November is when we pause to remember those who have fought for us in past and present wars; those who are still doing so in Afghanistan and in peace missions in other parts of the world; those who have come home, but injured in body and spirit; and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives.
It is a time to say thank you, to remember--and in the spirit of thanks and remembrance, to reflect on how we can best promote peace, instead of war.
I am very proud of my family’s military history. My grandfather (from Willowdale) was a pilot in WWI, flying with Billy Bishop against the famous Red Baron. One of my uncles (also from Willowdale) was a pilot in WWII, but, sadly, he was shot down and killed, and never came home to his family. Another uncle (also from Willowdale) was a pilot with the naval air force. He made the navy his career, ultimately commanding a destroyer (the HMCS Qu’Appelle).
My own father landed on DDay. He was the first Allied soldier in Caen. He won the Military Cross for his work in laying and keeping open the signal lines under fire, and went on to help liberate Holland. I am able to tell you this story because he was one of the lucky ones who was able to come home and build a family—of which I am one.
I myself was able to “join the Navy” this summer, as part of a program offered by the Armed Forces to Members of Parliament. For five days, I was welcomed as ‘part of the crew’ of the frigate HMCS St. John’s. It was an extraordinary experience, and I learned so much about the incredible teamwork necessary for the survival of a ship at sea. (One night was so rough we had to use our “bunk belts” to keep from rolling out of bed!)
I am very proud of my family’s contributions. I am very proud of the fact that, when called upon to help internationally, Canada and Canadians have not only stepped up to the challenge, they have punched far above their weight and earned worldwide respect.
Unfortunately, our veterans have not been treated well enough. I, as the MP for Willowdale, along with many of my colleagues, are calling on the Harper government to properly honour our veterans, our military, and their families on all days of the year by (i) conducting an extensive review of the New Veterans’ Charter with real consultation with veterans across the country; (ii) immediately correcting the problems with the lump-sum payment system for injured veterans returning from service; (iii) clarifying whether the new benefits for seriously injured veterans will be retroactive to 2006; and (iv) helping the growing number of veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We must ensure that veterans, who have given so much, are given the support, and treated with the respect, that they deserve.
I also want us to do all we can, as a country, to promote peace, not war. We have a long tradition in this country, from Lester Pearson’s work creating UN Peacekeeping efforts, to Canada’s role in the anti-land mines treaty, to Jean Chretien’s refusal to send Canadian troops to invade Iraq, to the promotion by Michael Ignatieff of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine at the United Nations. These efforts are not perfect. The United Nations itself has flaws. But Canada can either sit back and refuse to help, or we can step up, once again, to the challenge of ensuring a multilateral approach to achieving world peace. I choose to have Canada step up to make the world a better place.
Martha Hall Findlay
MP, Willowdale
Official Opposition Critic for International Trade
Showing posts with label Liberal Party of Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Party of Canada. Show all posts
2.11.10
My View on Bill C-300
I, and everyone in the Liberal Party, agreed completely with the intentions behind Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil and Gas in Developing Countries. ALL members of the Liberal Party are 100% behind improving the Corporate Social Responsibility of Canadian mining companies in developing countries (CSR). Indeed, I commend my colleague John McKay from Scarborough – Guildwood for remaining so concerned about this issue while the Conservative Government has done so little.
However, intentions aren’t always enough, and I had serious concerns about Bill C-300. Despite considerable pressure to do so, I refused to vote for something I felt was very flawed. I was therefore not in the House of Commons for the vote this past Wednesday. I was one of 13 Liberals, 4 NDP and 6 Bloc Quebecois who were not there. (Interestingly, that’s pretty much the same proportion from each of the three opposition parties.)
Ironically, I did not support C-300 specifically because of the fact that I, too, am very concerned about CSR of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. There’s no question that Bill C-300 sounded very good on its face, but that’s not enough. It was flawed—something John McKay, its proponent, himself admitted. Due to the limitations on Private Member’s Bills, it could not include some fundamental pieces that would have made it function in an acceptable way. The proponents said that, although it was flawed, at least it would “go part way”. However, in my view, this particular effort at “going part way” would cause other, unintended damage.
And to address the allegations that the mining companies engaged in major lobbying: I had made my decision long before any mining company came to talk to me. Indeed, I and many of my colleagues were lobbied far harder, for a longer period of time, by supporters of C-300---far harder than the mining industry. My decision had nothing to do with either side’s lobbying efforts.
I did not support it based on the Bill’s own flaws, based on the extensive personal research I did, based on listening to as many stakeholders as I could—and based on my own understanding of the political process, domestic law, international law, international finance and international business (thanks to significant personal background and experience in these areas). I came to the conclusion that its flaws would cause significant negative unintended consequences in the short term—negative consequences for the very people in developing countries that it was intended to help. Not only that, I felt that passing C-300 would, in fact, put truly successful improvements to CSR backwards. In order to really accomplish what we’re all trying to achieve, we need to do this right.
Others disagreed, of course. I have had no shortage of criticism, including a surprising number of unpleasant personal attacks. But I stand by decision. I'm proud to live in a society, and be a part of a political party, that allows people to disagree. It is critical, particularly where the current Conservative government is so controlled, and where debate is so often silenced, that when we are able to debate, we do so with respect and civility—with respect for other people’s opinions.
My biggest upset is that there has been so much division, so much antagonism that has developed among so many people who want the same thing. I hope that we can move forward.
I, and the whole Liberal Party, believe that we will achieve real and truly effective progress on CSR through the implementation of the 2007 Report by the Advisory Group on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Canadian Extractive Industry (Click Here to view the report). This 2007 Report included strong and very positive recommendations for the improving of CSR among Canadian mining companies working in developing countries. Most importantly, it was developed with the participation of ALL stakeholders—NGOs, CSOs, mining companies, governments, and more. It is extremely powerful because of that fact. I’d like to see those recommendations implemented. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did nothing, and sat on the 2007 Report, silent, for two years. A Liberal government would do it right.
* * * * * * * *
Here is some information about the 2006 Round Table process and the resulting 2007 Report:
In 2005 a decision was made, under a Liberal Government, to move forward on the issue of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. Throughout 2006, extensive, all-stakeholder round tables were conducted. These included non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), mining and oil companies, labour, governments and individuals. It was an extraordinary process—and very unusual in the progress achieved with so many different participants.
There were 156 oral presentations and 104 written submissions. Of these, 61 were from civil society, 33 from industry, 15 from labour organizations, 31 from academics and research institutes, and 16 from members of the public without a stated affiliation.
This process was an extraordinary example of all of the stakeholders coming together to address this fundamental issue—and the resulting 2007 Report was roundly approved and supported. It was the product of many people who might have had opposing views but who came together, exhibiting a will to compromise and find constructive consensus.
The 2007 Report set out some very tough recommendations, including strict and clear guidelines on the level of CSR expected of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries, a robust complaint and review mechanism, the creation of an ombudsperson with tough responsibilities, and significant funding to help developing countries build their own capacity to create and enforce, locally, CSR standards and regulations. Yet the Conservative government did nothing. Nothing for two years. Only recently did they come up with a much watered down plan, but with no teeth.
Liberals are united in strongly supporting implementation of a regime based on the full 2007 Report, as the best way to achieve the highest levels of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries— something the Conservative government has failed to do.
However, intentions aren’t always enough, and I had serious concerns about Bill C-300. Despite considerable pressure to do so, I refused to vote for something I felt was very flawed. I was therefore not in the House of Commons for the vote this past Wednesday. I was one of 13 Liberals, 4 NDP and 6 Bloc Quebecois who were not there. (Interestingly, that’s pretty much the same proportion from each of the three opposition parties.)
Ironically, I did not support C-300 specifically because of the fact that I, too, am very concerned about CSR of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. There’s no question that Bill C-300 sounded very good on its face, but that’s not enough. It was flawed—something John McKay, its proponent, himself admitted. Due to the limitations on Private Member’s Bills, it could not include some fundamental pieces that would have made it function in an acceptable way. The proponents said that, although it was flawed, at least it would “go part way”. However, in my view, this particular effort at “going part way” would cause other, unintended damage.
And to address the allegations that the mining companies engaged in major lobbying: I had made my decision long before any mining company came to talk to me. Indeed, I and many of my colleagues were lobbied far harder, for a longer period of time, by supporters of C-300---far harder than the mining industry. My decision had nothing to do with either side’s lobbying efforts.
I did not support it based on the Bill’s own flaws, based on the extensive personal research I did, based on listening to as many stakeholders as I could—and based on my own understanding of the political process, domestic law, international law, international finance and international business (thanks to significant personal background and experience in these areas). I came to the conclusion that its flaws would cause significant negative unintended consequences in the short term—negative consequences for the very people in developing countries that it was intended to help. Not only that, I felt that passing C-300 would, in fact, put truly successful improvements to CSR backwards. In order to really accomplish what we’re all trying to achieve, we need to do this right.
Others disagreed, of course. I have had no shortage of criticism, including a surprising number of unpleasant personal attacks. But I stand by decision. I'm proud to live in a society, and be a part of a political party, that allows people to disagree. It is critical, particularly where the current Conservative government is so controlled, and where debate is so often silenced, that when we are able to debate, we do so with respect and civility—with respect for other people’s opinions.
My biggest upset is that there has been so much division, so much antagonism that has developed among so many people who want the same thing. I hope that we can move forward.
I, and the whole Liberal Party, believe that we will achieve real and truly effective progress on CSR through the implementation of the 2007 Report by the Advisory Group on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Canadian Extractive Industry (Click Here to view the report). This 2007 Report included strong and very positive recommendations for the improving of CSR among Canadian mining companies working in developing countries. Most importantly, it was developed with the participation of ALL stakeholders—NGOs, CSOs, mining companies, governments, and more. It is extremely powerful because of that fact. I’d like to see those recommendations implemented. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did nothing, and sat on the 2007 Report, silent, for two years. A Liberal government would do it right.
* * * * * * * *
Here is some information about the 2006 Round Table process and the resulting 2007 Report:
In 2005 a decision was made, under a Liberal Government, to move forward on the issue of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. Throughout 2006, extensive, all-stakeholder round tables were conducted. These included non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), mining and oil companies, labour, governments and individuals. It was an extraordinary process—and very unusual in the progress achieved with so many different participants.
There were 156 oral presentations and 104 written submissions. Of these, 61 were from civil society, 33 from industry, 15 from labour organizations, 31 from academics and research institutes, and 16 from members of the public without a stated affiliation.
This process was an extraordinary example of all of the stakeholders coming together to address this fundamental issue—and the resulting 2007 Report was roundly approved and supported. It was the product of many people who might have had opposing views but who came together, exhibiting a will to compromise and find constructive consensus.
The 2007 Report set out some very tough recommendations, including strict and clear guidelines on the level of CSR expected of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries, a robust complaint and review mechanism, the creation of an ombudsperson with tough responsibilities, and significant funding to help developing countries build their own capacity to create and enforce, locally, CSR standards and regulations. Yet the Conservative government did nothing. Nothing for two years. Only recently did they come up with a much watered down plan, but with no teeth.
Liberals are united in strongly supporting implementation of a regime based on the full 2007 Report, as the best way to achieve the highest levels of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries— something the Conservative government has failed to do.
31.8.10
Where are the Women?
Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay asks why only one-fifth of Canadian politicians are female:
Women represent only about 21 per cent of elected politicians in Canada, but 52 per cent of the population. We represent more than half of the people affected by legislation passed by our politicians, but we’re not nearly half of the group making the decisions.
This is a problem. We need to be at the table when policies that affect us and our society are developed, prioritized, debated and implemented. I’m not one who believes we need more women there because we are somehow “better” at the conduct of politics, or because we’re somehow more co-operative or consensus-driven than men. I’m not even sure that’s true. Women need to be equally represented, quite simply, because we’re equally affected – and by being there, we’ll get decisions that better reflect the needs of all of society, not just half. It’s frustratingly like the classic 1950s scenario, with the husband making all of the financial and other significant decisions for not only himself but also his wife and family. Most of us would no longer accept that in our personal lives – why should we accept it for our country?
And the need for more women is not because of so-called “women’s issues,” a term I have trouble with. My background is international relations, international law and business – my primary political interests are economics and finance, foreign affairs and trade. Yes, I also have three great kids. And, yes, I am interested (and from experience, pretty well versed) in child care and early learning. And, yes, women bear most of the burden for it. But child care (as only one example) is not just a women’s issue. It affects families, society, job participation and, ultimately, the country’s overall economic environment and success. We all have a vested interest in it. I worry, in fact, that using the label “women’s issues” serves to marginalize some of the very issues that need to be better addressed.
But we still have the basic concern: How do we get to a place where women are equally represented among decision-makers? The more women run, the more women will get elected. We need to get more women interested, engaged and, ultimately, keen to run for public office.
There a number of challenges and barriers: money, the media, the style of politics, whether women are more uneasy about public exposure. A big issue, though, is that politics is simply not a nine-to-five job. It’s daytime, nighttime and weekends. Federal politics requires living in two places. And in our society, women still bear the largest share of the responsibility for children and aging parents, family and social activities, and household chores. Until such time as men bear equal responsibility for those things, it’s hard to get an equal number of women willing and able to leave home for weeks at a time. And it’s not just time and availability. The pressure put on women from society, family and friends – and themselves – is very strong, particularly where there are kids. The level of expectation – and guilt – is very different from that faced, generally, by men.
I’d be thrilled if I had a solution to that larger societal inequality, but, absent that, what do we do? In my case, I simply didn’t take the plunge until I was 45, with other responsibilities behind me.
To the older women out there – those of you, like me, who have already managed responsibilities such as kids and other careers, and who are now in a position (family-wise, time-wise, financially) to contribute through public office: we need you.
To those women out there who have young children, or other obligations, but without the necessary family or other support needed to juggle those life responsibilities: we want you there, and involved, but perhaps actually running for office can wait. There are other ways to be involved in politics in the mean-time, and we, your communities and your country need you.
Martha Hall Findlay (BA 1983 VIC) is Liberal MP for Willowdale, Ontario, and is Official Opposition Critic for Public Works and Government Services. She ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2006. She encourages any woman interested in getting involved in politics to write to her at HallFindlay.M@parl.gc.ca.
Où sont les femmes?
La députée libérale Martha Hall Findlay demande pourquoi seulement un cinquième des personnes engagées en politique active sont des femmes
Les femmes ne représentent qu’environ 21 pour cent des politiciens élus au Canada, tout en formant 52 pour cent de la population. Nous constituons plus de la moitié des gens touchés par les lois que nos élus adoptent, mais nous sommes loin de former la moitié du groupe qui prend les décisions.
Il y a là un problème. Nous devons être à la table lorsque des politiques qui nous touchent, qui touchent notre société, sont élaborées et classées par ordre de priorité, qu’on en débat et qu’on les met en œuvre. Je ne suis pas de ceux qui croient que nous avons besoin davantage de femmes parce que nous sommes « meilleures » d’une façon ou d’une autre dans notre manière de faire de la politique, ou parce que nous serions prétendument plus axées sur la collaboration ou le consensus que les hommes. Je ne suis même pas sûre que ce soit vrai. Les femmes doivent être également représentées tout simplement parce que nous sommes également touchées. Et en étant présentes, nous obtiendrons des décisions qui reflètent mieux les besoins de toute la société, et non de seulement la moitié. La situation ressemble de manière agaçante au scénario des années 1950, avec le mari qui prend toutes les décisions financières et les autres décisions importantes, non seulement pour lui-même mais aussi pour sa femme et sa famille. La plupart d’entre nous n’accepteraient plus cette façon de faire dans notre vie personnelle; pourquoi devrions-nous l’accepter pour notre pays?
Et la nécessité d’une présence accrue des femmes n’est pas liée à ce qu’on a coutume d’appeler les « questions féminines », un terme au sujet duquel j’ai des réserves. Ma formation et mon expérience se situent dans le domaine des relations internationales, du droit international et des affaires; mes principaux domaines d’intérêt en politique sont l’économie et la finance, les affaires étrangères et le commerce. Oui, j’ai aussi trois enfants formidables. Et oui, je m’intéresse aux services de garde et à l’apprentissage précoce et, de par mon expérience, je m’y connais assez bien. Et oui, les femmes portent la plus grande part du fardeau en ce domaine. Mais les services de garde (ce qui n’est qu’un exemple) ne sont pas une question exclusivement féminine. Ils touchent les familles, la société, la participation au monde du travail et, en bout de ligne, l’environnement économique global du pays et son succès. Nous avons tous un intérêt direct en ce domaine. En fait, je m’inquiète que l’étiquette « questions féminines» serve à marginaliser certaines des questions dont, justement, il faudrait s’occuper davantage.
Mais il reste toujours la préoccupation de base : comment devons-nous faire pour arriver au point où les femmes seront également représentées parmi les décideurs? Plus de femmes se présenteront et plus un grand nombre d’entre elles seront élues. Nous devons faire en sorte qu’un plus grand nombre de femmes s’intéressent à la politique, y participent et aient le goût de briguer les suffrages.
Un certain nombre de difficultés et d’obstacles se dressent sur la route : l’argent, les médias, le style de la politique, la question de savoir si les femmes sont davantage mal à l’aise à avoir une vie publique. Un gros problème, toutefois, est que la politique n’est tout simplement pas un emploi de 9 à 5. On y travaille le jour, le soir et les fins de semaine. La politique fédérale exige deux lieux de résidence. Et, dans notre société, les femmes assument encore la plus grande part de la responsabilité des enfants et des parents vieillissants, de la famille et des activités sociales, ainsi que des tâches ménagères. D’ici à ce que les hommes assument une part égale de ces responsabilités, il sera difficile d’avoir un nombre égal de femmes qui consentent à quitter la maison pendant des semaines et qui sont en mesure de le faire. Et le problème ne se limite pas au temps et à la disponibilité. La pression exercée sur les femmes par la société, la famille et les amis, et celle qu’elles s’imposent, est très forte, en particulier lorsqu’il y a des enfants. Le niveau des attentes, et la culpabilité, sont très différents de ceux que subissent en général les hommes.
Je serais ravie si j’avais une solution à cette iniquité sociétale globale, mais comme nous n’en avons pas, que faire? Dans mon cas, j’ai simplement attendu d’avoir 45 ans pour me lancer et d’avoir mis certaines responsabilités derrière moi.
J’aimerais dire ceci aux femmes plus âgées, celles d’entre vous qui, comme moi, ont déjà géré des responsabilités telles que des enfants et d’autres carrières et qui sont maintenant en mesure (côté famille, temps et finances) de contribuer en briguant une charge publique : nous avons besoin de vous.
Et je voudrais ajouter ceci à l’intention des femmes qui me lisent et qui ont de jeunes enfants ou d’autres obligations, mais qui ne disposent pas du soutien, familial ou autre, qui est nécessaire pour concilier toutes ces responsabilités : nous aimerions que vous soyez présentes et que vous participiez, mais peut-être que la candidature elle-même peut attendre. Il y a d’autres manières de participer à la vie politique entre-temps et nous, notre pays et nos collectivités avons besoin de vous.
Martha Hall Findlay (BA 1983 VIC) est députée libérale de la circonscription de Willowdale (Ontario) et porte-parole de l’opposition officielle en matière de travaux publics et de services gouvernementaux. Elle a été candidate à la direction du Parti libéral du Canada en 2006. Elle encourage toute femme qui s’intéresse à une éventuelle participation politique à lui écrire à HallFindlay.M@parl.gc.ca.
Les femmes ne représentent qu’environ 21 pour cent des politiciens élus au Canada, tout en formant 52 pour cent de la population. Nous constituons plus de la moitié des gens touchés par les lois que nos élus adoptent, mais nous sommes loin de former la moitié du groupe qui prend les décisions.
Il y a là un problème. Nous devons être à la table lorsque des politiques qui nous touchent, qui touchent notre société, sont élaborées et classées par ordre de priorité, qu’on en débat et qu’on les met en œuvre. Je ne suis pas de ceux qui croient que nous avons besoin davantage de femmes parce que nous sommes « meilleures » d’une façon ou d’une autre dans notre manière de faire de la politique, ou parce que nous serions prétendument plus axées sur la collaboration ou le consensus que les hommes. Je ne suis même pas sûre que ce soit vrai. Les femmes doivent être également représentées tout simplement parce que nous sommes également touchées. Et en étant présentes, nous obtiendrons des décisions qui reflètent mieux les besoins de toute la société, et non de seulement la moitié. La situation ressemble de manière agaçante au scénario des années 1950, avec le mari qui prend toutes les décisions financières et les autres décisions importantes, non seulement pour lui-même mais aussi pour sa femme et sa famille. La plupart d’entre nous n’accepteraient plus cette façon de faire dans notre vie personnelle; pourquoi devrions-nous l’accepter pour notre pays?
Et la nécessité d’une présence accrue des femmes n’est pas liée à ce qu’on a coutume d’appeler les « questions féminines », un terme au sujet duquel j’ai des réserves. Ma formation et mon expérience se situent dans le domaine des relations internationales, du droit international et des affaires; mes principaux domaines d’intérêt en politique sont l’économie et la finance, les affaires étrangères et le commerce. Oui, j’ai aussi trois enfants formidables. Et oui, je m’intéresse aux services de garde et à l’apprentissage précoce et, de par mon expérience, je m’y connais assez bien. Et oui, les femmes portent la plus grande part du fardeau en ce domaine. Mais les services de garde (ce qui n’est qu’un exemple) ne sont pas une question exclusivement féminine. Ils touchent les familles, la société, la participation au monde du travail et, en bout de ligne, l’environnement économique global du pays et son succès. Nous avons tous un intérêt direct en ce domaine. En fait, je m’inquiète que l’étiquette « questions féminines» serve à marginaliser certaines des questions dont, justement, il faudrait s’occuper davantage.
Mais il reste toujours la préoccupation de base : comment devons-nous faire pour arriver au point où les femmes seront également représentées parmi les décideurs? Plus de femmes se présenteront et plus un grand nombre d’entre elles seront élues. Nous devons faire en sorte qu’un plus grand nombre de femmes s’intéressent à la politique, y participent et aient le goût de briguer les suffrages.
Un certain nombre de difficultés et d’obstacles se dressent sur la route : l’argent, les médias, le style de la politique, la question de savoir si les femmes sont davantage mal à l’aise à avoir une vie publique. Un gros problème, toutefois, est que la politique n’est tout simplement pas un emploi de 9 à 5. On y travaille le jour, le soir et les fins de semaine. La politique fédérale exige deux lieux de résidence. Et, dans notre société, les femmes assument encore la plus grande part de la responsabilité des enfants et des parents vieillissants, de la famille et des activités sociales, ainsi que des tâches ménagères. D’ici à ce que les hommes assument une part égale de ces responsabilités, il sera difficile d’avoir un nombre égal de femmes qui consentent à quitter la maison pendant des semaines et qui sont en mesure de le faire. Et le problème ne se limite pas au temps et à la disponibilité. La pression exercée sur les femmes par la société, la famille et les amis, et celle qu’elles s’imposent, est très forte, en particulier lorsqu’il y a des enfants. Le niveau des attentes, et la culpabilité, sont très différents de ceux que subissent en général les hommes.
Je serais ravie si j’avais une solution à cette iniquité sociétale globale, mais comme nous n’en avons pas, que faire? Dans mon cas, j’ai simplement attendu d’avoir 45 ans pour me lancer et d’avoir mis certaines responsabilités derrière moi.
J’aimerais dire ceci aux femmes plus âgées, celles d’entre vous qui, comme moi, ont déjà géré des responsabilités telles que des enfants et d’autres carrières et qui sont maintenant en mesure (côté famille, temps et finances) de contribuer en briguant une charge publique : nous avons besoin de vous.
Et je voudrais ajouter ceci à l’intention des femmes qui me lisent et qui ont de jeunes enfants ou d’autres obligations, mais qui ne disposent pas du soutien, familial ou autre, qui est nécessaire pour concilier toutes ces responsabilités : nous aimerions que vous soyez présentes et que vous participiez, mais peut-être que la candidature elle-même peut attendre. Il y a d’autres manières de participer à la vie politique entre-temps et nous, notre pays et nos collectivités avons besoin de vous.
Martha Hall Findlay (BA 1983 VIC) est députée libérale de la circonscription de Willowdale (Ontario) et porte-parole de l’opposition officielle en matière de travaux publics et de services gouvernementaux. Elle a été candidate à la direction du Parti libéral du Canada en 2006. Elle encourage toute femme qui s’intéresse à une éventuelle participation politique à lui écrire à HallFindlay.M@parl.gc.ca.
9.7.10
Stephen Harper's G20: Exorbitant costs, security clashes, unwarranted police force and trampling of civil liberties
Exorbitant costs: $1Billion (that’s 1,000 Million of your taxpayer dollars) for security alone—and it will likely be much more when the bills finally come in. That doesn’t include the Fake Lake, the rest of the non-security hosting costs, let alone the tally for lost tourism, lost business and destruction of retail premises. No one knows what those costs will end up being—despite our repeated requests, the Harper government avoids all of our questions. The only thing we DO know is that the cost will have been enormous. And now, questions are mounting about favouritism and indeed possible corruption in the awarding of lucrative contracts. We will continue to probe, through the House of Commons National Security Committee and otherwise.
Unwarranted force, arrests and our civil liberties: I join the many others calling for a public inquiry based on what happened on the streets of Toronto. Despite all the excuses about “security”, the world saw Toronto—this fabulous, colourful, vibrant, safe and friendly city—as a war zone wasteland with burning cars, police violence and a trampling of civil liberties. The examples of unwarranted arrests, intimidation and inappropriate treatment of innocent, peaceful civilians continue to mount. We MUST stand for human rights, civil liberties, free speech, freedom of (peaceful) association and protest. These are critical in a democracy—it’s about far more than simply voting. Only when these rights are protected, indeed promoted, is a vote, a society, truly democratic. Not only must our police and government officials show the highest respect for these fundamental laws and liberties—they are supposed to be ones protecting them. In this case they didn’t. We must insist that they do. An inquiry is needed. The Ontario ombudsman will now review the ‘quiet’ introduction of sweeping powers (see the Globe and Mail article), and the Toronto Police have initiated a civilian review of police conduct—but Stephen Harper’s government appears to have been at the core of the decisions and the orders being given. We need to know what those orders were, who was giving them, what position those orders may have forced the Toronto police into, and who, ultimately was directing this reprehensible response.
Stephen Harper’s G20: The blame for much of this lies squarely with Stephen Harper. Harper’s last-minute decision to include the G20 in downtown Toronto (he gave the City all of 15 minutes’ notice before the public announcement); Harper’s refusal to consider options, even after Toronto itself expressed major concerns about costs, loss of revenue, security, and a multitude of other real problems for Torontonians; Harper’s handing Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair and the Toronto police a near-impossible security task while, it appears, insisting that the Integrated Security Unit be coordinated from the Privy Council Office; the Harper government’s incompetence at managing money (your taxpayer dollars!), allowing costs to spiral out of control... Stephen Harper must be held accountable to Canadians for this.
The Liberal Party’s reaction: We have demanded answers from the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. We have also joined in a request with other opposition MPs to have the House of Commons National Security Committee meet as soon as possible to investigate just what happened, and why, and asking Minister Toews to appear. Questions Liberals are asking, and which we hope can be asked at Committee soon, include: Who was ultimately giving security commands during the G20? Who designed the security plans for the G20? What security advice did the government consider before putting the summit in downtown Toronto? How were the contracts for security assistance (and indeed other summit hosting requirements) awarded? What was done, if anything, to manage costs? Who was responsible for the awarding of those contracts and what were the criteria? Given the Harper government refusal to answer almost any question, this will be tough, but we will continue to push.
Canada’s international role: I may be biased, given my own background in international relations and international law, but Canada should be playing a significant part in world affairs—more even than we are now. We have long punched above our weight, and as an example of a successful economy, of an even more successful pluralistic society based on our tremendous diversity and other strengths, and militarily (WWI, WWII, the Korean War, peacekeeping and Afghanistan). We have a real role to play on the international stage, a terrific opportunity to lead by example. As the influence of the G8 wanes and the importance of the G20 increases, it is critical that Canada have a significant role in the G20, particularly now in its early stages. (Kudos to former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin who, a number of years ago, proposed the idea of the G20 as an international financial forum in the first place.) Despite all of what has happened, I’m not upset that Canada agreed to host the G20, as part of the responsibility of that international role. I AM, however, very upset at how extraordinarily mismanaged the whole affair was by the Harper government. Exorbitant costs, unwarranted force, trampling of civil liberties, questions of favouritism and indeed possible corruption in the awarding of lucrative contracts—Canadians demand answers, and the world is watching....Stephen Harper must be held to account.
Unwarranted force, arrests and our civil liberties: I join the many others calling for a public inquiry based on what happened on the streets of Toronto. Despite all the excuses about “security”, the world saw Toronto—this fabulous, colourful, vibrant, safe and friendly city—as a war zone wasteland with burning cars, police violence and a trampling of civil liberties. The examples of unwarranted arrests, intimidation and inappropriate treatment of innocent, peaceful civilians continue to mount. We MUST stand for human rights, civil liberties, free speech, freedom of (peaceful) association and protest. These are critical in a democracy—it’s about far more than simply voting. Only when these rights are protected, indeed promoted, is a vote, a society, truly democratic. Not only must our police and government officials show the highest respect for these fundamental laws and liberties—they are supposed to be ones protecting them. In this case they didn’t. We must insist that they do. An inquiry is needed. The Ontario ombudsman will now review the ‘quiet’ introduction of sweeping powers (see the Globe and Mail article), and the Toronto Police have initiated a civilian review of police conduct—but Stephen Harper’s government appears to have been at the core of the decisions and the orders being given. We need to know what those orders were, who was giving them, what position those orders may have forced the Toronto police into, and who, ultimately was directing this reprehensible response.
Stephen Harper’s G20: The blame for much of this lies squarely with Stephen Harper. Harper’s last-minute decision to include the G20 in downtown Toronto (he gave the City all of 15 minutes’ notice before the public announcement); Harper’s refusal to consider options, even after Toronto itself expressed major concerns about costs, loss of revenue, security, and a multitude of other real problems for Torontonians; Harper’s handing Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair and the Toronto police a near-impossible security task while, it appears, insisting that the Integrated Security Unit be coordinated from the Privy Council Office; the Harper government’s incompetence at managing money (your taxpayer dollars!), allowing costs to spiral out of control... Stephen Harper must be held accountable to Canadians for this.
The Liberal Party’s reaction: We have demanded answers from the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. We have also joined in a request with other opposition MPs to have the House of Commons National Security Committee meet as soon as possible to investigate just what happened, and why, and asking Minister Toews to appear. Questions Liberals are asking, and which we hope can be asked at Committee soon, include: Who was ultimately giving security commands during the G20? Who designed the security plans for the G20? What security advice did the government consider before putting the summit in downtown Toronto? How were the contracts for security assistance (and indeed other summit hosting requirements) awarded? What was done, if anything, to manage costs? Who was responsible for the awarding of those contracts and what were the criteria? Given the Harper government refusal to answer almost any question, this will be tough, but we will continue to push.
Canada’s international role: I may be biased, given my own background in international relations and international law, but Canada should be playing a significant part in world affairs—more even than we are now. We have long punched above our weight, and as an example of a successful economy, of an even more successful pluralistic society based on our tremendous diversity and other strengths, and militarily (WWI, WWII, the Korean War, peacekeeping and Afghanistan). We have a real role to play on the international stage, a terrific opportunity to lead by example. As the influence of the G8 wanes and the importance of the G20 increases, it is critical that Canada have a significant role in the G20, particularly now in its early stages. (Kudos to former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin who, a number of years ago, proposed the idea of the G20 as an international financial forum in the first place.) Despite all of what has happened, I’m not upset that Canada agreed to host the G20, as part of the responsibility of that international role. I AM, however, very upset at how extraordinarily mismanaged the whole affair was by the Harper government. Exorbitant costs, unwarranted force, trampling of civil liberties, questions of favouritism and indeed possible corruption in the awarding of lucrative contracts—Canadians demand answers, and the world is watching....Stephen Harper must be held to account.
18.5.10
"Yes" to the Auditor General's review of MPs' expenses
As I noted this afternoon on CTV's Power Play with Tom Clark, I was indeed disappointed in the decision last week by the Board of Internal Economy (an all-party committee of MPs), to refuse the Auditor General's request to do a performance audit of the administration and services of the House of Commons.
I have tremendous respect for Sheila Fraser, our Auditor General, for the work she does, and for the nature of her responsibilities. Our government is better off because of her work, and I would be happy to have her review my books.
I also have respect for the Parliamentary process, and the fact that the Board of Internal Economy has made a decision......but I encourage them to reconsider it.
As Official Opposition Critic for Public Works and Government Services, a big part of my job is to hold the government to account--ALL of government--and to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is spent wisely, efficiently and effectively.
Canadians rightly believe that MPs should be held to no less of a standard.
I encourage the Board of Internal Economy to reconsider their decision, and to allow the Auditor General to perform the performance audit she has requested.
MHF
I have tremendous respect for Sheila Fraser, our Auditor General, for the work she does, and for the nature of her responsibilities. Our government is better off because of her work, and I would be happy to have her review my books.
I also have respect for the Parliamentary process, and the fact that the Board of Internal Economy has made a decision......but I encourage them to reconsider it.
As Official Opposition Critic for Public Works and Government Services, a big part of my job is to hold the government to account--ALL of government--and to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is spent wisely, efficiently and effectively.
Canadians rightly believe that MPs should be held to no less of a standard.
I encourage the Board of Internal Economy to reconsider their decision, and to allow the Auditor General to perform the performance audit she has requested.
MHF
1.4.10
Canada 150
This past weekend was an exciting one for the politicos in our country. People from across the country gathered in Montreal, online, and in 70 satellite conferences in various regions (including one in Willowdale!) from coast to coast to coast. Though the event was hosted by Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada it was non-partisan allowing for an open, thoughtful and frank discussion on where Canadian policy needs to go and how we are going to get there.As a Young Liberal participating in the Montreal conference (and online, seeing as the Internet is more or less attached permanently to my hand) I had the chance to converse with some truly amazing people. The weekend was inspirational to say the least.
We talked about the challenges of an aging population, the changing job market, the economy, the environment, carbon tax. We explored culture and the effects of the digital age, we looked at youth representation and the impact of the voluntary sector and NGOs. This multi-directional conversation is an exciting and dynamic dialogue that, I think, is allowing more people the opportunity to engage in politics – and isn’t that what democracy is, everyone with a voice, everyone engaged? Well it is the democracy I want to be a part of at least. One where citizens are excited about politics and eager to contribute.
For more on Canada 150 and to watch videos of the conference proceedings from Montreal check out the website: http://can150.ca/
-Elizabeth
18.3.10
Two years as MP for Willowdale
Two years!!
It figures that I was so busy with work, yesterday, on the actual 2nd anniversary of getting elected, that I didn't have time to write a note about it here. I will confess, however, to ending the day with (what better?) some Guiness at the residence of the Irish Ambassador to Canada. If I remember correctly, green beer was flowing in celebration 2 years ago. St. Patrick's Day will always hold an even more special place in my heart than it used to.
Thank you to all those who have sent such great messages of good wishes.
After two years (it feels like yesterday), I want to say something about how wonderful it is to have been elected.
As corny as it may sound, it is an extraordinary honour and privilege to be an elected Member of Parliament, in this great country of ours. Every day that I walk into these beautiful buildings, I pause, I look around, and I say to myself, "Wow---I get to work here."
I have learned so much. I have learned about how MPs lead 2 lives--one in the constituency, doing what we can to help our consituents with their relationships with the federal government (and all sorts of other things :-)); and a second, very different life, that we lead as legislators in Ottawa, working to keep the government to account, making suggestions for improvement, working on our committees, researching and analyzing proposed legislation (with the great help of our teams) and then voting accordingly; engaging in debates in the House--the list goes on. I have also learned a great deal about the many, many issues that affect Canadians; about the challenges of trying to work cooperatively in a very partisan enviroment; about what extraordinary potential that Canada and Canadians possess for doing so much more, even, both domestically and internationally, than we do now.
I love all aspects of what I do, very much. I am indeed very fortunate.
I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people of Willowdale for electing me--now twice!--and for showing their confidence in me. Thank you, too, to all of those volunteers who worked on those two successful campaigns, and to all those who have contributed financially. I want to thank the wonderful people with whom I work, and without whom we simply couldn't do the work we do for the people of Willowdale and for the country: In Willowdale, Michele, Carol and Lily, and all the Willowdale volunteers; in Ottawa, Anne-Sophie, Puneet and Elizabeth, and all the Ottawa volunteers; and to all of the fabulous people who make up the Willowdale Federal Liberal Association. Doing good things takes a real team effort, and I'm incredibly lucky to be able to count myself a part of this great group of people.
Thank you all, so much, and I look forward to many more years of being able to serve as the MP for Willowdale.
All best,
Martha
It figures that I was so busy with work, yesterday, on the actual 2nd anniversary of getting elected, that I didn't have time to write a note about it here. I will confess, however, to ending the day with (what better?) some Guiness at the residence of the Irish Ambassador to Canada. If I remember correctly, green beer was flowing in celebration 2 years ago. St. Patrick's Day will always hold an even more special place in my heart than it used to.
Thank you to all those who have sent such great messages of good wishes.
After two years (it feels like yesterday), I want to say something about how wonderful it is to have been elected.
As corny as it may sound, it is an extraordinary honour and privilege to be an elected Member of Parliament, in this great country of ours. Every day that I walk into these beautiful buildings, I pause, I look around, and I say to myself, "Wow---I get to work here."
I have learned so much. I have learned about how MPs lead 2 lives--one in the constituency, doing what we can to help our consituents with their relationships with the federal government (and all sorts of other things :-)); and a second, very different life, that we lead as legislators in Ottawa, working to keep the government to account, making suggestions for improvement, working on our committees, researching and analyzing proposed legislation (with the great help of our teams) and then voting accordingly; engaging in debates in the House--the list goes on. I have also learned a great deal about the many, many issues that affect Canadians; about the challenges of trying to work cooperatively in a very partisan enviroment; about what extraordinary potential that Canada and Canadians possess for doing so much more, even, both domestically and internationally, than we do now.
I love all aspects of what I do, very much. I am indeed very fortunate.
I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people of Willowdale for electing me--now twice!--and for showing their confidence in me. Thank you, too, to all of those volunteers who worked on those two successful campaigns, and to all those who have contributed financially. I want to thank the wonderful people with whom I work, and without whom we simply couldn't do the work we do for the people of Willowdale and for the country: In Willowdale, Michele, Carol and Lily, and all the Willowdale volunteers; in Ottawa, Anne-Sophie, Puneet and Elizabeth, and all the Ottawa volunteers; and to all of the fabulous people who make up the Willowdale Federal Liberal Association. Doing good things takes a real team effort, and I'm incredibly lucky to be able to count myself a part of this great group of people.
Thank you all, so much, and I look forward to many more years of being able to serve as the MP for Willowdale.
All best,
Martha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
