutting down Parliament before the House of Commons had a chance to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate.
I was particularly surprised that you referred to Bill C-25 during your press conference. That bill, which dealt with limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody, passed the Senate without any amendments on October 21, 2009, yet as of this writing, according to the Library of Parliament and the Privy Council Office, the bill has still not been brought into force by your Government – more than three months later. One is left to wonder whether you simply forgot to bring it into force? Or was the bill more about the appearance of being “tough on crime” than actually taking action? Certainly we now know that bill was not as urgent a priority for the Harper Government as was initially represented.
Finally, Bill C-26 was being studied by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when Parliament prorogued. As of prorogation, that bill had been in the Senate for 38 days. By comparison, the bill spent 42 days in the House of Commons. Committee study of proposed legislation is what many observers say is among the best work of the Senate. I am sure you want Canada’s criminal legislation to be the best and most effective it can be, and would agree that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code regarding auto theft require careful study consistent with our parliamentary system. Unfortunately, that work had to cease because of prorogation.
As Minister of Justice, and as a personal proponent of a strong law-and-order agenda, you have a duty, which I am sure you recognize, to uphold the truth and not mislead Canadians. Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and agree that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact “obstructed” your Government’s anti-crime agenda. To the contrary, the greatest delays to the implementation of your agenda have been due to your own Government’s actions in failing to bring bills forward for debate, dragging your feet in bringing legislation into force, and most significantly, proroguing Parliament.
I look forward to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.
Yours very truly,
James S. Cowan
Cc: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate
Posted by 22 January 2010 by Senator James Cowan
On January 25th, Liberal MPs and Senators will be back at work on Parliament Hill. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, we will join our leader Michael Ignatieff in addressing the concerns of Canadians: job security and the economy, our healthcare system, climate change, the status of women, veterans’ issues, democracy and governance. For this reason, we will be holding over the course of that week roundtables and discussion panels on a variety of issues that affect the lives of Canadians. My Liberal colleagues and myself are happy to get back to work in Ottawa, as we should, and carry-out the duties with which Canadians have entrusted us.
I look forward to participating in these discussions that will feature renowned guest speakers who will bring considerable expertise to the debates. More particularly, I will be taking part in a special forum on governance, dealing specifically with the relationship between the federal government and independent agencies and quasi-judicial bodies.
The profile of our special guests for this event will range from law professors to former complaints officers and heads of government corporations, amongst them Linda Keen. Their testimony will highlight the importance of maintaining the independence of government agencies and quasi-judicial bodies.
I believe it is essential that the government and its elected officials maintain an arm’s-length approach in their management of these independent corporations. We must find a way to ensure that politics do not influence the neutral and non-partisan work of public servants, particularly those experts who lead agencies of such a complex nature as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Prime Minister Harper should grasp the importance of maintaining the independence of these agencies and should trust the knowledge and expertise of the people who serve them in the best interest of Canadians. We all need to remember that goodgovernance is about more than politics.
Posted by 15 January 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Last week, I wrote about the things I know about climate change. There are a few observations I derive from all of this:
1. If someone believes that climate change is occurring but that it is not caused by human activity, you would think that they would be absolutely terrified...Because if we are not causing it, we have absolutely no chance of fixing it. If you think climate change is caused by sunspots or sun winds, can you tweak those to make sure they don’t get the earth too hot?
2. What are the consequences of the argument that we should not start if other countries will not. If we understand the consequences of climate change, how can we say that? We are just going to continue without acting until the consequences descend upon us. It seems to me that if you take that position you are truly not a believer in climate change.
3. We don’t need more or different technologies to capture and reduce GHGs. We have all that we need to start. The problem is that there is not enough pressure from Canadians to make governments do what needs to be done because many people, I think, lack the fundamental understanding that climate change is a monumental problem with catastrophic impacts. They are therefore not demanding action strenuously enough to precipitate action.
We are also in an era of politics where it is almost impossible to have reasoned debate about complex issues. Debate is so easily dismissed with “carbon tax” or “hot air” or “wealth transfer”.
So, I am now convinced that what we need is a new technology that allows us to communicate, educate and debate complex and important issues in a way that allows for sufficient public commitment to policy solutions for difficult problems. What might that include?
- A government whose senior ministers and Prime Minister are prepared to go on the road relentlessly to tell people that we have a huge problem, that there are solutions that will not be prohibitively costly, that there is huge economic opportunity in the solutions as well, and that political leaders need to have the political leeway from the public to do what has to be done.
- An advertising campaign that supplements this effort by educating people about the science of climate change and the profound consequences of inaction.
- A government sponsored program of climate change scientists speaking across the country to help educate and encourage the public.
- Curriculum in the schools that teaches children about the consequences of climate change and climate change inaction. (I would rather have them learning about what could happen than having to live with it once it’s happened because we did not act and educate them to act too).
Posted by 7 January 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Sometimes I feel almost desperate about climate change and the failure of governments to do anything at all about it. Their default position is to do nothing and they shuffle along toward action only when forced to. Canada can and should provide leadership to the world. This is a moment in history crying out for great leadership. US President Obama is trying to provide it and needs help.
These are the things I know for sure about climate change:
1. It is happening and we are causing it.
2. Some people do not believe that it is happening or that it is being caused by human activity. This kind of sentiment erodes the intensity of commitment that is needed to deal with the problem.
3. There is huge urgency that we take action and that we provide leadership. The consequences of inaction are catastrophic.
4. There is huge economic opportunity in dealing with climate change and potentially huge economic loss if we do not.
5. A recent study modelled by Mark Jaccard commissioned by the TD bank shows that the Canadian economy will grow by 2.4 percent annually (2010-2020) in a business as usual model. In comparison, meeting the government’s current GHG reduction targets would see economic growth of 2.2 percent annually. That is only a difference of 0.2 percent!
6. Those who argue that the costs of action are all but prohibitive have never produced any studies that support that contention or the opposite problem, the infinite costs of doing nothing.
7. There are sufficient technologies and financial mechanisms already available to solve the GHG emissions problem if we would only start.
8. When we start, we will find that the problem will be solved much faster and at much less cost than some feared.
9. If Canadians fully embraced the problem of climate change, there would be so much pressure from them that the government would be able to react and take climate change action.
10. Business wants more certainty in what policies they are going to have to meet.
11. The day to day pressures of taking care of our families and making ends meet makes it very difficult to embrace the potential impact of climate change and changes that climate change action will mean for our lives. But surely, if we could truly appreciate the impact of climate change on the lives of our children and grandchildren action would be demanded.
12. Canada is becoming isolated internationally because we are not making our contribution to the solution of the climate change problem.
Then there are some things I cannot understand:
1. How can people not see that climate change action is at the base of the next economy, an economy of the 21st century? How can they not see the economic risks of the US prohibiting imports of our products and commodities on the basis of GHG emission standards?
2. How can educated people in a modern society that is driven by science and technology not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that it is being caused by human activity?
Posted by 7 December 2009 by Senator Grant Mitchell
My concern continues to escalate about climate change and our government’s unwillingness to do anything about it. I cannot understand how they can really think that action is not required urgently.
I think it cannot be said much better than the Nobel Peace Laureates who issued this statement from their recent 10th annual summit in Berlin in November:
“Climate change now poses an unacceptable risk of catastrophic and irreversible harm at a global scale, possibly even within the next decade, threatening global peace, human security and development, and putting the sustainability of human society in jeopardy.
Current negotiations are based on scientific information that is several years out-of-date. The latest science indicate that, on the balance of probabilities, we have badly underestimated both the extent and speed of climate change, to the point that we now run a rapidly increasing risk of sudden failure of some part of the climatic system, possibly via tipping points which may prove irreversible.
Despite 20 years of negotiation, virtually nothing has been done so far to contain the problem, and there is no sign of that changing at the forthcoming Copenhagen meeting. Excellent work is underway by concerned governments and organizations, but it is now clear that conventional processes will not deliver the speed and extent of change required to avert potentially catastrophic impacts.
New thinking is required to break through politics-as-usual. We have run out of time to take a graduated response and we must now move to global emergency action. This will require cooperation across the spectrum, involving civil society, public and private sectors, bipartisan political involvement, on an unprecedented scale. As the world’s poorest suffer most from but contribute least to climate change, and as we bear responsibility for future generations, climate justice must be a guiding principle.
Posted by 30 November 2009 by Senator Art Eggleton
Recently, I attended a conference in Vancouver on income security for people with intellectual disabilities. Sadly, what I heard there is consistent with what the Senate Subcommittee on Cities heard during its extensive study on poverty, housing and homelessness.
Persons with disabilities in Canada are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as other Canadians, and their poverty has persisted over the years. As a social group, persons with disabilities are highly marginalized, they face exclusion from quality education, they have lower employment rates, and they are over-represented among those with the lowest incomes in Canada.
Additionally, for Canadians living with intellectual disabilities the facts are just as startling. According to the Canadian Association of Community Living, over 70% of adults with intellectual disabilities are unemployed or out of the labour force, and are also three times more likely than nondisabled Canadians to live in poverty.
One reason we are failing Canadians with disabilities is that there is no coordinated policy response to the poverty of persons with disabilities. Instead, there is a patchwork of local/provincial/territorial and federal programs that overlap, grab back and fail to provide adequate income and basic supports required to remove barriers associated with disability.
Also, benefit levels for persons with disabilities on social assistance has declined in real dollars in the period from 1997 to 2005, by percentages ranging from 1.5% in New Brunswick to 19.2% in Prince Edward Island. In seven of 10 provinces, assistance rates in 2005 for persons with disabilities were the lowest they had been since at least 1986.
I believe that we need to have a coordinated approach between all levels of government when supporting Canadians with disabilities. We need to ensure that Canadians with disabilities have enough income so that they no longer have to live in poverty.
Our country’s progress and prosperity in the years to come will be determined, to a great extent, by how we support Canadians with disabilities, how we breakdown the social and employment barriers they face and how we enrich their lives.
Posted by 27 November 2009 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
Imagine a map of Canada without topographical features, cities, counties, provinces, highways or national parks: the only feature displayed on this map, are the symbols of Canada’s linguistic landscape.
In Canada today, there are over 200 languages spoken. From the speakers of Chinese languages in Vancouver, to Russian in the Prairies, and Gaelic speakers of Cape Breton, Canada is home to a diverse number of languages. In the same way that our Official Languages – French and English – and the Aboriginal languages have defined Canada as its founding mother tongues, languages from across the globe have found a place in Canada, continuing to cast new moulds of our multicultural footprints.
There is a growing importance and need to embrace a linguistic plurality, through the teaching and promotion of all languages spoken in Canada: including those once foreign to our shores.
Language education has a quintessential role to play in strengthening Canada’s identity as a multicultural nation, by providing an intercultural perspective on our country through language learning and appreciation.
However, the efforts of many language instructors are being hampered by inadequate teaching resources and outdated reference materials. We must work towards a viable, permanent solution in order to properly address these shortcomings.
In order to properly address the issues facing second-language teachers and learners alike, Canada must adopt a National Language Strategy that will call for the promotion and education of the four groups of Canadian languages: English, French, Aboriginal and International/Heritage languages.
As the Canadian Languages Association has suggested, the National Language Strategy will call for the promotion and education of the four groups of Canadian languages: English, French, Aboriginal and International/Heritage languages. The major objectives of this Strategy include: (a) to improve the teaching and learning of languages by making up-to-date reference and teaching materials available to teachers and students; (b) to increase the number of people studying languages; (c) to work with the provinces to provide effective and equitable funding for language programming at the school board and community levels; and (d) to raise awareness of the importance of multilingualism to all Canadians.
By embracing a National Language Strategy, we are making a serious commitment to maintain those languages now a part of Canada’s language economy. Through the promotion of language education, we are extending the limits of our understanding to include a global community, and we are increasing our capacity to play an important role in shaping the future at home and abroad.
At home, our concept of multiculturalism would be incomplete without French, English, Aboriginal and Heritage/International languages. Teaching these languages not only reinforces Canada’s multicultural identity, but serves the greater virtues of a tolerant society, of a society that regards peace-building, civic participation and cross-cultural understanding not only as watchwords of a new world order, but as a call to action.
Posted by 26 November 2009 by Senator Charlie Watt
Yesterday I read the results of the “North Poll.”
This survey was conducted as a snapshot of Canadian public opinion on the Arctic and issues related to the Inuit of Canada. It was commissioned by ITK, and conducted by Ipsos Reid.
The findings of this report support my opinion that Canadians really don’t know very much about the Inuit, and they still tend to lump First Nations, Inuit and Métis together under one big umbrella. Yet, we are very distinct people with a unique relationship to the crown.
I am astonished to read that only 25% of Canadians are aware that Inuit pay all taxes, including income tax, GST and PST. The Inuit are paying taxes on goods services which cost approximately 4 times the price of comparable goods in the south (for more information on the cost of living see testimony from Rita Novalinga, General Manager Fédération des coopératives du Nouveau-Québec at the September 16, 2009 Standing Senate Committee on National Finance)
However, I am not surprised to read about Canada’s continued love for the north, and learn that people of Canada are starting to understand that issues like the seal hunt are very important to our survival. In fact, it is reassuring to learn that “seven in ten Canadians ‘agree’ (38% strongly/34% somewhat) that they ‘oppose the European-Union ban on Canadian seal products and support the traditional Inuit seal hunting practices for cultural, economic, and subsistence reasons’.”
I encourage you to read this survey, and measure your own knowledge of Canada’s north.
For more information on ITK, and the Inuit of Canada: http://www.itk.ca/media-centre/media-centre
For more information on the seal hunt: http://www.sealsandsealing.net/
Nakurmiik,
Honourable Charlie Watt
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 23 November 2009 by Senator Grant Mitchell
There is a sentiment, or perhaps it is a technique, that Canada should not have a firm position when we go to Copenhagen because that will weaken our negotiating position. I guess the thinking is that if we can hold firm to doing less, then other countries will have to do more.
There is another strategy; one that is integral to leadership on this issue. If we are prepared to do our fair share, then perhaps that will inspire or at least push other countries to do theirs. This is premised upon the idea that we are not really negotiating with other countries; we are dealing with climate and it doesn’t negotiate.
Recently, the government said that there was no point in doing anything unless the US does and that we should look rather at climate change adaptation. Several things struck me about this:
- Canada used to be a country that made its own decisions and provided leadership. Most notably, Canada entered two world wars that could not have been won without US involvement long before the US had decided to become involved. In fact, it might be said that while Canada and the other early participants could not have won the war alone, their early efforts made it more winnable when the US arrived. The same might be said about the climate change fight.
- The US actually will do something whether through new legislation or under the auspices of the Environmental Protection Agency. There is no doubt about it. We will not be ready for what they do because the government is doing nothing.
- Under any circumstance, how could our government ever say that they were prepared to do nothing about climate change? Rather, if the problem is others not doing enough, then lead, persuade, cajole, and arm twist. Do what it takes to get this thing back on track. How can there be so much defeatism in our government at a time when our children and our world need leadership so much?
Posted by 16 November 2009 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I have been trying to immerse myself in the social media phenomena. This has not been an easy, intuitive process for me. The internet and the seemingly infinite numbers of ways to communicate on it are not something that my generation seems to understand readily.
I am using the internet to communicate in many different ways. The least social form, and also the oldest, is email. I am also using Twitter these days, have a Facebook site, and post on my Senate website. I also drove the creation and implementation of this site, the Liberal Senate Forum. The site was designed for all the Liberal Senators to communicate what we are doing on various issues and to listen to public input.
Emailing, for me, is pretty straight forward. It’s mail without the paper and the stamp.
The websites make sense too. The only thing that I have had a tough time understanding is why people visit a site. I am told that frequent blogging does. But then this raises the chicken and the egg question. If it takes blogs to attract you to a site, how do people know about the site to see the blog in the first place? It is a leap of faith to accept this. I am, however, convinced that quality material is somehow discovered and attracts more and more readers.
Lately, I have been doing a lot of Twittering. In doing this, I have come to several conclusions and observations:
- There really is very little grandstanding or ‘big talk’ on Twitter. On the contrary, the writing is thoughtful, informative, tastefully funny and does not try too hard. There is, as a result, a sincerity and integrity that I had not really anticipated.
- The people using Twitter are not really that young. In fact, statistics I have seen suggest that the average ‘Tweeter’ is between thirty and forty.
- There is something compelling about Twitter. Opening up Twitter each time brings with it the anticipation of what messages you might have received, or what interesting ideas have been circulated.
- You can have a conversation about any number of things with individuals or with your whole group of followers. It is personal without being too intrusive and I think that that is much of its appeal.
- There is also the element of finding out new things with a group of people who have chosen to follow you and you them. It is as though others have sifted through information and what they give you is significant and worth your time to read.
It strikes me that years ago people built houses with verandas so that they could sit at the front of their houses and talk to neighbors as they went by or came to visit. It was an important way of being social, exchanging information and discussing ideas. Twitter, I think, is a tremendously powerful form of social networking. It is personal but not threatening; you can evaluate who you are communicating without any pressure, and you can stop communicating with someone without any discomfort or awkwardness. Is Twitter the new veranda?
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 13 November 2009 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I had a remarkable day today.
It started when I went to the West Edmonton Mall arena where the Edmonton Jasper Place Branch of the Legion holds its annual Remembrance Day Ceremony. It is a great place for it as there are two levels of floors surrounding the rink so many people can easily see what is going on with the ceremony.
Normally, I just quietly and unobtrusively attend a ceremony each year. It is a very personal time for me because I am reminded intensely of my father and grandfathers. My father’s father served in the merchant marines in WWI and my mother’s father in the army. He was very seriously wounded, spent a year in hospital and lost much of one foot.
My father joined the Black Watch in Montreal in 1939 and retired from the army in 1969. In the interim, he fought in Europe in WWII, was wounded in the Black Forest and awarded the Military Cross. He actually fought for the British Black Watch through the Canloan program where Canada loaned officers – 700 of them – to the British, who had lost so many of their own. As a result, we have a picture of my father with Field Marshal Montgomery who personally awarded him the medal. He also served in Korea and in Vietnam on the International Control Commission. He was a serious soldier in that very Canadian military way; he was I am sure a warrior when he had to be, but projected a certain kind of gentleness and kindness that reassured you he would do whatever he could to avoid it.
I was 1 ½ years old when he went to Korea; so do not remember that. I was 12 when he went to Vietnam and I remember him leaving and coming back vividly. Forty-six years later, I can still see him stepping off the bottom stair from the plane exit ramp as I looked on from an observation deck in the Winnipeg airport. I was so happy to see him and so relieved that he had made it back. It had been the longest year of my life and is to this day. I still have these beautifully written letters that he sent me throughout the year.
So, I have been thinking about all those people still waiting for someone to come home and of those for whom someone never will come home.
I arrived at the ceremony with all that on my mind but no official duties were scheduled for me. Then, an old friend and colleague in the Legislature who is now a City Councillor, Karen Liebovici, realized that no MPs were there to fulfill the federal role in the ceremony. So, soon I was been asked to do that. Minutes later I was speaking to several thousand people, presenting a wreath and reviewing the troops. It was a wonderful experience for me. I was privileged to do it.
I said in my remarks that while I was to make the formal federal, Parliamentary recognition and honoring, this event each year is very personal for me and, as I noted, it probably was for everyone there. We all know a father or mother, brother or sister, cousin or friend who has been or is in the military. And so we all know their quiet courage, contribution, service and sacrifice. We know that what they are personifies what this country is. We are very lucky to know them, or sadly to have known them. For me, it is my father and grandfathers.
Posted by 5 November 2009 by Senator Grant Mitchell
The Senate Finance Committee is doing some preliminary work to determine whether a full study into pensions is appropriate for our committee. Some members, driven by Senator Eggleton, think that a full study is indeed in order considering the gravity of Canada’s potential pension problem. This is also my perspective.
The problem has been highlighted by the failure of Nortel and the impact that has had on its pension subscribers. Essentially the pension fund does not have enough money in it to sustain the promised level of payout to subscribers, either from underfunding or market setbacks (or both). There is cash still in the Nortel company, which could help the pension situation, but the pension subscribers have a lower priority under bankruptcy laws than other creditors. This means they will likely not have a very good chance to get some of this money. The argument for this structure of creditor priority is that if pension liability moves up any higher, then the cost of borrowing for the company would increase. That argument seems to mean, in my opinion, that the employees in the pension are subsidizing the company’s cost of doing business. It strikes me that the fairness of that is quite debatable.
The Nortel pension is a defined benefit (DB) pension plan. This type of pension promises to pay a certain retirement income based upon the level of income and the number of years of service. For example, a person that has 30 years in a plan that averages the last 5 years of income, say $50,000 in this example, and pays 1.5% per year of service would receive 45% of $50,000 or $22,500 per year. Companies and employees pay into the pension fund and then that amount and the investment returns are supposed to generate enough to pay out the promised retirement incomes. But if there are investment difficulties or company bankruptcy, this may not happen. Witness Nortel.
There are more issues with these DB plans:
- How should the quality of pension fund investments be regulated?
- When a pension fund is fully funded and has a certain level of extra ‘cushion’, administrators are allowed to stop company payments until the cushion is gone. This raises questions on how high the cushion should be before the company is entitled to suspend paying into the fund and must recommence paying into it.
- If there is a deficit in the fund, what are the requirements for the company to “fill that deficit in” and how fast?
- How long on average do people remain subscribers to a defined benefit pension? Long enough to ensure a comfortable retirement?
- As a rule, do defined benefit pensions deliver sufficient levels of pension income to ensure a comfortable retirement?
- Are there investment practices utilized by these pensions that might account for their difficulties?
These issues are central to defined benefit pensions and need to be addressed.
However, 11 million private sector workers in Canada do not have defined benefit pensions. Other Canadians in certain government jobs without DBs and often women who have chosen to stay home, and men for that matter, do not have DBs either. That means they are left for their retirement to depend upon their RRSPs and other personal savings (non-RRSP savings) or defined contribution pension plans which are really just RRSPs that your employer helps you fund. Some also get C/QPP and OAS/GIS. There are lots of issues in these plans too.
It is my experience that many people have no idea how much it takes in personal savings to generate a decent retirement income. $1.0 million at today’s interest rates would generate an income of about $35,000 per year. And, how many people have $1.0 million?
Many questions arise with this kind of retirement income:
- Do Canadians broadly understand the “math” of retiring on their own savings?
- How many people are subscribers to defined benefit plans versus depending upon personal savings?
- What is the average value of RRSPs in Canada today?
- What percentage of Canadians have RRSPs?
- What is the average annual contribution to a RRSP?
- What has been the effect on contributions to increased RRSP contribution limits?
- Is the current progression of contribution levels fair? That is to say, all contributions are limited to the same percentage of salary meaning that those earning more can contribute more? What would be the implication of allowing someone earning less wants to contribute more, even the specified maximum?
- What can someone reasonably expect to accumulate in an RRSP over various time periods, at various levels of contributions, under various rates of return, by the time they retire?
- How have personal RRSPs performed over the years?
- Are people generally aware of what level of savings they will require for their retirement?
- What are the many implications of circumstance in which many people are unable to retire because they do not have enough personal funds and/or their pension has not delivered sufficient funds for their retirement?
These are big and important questions and I hope our committee agrees to study them.