Posted by 17 May 2012 by Senator Grant Mitchell
I don't know whether it has dawned on the Conservatives that one of the biggest obstacles to the Northern Gateway pipeline is peoples' concern with oil spills. So, you might think the Conservatives would want to demonstrate to those concerned that they were taking the problem seriously. But, not so - in a move that is breathtakingly counter-intuitive they are closing the Vancouver and almost every other Environmental Emergency Program office across the country and consolidating to two, both in Quebec.
The Environmental Emergency Program is responsible for directing and coordinating responses to major environmental emergencies. If the Gulf spill had been in Canada, they would have led the response. If a ship were to spill off Kitimat, they should be in a position to lead the response; only, they will be thousands of miles away in Quebec.
Why would anyone think that this government cares even remotely about their concerns when they move the people who would deal with spills thousands of miles away? This move does not make critics more likely to accept a pipeline. This seems tantamount to thumbing their nose at these people and their concerns. Maybe they know they can do this with impunity because they are changing the environmental review process in such a way that they will be able to force the decision regardless of what people say or think.
Posted by 15 May 2012 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
Recently the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has been holding hearings on cyber-bullying. In preparation for last week’s hearing I reflected on the lessons our committee learned earlier and thought about the important messages that were conveyed by Professor Shaheen Shariff from McGill University and representatives from The Media Awareness Network and Stop-A-Bully.
Both the Media Awareness Network and representatives from the Stop-A-Bully organization gave our committee insight into the great work they do and the resources that they already have in place to help young Canadians who have become victims of cyber-bullying. For example, Stop-A-Bully, which is a non-profit organization that was founded in my Province of British Columbia, offers a service where bullying can be reported. Through the Stop-A-Bully Website any student or parent in Canada can go on the online and submit detailed reports regarding any incidents of bullying. This report is then forwarded to the Principal of the school. This reporting system ensures that Principals are well informed about what is going on not only in the hallways but also at home. Any parent, teacher or student can submit School Join Requests to the Stop-A-Bully website and access this service.
The Media Awareness Network on the other hand offers resources to parents and to children which help promote digital media literacy. They do this by providing young people and adults with the tools they need to make wise, informed and ethical online decisions.
One of the objectives of our study is to create a report which sheds light on the complex nature of cyber-bullying in Canada. Our committee plans on doing this by drawing upon contributions made by Canadian Youth, studying initiatives that are in place nationally and internationally and finally determining how Canada is meeting its international human rights obligations relating to the protection of children and youth.
More specifically, On 30 November 2011 our committee was authorized by the Senate to examine and report upon the issue of cyberbullying in Canada with regard to Canada’s international human rights obligations under article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article 19 of the Convention states that:
States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.
On 18 April 2011, the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child stated that “mental violence,” as framed in article 19 of the Convention can include: “Psychological bullying and hazing by adults or other children, including via information and communication technologies such as mobile phones and the Internet known as ‘cyberbullying.’”
Last week, Professor Shariff provided our Committee with recommendations which she felt would help our committee achieve this goal. Dr. Shariff told our committee that she was confident that Canada could take the lead in meeting the provisions under Articles 19 and 12 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. She went on to state that Canadians need to ensure that the provisions of article 19 and 12 are applied to the protection and participation of all Canadian youth, including perpetrators of cyber-bullying.
Posted by 14 May 2012 by Senator Jane Cordy
The CAP program has been in operation since 1995. The program ensures that all Canadians have equal access to the Internet. It has been operating, that is until a late evening announcement the night before the Easter long weekend by the Harper government that eliminated their support.
The Harper government claims that the program was gutted because the vast majority of Canadians now have access to the Internet and that the program is obsolete. This claim contradicts a Statistics Canada study which found only 54 percent of low income Canadians have Internet access. Thousands of Canadians still use CAP sites each day.
Low income Canadians are exactly the people who need Internet access as the Harper government proudly boast of providing most of their services online. This mixed messaging has Canadians confused - put Government services online but eliminate support for CAP!
Low income Canadians, rural Canadians without high speed Internet, new Canadians, seniors and First Nations people living in remote areas who rely on CAP sites will now have limited access to the increasing number of government services which are available online.
Usage of CAP sites is still the same or greater than it was in 1995 and training sessions at the sites are consistently in demand. In my province of Nova Scotia, we have 209 CAP sites operating mainly out of libraries and community centers. The funding provided by the Federal Government and Provincial Government covered the cost of the computers and the electricity bills. Without the Federal funding, most of these CAP sites will no longer be able to operate.
This also comes on top of recent announcements to close EI processing Service Canada centers in many areas of Canada with high unemployment. The Harper Government is abandoning those low income Canadians. The elimination of CAP sites, for those Canadians who rely on them, will make it much more difficult to access government services.
They are doing this despite only 54 percent of low income Canadians have Internet access and an Industry Canada study finding that CAP sites are frequently used by a wide variety of Canadians.
These CAP sites provide Internet service to Canadians who need access the most. This decision should be reversed.
Posted by 11 May 2012 by Senator Mobina Jaffer
Last Monday, the Senate Human Rights Committee continued its study on cyber-bullying. Cyber-bullying is a relatively new phenomenon and is one that parents, teachers and policy makers often have difficulty understanding. This week our committee welcomed a number of witnesses who offered a diverse range of experience and knowledge on this complicated issue.
One testimony that I found to be particularly helpful was one that was offered by Dr. Faye Mishna who is a Dean and a Professor at the University of Toronto. Dr. Mishna explained to our committee that young people today are what she called “digital natives” as they have never experienced a world without technology. She went on to further explain that adults, educators and parents are “digital immigrants” as technology is something that is new to most of us. Not only do young people acquire technological competence much faster than adults they use it far more frequently. In fact, Dr. Mishna stated that 98% of young people use communication technology every single day.
When our committee first started this study I quickly learned that the face of bullying had changed as it had moved from the classroom and the playground and into our homes by way of the Internet. Unlike with traditional bullying, cyber-bullying is much harder to escape, as young people are unable to seek refuge even in their own homes.
However, after hearing Dr. Mishna’s testimony I understood that cyber-bullying was bigger than even the Internet.
Like most parents, I often get into arguments with my nephews when I see them huddled around their blackberries at the dinner table. I rarely ever see them without their phones in hand. After hearing Dr. Mishna I realized that young people today can never truly escape cyber-bullying as it literally follows them wherever they go. However, like my nephews, most young people today can’t imagine life without their devices and as a result often don’t tell their parents when they fall victim to cyber-bullying because they fear that their parents will take their devices away from them in an effort to protect them.
Bullying has moved from our classrooms to the desktop computers we have in our homes and now into our hands. As adults, educators, parents and policy makers we must reach out to young people and let them know that they can speak to us about the challenges they are facing. We must coordinate our efforts and invest our time and resources in strategies of prevention and intervention. Most importantly, we must ensure that our young people are not left to handle these challenges alone.
Posted by 10 May 2012 by Senator Grant Mitchell
The Alberta election has yet again raised the incomprehensible denial of the science of climate change by people who should know better. During the election, Danielle Smith, the Leader of the Alberta Wildrose party said that the science of climate was not settled. Similarly, but in a different forum – the Canadian Senate – these speeches were given recently by Conservative Senators denying the science. I expect this position finds further support in the Conservative caucus.
Deniers of the science repeat a number of common arguments, each without any foundation:
They claim that there is a climate science conspiracy somehow coordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the global organization mandated by the UN to assess the science of climate change.
A conspiracy of this size would involve the efforts of literally thousands of scientists from all over the world and spanning over 150 years. The science of climate change was first articulated in the early 1800s when the link between GHGs and warming was first observed. Those original findings have been corroborated many, many times since and, in fact, predictions based on that original science have been confirmed by actual scientifically measured findings many times since.
Second, it would have to involve the clandestine communication amongst these many thousands of scientists to "get their story straight" and how would that ever be possible?
Thirdly, there would have to be something in it for all these scientists, one would think, for them to risk their reputations, integrity and jobs to do this. What could that possibly be? Scientists gain great renown in their scientific community by debunking accepted scientific wisdoms. After over 150 years of this science being advanced, questioned, evaluated and scrutinized, no credible sustaining rebuttal of the science of climate change has ever been established.
Deniers claim that the scientists in the IPCC are somehow incompetent or influenced by politicians. Governments appoint their country's representatives to the IPCC. Both Conservative and Liberal Canadian governments have appointed, for example, Dr. Andrew Weaver. He has been instrumental in the work of the IPCC. He is one of Canada's leading scientists, recognized at the highest levels many times over for his work on climate change. Do conservative climate deniers suggest that their government is appointing representatives to the IPCC who are incompetent or conspirators? Dr. Weaver, in his appearance before the Senate Committee on Energy and the Environment, explained at great length the process by which the IPCC writes its reports. Scientists from all over the world discuss and evaluate practically every entry in their report. Everything reported must be based upon science and cannot be speculative. They are careful to use moderate language. The IPCC itself does no scientific research. It simply reviews and reports that which is done independently all over the world and draws conclusions on the basis of it for policy-makers.
The deniers claim that there is a significant and credible scientific community that rejects or doubts the science of climate change. Not true. Every major academy of science from every major nation in the world accepts the science. Thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles have over and over again reaffirmed the science. Increasingly sophisticated research and measurement techniques continually reaffirm the science. There is literally no peer reviewed scientific literature that establishes any arguable doubt to the conclusion that climate is changing due to human activity. Much of the work done by the deniers has been funded by oil companies.
The deniers claim that while there may be climate change, and even warming, it is not caused by human activity, or it is caused predominantly by things other than human activity. One of their classic arguments is that it is caused by increasing water vapor in the air, not by GHGs generated by human activity. However, they deniers neglect to acknowledge that air can only hold more water once it has warmed. So, greater water vapor in the air is not a cause of warming; it is a consequence of warming.
Another denier favorite is sun spots being the cause of warming. In fact, if sun activity were the cause, then both the atmosphere and the stratosphere would be warming, but that is not the case. The atmosphere is warming because GHGs are trapping heat, heat which is no longer escaping to warm the stratosphere. The stratosphere is actually cooling.
Moreover, while sun activity will affect warming or cooling on earth, the last decade or so has been a period in which sun activity has been in a cooler phase, and we will soon emerge from that. Despite that, in this decade, almost every one of the ten years have registered record warming.
The deniers pull out the Michael Mann "hockey stick" "straw-man" and try to say that it is the seminal and central observation by the climate scientists and then try to debunk it. In fact, there are many studies that confirm the hockey-stick finding, independent of the Mann study.
In the end, there is not even remotely reasonable doubt about the human contribution to climate change. It is happening and it may be happening even more quickly than we imagine. It demands action and leadership.
For anyone who still believes that humans are not causing warming, I say that they should be praying that they are wrong. Because if we are not causing it, we cannot fix it — and are they saying that whatever they think is causing it will stop at some convenient temperature that will not be destructive and will be survivable? How do they know?
Posted by 9 May 2012 by Senator Grant Mitchell
As they should, the Conservatives go to great lengths to honour "the men and women in uniform who risk their lives to protect our democratic values." Now, we are seeing that many of these veterans are in desperate need of mental health services to help them deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There is evidence that this is becoming a more intense problem as veterans stand down, the adrenaline evaporates and they are left with their thoughts. Military suicides are on the increase.
Last week, the government cut 15 of 25 mental health related workers who had been there to help the military personnel in Petawawa with post traumatic stress disorder problems. This is a devastating betrayal. This government honours these military women and men with words but says that there is not enough money left to provide the help they need.
Is the government suggesting that Canadians do not want to pay enough in taxes to pay our debt of gratitude to these men and women whose lives have been changed irrevocably, and the lives of their families too, because they did what we asked them to do, to defend our values and way of life? Are we really that selfish, Mr. Harper?
Posted by 3 May 2012 by Senator Percy Downe
May 1, 2012
Honourable Gail Shea, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Revenue
555 MacKenzie Avenue, 7th Floor
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
Dear Minister Shea:
I am writing you today with an inquiry about the Government’s progress in negotiating a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with Liechtenstein.
In a recent news broadcast (CBC Television’s The National, Thursday, April 5th, 2012), your office made reference to 19 such agreements, but made no mention of any agreement with Liechtenstein.
In recent years, no fewer than 20 countries have concluded Tax Information Exchange Agreements with Liechtenstein in an effort to keep tabs on their citizens' tax avoidance. The United States, the U.K., Australia, France and Germany have all signed agreements. Even countries such as St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Andorra and the Faroe Islands — a self-governing territory of Denmark consisting of 18 islands in the North Atlantic Sea, with a population of 50,000 — have signed tax information exchange agreements with Liechtenstein. Absent from this list, however, is Canada, despite having entered into negotiations with Liechtenstein two years ago.
The recent scandal involving Canadians with secret bank accounts in banks in Liechtenstein - and the fact that, to date, your department has not charged any of the Canadians holding those accounts with tax evasion - only serves to highlight the importance of concluding an effective and fair TIEA with this country. Given the respective size of our governments, one can rightly wonder how it is that Andorra can sign such an agreement, when the Canadian effort appears to be stalled.
I therefore ask you to demonstrate leadership in determining the cause of this delay, and in urging Canadian negotiators to conclude an effective Agreement with Liechtenstein as soon as possible.
I await your response.
Sincerely,
Percy E. Downe
Senator
Posted by 25 April 2012 by Senator Percy Downe
April 23, 2012
Honourable Gail Shea, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Revenue
555 MacKenzie Avenue, 7th Floor
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
Dear Minister Shea:
I have a question regarding statements made by your staff as reported on CBC Television’s The National broadcast on Thursday, April 5th, 2012.
The story, related to the more than 1700 Canadians discovered with money in secret accounts in a bank in Switzerland was followed by these remarks from the reporter, Diana Swain:
National Revenue Minister Gail Shea’s office, late today, said they dismiss that. . .
They point to 19 agreements signed in the past two years with countries around the world to try to get rid of these tax schemes. And they say that since this list came out, 84 Canadians have ante’d up through Voluntary Disclosure - $18 million in unpaid taxes.
This reference to 84 Canadians using the Voluntary Disclosures Program piqued my curiosity and reminded me of a question I had asked in the Senate last year (attached):
With respect to possible tax evasion:
In 2009, French authorities received information about 80,000 bank accounts in Switzerland, many of which were opened by French citizens in order to avoid paying taxes owed to the French state. France has since reported that it has recovered millions in unpaid taxes. French authorities then advised the Government of Canada of, and provided the names to, 1785 of these Swiss bank accounts held by Canadians.
One of my questions was:
From the information received from the Government of France, would the Canadian Government provide the following:
How many identified Canadians with accounts outside of Canada have availed of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the Canada Revenue Agency?
Your response to my questions was as follows:
The Canada Revenue Agency has an obligation to follow confidentiality and privacy legislation closely. Information is often provided to the CRA from various sources on the basis that it cannot be be further disclosed by the CRA. Where the CRA is at liberty to provide information it will endeavour to do so; in other instances, it will be limited in this ability.
In order to both respect confidentiality requirements and harmonious international relations, the CRA must adhere to the requirements that international tax treaties and agreements impose on the disclosure of information received from Canada’s treaty partners.
In the preamble to the above-noted question, it asserts that the information was provided to Canada from the Government of France. The information to which the question refers was received by the Government of Canada via an international tax treaty. As such, the information is protected under both the Exchange of Information article of the relevant tax treaty (in this case, Article 26 of the Canada-France Income Tax Convention) and paragraph 19.(1)(a) of the Privacy Act.
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, the information as requested cannot be shared.
You can imagine my surprise to find information I had requested – only to be told that disclosure of that information could endanger privacy, confidentiality and “harmonious international relations” – was suddenly available on the nightly news.
This information, according to the CBC, came from your office.
How do you and your Agency reconcile the withholding of information requested in Parliament with the inclusion of the very same information in a last-minute response to a media request?
This is a serious matter, and I await your response.
Sincerely,
Percy E. Downe
Senator
Posted by 20 April 2012 by Senator Percy Downe
April 16, 2012
Honourable Gail Shea, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Revenue
555 MacKenzie Avenue, 7th Floor
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
Dear Minister Shea:
I have a question regarding application of the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP).
Four years ago, the Government of Germany gave the Canadian Government a list containing the names of 106 Canadians with hidden bank accounts containing over $100 million in Liechtenstein. In 2009, the Government was asked in Parliament if any of the 106 had — or were eligible to — take advantage of the Voluntary Disclosures Program. The Government's response was:
The voluntary disclosures program, VDP, promotes compliance by encouraging taxpayers to voluntarily correct previous omissions in their dealings with the CRA. A requirement of the VDP is that taxpayers must make a full disclosure before the CRA commences any compliance action or investigation. If they do so, they may only have to pay the taxes owing, plus interest, but not face penalties or prosecution in the courts.
As compliance action has been commenced on all of the listed taxpayers, they are no longer eligible for consideration under the VDP.
The following year, however, the Government had changed its policy, with no explanation:
As of June 10, 2010, 20 residents of Canada who have accounts in Liechtenstein had availed themselves of the CRA's Voluntary Disclosures Program.
CRA's own definition of voluntary disclosures disqualifies circumstances where the taxpayer was aware of, or had knowledge of an audit, investigation, or other enforcement action set to be conducted by the CRA. The CRA has stated on the record that due to the fact that compliance action had been commenced on all of the 106 Canadians discovered to be hiding money in Liechtenstein, none of them were eligible for consideration under the VDP.
My questions are as follows:
1. How does the CRA reconcile these two contradictory statements, made to Parliament only a year apart?
2. Who lobbied the CRA, or you as minister, to change the policy, and would you please provide the list of those who lobbied?
3. Would the Government provide a copy of all documents and communications (including letters, e-mails, memoranda, etc.), related to this policy change?
4. How much of a financial benefit did the recipients of this policy change receive (i.e., reduced taxes and penalties)?
This is an issue that has caused Canadians to write to me expressing their concern and asking for an explanation, and I, in turn, am asking you.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Percy E. Downe
Senator
Posted by 18 April 2012 by Senator Percy Downe
April 10, 2012
Honourable Gail Shea, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Revenue
555 MacKenzie Avenue, 7th Floor
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
Dear Minister Shea:
I have a question regarding some of your recent statements.
In recent weeks, both yourself and your spokesperson have made some impressive claims about the Canada Revenue Agency’s record in detecting tax evasion. In particular, to quote your recent piece in the Hill Times, “Since our government came to power, the CRA has been able to assess more than $4-billion in taxes owed on money hidden offshore.”
My question is a simple one:
Of that $4 billion you’ve claimed the CRA has “assessed”, how much money has actually been collected:
a) in taxes;
b) in interest;
c) in CRA-imposed penalties; and
d) in court-imposed fines?
I have heard from many Canadians who are concerned about this issue and would appreciate a response.
Sincerely,
Percy E. Downe
Senator
Posted by 5 April 2012 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Here are some of my thoughts about the first Conservative majority budget:
1. It confirms for me that it is very unlikely that they will ever balance the budget, without fudging the figures like they did in their Ontario government in the late 1990s. They are cutting only $5.5 billion while at the same time continuing with a crime agenda that will cost as much as $19 billion over the next 5 to 10 years. And they continue in their commitment to the F35 jets which to this point are literally priceless and are only getting more expensive.
I am convinced that they cannot truly balance the budget because they are driven to spend ideologically. Management is of lesser priority than their ideological impulses and eludes them when the crunch comes.
2. They have literally gutted environmental programs, particularly any directed at climate change. Shockingly, they shut down the National Roundtable on the Economy and the Environment completely. They have laid off upwards of 1000 employees in the Environment Department, many of them scientists. They have shut down pretty much every program designed to help Canadians reduce GHG emissions. They have reneged on Kyoto.
3. And, now they are attacking charities (read environmental groups) for participating in the public policy debate in this country. The Conservatives morph from argument to argument; as one is exposed for the unfounded, biased attack that it is, they move to another. First, it is that charitable groups should not be allowed to take money from foreign sources, implying that somehow this costs taxpayers something because this money is charitable.
But, of course, foreign foundations do not pay taxes in their own countries, let alone in Canada. So, they then morph to the argument that Canadian charities (read environmental groups) should not get the benefit of charitable tax treatment for the money they raise even from Canadian donors and be able to participate in public policy debate (read debate and the environmental review process on oil sands projects).
Now, the budget is calling for charities to be required to give more information about their "political" activities. And, it gives $8.0 million to CRA to review this issue. Let's remember that no charity is allowed to support political parties and maintain their charitable status now.
This will have the effect of creating a chill over environmental groups that have every right to participate in the environmental debate in this country.
Who is to decide which political activity is acceptable and which is not? What about the fundamental groups and churches that have charitable status and certainly engage in "political" debate?
4. They say they are cutting $5.0 billion over 3 years leading people to believe that they are reducing spending. But, in fact spending is going up from $276 billion to $296 billion over that time.
Posted by 2 March 2012 by Senator Jane Cordy
Recent studies have shown a sharp increase in the number of inmates with poor mental health. Unfortunately these numbers continue to rise and will continue to rise when Bill C -10 passes into law. Many Canadians who are in poor mental health and who come in conflict with the law are going to be swept up into jails under this draconian law. Minimum mandatory sentencing and longer jail terms do not deter crime. In addition, taking away a judge's discretion at sentencing will have the unfortunate consequence of sending those who are convicted and who suffer from poor mental health to jail instead of to a secure hospital environment.
There is a clear need for treatment for inmates who suffer from poor mental health on both a compassionate basis and a crime prevention basis. In most cases, inmates who enter the correctional facilities with a mental illness and remain there without any treatment come out in worse condition. The chances of these people re-offending or even committing a worse crime once released are significantly higher unless they receive the help they need. If these offenders receive proper treatment while in custody the percentage of those reoffending goes down significantly.
The gut reaction of vengeance is a powerful impulse when dealing with crime in our society. The government says this legislation is for victims' rights but punishment without treatment of our mentally ill offenders does not serve society nor does it keep our streets safer.
I truly hope that there is room for compassion and discretion in a just and fair Canadian justice system. Let us not, as a society, allow those with a mental illness to languish in jail with no treatment. Let us not talk about being tough on crime or soft on crime. Let us talk about being smart on crime, or as the hundreds of emails sent to me convey, let us talk about a Bill that will make Canada safer, not meaner.
Posted by 29 February 2012 by Senator Jane Cordy
Recently I had the privilege of being on a panel to discuss "How do we address poverty in Canada." The meeting was part of Dignity for All: the campaign for a poverty free Canada. I was joined on the panel by Sen. Don Meredith, Jean Crowder MP, Jean Francois Fortin MP, Elizabeth May MP, Harriet McLachlan from Canada without Poverty, and Leilani Farha from Dignity for All. The moderator was John Ibbitson.
The Social Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, released a report on poverty in 2009 called "In From The Margins". We know that one in ten Canadians lives in poverty; that's about 3.4 million people. That is the equivalent of every man woman and child in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan. According to Statistics Canada poverty reduces life expectancy more than cancer. If you are poor your life expectancy is shorter! There are many reasons why people are poor and the reasons for poverty are as diverse as the people living in poverty. We do know however that poverty disproportionately affects older Canadians, women, children, recent immigrants, the disabled and aboriginal peoples.
The panel was asked what we have to do to make things better for those who face the challenges of being poor. I believe that we all have to work together in a non partisan way to find ways to make changes. What we heard in our committee's study was that the money we spend trying to eliminate poverty has to be spent more wisely. We heard from people who came before our committee and said that we have programs that make it a bit easier to live in poverty but not enough to get out of it. We also heard that Canada can't afford to keep people in poverty. Former Premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach, said that a homeless person costs society about $100 000 a year but those costs drop to about $35 000 a year if that person is given a long term home. If we want to make a difference we have to have a national strategy for housing and if we are really serious, a national strategy with real outcomes to stop poverty.
There are great programs in locations across the country which are making a real difference. The Pathways to Education Program gives students help in completing their education. There are housing programs in municipalities that are working. There are programs like Phoenix House in Halifax that work with homeless youth and they are doing an outstanding job. What we do need is federal leadership — leadership to make a difference, leadership that will make a commitment to finding ways to make significant changes. There are some excellent reports on the subject of poverty so there is no need to reinvent the wheel and there is no need for huge influxes of money. We simply have to do things differently.
Should the priority of government be jets, jails and PR people to make us look good or should the priority be helping Canadians get out of the cycle of poverty?
I want to thank the organizers of the panel and all of those who participated in the question and answer part of the evening. There are a lot of good people trying to make a difference in the lives of those less fortunate.
Posted by 15 February 2012 by Senator Dennis Dawson
Below: The text of the motion on suicide was unanimously adopted by the Senate earlier today. Let’s spread the message that suicide is not an option.
"That the Senate agree that suicide is more than a personal tragedy, but is also a serious public health issue and public policy priority; and, further, that the Senate urge the government to work cooperatively with the provinces, territories, representative organizations from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people, and other stakeholders to establish and fund a National Suicide Prevention Strategy, which among other measures would promote a comprehensive and evidence-driven approach to deal with this terrible loss of life."
Please click here to read my speech on this subject
Posted by 15 February 2012 by Senator Jane Cordy
In 2006 former Health Minister Tony Clement, established a Trans Fat Task Force. The task force recommended legislation to limit trans fat content to two percent of total fat content in margarine and five percent in all other foods in Canada. The minister gave industry two years to voluntarily reduce levels of trans fat in their products.
Trans fats which enhance the flavour of food and extend the shelf life are not a necessary added ingredient in any food. Many governments around the world have regulated trans fat levels and in many cases have banned trans fat all together from restaurants.
Studies have shown that trans fat is a major contributor to heart disease and according to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada is attributed to 3,000 – 5,000 premature deaths in Canada each year.
It is now four years after the Trans Fat Task Force recommendations and industry has not voluntarily reduced trans fat levels to meet federal targets. Yet this government has failed to bring forward the promised regulations. Why? It turns out in 2009 that Health Minister Aglukkaq quietly killed the plan which would have regulated trans fat levels in Canadian’s food.
It is happening all too frequently with this government; a department sets up a working group, such as this one on trans fats or the one on sodium; departmental officials spend valuable time and money on an issue and prepare briefing notes to the minister to indicate why action should be taken. Then, at the last minute, after all that time and money is spent, the minister caves in to lobbying from industry and rejects the data and the advice of experts.
It is time for this government to realize that the small savings to industry is coming at the very real and substantial cost of Canadian’s health. It is time for the health of Canadians to be a priority for this government. Too many times the health of Canadians and the advice of Health Canada are being ignored in favour of big business by this government.