Brent's Blog

February 2, 2012

                        INCOME SECURITY FOR SENIORS REQUIRES REFORM (NOW)

I am on House Duty today and it is a designated Opposition Day, which means that the House of Commons will debate any motion chosen by the Official Opposition.  The topic du jour is: “that this House rejects calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada’s seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and calls on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors’ poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.”

Timely perhaps, but it also quite disingenuous.   The motion combines three disparate themes in one giant non sequitur.   The reality is that the government’s current budgetary deficit is a real and immediate concern, while the need to reform the pensions and income security for seniors, although relevant, is prospective and forward looking. The unsustainability of our nation’s income security for seniors is not the cause of our projected $30B deficit.  Left unchecked, however, it will become a major cause of future fiscal catastrophe.

OAS is funded through tax revenues and is premised on there being enough taxpayers to support retirees.  However, the number of Canadians over the age of 65 will increase from 4.7 million today to 9.3 million by 2030.  Canadians are living longer and our fertility rates have been declining for decades.  When OAS was first introduced, life expectancy for Canadians was 71—today it is 82.  Consequently, the cost of OAS will increase from $36B per year in 2010 to $108B by 2030.  That represents an increase in the GDP from 2.3% to 3.1%.  Meanwhile, by that same year the ratio of taxpayer to retiree will be 2:1 (down from the current 4:1).

The Government remains committed to senior income security.  In fact, the Government topped up the Guaranteed Income Security by $300M to assist 680,000 of our most vulnerable seniors.  For the less vulnerable,  there is pension income splitting and an increased age tax credit.  Moreover, Canadians are encouraged to plan for their own retirement by investing in innovative programs such as the Tax Free Savings Account and Pooled Registered Pension Plans.

Given shifting demographics, Old Age Security will become too expensive and eventually unsustainable.  Unlike the current deficit, an aging population is a long term problem but if managed in the short term is quite manageable. 

The changes, presumably, will be introduced over a considerable period of time, will be phased in over a number of years and will not affect current recipients.  Accordingly, the need to reform income security is completely unrelated to the deficit, which will be balanced long before the changes are implemented.

However, the resistance we are seeing in reforming OAS will only add to the challenges of addressing future senior poverty as the entire program would collapse under its unaffordable weight.  Given the shifting demographics, to deny that change is required is either to deny that a problem exists or to risk income security programs altogether.

Brent

________________________________________________________________________________

January 27, 2012

                                                    The Politics of Pipeline Regulation

As the National Energy Board brought its travelling roadshow to Edmonton this week,  I have been able to follow the proceedings firsthand.  The National Energy Board is holding exhaustive hearings on Enbridge Pipelines’ proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Bruderheim to Kitimat.  If approved, the project would create tens of thousands of jobs in the construction phase, would move up to 500,000 barrels of bitumen a day and most importantly would secure Asian markets for Alberta’s energy resources.
 
Although I certainly support the proposed pipeline for the aforementioned economic reasons, it is actually the process, not the result, that currently interests me.  Even though the hearings are only two weeks old, they are already exhausting.  The process will take at least sixteen months, with a scheduled 4,600 participants addressing the three member panel.  Realistically, eighteen months of hearings is more likely and a decision is unlikely for at least six months after that.  As we have learned from the almost abandoned Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline, protracted studies and hearings can actually kill a project.  The cost associated with regulatory compliance and/or changed market circumstances can render once viable projects less so.
 
Without a doubt building an 1,177km double pipeline through and near Native lands and the Rocky Mountains requires careful study to ensure environmental compliance.  Accordingly in late 2009, the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency issued a Joint Review Panel Agreement to ensure a thorough public regulatory review process.
 
But is it conceivable that said process could take up to two years and is it purposeful to hear from 4,600 different proponents and adversaries??  Clearly, there are important issues to be addressed and adjudicated.  However, arguments all seemingly boil down to: proponents citing the economic advantage, jobs and securing markets for our energy resources and opponents citing interference with traditional native lands and/or fear of environmental disaster.   All are relevant and important matters that need to be addressed and assessed.   However, it is inconceivable that there are 4,600 different relevant variations on the above themes and hearing the same argument or position hundreds of times does not make it any more or less persuasive.
 
In fact, it has been suggested that opponents of the project are actually filibustering—signing up to present previously presented argument or evidence merely to delay and/or disrupt the process.  A Court of Law would never allow such chicanery.  Judicial Interveners would be accepted only if they have something new to add to the debate and identical presenters would be bundled together and the fact that one presentation had multiple supporters would be noted for the Record.
 
But perhaps the most troubling aspect of this type of environmental advocacy is the Participant Funding Program.  The Environment Minister provides funding to facilitate the participation of the public in the process.  Some $2.8 Million has been provided to aboriginal and environmental groups to participate in these regulatory hearings.  The problem is that a perusal of the groups funded confirms that they are all on the same side of the debate.
 
So notwithstanding that the Federal Government is promoting the Gateway Pipeline for its economic benefits, it is simultaneously funding groups to oppose it!

Taxpayers ought not to be forced to fund causes (political or otherwise) that they do not support.  This was the reason Parliament recently ended the $2 per vote political subsidy to Political Parties.  Similarly, a taxpayer should not be forced to pay for an intervener or activist that he does not support (on either side of the pipeline debate).  If one supports the ambitions of the Living Oceans Society (who received $91,000) or the Raincoast Conservation Foundation ($83,790), I am sure they would gladly accept a donation.  Otherwise they should raise their own money for their own advocacy causes.
 
As government strategically looks to reduce discretionary spending and return to balanced budgets, certainly programs like The Participant Funding Program should be subject to the same scrutiny as the proposed pipeline!!

Brent
________________________________________________________________________________

January 19, 2012                              

                                 MPs Must Lead by Example on Public Sector Pension Reform

Perhaps no area of political discourse is more contentious than the issue of politician compensation.  Regardless of whether elected officials set their own remuneration or whether they farm the contentious issue out to a committee of "experts", invariably the result is generous compensation for elected officials and outrage from the public which pays it.  The problem with setting compensation for elected officials is the lack of comparable benchmarks in the private sector.
 
Having been a lawyer and part-time lobbyist in the private sector and a MLA and MP in the public sector, it is difficult to draw benchmark comparisons between the various roles, duties, time commitments etc.  Most MPs cite long hours, extended periods away from home and a brutal travel schedule as the least attractive aspects of our job.  But these occupational hazards are not the exclusive obligation of elected officials; certainly Executives of successful corporations experience similar constraints on their time and personal lives.  Others argue that the lack of tenure and potential for abrupt dismissal without cause requires attractive compensation to attract a high quality of candidates.  Fair enough, but a fickle electorate is not necessarily more judgemental than a disappointed Board of Directors or a cranky boss!
 
So politicians’ lives and tenures may not be as unique as we sometimes think.  That being said, MPs. MLAs, Mayors and Counsellors ought to be generously and competitively compensated.  The key word is “competitively” not “outrageously”.  In fact, the issue with the salaries of MPs rarely comes under much scrutiny and appropriately not, in my view.  The base salary of $157k is, I suspect, comparable, and therefore defensible, compensation compared to jobs in the private sector with comparable duties and time commitments.  In fact, a compelling argument can be made that the Prime Minister is grossly underpaid at $315k when compared to what CEO's of major corporations in the private sector earn.
 
However, all comparisons break down quickly when the issue of MP pensions come under scrutiny. Few, if any, in the private sector enjoy defined benefit pension plans.  Regardless of how markets perform, the entitlement that a MP enjoys is defined and constant, which means when markets perform as poorly as they have been, the entitlement has to be topped up in order to ensure the defined benefit is available.  According to Canadian Taxpayer Federation calculations, the public contributions versus the recipients’ contribution vary from $5.80: $1 (official formula) to $23.30: $1, when markets perform dismally.  By any objective standard, these defined benefit pensions are overly generous, without private sector comparison and create unsustainable unfunded liability.
 
All of that being said, in absolute dollar terms, the whole issue of MP Pensions is a bit of a red herring.  With only 308 Members of Parliament, changing the MP Pension Plan from a defined benefit plan to a more affordable defined contribution plan is not going to make a significant or even noticeable dent in the country's $580 billion dollar accumulated debt.  However, there is a larger issue at play; an issue of leadership (a moral issue, if you prefer).  The Federal Government MUST get its fiscal house in order.  The Government cannot continue to run deficits in the range of $30B annually.  The Government must reduce the size and cost of government to prevent unsustainable long term debt. 
 
Federal public servants also receive generous pensions and benefits.  In fact during my recent pre-budget consultations with the St. Albert Chamber of Commerce, I heard emphatically that public service pensions and benefits (not salaries) make it difficult for the small and medium size business sector to attract and retain qualified employees. Meanwhile, C. D. Howe has just released a report estimating the unfunded liability in the Federal Government Employee Pension Plans at $227 Billion. This must be addressed and addressed quickly if we are to return to balanced budgets anytime in the foreseeable future.
 
In the mid-1990’s, in Alberta, Premier Ralph Klein made significant cuts to the Provincial Budget.  All Albertans, especially the public service, were asked to make sacrifices.  However, before preceeding, Premier Klein attained the moral authority to do so by first cutting MLA pensions.
 
If the federal government is to require compromise on the pensions and benefits enjoyed by its 317, 000 civilian employees, Parliamentarians must lead by example and scale back our defined benefit plans.  To ask our public servants to take less requires moral leadership.  Parliament will have no moral authority on the issues of government restraint, generally, and public sector benefits, specifically, unless it has the courage to lead by example.  Members of Parliament are considered to be leaders in society and moral leadership starts at the top.
 
“You can’t lead anyone further than you have gone yourself.” – Baseball Manager Gene Mauch

Brent

________________________________________________________________________________

January 13, 2012

                                                Observations of a Crime Victim

Although I frequently speak about victims of crime, it is a rare that I can do so in the first person.  However, last week I had the, thankfully rare, opportunity to view the Judicial System through the lens of a victim of crime.
 
In the spring of 2009, two cheques mysteriously went missing from my office, were forged and ultimately negotiated for $6,000.  As the Bank reimbursed the funds, I soon lost interest in the matter.  However a protracted investigation, including bank video surveillance, resulted in charges of fraud, uttering and possession of stolen property being laid against a young adult male.
 
Although I knew few details of the matter (it occurred while I was in Ottawa) and my staff performs the Bank Reconciliation, I was subpoenaed to testify in St. Albert Provincial Court, presumably to confirm that the signatures on the cheques were not mine.
 
Early in my legal career I appeared several times a week in Red Deer’s Provincial Court (Criminal Division).  My experience as a witness was certainly different.  To the witness/victim, the Judicial Process is mystifying at best and disrespectful at worse.  My subpoena “commanded” me to appear before the Presiding Judge at 9:30 am on the appointed day (the time when Court started).  I remain perplexed as to why the defendant did not show up to 11:00, notwithstanding the constant advice from his lawyer that he was “five minutes away”.  
 
In any event, following protracted negotiations, a plea arrangement was finalized and everyone was spared the necessity of a trial.  Of course, said negotiations were conducted exclusively between the prosecutor and the defence lawyer.  It was not until the defence lawyer was satisfied that he had obtained the best possible deal available for his client, that he took the plea bargain to the accused for ratification.  Not surprisingly, yours truly and the other victim (the Bank) were completely excluded from the process.  As a former practising lawyer, I understand that the formal parties to the proceedings are the Crown and the Accused; however, I also understand that victim exclusion makes most victims feel insignificant in the entire process, frequently resulting in a sense of revictimization.
 
The resolution of the matter is even more troubling.  The four charges against the accused resulted in one guilty plea to one count of possession of stolen property over $5,000.  The accused received a $500 fine, one year probation and a restitution order in the amount of $6,000.  The accused’s   lawyer admitted that his client would be unable to repay the ordered amount during the period of probation.
 
I am sceptical that it will ever be repaid.  If my suspicions are accurate, this $6,000 enterprise will have cost the accused $500.  Had he not been caught, the entire enterprise would have been profit.  I do not see how this disposition serves as a deterrent to the individual, much less to society as a whole.   The amazing part of it all was the joint sentencing submission (the Crown and the defence lawyer agreed on the Sentence)!
 
Sadly, stories like mine are all too common.  Any suggestion that our criminal justice system is not soft on crime or that reforms are not needed invariably come from Judicial “experts” rather than from those the system was constructed to protect.


Brent
________________________________________________________________________________

January 5, 2012

                                                    2012 Will Bring Challenges

Canada enters 2012 in a truly advantageous position.  With a strong economy, comparatively low debt and unemployment rates, Canada is the envy of most of the industrialized world.  However, challenges remain and if Canada is to retain its comparative economic advantage and superior quality of life, certain significant challenges must be addressed and addressed quickly.
 
Firstly, Ottawa must get its spending and debt under control.  2011 saw the end of the $2 per vote political subsidy and the near end of the ineffective Long Gun Registry.  Eliminating unnecessary programs and services is relatively easy.  However, if we are to find our way back to balanced budgets, we must seriously examine the cost of providing necessary services.  Inevitably that examination will focus on the Federal Government’s own human resources.  Canada can simply not sustain a public sector whose growth outpaces every other financial category in size and compensation.
 
In the decade 1999-2009, the Canadian population grew by 11% but the federal government’s civilian workforce bloated by 35%.  More troubling, public sector compensation grew by 59% compared to 30% in the private sector over the same decade.  The International Monetary Fund is warning Canada to reduce Government expenditures from 43% to 38% of GDP within a decade in order to avoid unsustainable debt levels.
 
In addition to reducing the overall size of government, Canada must also address the unacceptable situation that is facing many of our First Nations.  Attawapiskat joins Davis Inlet and other tragedies as compelling proof that the Indian Act has outlived its purpose (if it ever had one).  Sadly, the paternalistic strategy has resulted in generations of victimization and abject poverty while many aboriginal leaders have enjoyed unimaginable wealth.  We simply cannot continue to dump billions of dollars into a system with so little accountability and such disastrous results.  I am not entirely certain what the solution is.  However,  the status quo is clearly not an option.
 
Similarly, Canadians must seriously look at many of their social safety net mechanisms given their increased cost and ultimate unaffordability. No program is more troubling than our system of Employment Insurance.  In Western Canada, employers cannot fill tens of thousands of high paying jobs and are often forced to seek expensive Temporary Foreign Workers to fill everything from skilled jobs in the construction industry to service jobs in the hospitality and restaurant industries.  Elsewhere, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are collecting Employment Insurance, many for parts of every year for decades!
 
Canadians must abandon these cultures of victimhood and entitlement and opt for empowerment, self sufficiency and independence if we are to truly reach our potential as individuals and as a nation.
 
Internationally, with a new leader in North Korea and continued instability in Syria and its ally Iran, Canada will need to be continually mindful of its international obligations in promoting peace and security.
 
Although much of the political attention will be focussed on a spring election in Alberta and a fall election in the USA, this year will also prove eventful federally; in 2012, Canada will take steps to get its debt under control, reduce the overall size of government and deal with serious issues inside and outside of its borders.
 
Happy 2012 to All!

Brent

_______________________________________________________________________

December 24, 2011

                                                .05 Law Targets the Wrong Drivers

With the holiday season upon us, so too is the Checkstop Season.

I am somewhat reticent to comment on an Act of the Alberta Legislature.  However, as a Member of the House of Commons’ Justice Committee that studied Impaired Driving Laws in Canada and expressly rejected a .05 Criminal Benchmark, I feel qualified to contribute to the debate.

Although there is little of evidence that much of the actual carnage on our roadways is caused by drivers with Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) as low as .05, admittedly evidence does exist that SOME drivers’ abilities are affected with BAC’s as low as .05 (or even lower).  But the Justice Committee deliberately rejected the .05 Criminal Benchmark because for those individuals, operating a motor vehicle is already illegal.

For decades, the Criminal Code of Canada has contained identical Criminal sanctions for three distinct offences.  Under s. 253 of the Criminal Code, Everyone commits an offence, who operates a motor vehicle while the person’s ability to operate “is impaired by alcohol or drug”.   This prohibition against impaired operation is irrespective of any specific BAC and carries identical penalties to driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood or refusing to provide a breath sample.

The difference, however, between the Criminal Offence of “Impaired Operation” and the proposed administrative suspension is the difference between living in a country with respect for the rule of law and living in a police state.  A conviction for Impaired Operation is premised on the presumption of innocence, requires actual evidence of impairment and a fair trial before an impartial Court.  Alberta’s Bill 26 turns the Roadside Traffic Cop into investigator, Judge and Executioner.

The Police in Alberta currently have the power to issue 24 hour Suspensions.  I support that—a Driver’s License is issued by the Province and what the Province giveth, the Province may taketh away.  Seizure of personal property (i.e. a motor vehicle) roadside, without the inconvenience of a fair trial, however, is a gross affront to civil liberty.

Due process of law ought not to be sacrificed in favour of an emotional plea against drunk driving. Make no mistake it is an emotional, not a logical, response, as the statistical evidence is clear that the vast majority of alcohol related traffic fatalities occur with BAC’s of .16 and higher.  

Governments erroneously believe that it can cure any social ill.  Legislators erroneously believe that through some design or legislative mechanism they can change human behavior.  The State overestimates its ability to remedy human frailty.   

Parliament is currently debating Bill C-19, “An Act to Abolish the Long Gun Registry”.  The similarity between what is being abolished federally and what is being proposed provincially is striking.  The LGR was an emotional response to the tragic 1989 events at École Polytech, but it targeted the wrong group of gun owners and has proved ineffective in deterring gun crime.  Similarly, the Provincial Administrative Suspension targets the wrong class of operators and by punishing administratively what (if proven) is already illegal criminally, will have no better outcomes.  

Whether you agree or disagree with me, please drink responsibly this Christmas Season.  And best wishes for a happy and prosperous 2012!!

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

December 20, 2011
 
                              Canada Heath Transfer to Grow but cannot grow forever

Although I have previously written about the need for respective levels of government to respect responsibilities assigned to it by the Constitution, when it comes to health care, the magnitude of resources required plus some adherence to national standards mandate significant federal involvement.  Accordingly the Federal Government just announced a $178B investment so that all Canadians have access to a reliable health care system.  The Government remains committed to a publically funded, universally accessible health care system.

The Federal Health Care Transfer will continue to grow---from $20B in 2006 to $27B this year—Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced yesterday increasing support for Canada’s health care system with a long-term and growing investment.  With the current 6% escalator, health care transfers will increase from $30B per year in 2013-14 to $38B per year in 2018-19.  Cumulatively that equals a $178B investment for the five year period starting in 2014.

Some provincial Finance Ministers are expressing disappointment that, although the Health Care Transfer will increase by 6% per year for five years, thereafter the increase will grow by nominal GDP growth or 3% (whichever is greater).  It is well known that Provincial Treasuries are being consumed by increased health care costs; a trend which left unchecked would result in many provinces being able to offer little else besides health care within a decade.  Unchecked growth in health care costs is simply not sustainable; growth in health care costs faster than the growth in the economy is similarly unsustainable.  If provincial governments are to continue to provide other important services besides heath care (Education and Highways for example), health care costs cannot indefinitely grow faster than the economy grows.  I believe that might actually be the definition of “unsustainable”!

Accordingly, the Federal Government is committed to annual health transfers growing above the currently high contributions (although not forever).   Future growth WILL be sustainable as it will be tied to the growth in the Canadian Economy.  This will be measured by Nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP adjusted by population growth).  GDP is actually predicted to grow by between 4 and 4.5% per year, but with a recession looming, economic growth cannot be guaranteed.  Accordingly, the transfer is guaranteed to grow by no less than 3% per annum to ensure predictability.

As heath care is delivered by the provinces, the federal government can do little to encourage cost containment or reduced cost delivery mechanisms.  As the Western European experience demonstrates, unchecked government spending cannot be sustained and the entire system will eventually collapse under its own unaffordable weight.

Health care advocates, some health care professionals and some provinces invariably will cry foul.  To them more is always required and lots is never enough.  However, the approach being offered is both predictable and sustainable.  Canadians expect the health care system to be there for them when required.  However, in times of economic uncertainty and fiscal restraint, they also expect their governments to spend prudently.  Given the federal government’s commitment to the health care transfer, thankfully both can be accomplished.

Brent
______________________________________________________________________

December 12, 2011
                                    
                                    Where Families Lead, Government Must Follow

My Ottawa Assistant, who is originally from Vancouver, wanted to see the Vancouver Canucks who came to battle the Sens in Ottawa this past Saturday night.  But with Christmas around the corner, her sister’s imminent wedding and a planned trip to Europe, she and her husband (a Canucklehead if ever there was one) made the difficult decision that they simply could not afford what is clearly an expensive form of entertainment.

Why is it that households get it?  Families expressly understand that they must live within their means; that long-term debt is not part of a successful financial plan (unless your plan is to commit bankruptcy).  And that if you are going to enjoy certain extravagances (such as a trip to Europe), other sacrifices will have to be made.

Then why is it when government attempts to live by the same fiscal discipline that certain individuals suddenly believe all programs and projects are sacred cows?

Although short-term debt is tolerable and sometimes necessary, excessive long-term debt is incompatible with long-term economic growth.  You cannot, in the long-term, sustain economic growth through public spending.  Keynesian spending, left unchecked, has not led to economic growth anywhere.  Quite the opposite: extreme public debt has led to crises in Greece, Italy and Portugal, economic downturn and political deadlock in the U.S. and extreme austerity measures in Great Britain.

Why do some Canadians believe we are immune from such basic economic reality?  Every time I call a new museum a questionably unaffordable luxury or demand greater financial accountability at CBC, a cadre of detractors predictably proclaims I am against everything.  They ignore what I am for: I am for ensuring taxpayers receive value for their money and the economy is allowed to flourish.

There continues to be a real disconnect between government and the taxpayers it represents.  Fiscal conservatives understand government has no money save for that which it taxes from its citizens and corporations.  Fiscal spendthrifts erroneously believe government magically has resources of its own and therefore can spend generously on all projects and programs without consequence.  Apparently, they have not been following the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, which has proven that the unchecked growth of the European Welfare State is simply not sustainable.

Government does not create wealth; it merely redistributes wealth.  It only spends resources taken out of the private economy.  Government programs and public works can and do sustain demand in the short-term, but they also monopolize available resources, take them away from private business and, as a result, slow down the economy.  The best long-term economic stimulus is for government to reduce spending, pay down debt and let resources be allocated in a sustainable method through private investments.

Margaret Thatcher once said:  “Who is society?  There is no such thing!  There are individual men and women and there are families and no government  can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first………people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.”

So the next time your MP asks if a certain program or project is a necessity and affordable, ask yourself who is entitled and who has the obligation to pay?   You will soon learn the answer is one and the same.
 
 Brent


_______________________________________________________________________

December 2, 2011

                                    Accountability and Transparency Required

I was watching CTV News last night and reporting from Attawapiskat, Daniele Hamamdjian stated that local residents were thrilled that the Chief was being replaced by Third Party Management and auditors were en route to determine what happened to the $90M in federal funding because it would bring “accountability and transparency”.  I agree that they should be pleased.

However, when I made a similar argument regarding the $1.1 billion annual subsidy to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I faced a barrage of criticism.  From a National Entertainment Reporter to at least two local bloggers, it has been suggested that I am a “witch hunter, a national embarrassment and a carbon blob”.  Considering the respective sources, it is easy to ignore the hyperbole.  But what is interesting is that, with one incorrect exception, not a single one of these “writers” even attempted an argument as to why CBC should not disclose pertinent financial information to ensure taxpayers receive transparency and accountability.

The only relevant statement that even remotely qualifies as debate is the correct assertion that Public Disclosure cannot extend to what a private production company pays Rick Mercer.  Agreed, but if you check the Order Paper, that is not asked---only what CBC pays the production company owned by Rick Mercer forms part of my inquiry.  Otherwise, my critics prefer ad hominem and imputing motive rather than engaging in a real debate concerning the merits of allowing taxpayers to determine how their money is spent.

Amazingly, when not conspiracy theorizing, the Globe’s John Doyle actually agrees with me!  He opines “a reasonable argument can be made that as it is in part taxpayer-funded, the CBC should release salary details for its employees”. In fact, I’m beginning to wonder if my detractors have actually been following what I’ve been saying.  I state explicitly in my referred to blog of November 8 that:  I watch the CBC, I like the CBC and I want to see the CBC continued, albeit on a more commercially viable, less taxpayer-dependent, basis.

Who could possibly disagree with a scenario that allows the CBC to continue to fulfill its mandate but with less cost to Canadian taxpayers??? Apparently, only my critics. 

However, if they do in fact watch CBC News, they have undoubtedly heard about the sovereign debt crisis.  If they listen to Amanda Lang, they know that all industrialized countries are committed to getting their deficits under control so as not to exacerbate the imminent worldwide recession, and that said recession will invariably reduce both corporate and individual income and in turn federal tax revenue.

Those of us who live in the real world know that not only are government resources finite, but also that those resources will contract if the economy does.  Accordingly, governments at all levels have to make tough decisions.  Governments must prioritize and make difficult decisions often between competing priorities.  Even popular, beneficial projects and priorities have to be assessed vis a vis each other.  Not everything can be funded.

The purpose, benefit and affordability of ALL government expenditures need to be assessed.  A precondition to that debate is accurate information and thus my request for financial disclosure from the CBC.  A second precondition, however, is that an actual debate on the issues take place.

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

November 18, 2011

                   Federal Government Not Responsible for Funding Provincial Museums

As those of you who follow me on social media know, I am troubled by the decision this week to fund the Royal Alberta Museum.  I say troubled and not opposed because I do see the value in the preservation of history.  I also understand the cultural, educational and tourism arguments put forward by the projects’ proponents.

However, my issues regarding this and other mega dollar amenity projects are twofold: affordability and responsibility.  The first issue is straightforward; no level of government can currently afford a third of a billion dollar museum.  All three levels of government have significant deficits.  The City of Edmonton has a $30.7 M operating deficit, crumbling infrastructure and net long-term debt of $1.8B.  The Province’s deficit has been reduced to $3.4 Billion due to higher than anticipated energy royalties.  The Feds, meanwhile, have been running deficits north of $50 Billion due to economic stimulus projects.  Our debt to GDP ratio at 34% is happily not as high as Greece’s, but our cumulative debt is now $570 Billion.  With the current fiscal situation and the impending economic downturn, no level of government can afford this project (at least, not currently).  Governments need to concentrate on the provision of basic and essential services.  Edmonton has crumbling neighborhoods, infrastructure deficits, substandard snow removal and aggressive plans to expand public transit.  Alberta spends 60% of its budget on health and education; yet wait times and classroom sizes continue to grow.  I am perplexed as to how either of these levels of government could consider a new museum a priority.

But for obvious reasons my biggest concerns regarding this and similar amenity projects lie with the federal contribution and that involves the issue of responsibility and jurisdiction.  I can find no authority in Section 91 of the Constitution Act that makes the federal government responsible for local or provincial museums.  The federal government does build and operate many museums and galleries, all of which are great and most of which are located right here in Ottawa.  I would be shocked to learn that any other level of government contributed to any of them financially.  Sadly, I suspect that many Canadians believe that if a project is perceived to be meritorious that all levels of government should automatically fund it on that basis, without any assessment that in a federal state, each level of government does in fact have distinct jurisdiction and responsibilities.

What about the proposed Royal Alberta Museum makes it a project of national significance??  Even the name confirms it is not a national or federal project!  Obviously the same logic applies to dispel any notion that the federal government should fund an arena in downtown Edmonton.  The federal government does however fund projects that appear to be local or regional but conform to a national standard, program, or responsibility.  Public transit is a good example of a municipal program that is supported by a federal initiative.

The federal government’s responsibilities include the criminal law, national defense, national security, border security, coastal security, natives and native lands, old age pensions, unemployment insurance and of course provincial equalization.  These are all taxing responsibilities.  In light of the current fiscal reality, governments must not only spend prudently, they must focus on the essential and necessary programs and services that they are mandated to provide.

 

Brent


_______________________________________________________________________

November 8, 2011

                                                      

 Last week marked the 75^th Anniversary of the State Broadcaster, CBC/Radio Canada.  As birthdays often provide an opportunity for introspection, I decided to use the event to assess the role and efficacy of our state broadcaster.

I start with an admission; I actually like the CBC.  I frequently watch CBC Newsworld (although they keep changing their name) and “The National”.  I occasionally watch the “Fifth Estate” and “Dragon’s Den”; I rarely miss “the Mercer Report” or “Hockey Night in Canada” (when the Oilers are playing)!  However, I started a minor blogger eruption during the spring election campaign, when I had the audacity to reveal that it was my desire to see the CBC become more commercially self-reliant and less dependent on taxpayer largesse.   I was suggesting neither privatization nor dictated reduced funding (only greater commercial viability).  But the bloggers had a heyday.  Apparently, not only is the CBC important to them, it is equally important that it lose money!  

With the election behind us, a real probability of another international financial crisis ahead of us and our Government’s desire to eliminate its deficit, we need to critically assess the $1.16B taxpayer infusion into the CBC’s Operating Budget.  As this represents nearly two thirds of the state broadcaster's total revenue, obviously this entity is far from being commercially viable or ready for financial independence.  Most, if not all, of what government funds is not and cannot be profitable.  However, projects are funded provided they serve a valid public purpose at a reasonable cost.

The CBC’s stated mandate is to “inform, enlighten and entertain viewers and listeners about our nation, its culture and identity”.  Fair enough but CBC’s competitors seem to do all of those things and without the necessity of a public subsidy.  CTV for instance similarly offers a 24 Hour News Channel and produces reality shows (“Canadian Idol”) and sitcoms (“Dan For Mayor”) which are comparable to anything produced by the CBC.

The real problem facing the state broadcaster is its affordability, in part, caused by its low viewership.  Stated succinctly, the CBC cannot fulfill its mandate if few people are watching and listening.  In the last 52 weeks, CBC had 163 shows in the Top 30 Shows for the specific week (out of a possible 1,560).  Worse, 57 of those were hockey, while 16 were "Jeopardy", 11 "Wheel of Fortune" and 14, the Movie of the Week.  Since the game shows (and almost all of the movies) are American, they do nothing to inform about our nation, culture or identity.  Hockey, meanwhile, certainly flourishes on private broadcasters such as TSN and Roger's Sportsnet, either of which would salivate at the thought of getting their hands on the Saturday evening time slot!

So it becomes a live question as to how much of our national identity would disappear if the CBC did.  Thankfully, I do not have to resolve that issue because I favour continuation of the CBC, but on a charitable model rather than on a perpetual subsidised basis.  Rather than compelling every taxpayer to pay $69 towards the CBC, viewers could contribute whatever amount they like voluntarily and get a tax receipt for so doing.  This certainly works well south of the border for its Public Broadcaster (PBS), which continues to produce great documentaries, while promoting American culture.

There was a time when, given Canada's large geography and sparse population, it was not commercially viable for private broadcasters to reach the remote north or even much of the rural west.  The advent of satellite dishes has certainly remedied that.  So in 2011, seventy-five years after its inception, the role and efficacy of the CBC must be critically addressed.

Brent

_______________________________________________________________________

October 25, 2011

                              MERIT, NOT LANGUAGE, GUIDES SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS

It was a great honour to have been a participant in the Supreme Court of Canada Selection Panel.  The process, which began in August with the reading of many judicial decisions and articles written by the candidates under consideration, ended last week with the appointment of Mr. Justice Michael Moldaver and Madam Justice Andromache Karakatsanis following their appearance before a televised Parliamentary Committee.

I state unequivocally that these are outstanding jurists; they will make great additions to the Supreme Court of Canada.  While the appointment of Justice Karakatsanis proceeded with minimal public or media debate, there was apparent outrage by the Opposition NDP and Bloc Quebecois that Justice Moldaver was not bilingual.  This argument is ill conceived.  It presumes requirements for appointment that simply do not exist.  The Supreme Court Act prescribes certain requirements; for example, a potential appointee must be a Judge or a lawyer with at least 10 years experience and a minimum of three Justices must be from Quebec.  Convention requires that a further three come from Ontario and one from the Maritimes, leaving two appointments from the western provinces.  Nowhere is there a requirement that successful appointees be competent in both of Canada’s Official Languages, nor should there be such a requirement.  

Quebec rightfully gets three appointments to the Highest Court to reflect that the province uses the Civil Code rather than Common Law.  Moreover, the simple reality is that the farther you move from the Ottawa-New Brunswick Corridor, the smaller the percentage of bilingual Canadians and therefore the smaller the pool of qualified candidates for an appointment to the Supreme Court.

Either you subscribe to the merit principle or you do not.  Legal merit includes intellect, writing ability, logic and reasoning, collegiality and yes, bilingual capacity.  But to state that bilingual capacity forms part of merit does not make it a prerequisite.  Certainly, bilingual capability was evaluated positively by the Selection Committee but it was only one (and certainly not the most important) of the many criteria we examined. 

One must remember that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (now fluently bilingual) could not speak French before her arrival in Ottawa.  Also, retired Justice John Major has stated publically that his inability to speak French was not an impediment to his service on the Supreme Court due to the high quality of simultaneous translation.

As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada is a bilingual court and litigants before the Court have the right to be heard in the official language of their choice; it does not mean that all who work there must be fluently bilingual.

When I was asked to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada Selection Panel, I stated we would search for the most qualified candidates and look for candidates without a particular political agenda to advance.  Those who insist that appointees be bilingual are expressly advancing a political agenda and compromising the merit principle in the process.  However, with the appointment of exemplary jurists such as Justices Moldaver and Karakatsanis, not only have we have fulfilled our mandate to find the most meritorious candidates, we have contributed to the continued excellence for which the Supreme Court of Canada has become known.

Brent

_______________________________________________________________________

October 11, 2011


                                               INSITE DECISION DISAPPOINTING

Like many Canadians I was disappointed last Friday when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the Federal Government and its quest to close down the Insite Safe Injection Site, located in Vancouver’s notorious Downtown Eastside.

After having reviewed the unanimous decision in some detail, I concede I am less distressed by the result than I am in the processes that lead to that result.  Although not entirely convinced, I do see merit in Insite’s goals of harm reduction, reduced transmission of deadly communicable diseases caused by dirty needles and overdose intervention.  However, the Federal Government has deemed narcotics as Controlled Substances and their possession, minus a Minister of Health Permit, is strictly illegal.  It was these exact conflicting priorities: enforcement of the criminal law vs.  providing a safe site for addicts to inject, that was before the Supreme Court.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in section 55 allows for regulations for medical, scientific and industrial use of controlled substances.  This is Parliament’s deliberate attempt to balance the two competing interests of public safety and public health.  Section 56 as written allows the Minister of Health unfettered discretion to issue exemptions in the public interest: 

56.  The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor of any class thereof from the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest. (Emphasis added) 

Two things should be clear from the plain wording of the statute:  firstly, without a doubt, the “public interest” is broad enough to include harm reduction at a safe injection site.  However and equally clear, the word “may” makes the granting of an exemption permissive not mandatory.  If it were otherwise, Parliament would have used the word “shall” and then set out a number of conditions which, if met, would have mandated the issuance of an exemption.

The Supreme Court, however, stated that although Governments make policy, once those policies are translated into law, those laws are subject to Charter scrutiny.  The Court went on to conclude that the Minister’s refusal to grant an exemption to Insight was “arbitrary and grossly disproportionate in its effects and hence not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.  The Court ordered the Minister of Health to grant the exemption.

 Admittedly, it is arguable that there are good policy reasons for granting the exemption: 

·         the site had the support of the local community;

·         the risk of death and disease is reduced when addicts inject with clean needles and under the supervision of a health professional;

·         Insite did not contribute to increased crime rates, increased incidents of public injection or relapse rates among injection drug users.

In fact the Court concludes that “the effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics”.

It is this last statement that troubles me; surely it ought to be Parliament that weighs the benefits of the harm reduction offered by safe injections sites versus the benefits of controlling those illegal substances in the first place.  Both are valid policy objectives; but it is the role of government to rank and choose between competing policy priorities.

If, as the Court suggests: “it is for the relevant governments, not the Court, to make criminal and health policy”, then certainly it is for legislatures, not the Court, to prioritize when those policies are in conflict.

Brent Rathgeber, Q.C., MP
Member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

_______________________________________________________________________

August 19, 2011

Supreme Court of Canada Selection Panel

On August 5 of this year, I was honoured to have been chosen to be a member of a five-member panel of Parliamentarians who will help select the next two Justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court of Canada is the most important judicial institution in this country and is fundamental to the operation of our democracy.  The Court has developed a reputation both nationally and internationally for judicial excellence; a legacy that must be preserved.

The Prime Minister, before and during the recent election campaign, promised to consult with
 an all-party committee of Parliament before making his selection(s) to the Supreme Court of Canada.  It is noteworthy that the Prime Minister is under no obligation to consult with anyone and has the unfettered constitutional right to make appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Accordingly, it is an honour to be asked to help the Prime Minister’s Office in the ultimate selection to our country’s highest court.

The task of the panel is advisory in nature. Its role is to assess the names of potential nominees according to a merit based criteria.  Specifically, the panel is interested in professional capacity including proficiency in the law, superior intellectual ability and analytical written skills. 

We are looking for proven ability to listen and to maintain an open mind, decisiveness and soundness of judgment and a capacity to manage a consistently heavy workload in a collaborative context. 

Secondary considerations include the extent to which the composition of the Court appropriately reflects the diversity of Canadian society.  Certainly bilingual capability and capacity will be evaluated positively by the Committee; but in my view is not an absolute prerequisite for admission to the Court. 

To be eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, a candidate must be or have been a Judge of a Superior Court of a Province or Territory, or a Barrister or Advocate, practicing at least ten years in his or her Bar of a Province or Territory.

The assessment of the candidates is based on review of relevant documentation, as well as consultation with third parties.  All of the consultations will be held in-camera so that we may expect a candid assessment of the prospective nominees from individuals appearing before the panel. 

The selection panel will prepare a short list containing an unranked list of six nominees, our comments including the strengths and weaknesses of each of the six short listed candidates and a complete record of our consultations and deliberations. 

There are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. Both of the vacancies are for Justices who reside in the Province of Ontario.  The Prime Minister has committed to pick two names from the short list of six candidates prepared by our selection panel.

Accordingly, I am spending the last part of my summer reading judgments and published articles written by the prospective nominees.  I must admit that it has been quite some time since I have read law so intensely but I am certainly finding this project, although time consuming, extraordinarily interesting.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the pinnacle of our Justice System and the Government is committed to continuing the tradition of legal excellence and undisputable merit that Canadians deserve and expect from our highest Court.  This Selection Panel plays an important role in ensuring transparency and balance in the appointment process.  Although in my nearly three years as a Member of Parliament and as a Member of the Justice Committee, I have preformed many tasks which have contributed meaningfully to the future of our system of laws and Justice System, I certainly consider this appointment amongst the most important and consider it an honour to have some input into the future composition of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Brent

__________________________________________________________________



August 4, 2011

 

Challenges of the Baha’i Community

 

Edmonton has a little known but very active community who are practitioners of the Baha’i Faith. Many are refugees of Iran where Baha’is are severely and brutally persecuted. 

 

The Baha’i community is dedicated to the creation of a worldwide society built on the principals of justice and unity, characterized by the elimination of racial and religious prejudice and equality of women and men, where diversity is celebrated and the arts, sciences and a love of learning is encouraged.

 

The Baha’i’s believe that humanity is a single race and that the time has come to establish unity of our global society with equality for all and is therefore completely inconsistent with the Islamist Regime in Iran.  As a result, Baha’is face a continual risk in Iran.  For example on May 21 of this year clearly coordinated raids were made on homes of thirty individuals who have been closely involved in assisting the operations of the Baha’i Institution for Higher Education. 

 

On May 14, 2011, six members of a national level ad hoc group entered their fourth year of incarceration in Iran.  Their only crime is their membership in the Baha’ i faith and their efforts to serve the spiritual and social needs of their fellow believers.

 

Ever since the 1979 revolution, Iranian Baha’is have faced a Government sponsored, systematic campaign of religious persecution in their homeland.  Since the revolution, over 200 Baha’is have been killed and at least 1000 imprisoned solely because of their religious beliefs.

 

It is hard to conceive of such religious persecution in a country such as Canada where multiculturalism and diversity are encouraged and tolerance for religious minorities is constitutionally enshrined.  The Government of Canada has expressed its unwavering support for all of those suffering Human Rights violations in Iran by its initiation of annual resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly calling on Iran to comply with its obligations under International Human Right Law.

Canada cosponsored a new resolution adopted at the United Nations Human Rights Council on March 17 of this year, establishing a special rapporteur to monitor and report on the situation in Iran   and Canada has been uncompromising in its bilateral exchanges. 

This protest and awareness must be sustained; otherwise Iran will conclude that it can act with impunity and step up its efforts to eradicate the Baha’i community as a viable entity.

 

 

Brent

__________________________________________________________________

July 20, 2011

Tax Relief Means Smaller Government

Although by any objective standard, the Canadian economy is outperforming all of our economic partners, high taxes are still a problem for Canadians.

 

In 2011, the average Canadian family will earn $93,831 in income and pay a total of $39,960 in taxes to all levels of government, or 42.6%. This year's tax freedom day (June 6) is two days later than last year's, ironically due to our growing economy and Canadians' increasing incomes, moving many into higher tax brackets.

 

Last month, the Manning Institute published research indicating that a vast majority of Canadians, over two-thirds, are becoming less dependent on government. Canadians are expecting less of government, except in core areas such as public safety. Canadians are increasingly reliant on themselves, their families and volunteer organizations. Canadian taxpayers expect government to focus on that which it can do effectively and efficiently.

 

June’s Federal Budget optimistically predicts $4 billion in cost savings, (1.5% of total federal spending). If federal departments were able to spend $4 billion less without any planning cuts, additional savings are actually possible.

Accordingly, the federal government will conduct a one-year government-wide strategic and operating review as part of its three-point plan to balance the budget. Perhaps one of the first areas government should focus on is the duplication of federal and provincial departments and programs.

Theoretically, it is estimated that the federal government could reduce its operating budget by $44 billion a year and therefore eliminate the deficit by spending only in areas that fall under the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction. I am certainly not advocating leaving the provinces entirely to their own devices in such important matters as education and health care. However, one must seriously question the efficiency of parallel bureaucratic structures administering essentially the same programs. After all, there is only one taxpayer.

Eliminating unnecessary services and programs (such as the long gun registry and the $2 per vote political subsidy) is easy. However, to effectively find our way back to balanced budgets, we must also seriously examine the cost of providing services deemed necessary. This examination will inevitably turn to the government's own human resources. We cannot continue to sustain a public sector whose growth outpaces every other financial category in size and compensation.

Between 1999 and 2009, the Canadian population increased by 11% but the federal government's civilian workforce grew by 35%, and public sector compensation grew by 59% compared to 30% in the private sector. Canada is fortunate to have an outstanding civil service. However, if balanced budgets are to be achieved, all unsustainable trends must be addressed.

Some economists believe we are fast approaching a tipping point in our nation's finances. If we do not reduce government expenditures from 43% to 38% of GDP over the next decade, as recommended by the International Monetary Fund, invariably the result will be higher taxes, dangerous debt loads or both. As the experience of European countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal have demonstrated, this path must be avoided at all costs.

Even the United States of America is falling under the weight of its current debt load.  We must take steps now to avoid any replication.

 

It is always easier to borrow money when someone else will have to repay it than to reduce spending. Similarly, it is always easier to say “yes” and cut a cheque than to say “no”. Saying “no” takes courage and resolve.

 

It is hoped that within a majority government mandate, the requisite resolve will be found.

Brent

________________________________________________________________________________

June 22, 2011

Back to Work Legislation

 

I must say at the outset that philosophically I am generally troubled by Back to Work Legislation.  As a former Labour Lawyer (Management Side), I do actually subscribe to the concepts of the right to collective bargaining and the right to withdraw services after the expiration of a collective agreement to demonstrate one's resolve.  At a more practical level, I am leery of Back to Work Legislation because I cynically suspect that many unions favour such legislation, believing they will fare better under binding arbitration than they would at the bargaining table.

 

The 41^st Parliament is only three weeks old; yet we are currently debating our second piece of Back to Work Legislation.    Interestingly, the proposed legislation to end a strike of service personnel at Air Canada, proposed Final Offer Arbitration.  This somewhat novel concept mandates that an Arbiter pick one of the two final offers before him, thus eliminating the temptation towards creative social engineering and the necessary result is, it forces the parties to be reasonable or risk the chance that the other party's final offer will be chosen.

 

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that within hours of the introduction of Back to Work Legislation, the dispute at Air Canada was resolved.

The issues at Canada Post, however, are more protracted and complicated.  Canada Post volumes are steadily declining due to such technological advances as electronic, mail, banking, billing and the direct deposit of most pay cheques.  I half suspect that save for less junk mail, few of my

constituents have noticed that the mail is not being delivered!

 

However, other Canadians are severely and adversely affected.  A company in my riding is a mail order distributer.  Obviously, it is essentially shut down.  Similarly, charities with current mail fundraising campaigns will see their revenues severely diminished.  Certainly, protection of the fragile economic recovery is the purported purpose of the Back to Work Legislation at Canada Post.  The tabled legislation replaces Final Offer Arbitration with a legislated settlement (1.75% this year followed by 1.5% and 2% in subsequent years).  This salary increase reflects that which was negotiated with the other public sector unions but is less than the 1.9% this year and next as offered by Canada Post.

 

Certainly it will be difficult for the Union to reject Canada Post's Final offer and then be subject to a legislated settlement that is less favourable.  Accordingly, it is hoped and predicted that the parties will actually settle their dispute rather than be legislated back.  I hope so because long term labour peace is predicated upon the both parties agreeing to the final terms and conditions of employment.

 

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

May 20, 2011

May 2^nd was certainly an historic night.  I am elated to have been re-elected as the Member of Parliament for Edmonton - St. Albert and am equally excited about being part of a Conservative Majority Government.

Having received 34,468 votes, we improved on our 2008 total by almost exactly 3000 votes and our percentage of the popular vote increased from 61.6% to 63.5%.  I am humbled by the number of voters in Edmonton - St. Albert that supported this campaign and I am truly thankful to the 100 or so volunteers that did the ground work to make the recent campaign such a huge success.

With the election behind us and a Conservative Majority Government elected, I look forward to getting back to the business of being a Parliamentarian.  The Prime Minister has stated, that we will package major portions of our previous Safe Streets and Safe Communities Agenda (which died on the Order Paper when the election was called in March), into one Omnibus Crime Bill and pass our anti-crime agenda within one hundred sitting days of the new Parliament.

I relish the opportunity to once again sit on the Justice Committee and work towards timely passage of the Government's Omnibus Crime Bill.  I sincerely hope that I will be reappointed to one or both of the Committees of Justice and Human Rights and/or Public Safety and National Security and believe that my previous work on both those committees hold me in good stead for reappointment.

Prior to the examination and eventual passage of the Crime Bill, Parliament will have to reconvene, elect a new Speaker and receive a Speech from the Throne.  I understand Parliament will reconvene on June 2^nd.  The shortened Spring Session will invariably focus on passing a budget, which undoubtedly will be similar, if not identical, to the one introduced in March.

I look forward to getting back to Ottawa and resuming our work on passing laws for the betterment of all Canadians.  I have no doubt that the efficiency and atmosphere of a Majority Parliament will be far superior to the last Minority Parliament.  I trust that we will be able to get bills passed, the temperature will be lower and that the gamesmanship will be minimized.

In the meantime, I continue to enjoy a tiny bit "downtime" after a rigorous five week Election Campaign.  Once again, I wish to thank you all of you who supported me, who took the time to vote (even if it was not for me) and to all of the volunteers on all of the campaigns for their contribution to the democratic process.

I look forward to continue representing Edmonton - St. Albert in the Parliament of Canada.

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

March 25, 2011

As I complete this blog on what invariably is the last day of the 40^th Parliament, I have mixed emotions.

Certainly the prospect of an imminent election and the possibility of being part of a Majority Government are exhilarating; at the same time, however, I am disappointed that the 40^th Parliament is terminating and much of its promise will go unfulfilled.

 

It is true that this Parliament did great work.  We have come out of the 2008 "Great Recession" with nearly 500,000 jobs created, a pre-recession unemployment rate and six straight quarters of economic growth.  My work on the Justice and Public Safety Committees has similarly been fulfilling.  We have ended the 2 for 1 credit for pre-trial custody, abolished the "faint hope clause", brought in minimum mandatory sentences for white collar criminals and ended sentencing discounts for multiple murders.  It is a record to be proud of.  However, too much of our important anti-crime agenda is destined to die on the Order Paper.

 

Important changes to our pardon system, our youth criminal justice system and working towards a system of earned parole will all have to wait until a later day.  Minimum jail sentences for drug dealers and pedophiles will similarly have to wait until a future day.

 

But it is my sincere hope that that day will come.  I hope that a future Parliament will put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.  I believe a future Parliament will understand that the cost of not addressing crime is at least as important as the cost of building prisons and, most importantly, that individuals need to take responsibility for their actions and be accountable for their misdeeds rather than blaming others in a lame attempt to excuse their behaviour.

 

I hope to be part of that Parliament.  I relish the opportunity to take that message and that vision to the constituents of Edmonton-St. Albert and have them decide my future.  That day will come; let the campaign to get there begin.

 

Carpe diem!!

 

Brent

 

________________________________________________________________________________
January 28, 2011

On January 31 Parliament resumes and I will be returning to Ottawa.  It promises to be an eventful session with a restraint focussed budget expected in early March amid much speculation and rumours concerning a spring election.

Canadians neither want nor need a spring election.  Clearly the economic recovery remains fragile and the priority for Canadians, which should be the priority of the Minority Parliament, is the continued management of the economic recovery.  If a Budget Vote of Confidence were to fail triggering a spring election, the inevitable result would be uncertainty in the Financial and Business Sectors thus compromising further economic recovery.

This Winter and Spring it is my intention to continue my work on the Public Safety and Justice Committees.  Some of the important pieces of legislation required to promote the safety and security of Canadians, which I would like to see passed this Session include:

C-4 Sebastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders,) makes protection of society a primary goal of the legislation.  It would simplify the rules to keep violent and repeat young offenders off the streets while awaiting trial and enable courts to impose more appropriate sentences on violent and repeat young offenders.

C-16 - Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act, would restrict the use of conditional sentences for numerous offences like aggravated assault, arson, fraud, luring a child, and sexual assault.

C-39 - Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act, would eliminate the practice of granting early parole, enshrine a victim's participation in conditional release board hearings, increase offender accountability, and emphasize the importance of considering the seriousness of an offence in National Parole Board decision-making.

C-54 - Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, would toughen the laws protecting children from adult sexual predators by establishing mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences such as luring a child, sexual assault and aggravated assault.

S-6 - Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, would repeal the "faint hope clause" that allows murderers to obtain early parole.  The families of murder victims would no longer have to attend numerous early parole hearings.  Criminals who commit first-degree murder will serve the full 25 years of their sentence.

What do you think?  Do you want a spring election?  Or would you prefer Parliament get back to work and pass important pieces of legislation?  I look forward to hearing your comments; you can reach me by email at rathgb0@parl.gc.ca or by phone at 780-459-0809.

Brent

________________________________________________________________________________

January 12, 2011

I must take issue with John Ivison's Piece in the Wednesday "Journal" denouncing our Government's tough on crime agenda as good politics but "bad policy".  His premise appears to be that since national crime rates are falling, we cannot afford more prisoners requiring costly prison construction.

 

The problem with attempting to use crime stats to prove or disprove anything is a problem of methodology.  The way crime is measured varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and over time.  Should one reported shoplifting be treated the same as a murder, since they are both statistically one crime?  As a result of this deficiency, indexes have been developed which give more statistical weight to more serious crimes.  But these rankings are invariably subjective and never consistent among those compiling the data.  Opponents to the Government's crime agenda scoff at the notion of unreported crime statistics.  However, victimization surveys remain one of the more reliable methodologies and those surveys confirm persistent and alarming problems.  Amazingly in 2009, 69% of all crime went unreported in Canada and in the same year a whopping 7.4 Million Canadians (over 25% of us) reported being a victim of crime.

 

But all of the statistics on either side of this debate ignore the simple reality that there is too much crime and if you are unfortunate enough to have been a victim, there is no solace in knowing that the reported crime rate is falling.  Moreover to say that the official crime rate is declining is NOT tantamount to saying that the rate of crime is acceptable.

 

Crime costs billions of dollars in property losses, increased insurance premiums, health care costs and lost wages and income.  The emotional toll paid by victims of crime is immeasurable.

 

Our Government believes the criminal justice system cannot exclusively focus on the rights and the rehabilitation of the offender, as a previous government had declared.  We strive for a victim focussed criminal justice system.  Monday's announcement of the creation of an additional 634 prison beds is consistent with our not-too-subtle message that those who violate the safety or property of others will be sleeping in one of those beds.

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

January 4, 2011

Closing the Book on EXPO 2017

 

One of the things that still disturbs me as we close the book on 2010, is the response from many local politicians and the media coverage following our Government's difficult decision not to fund Edmonton's attempt to host a world exposition in 2017.

 

Much of the response and coverage began with the unproven premises that Expo 2017 was a great idea based on an unassailable business model.  The former is a matter of opinion, taste and priority; the latter does not stand up to any meaningful analysis.

 

As I understand the numbers (and I admit to not understanding them very well; in large part because the promoters of the expo were using almost exclusively qualitative arguments, such as enhanced infrastructure and a big 150^th Anniversary party, rather than quantitative arguments to promote the event) at best the event would have produced only a tiny return on investment.  The numbers released by the bid committee reveal a minimum requirement from all three levels of government in the amount of $2.3B to generate an economic benefit of $2.5B.  If those estimates are accurate (a dubious proposition) that means the actual net economic benefit is actually $200M, a paltry 0.0869 net return on a $2.3B investment.  So what this really amounts to is not a significant creation of economic wealth but rather a huge transfer of wealth from public to private sources.  This certainly explains why so many "developers" were the driving forces behind this bid.

 

And this is all assuming that the estimates were accurate.  If fewer than the required 5.2 million visitors attended, the event could have lost millions of dollars.  More problematic were the estimated security costs.  If they ballooned, the event would have lost billions of dollars!   I do not believe it was even considered that the chosen theme of "Energy" showcasing Alberta's Oilsands would have served as a giant lightning rod for eco protestors from all over the world.  And we are talking about securing an event and possibly oilsands' infrastructure for a 90 day fair rather than a mere 4 day summit like the G20 (which experience huge security cost overruns).

 

To state that this proposal was a huge financial risk for taxpayers is an epic understatement!!

 

When decision makers and journalists are cheerleaders rather than objective analysts, bad decisions are the inevitable result.  Thankfully, not all local politicians are so myopic.

 
Brent
_______________________________________________________________________________

January 3, 2011

I have taken some time, since returning to Edmonton - St. Albert, to reflect upon the year 2010.

 

Last winter, I was fortunate enough to be in Vancouver to witness the Olympic Gold Medal curling match won by Edmonton's own Kevin Martin and featuring St. Albert's Mark Kennedy throwing second stones.  Equally exhilarating was watching the overtime victory of Canada over the USA in Men's Gold Medal Hockey on television at Canada Place in Vancouver, with approximately 10, 000 other cheering Canadian fans in varying degrees of sobriety!

 

Parliament resumed on March 3 and I resumed my responsibilities on both the Committees of Justice and Human Rights and Public Safety and National Security.  The committees were both excessively busy given the Government's aggressive Safe Streets and Safe Communities Agenda.

 

After Parliament rose at the end of June, I was able to enjoy Canada Day celebrations in both St. Albert and in Edmonton.  In both Lion's Park in St. Albert and in Castledowns Park in Edmonton, I celebrated Canada Day with complimentary ice cream for hundreds of constituents.

 

I was fortunate enough to participate in two Parliamentary delegations this summer (neither one paid for by Canadian taxpayers)!  The first was a trip to Israel including Jerusalem, the Sea of Galilee, Tel Aviv and also a one-day visit to Ramallah inside the Palestinian Authority (West Bank).  This was a fascinating trip as I received a thorough education on the long lasting and seemingly irreconcilable dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

Later that summer (late August) I joined a Parliamentary mission to Taiwan sponsored by the Taipei Economic Corporation (Chamber of Commerce).   This was also a fascinating trip to a part of the world which I previously knew little about.  Canada maintains strong trade relations with Taiwan and I am fascinated by the relationship between the Island of Taiwan and its supposed sovereign master, Mainland China.

 

Before returning to Ottawa, I was embedded with the Vandoos at CFB Wainwright as they completed their final training exercises before being deployed to Afghanistan.  It was exhilarating to join with our brave soldiers as they conducted actual simulated scenarios designed to replicate what they are currently experiencing in the Panjawii District of Afghanistan.

 

Parliament resumed on September 20 and we were able to pass ten separate pieces of legislation, an impressive feat in a Minority Parliament, which frequently finds itself deadlocked.  Amongst these were two important pieces of our anti-crime agenda:  "Protecting Victims from Sexual Offenders" and "Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime".  Also passed into law was an important piece of legislation that I spoke to in the House of Commons, the "Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act", which terminates the payments of Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits to all Federal prisoners.

 

I was also able to speak in the House of Commons on Bill C-49 ("Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System").  This Bill was motivated by high profile ships carrying refugee claimants arriving off the coast of Vancouver.

 

In 2010, I spoke in the House of Commons 74 times.  I spoke 25, 802 words; the most common word I spoke according to openparliament.ca was "crime".  I spoke more than any other Government Backbencher, 17^th among CPC Members and 87^th overall.

 

I am looking forward to returning to Ottawa at the end of January and working towards passage of Bill C-49 (although all three opposition parties are on record as opposing it) and the remainder of our Anti-crime Agenda.

 

2011 may or may not be an election year.  This is a matter entirely out of my control, so I will focus my attention on forwarding our Government's important crime agenda.

 

Clearly 2011 will be an important year in Edmonton - St. Albert, as St. Albert celebrates its 150^th Anniversary.  To kick things off, I am hosting a New Years Open House at my St. Albert Constituency Office on Tuesday, January 11 from 4-6 PM at 220- 20 Perron Street.  I hope that you can make it out and I hope that you and your family had a wonderful Christmas Holiday Season and all the best in 2011!

 

If you would like to share your thoughts with me on any issue, please contact me by email at rathgb1@parl.gc.ca or by phone at 780-459-0809.

Brent

_______________________________________________________________________

December 16, 2010

As a write this I am leaving Ottawa. The House of Commons rose earlier today bringing to a conclusion the Fall Sitting of the 40th Parliament.  It was a comparatively long session.  Commencing on the 20^th of September, the House met continually for 13 weeks, including two one week ``Constituency Weeks``.

I must admit to having a bit of an empty feeling.  Although I was able to speak to no less than six Bills in the House and fully participate in both the Justice and Public Safety Committees, I feel that the entire Session did not accomplish as much as it could have.

The Fall Session was not without its accomplishments.  Ten separate pieces of legislation were passed into law including two pieces of our anti-crime agenda.  These include: ``Protecting Victims from Sexual Offenders`` and ``Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime``.  Also passed into law is an important piece of legislation that I spoke to in the House, the ``Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act``, which terminates the payment of Old Age Security to all federal prisoners.

I am proud of the work that we accomplished this fall but am disappointed that we could not have completed more of our important crime agenda.  Legislation that my constituents continually tell me is crucial in order to promote safe streets and safe communities is either stuck in committee or it languishes somewhere on the Order Paper.   These important initiatives would strengthen the ``Youth Criminal Justice Act``, abolish the ``faint hope`` clause, severely restrict who is entitled to a Pardon, end sentencing discounts for multiple murderers (i.e. twenty-five year period of parole ineligibility for each victim) and crack down on human smuggling.

Victims groups and the Ombudsmen for Victims of Crime appear frequently before Committee and lobby in favour of these legislative measures.  For most of us it is unfathomable that these bills would face such opposition.  But the politics of a Minority Parliament are peculiar.  It is uncommon for the Opposition to approve even a legislative measure it approves of, without requesting something back in return.

A further complication is that there are members of both the Justice and Public Safety Committees who genuinely believe that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is the rehabilitation of the offender and his eventual reintegration into society.  I cannot belittle their philosophy, as it is true that most, even serious, offenders will someday be released from prison.  Clearly, it is better to have them rehabilitated than not.  But adopting that overriding philosophy severely diminishes the roles victims play in the Criminal Justice System.

I continue to advocate for a system where the protection of society is the predominant goal of the Criminal Justice System.  I long for a judicial system that is victim orientated rather than offender focussed.   Police, Prosecutors and Judges require the aforementioned legislative tools in their constant struggle against crime.

As Parliamentarians we owe the front lines against crime nothing less.  I suspect that is why I am so frustrated that so much our crime agenda is still on the table.  I hope that in the New Year, a new cooperation will make this Minority Parliament more functional.  However, as we get closer to a general election, I fear the only thing that will increase is the Opposition's rhetoric.

 

 

Brent

________________________________________________________________________________
September 28, 2010

Touchdown Atlantic

 

The weekend of September 25/26, I had the pleasure of attending "Touchdown Atlantic" in Moncton, New Brunswick.  This was an amazingly successful event that showcases all that is great about the Canadian Football League.

 

Growing up in Melville Saskatchewan and attending Saskatchewan Roughrider games with my father from age six onward and now as an Edmonton Eskimo Season Ticket holder, I guess I  take attendance at CFL games for granted.  Many if not most of the nearly 20,000 fans packed into the University of Moncton Stadium had never seen a live CFL contest.

 

That is not to imply that Atlantic Canada does not have fans---many have watched hundreds of games on television; but with the closest CFL franchises in Montreal (small stadium) and Toronto, attendance at CFL Games is simply impracticable.

 

Atlantic Canada desperately wants a CFL franchise.  There is great enthusiasm about the CFL in the Maritimes as evidenced by the carnival atmosphere in and around Moncton last weekend.  Live bands, pancake breakfasts, a formal soiree and the Spirit of Edmonton were all a part of the inaugural "Touchdown Atlantic".   Moreover, the game sold out in less than 2 days, evidencing the great interest in the CFL Atlantic Canada.

 

The CFL also needs to expand-a ten or twelve team league would be far superior to the current eight teams.  Ideally, that expansion should occur in the east so that Winnipeg could reassume its rightful place in the Western Conference and so the league could extend from coast to coast and truly be a national league.

 

At first blush, it might not appear that Moncton, New Brunswick would be the leading candidate for Atlantic expansion.  It is certainly not the largest or necessarily the wealthiest city in the Maritimes.  However, the strength of its desire to become a CFL city lies in its geography.  Business is frequently about location and Moncton has a catchment area of over one million people within two and one-half hour drive.  Halifax may be larger and similarly has been suggested as a potential CFL franchise based in part on the number of successful University Football programs in Nova Scotia.  But given Moncton's more central location within the Maritimes, it might be able to attract more cumulative fans.  Currently, Regina is the smallest of all CFL cities.  But similarly, with a catchment area of a million people, the Saskatchewan Roughriders is one of the most successful business models in the league.

 

I hope the CFL does expand-Ottawa will return and hopefully we will see teams in Quebec City and one or more franchises in the Maritimes.  All Canadians deserve to celebrate all that is unique about the Canadian Football League---three downs, twelve players, a wide field with deep end zones and until recently, two teams called the "Roughriders" make our league unique and one that ought to be celebrated!  Moncton and New Brunswick enthusiastically celebrated the CFL at "Touchdown Atlantic".

 

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

September 24, 2010

I was, of course, disappointed that earlier this week Parliament narrowly defeated a Bill that would have abolished the wasteful and ineffective Long Gun Registry.  I was disappointed because after studying this matter in some considerable detail as a Member of the House Public Safety Committee, I am not satisfied that the Registry does ANYTHING to prevent violent crime.

No one has provided any proof that the long-gun registry has saved lives or reduced crime.  The police have admitted as much under my cross examination during the Public Safety Committee hearings.  The information obtained by Police from a search of the Long-Gun Registry is not reliable and may be inaccurate.

The $2 Billion worth of resources that have been wasted on this boondoggle could have been used to place more officers on the front lines with state of the art equipment and the training and support these front-line officers need to do their job.  The long-gun registry has accomplished nothing thus far except to waste billions of dollars of unnecessary government spending on a long-gun registry that will never be a complete inventory of Canadians' long-guns and certainly will never include the weapons of non-law-abiding Canadians.

 

Criminals do not register guns.  Most guns used in crimes are stolen.  All the Long-Gun registry does in cases of violent crime, is enable the police to track down the original long-gun owner but is of no consequence in preventing violent crime.  It is clichéd to state that "guns don't kill people; people kill people."  Accordingly, the long-gun registry has no purpose except to count guns and has no value in reducing crime.

 

The licensing of weapons is useful in determining who should be and who should not be able to purchase a firearm or ammunition.  Nothing in Bill C-391 changes or affects the licensing regime.  The Long-Gun Registry, however, like many liberal attempts to reduce crime, seems worthwhile in theory but in practice is of absolutely no value.

 

I am always respectful of democracy; I accept without equivocation the will of Parliament as expressed by a majority of its members.  However, democracy also demands that Members, who have stated publically and even campaigned against the existence of the Long Gun Registry, but voted otherwise, will be judged on that inconsistency.  I am confident that they will be held to account by the voters that they are sworn to represent.

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

July 28, 2010

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to tour Israel on a Parliamentary Mission sponsored by the Canada-Israel Committee.  The generosity and hospitality of the Canadian-Israel Committee is without parallel!

The Mission allowed me an "insider's" view of both the fascinating country and the ever elusive quest for peace in the Middle East.  To state that the country's history is intriguing is a gross understatement.  The religious sites in old Jerusalem, Jewish, Muslim and Christian are inspiring.  As a Christian, however, the historical sites near the Sea of Galilee and along the Jordan River, where Christ lived, taught and began his ministry, are equally intriguing.

The primary purpose of my mission, however, was to gain some insight into the political and military conflict, historic and current, between the Israelis and the Arabs.  Canada, the United States and the United Nations all support a "Two-State Solution", in which the existing Israel would be partitioned to allow displaced Palestinians a sovereign nation of their own.  On the surface, this proposal is fair, reasonable and would conform to the original UN post-World War II Declaration following the end of the British Mandate in Palestine.

However, what appears to be fair and reasonable in theory remains impracticable and increasingly complicated in reality.

Israel has legitimate security concerns.  Israel is a small country.  It is predominantly Jewish and is surrounded by four predominately Muslim, Arab states.  If Israel cannot protect its citizens against terrorist attacks from Islamist fundamentalists operating within its own borders, how can it possibly defend itself from rocket attacks launched from a fifth neighbouring sovereign Islamist state??

Equally problematic is the issue of who actually speaks for the Palestinians.  Certainly, Fatah has at least de facto control in the West Bank.  Fatah's leader, President Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate and genuinely wants to work towards peace with Israel.  However, radical factions do exist and operate and would not agree to, nor comply with, any comprehensive peace agreement with Israel.  Moreover, Hamas currently has control in Gaza and has no interest in denouncing terrorism to further its goal of annihilating the Jewish State.  Hamas' links to Hezbollah and a supply chain of weapons from Iran via Lebanon is the precedent for a naval blockade to keep weapons out of Gaza, which tragically included an Israeli attack on a Gaza bound flotilla in June, which left nine people dead.

Without any moderate and unified leadership from the Palestinian Authority, meaningful peace remains as elusive as ever. 

This complicated and protracted dispute was once a battle over religion but today has morphed into something that is as much about land, specifically homeland, as it is about the superiority of one's religion.  Both the Jews and the Muslim Palestinians have, in their own minds, a homeland in the historical Palestine (modern State of Israel).  Each, clearly had control of the territory at various times in history.  Each claims the land to be "home".  Their goals and certainly their methods appear to be irreconcilable.

This is tragic as both peoples trace their origins to Abraham and equally tragic, the tenets of their respective religions have been compromised, if not occasionally abandoned, to advance their respective claims to statehood.

In the Middle East, there is no peace, only a temporary absence of war.  As recent events have demonstrated, even that can be precarious.

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

June 16, 2010

In my short time as the Member of Parliament for Edmonton- St. Albert, I have focused on issues that matter to my constituents, including the "Safe Streets and Safe Communities" agenda of this government.  I have always tried to avoid political games. The same cannot be said about the Deputy Leader of the NDP.  

Libby Davies took it upon herself to condemn the State of Israel before any independent reports had been released regarding the June 7^th events off the coast of Gaza.   At a rally hosted by the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement in Vancouver, MP Libby Davies was caught on camera stating that Israel's 1948 borders are borders of occupation!   Incredibly, she continued by stating that she did not support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and then immediately reversed her position.  

Why is Ms. Davies so quick to condemn Israel and denounce the only democracy in the Middle East?   The Deputy Leader of the NDP and her Party should be ashamed.  The excuse provided, that she was confused, is not believable.   Ms. Davies should apologize to the House of Commons, to Israel and to Canada.   Further, she should step down as Deputy Leader and wait for the independent investigation of the June 7^th incident to be completed.  If the Leader of the NDP was serious when he stated that her opinions are not shared by his caucus, then Jack Layton should have no problem accepting her resignation.

Canada has long supported a two-state solution.  Irresponsible statements like those made by Ms. Davies undermine Canada's position and, ultimately, the peace process.  It is safe to say that most, if not all, Canadians wish to see an end to the escalating tensions in the Middle East and I hope that Ms. Davies will rethink her position on this issue and make an effort to be more informed.  Prime Minister Harper can say with confidence that his Government believes in Israel's fundamental right to exist and, until Ms. Davies is removed from the NDP's inner circle, Mr. Layton cannot say the same.

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

May 21, 2010

Earlier this month, I spent an entire day in a wheelchair as part of this year's Chair-Leader event on Parliament Hill organized by the Canadian Paraplegic Association (CPA).  The event launched Spinal Cord Injury and CPA Awareness Month. 

 

Along with approximately 25 of my fellow MPs, I used a wheelchair for one day, as I went about my daily routines and experienced some of the barriers faced by persons with mobility disabilities in accessing various parts of Parliament.  Many of the CPA's members also participated in this event and appreciated our commitment to and involvement in the work of their organization. 

 

I was struck by the enormity of the challenge.  Accomplishing simple tasks seemed difficult at best and required some quick thinking and assistance from others.  Simple tasks such as finding a wheel chair accessible washroom or navigating through a door-well, which is only slightly wider than the wheelchair, are considerable challenges.  Pushing a wheelchair for an entire day up and down Parliament "Hill" is also physically very demanding.  Participating in this event allowed me to experience first-hand the daily barriers faced by those with a mobility disability. 

 

For the past 65 years, the CPA has supported over 100,000 Canadians on their journey to recovery by offering peer support and other core services from the moment their "new normal" life begins.  At least 1,200 new spinal cord injuries occur each year and this number will increase as our population ages.  The CPA will continue to assist Canadians as they learn to live with their mobility disability.

Brent

________________________________________________________________________________

April 28, 2010

I am pleased to report that Canadians will have the opportunity to hear a full and complete debate on Bill C-391. After an excruciating 90 minute meeting, Liberal MP Mark Holland's motion was defeated and the Opposition finally agreed to a balanced and fair witness list for Bill C-391.

Brent

_______________________________________________________________________

April 26, 2010

On November 4^th, 2009, Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of the long-gun registry), passed a narrow vote at Second Reading with eight Liberal MPs breaking party ranks to support Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's Private Member's Bill. This Bill was referred to the Public Safety Committee and witnesses are scheduled to be heard beginning May 4^th.

 

Unfortunately, Canadians may not have an opportunity to hear a full and complete debate on Bill C-391. In a Public Safety Committee meeting originally intended to discuss possible witnesses, Liberal MP Mark Holland brought a motion to set the witness list in favour of the Opposition. Only three of the 33 proposed witnesses are in favour of the repeal of the long-gun registry, hardly the basis for a balanced and fair debate on the critical issues and concerns many Canadians have about the long-gun registry.

 

I find it disturbing and shocking that the Opposition would refuse to allow witnesses who support Bill C-391 to testify. This Bill deserves a full public hearing at Committee and a full public hearing requires a balanced list of witnesses, not a witness list dictated by the Opposition.

 

Over the last several weeks, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has publicly stated that he will "whip the vote" and defeat the Bill when it is voted on next, a highly unusual move considering MPs are traditionally free to vote their conscience or according to constituents' wishes on Private Members' Bills.

 

Canadians have made it clear that they want the immediate repeal of the long-gun registry. The registry has not cracked down on crime as promised and unfairly targets hunters, farmers and other law-abiding citizens. However, as recent events have shown, the fight is far from over and the Opposition Members of the Public Safety Committee remain steadfast in their support of this multi-billion dollar boondoggle.

 

I can assure you that I will continue to advocate on behalf of this Bill at Committee but we need all Canadians to urge the Opposition to support Bill C-391.

 

What do you think? If you would like to speak with me about the long-gun registry, or any other issue, do not hesitate to contact me at (780) 459-0809 or by email at RathgB1@parl.gc.ca.

Brent

________________________________________________________________________________

March 22, 2010

The federal government recently released a discussion paper summarizing the Justice Committee's review of Canada`s Impaired Driving Laws, including the issue of random breath testing.

 

The evidence in favour of random breath testing is compelling and Canadians are justifiably concerned about impaired driving. In 2006, the most recent year of available data, it is estimated that impaired driving claimed 1,278 lives - more than twice as many as all other homicides combined!  Every impaired driving-related death is one too many and repeat offenders must be severely dealt with.

 

On the other hand, random breath testing may entail giving police a far too intrusive tool that could easily be abused. It will result in a direct challenge to our protection against "unreasonable search and seizure and ``arbitrary detention" under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Questions have also been raised about the "randomness" of random breath testing and the possibility it will lead to profiling.

 

Our Government is working hard to repeal the long-gun registry based on the premise that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a long gun without state interference. Are we comfortable letting police pull over drivers at random, detain them, and demand they do a breath test without reasonable suspicion? We must move slowly and cautiously as we debate the ramifications of random breath testing and the power it gives to police in the context of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.

 

The question is: do the benefits of random breath testing outweigh the loss of our personal rights and freedoms? As Canadians, are we comfortable handing this kind of power to the police or, in a free and democratic society, should law-abiding citizens be able to go about their business without state interference?

 

What do you think? If you would like to speak with me about random breath testing, or any other issue, do not hesitate to contact me at 780-459-0809 or by email at RathgB@parl.gc.ca.

To read the entire discussion paper and to respond formally, go to: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/mtpcc-mdccmt/mtpcc.pdf.

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

March 5, 2010
 

By the time this blog hits the internet, I will have returned to Ottawa, the Throne Speech and the Budget will have been read in the House of Commons and Canadians from coast to coast to coast will have returned to normal life.  The Olympic Experience, however, will be far from being a distant memory!!

 

My Olympic Experience began last October 30, the same day the Olympic Torch Relay commenced its 45,000 km odyssey in Victoria, British Columbia.  To celebrate that event and promote St. Albert as one of the many communities which would form part of the Torch Relay, Mayor Nolan Crouse and I gathered with several hundred students from Leo Nickerson Elementary School to participate in a mini-speed skating relay at Servus Place.  I was admittedly terrified, as it had been several years since I had been on skates.  Although, my red team finished second to Mayor Crouse's blues, this was truly an appropriate way to start the Olympics and I was grateful that I did not fall!!

 

In advance of the Torch Relay coming to St. Albert on January 13, I took an Olympic Torch Prototype to many events, schools and nursing homes around our city.  Several schools organized Olympic events and mock Opening Ceremonies.  The effort that went into these events and the patriotism they inspired was truly remarkable!  The torch prototype was photographed at least three thousand times and everywhere I took it, people wanted to be part of the Olympic experience!

 

January 13, 2010 will be a day St. Albert will long remember.  With over 5,000 citizens jammed into the downtown core, playing street hockey, listening to live music and participating in Olympic Events in Lion's Park, the day could only be capped by the arrival of the actual Olympic Torch.  I was proud to sing "O Canada" with the Olympic Flame inches from my head!

 

The Games themselves were truly spectacular.  From the first medal won by Jennifer Heil, to the first Gold won by Alexander Bilodeau and of course the inspirational figure skating performance (and Bronze Medal) by the grieving Joannie Rochette, all of Canada's athletes performed with skill, precision and pride in our great country.  I was fortunate enough to be at Olympic Place to view live Kevin Martin's gold medal victory in Men's Curling.  Martin's Rink includes St. Albert's own Marc Kennedy throwing second stones. Tears welled in my eyes as our flag was raised to the rafters to the tune of "O Canada".

 

And could there be a more fitting conclusion to the Olympics then a thrilling overtime goal by Sidney Crosby to capture Canada's 14^th Goal Medal?  I watched the game at Canada Pavilion, the Federal Government's showcase venue to proudly show off Canada's contribution to sport.  As you can imagine, the thousands of people gathered there began hugging and high-fiving after Crosby's winning goal, as spontaneous versions of "O Canada" broke out throughout Vancouver (and all of Canada)!!

 

This has been a wonderful Olympics and I am honoured to have been able to enjoy it as a Member of the Canadian Parliament.  We truly did "own the podium"; 14 Gold, 26 Medals and 33 Million very proud Canadians!

Brent 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

January 18, 2010

 

Recently, we have received numerous, emails and phone calls requesting that I ignore the prorogation of Parliament and return "to work" in Ottawa.  This requires a formal response.

 

It also gives me an opportunity to clarify a comment I allegedly made in the 06/01/2010 edition of the St. Albert Gazette ("MP Defends Prorogation") and repeated in the 13/01/2010 "Our View".

 

When challenged by reporter Ryan Tumilty that democracy was somehow being abrogated and destroyed by Parliament being prorogued, my response was "Democracy and Parliament are not being sidestepped."  I believe I said (and certainly meant to say) "it (Parliament) is only being suspended."

 

However, substituting the pronoun "they" for the singular "it" completely changes and distorts the substance of my statement.

 

Of course, I do not believe that democracy is being suspended.  Democracy is much broader than the daily sittings of Parliament.  The Government continues to govern; Ministers continue to make announcements, as is evidenced by our Government's rapid response to the disaster in Haiti and the Rule of Law is firmly entrenched in Canada.

 

Thankfully, Democracy continues to operate everyday in Canada.

 

Now to address the request that I return to Ottawa to fulfill my obligations as Member of Parliament.

 

I will in fact be returning to Ottawa on January 20 and will be attending regional and national caucus meetings on January 22.  The purpose of these meetings is to provide input regarding Canada's Economic Action Plan now that the recession appears to be concluding and economic stability replaces stimulus investment as the overriding economic goal.

 

The outcome of this process will be outlined during a Throne Speech on March 3 and a more detailed economic statement will be included in a Budget on March 4.

 

However, even when I am in the riding, and perhaps especially when I am in the riding, I do show up for work and represent my constituents.  I meet with constituents every day, seven days a week, at formal appointments and at informal settings at the many community events I attend.  We discuss specific constituent issues with Immigration Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency; we also discuss national issues of interest to constituents, such as the state of the economy, the Afghan Mission or problems with the Canadian Justice System.

 

It is quite improper to suggest that it is only when Parliament is sitting that a Member of Parliament adequately represents his or her constituents.

 

Remembering, that I was elected to represent the citizens of Edmonton - St. Albert in Ottawa and NOT the other way around, I am constructively using prorogation to host receptions welcoming all new Canadian Citizens in this constituency, hosting a series of roundtables on immigration issues and most notably, organizing two public Town Hall Meetings (February 11, in St. Albert and February 17, in Edmonton) to discuss Canada's Criminal Justice System.

 

Rest assured that regardless of whether I am in Ottawa or at home in the riding, it is an honour to represent the citizens of Edmonton - St. Albert and I strive to represent the interests of my constituents every day.

 

 

Brent
_______________________________________________________________________

November 30, 2009

When I was elected last October, I was quite clear that my first priority was fighting to enact reforms to the Justice System so that families can feel safe in their own communities. 

 

I am proud to report that since last October, I have taken part in making more than a dozen reforms to the Criminal Code that will improve the Justice System for all Canadians.  Reforms ranging from cracking down on gangsters doing drive-by shootings, to drug dealers who do business near our children have all been debated by this Parliament.  Moreover, limiting the unwarranted sentence credit for time served, ending the Faint Hope Clause and the sentencing discount received for multiple murders, proves that this Government has worked exceptionally hard to make Canada a safer place.

 

This week, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced a very important reform, which I enthusiastically support.  In order to protect children from online predators, it will now be mandatory for Internet Service Providers to report suspected cases of child pornography to an appropriate designated agency.  They must also safeguard the evidence if they believe that a child pornography offence has been committed through the use of their internet services.

 

Currently, these actions are voluntary; these reforms will allow for strict penalties for non-compliance.  These important changes will help give police the tools needed to find and stop those who commit these vile acts against our children.

 

This continues to build upon our previous actions to crack down on pedophiles by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 and our work to deliver real jail time for child traffickers.  It also reaffirms my and our Government's commitment to protect all members of society, notably, the most vulnerable, such as our children.

 

 

Brent
                                                                                                                                                                
November 25, 2009

Earlier this month the House of Commons voted, in a historic move, to end the wasteful Long Gun Registry.

 

In a vote of 164-137, Members of Parliament from three Political Parties voted to finally stop the unnecessary targeting of law abiding hunters and farmers who own long guns for legitimate reasons.

 

I am extremely pleased that this Private Members Bill, written by Manitoba Conservative MP, Candice Hoeppner, has passed Second Reading in the House of Commons.  In my opinion this important Bill is clear and straightforward and reflects my personal longstanding desire to repeal the Long Gun Registry.

 

However, this is only one step in the legislative process to make sure that the Long Gun Registry is abolished.  The Bill must go through the Public Safety Committee, of which I am a Member.  It is with some trepidation that I mention this, as every single Opposition Member of this Committee voted for the status quo of maintaining this ineffective attempt at gun control.

 

I can assure you that I will advocate on behalf of this Bill at the Committee.  However, it is important that all Members of Parliament are reminded constantly that they must deal with this issue.  Canadians have spoken loudly and repetitively: they want the immediate repeal of the Long Gun Registry.

 

Brent

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                

October 29, 2009

Our Duty to Remember

 

On November 11^th we remember the generations of Canada's most courageous who have put their Country before themselves, serving and defending us all.  From the First World War, when Canada came of age as a nation at Pascheandale and Vimy Ridge; to the Second, where Canadians fought tyranny on every front.  From Juno Beach to the ill fated landing in Dieppe to the liberation of Holland, this cemented Canada's position on the world stage as a guardian of human rights against tyrannical regimes.  We came to the defence of democracy in Korea and continue today with our work in Afghanistan and Haiti, the constant has always been the patriotism, duty, and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

 

For the rest of us, whose freedom is rooted in the sacrifice of both the past and present generations of veterans, it is our duty to remember. That is why, on the eleventh day of the eleventh month, communities across Canada will come to a standstill at 11 O'Clock.  Thousands of families will stand before their local cenotaph to honour those who paid with their lives to protect Canada and her interests.

 

Each Canadian standing in the cold November air will have memories - some shared, some private - of those who came before us.

 

Our grandparents and great-grandparents who crossed oceans to fight on the front lines of Europe to break the grip of tyranny. Our sons and daughters who stood firm, keeping an unsteady peace and preparing for the renewed spark of conflict. Our husbands, wives, brothers and sisters who work each day to bring hope and stability to war-torn Afghanistan.  Those here at home who make their own sacrifice as they support family members deployed across the country and around the world.

 

On November 11^th we remember these Canadians, past and present, for their heroism, their sacrifice and their protection of Canadian values.

 

I will be spending my Remembrance Day at the Calder Seniors Centre. I hope to see many of you there. On Remembrance Day in particular, I want to thank those who have served, and who continue to serve our country.  I urge you to wear a poppy and take a moment to thank the courageous men and women who have fought for the freedom we all enjoy. 

 

Lest we forget.

Brent

Remembrance Day 2009

10:15 - Visiting with residents at Shepherd's Care Kensington Village before their wreath ceremony

10:45 - Attending the Wreath Laying Ceremony at Calder Senior's Centre

11:45 - Visiting with individuals at the St. Albert Legion after their wreath ceremony

12:45 - Attending the Remembrance Day Levee at the Lieutenant Colonel Phillip L. Debney Armoury Officer's Mess.

______________________________________________________________________  

October 15, 2009

I have received a great deal  of correspondence and numerous telephone calls expressing concern regarding Private Members' Bill C-428, An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), introduced on June 18th, 2009 by Ruby Dhalla (Brampton--Springdale) of the Liberal Party. This Bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to reduce from ten years to three years the residency requirement for entitlement to a monthly pension.

 

In order to qualify for OAS, there is a 10 year residency requirement after age 18.  If this is met, eligible Canadians can start receiving benefits at age 65.  The 10 year requirement period strikes an appropriate balance between an individual's contribution to Canadian society and the economy and his or her access to a lifelong, publicly funded benefit.

 

It is reasonable to expect that a person live in Canada for a minimum period of time before being granted the right to a lifelong public benefit. The government is taking a fair and responsible approach to providing benefits to seniors. 

 

There are currently 50 social security agreements in place with a wide variety of countries. These allow period of residence and contributions in the other country to be used to meet the 10-year requirement.  We continue to work hard to sign more agreements in the future.

 

At a cost of over $700 million, this proposal is costly and irresponsible and would ultimately be borne by Canadian taxpayers.

 

As your Member of Parliament, I take your comments and concerns very seriously. I am not persuaded that Ms. Dhalla's proposals are either appropriate or affordable.  Unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will not vote in favour of this Bill.

 

Brent

                                                                                                                                                                

October 5, 2009

Today, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a Member, will begin a very important study into Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  This Section prohibits electronic communication that is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination".

I am quite concerned about this particular section of the Act.  Any legislation which limits the ability to speak freely without fear of Government reprisal is inappropriate in my view.

While it is important to protect Canadians from discrimination, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code to provide recourse in such matters.  In my view, this section of the legislation needlessly limits freedom of speech.

As Voltaire famously said "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I look forward to a fulsome and comprehensive study of this legislation at the Justice Committee, leading to a conclusion which both protects Canadians from discrimination while maximizing freedom of speech.

Brent 
_______________________________________________________________________

September 1, 2009

On Wednesday August 12, 2009, I had the pleasure of spending the afternoon as a guest at the Edmonton Drug Treatment and Community Restoration Court.  The EDTCRC, as it is known, is intended to reduce drug related crime through innovative approaches to dealing with offenders. 

Watching this collaborative and restorative approach to justice was certainly fascinating. 

My interest in observing the Drug Treatment Court in operation stems from my membership on the House of Commons Justice Committee. 

Recently, we passed Bill C-15, which if passed by the Senate, would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers.  It does, however, provide for enhanced access for appropriate offenders to Drug Treatment Courts. 

Drug Treatment Court sits every Wednesday starting at 2pm in Courtroom 268 (Provincial Court side of the Law Courts building).

As a former trial lawyer, I was immediately surprised by the informal approach in which the Drug Treatment Court operates.  I suspect because the Federal Crown Prosecutor, The Executive Director of the Program and Presiding Judge are almost always the same players, a certain informality and familiarity is clearly established. 

Essentially, the participants in the program appear every week and provide an oral report to Judge Darlene Wong as to what activities they have been involved in during the past week (whether they were working or going to school programs and the meetings they have attended in respect to their addictions and any changes in their personal circumstances).  The Executive Director then provides a report and applause is earned if the Executive Director verifies that a drug test has produced a negative (passing) result.  The Crown Prosecutor then indicates any concerns that she might have regarding future steps and the participant returns to their seat.  Interestingly, nobody leaves until the entire docket has completed their progress evaluation. 

Following an in-camera meeting with Judge Wong and the other professional participants, I am advised that occasionally a participant is deemed no longer eligible for the program. Ultimately they are sentenced for their crime. However, based on my observations, clearly the participants in the program wish to complete their rehabilitation and avoid sanction for the crimes that have brought them before the Courts in the first place.

As a practicing lawyer who spent a great deal of time in the courts early in my legal career, I was certainly struck by the non adversarial nature of the Drug Treatment Court.  Although it appears that sometimes there is more social work than law being practiced, it is difficult to argue with the successful results of the program.  The vast majority of the participants, on the day that I observed court, were sticking to their programs for rehabilitation, attending meetings and either working or seeking gainful employment or educational opportunities.

Anecdotally, many participants spoke glowingly of the program and how it changed, and in some cases saved, their lives. 

Initially the Federal funding for the Restorative Drug Treatment Court was for a four year period ending in 2009.  It has been extended conditionally ending on March 31, 2010.  This extension was to give the Federal Government more time to complete the evaluative component of the project.  I will certainly add my voice on the Justice Committee to those who have been advocating for additional funding to allow this highly unique, but clearly successful, approach to justice to continue.

Brent
                                                                                                                                                                

August 26, 2009

Controversy regarding Bill C-384

 

Many constituents have written, called and emailed me regarding a Private Members' Bill introduced in the House of Commons by a Bloc Quebecois Member of Parliament, Francine Lalonde.  Bill C-384 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity), seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada so that Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide would no longer be prosecuted.

 

Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a person by act or omission with the purported purpose of eliminating suffering. 

 

I am strongly opposed to both the concept behind, and the details of, this Bill. 

 

Euthanasia is very different from respecting an individual's request not to have treatment or to withdraw treatment when it has dubious benefits.  This further can be distinguished from other situations where medication is administered to relieve pain and suffering, even though it is foreseeable and, often the case, that this pain management might ultimately shorten the patient's life. 

 

I do not accept the argument that Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide is a compassionate response to suffering.  As life nears its natural end, the compassionate response to any pain and hardship is good palliative care, not the termination of the patient's life. 

 

Our "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" part of our Constitution, provides that all Citizens are entitled to "Life, Liberty and Security of the Person".  Accordingly, society depends upon the commitment of all citizens to uphold the dignity of every human life; the legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia would irreparably detract from this common goal. 

 

Moreover, Doctors for centuries have taken an oath that they must heal and never kill. If Bill C-384 were to pass and Doctors were granted license to terminate life, a patient's trust in their doctor and the Doctor - Patient relationship would be irreparably damaged.

 

This legislation, if passed, would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, newborns and all members of our society, who are unable to express an opinion or look after their own best interests. 

 

I believe this issue, more than any other, has captured the attention of many constituents in the Edmonton - St. Albert Electoral District.  My constituents are nearly unanimous in their opposition to this Bill and also to the concepts of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. 

 

Rest assured that I share your point of view on this matter and will be voting against Bill C-384.

Brent
                                                                                                                                                                

August 20, 2009

On August 20, 2009 Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, also known as the Lockerbie Bomber was released from a Scottish prison on "compassionate" grounds.  This, after being convicted of bombing the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103, killing 269 people, in one of the worst pre-9/11 terrorist attacks that the world has ever witnessed.  His release comes despite the fact that he has shown absolutely no remorse for either his actions or his victims. 

 

This decision, made by the Government of Scotland, is abhorrent especially by a nation which supposedly values Western traditions such as democracy and the rule of law.

 

Al Megrahi was given a sentence of life imprisonment.  Therefore, in accordance with British Common Law tradition, his debt to society is only complete once his life has ended.

 

I completely disagree with the decision by the Scottish Government to liberate this terrorist.   I am also disgusted that not only has he been welcomed home to his native Libya, he has received a hero's welcome.

 

In my opinion, the compassion shown to him by the Scottish Government should have been equivalent to the compassion he showed the victims of Pan Am Flight 103: absolutely none.

Brent