 |
 |
Dear Constituents, Each year, I look forward to receiving visiting students from schools in our riding. Pictured on the cover are a number of the students from Mentor College who recently visited me in Ottawa. They were very enthusiastic and came well prepared to ask me tough but fair questions on a variety of policy issues. Somehow I get the feeling that our future is going to be in good hands. The year has gone by very quickly. For me, 2006 started with an election and almost finished with another election. Minority governments last about 18 months but the government and the three opposition parties have not worked well together. Part of the reason is that the Conservative Party wants to deliver everything it promised as if it had a majority. Minority government isn’t long enough to do everything and therefore the norm is for the minority government to work out some arrangements to get through important legislation occasionally with some concessions. Unfortunately, there are no discussions. Currently there are so many Bills before the Justice Committee that it would take at least a year to properly review them all. It is unlikely this Parliament will last until the summer so there will be many Bills die on the Order Paper. The Government will say the Opposition Parties delayed Bills so we need a majority to deliver on our promises. The Opposition will say the Government engineered its own defeat by trying to ram through its agenda without proper scrutiny by Parliament. In this householder, I have prepared features on Climate Change, Report Card on Seniors, Program Spending Cuts, Wetlands and A Healthy Heart all of which I hope you will find of interest. If you have
any suggestions for future householders, I would be pleased to receive
them. As always, I welcome your input or comments on this householder
or other matters of importance. Sincerely,
On October 19, 2006, the Government introduced Bill C-30 (An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act). The short title is Canada’s Clean Air Act. This legislation was supposed to be a new strategy to address Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Unfortunately, the Bill was virtually dead on arrival. The Bill was actually improperly leaked by the government to a number of environmental groups a week earlier and on October 13th, they held a press conference in Ottawa to unanimously reject the Bill. As a result, the opposition parties didn’t need much time to study the Bill and reach the same conclusion. The government’s strategy to replace Canada’s Kyoto Commitment has also been broadly rejected by most Canadians based on recent polls. So how is it that such an important issue should take so long to table legislation that was so wrong? The key lies in the political realities. The Conservative Party holds all the seats in Alberta and that is the foundation upon which they have built. Under no circumstances will they ever get tough on the oil industry and Alberta’s booming oils sands which is the fastest growing source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Most who followed the issue of climate change expected the government to retreat on Kyoto and that became clear when in September, the following paragraph appeared in the Environment Department’s web page defining the Greenhouse Effect: “There
is a great deal of uncertainty associated with climate predictions
and, although temperature changes during this century are consistent
with global warming predictions, they remain within the range of
natural variability.” The Conservative Government knows that Canadians want action on the environment but they seem to think that if they talk of a green plan for clean air, we won’t notice the finger prints of George Bush on Canada’s environmental policy. The Americans did not sign on to Kyoto and now Canada has formally rejected the agreement which we signed. The Kyoto Protocol call for reduced greenhouse gases by 2008 but the government’s plan is to cut these emissions in half by 2050. They also announced that they will consult with the oil industry for 3 years and then they will set “intensity targets”. This means that the oil industry will be able to continue greenhouse gas emissions at a certain level per barrel so that if their production goes up they can actually increase their total emissions. The greenhouse gas emissions would remain intensity based until 2020 before they would switch to absolute reductions. The intensity approach could leave few restrictions on the booming oil and gas industry, where oilsands companies are poised for massive expansion. With more than $100 million in projects planned in northern Alberta, greenhouse gas emissions from the region could triple by 2012. This sell-out
plan to the oil industry and George Bush was described by one opposition
leader as “made in Alberta, written in Washington”. To stabilize warming at two degrees, industrialized countries will have to cut emissions by about 80 to 90 per cent of their 1990 levels by 2050. The Conservative Government only wants to cut emissions only 31 to 56 percent according to the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank. Under the Kyoto Agreement, Canada is required to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Conservative plan does not have any near-term targets. The only specific pledge is the reductions promised for 2050 – or 44 years from now. This is not a strategy to improve our environment; it is simply a strategy of delay for the benefit of the Prime Minister’s key political supporters in Alberta. The Environment Minister wants to spend three more years in talks with the provinces and the industry on emission standards. In 2010, new regulations will be introduced and then for the next 10 to 15 years, those regulations would not pose any real limits on big industrial polluters who account for at least 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. If regulations
call for a 5% cut in emissions, total oil industry emissions will
continue to rise from current levels if the number or barrels of
oil produced increases by more than 5%. What’s worse is that
these companies will be allowed to break the rules by paying a penalty
into a technology development fund. Most Canadians should reject
this irresponsible and politically motivated plan.
Did you know that nearly one quarter of the world’s wetlands are found in Canada? Did you know that wetlands are among the most important ecosystems on the planet? Did you know that wetlands help to balance, clean and maintain our supply of fresh water? Did you know that we can preserve our wetlands? Wetlands are natural areas where water and land meet to provide food, habitat and shelter for 600 species of wildlife in Canada. They are also a part of much larger systems known as watersheds that move water across the land. Wetlands are a key link in the chain of Canada’s water systems. Our wetland habitats support an amazing array of insects, animals and plants. We need them to provide clean water, wildlife viewing opportunities and other outdoor activities. Wetlands also conserve soil and control erosion, store water to moderate the impacts of floods and droughts and also help to moderate climate change. Wetlands serve as nature‘s water filters by removing pollutants from our water supplies. Recent events like contaminated water, toxic algae and droughts are becoming more common and are threatening our natural water resources. It is an unfortunate reality. Research shows that as much as 70 percent of Canada’s original wetlands have disappeared as a result of urban development, drainage and land conversion to other uses. We simply cannot afford to lose any more wetlands which are the best natural solution to our water dilemmas. I want to give recognition to Ducks Unlimited Canada which has become Canada’s most trusted and respected wetland conservation organization. For more information about this issue, you can visit their website at www.ducks.ca.
In October, the Government of Canada reported that there was a $13.2 billion surplus for the year ended March 31, 2006. This is the period just before the Conservative Government took office. As required by the Auditor General and Government accounting rules, all of that surplus has been applied against the national debt. This will reduce future interest costs by approximately $600 million each and every year. Despite the healthy financial situation inherited by the Conservatives, I was very disappointed to learn that they also announced $1 billion in funding cuts affecting those in most need in our society. These cuts include a variety of programs and initiatives many of which relate to those in need or minority services such as:
Cutting the funding of many of these programs is simply mean-spirited and reflect an attitude of the Conservative Government that people in need of assistance should just take care of themselves. The cuts to
literacy programs simply do not reflect responsible government.
As hard as it is to believe, 22% of adult Canadians struggle through
day to day tasks because they cannot read. Approximately 5.8 million
Canadians cannot cope with the demands of the typical workplace
and a further 3.2 million cannot read a medicine bottle, a job application
or their child’s report card. If a country wants higher national productivity, a more skilled workforce and a more competitive economy, it makes sense to invest more in adult literacy. One of the biggest drags on Canada’s economic performance is its mediocre literacy ranking. In a 20-nation survey published by the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada placed eighth. If we could boost our literacy rate by 1%, relative to the international average, our productivity would increase by 2.5% according to an analysis done by the C.D. Howe Institute last fall. The economic think-tank found that a dollar spent upgrading the skills of the least educated members of Canada’s workforce had three times as much economic impact as a dollar spent of physical capital. Eliminating
the Court Challenges Program has also drawn strong criticism. It
was created in 1978 to allow citizens to fight discriminatory treatment
in the courts. It provided funding so that those who wanted to challenge
the courts, but who could not afford the costs, could hire a lawyer
and present their case effectively. The program has helped seniors
get employment insurance benefits, gave deaf people the right to
get sign language services in hospitals, helped women settle pay-equity
cases and simplified the necessary arguments for sexual assault
convictions. Women, the disabled, religious groups, aboriginals
and minority language groups have all been supported by the program.
In my view this is an ill-advised cut which will silence the voices
of many Canadians.
On October 26, 2006, the National Advisory Council on Aging unveiled its 2006 Report Card on Seniors in Canada. Since the last report card was done in 2001, I was particularly interested in their observations of trends and suggestions for addressing the needs of our seniors. My personal initiatives on seniors’ priorities have received some attention but in my view, there is much work to do. The Report Card looked at how well seniors were doing in five key policy areas:
The overall grade was “B” which is an improvement over 2001, but this average grade means that improvements are still needed. As we know, the services and supports for seniors come from all three levels of government and therefore this report should provide a common foundation for all on which to build. According to the National Advisory Council: “Although Canadian Seniors enjoy relatively good health and quality of life, we must not become complacent in addressing seniors and aging issues. There are a number of bad news items when we look at specific areas. For example,
these include increased chronic diseases and obesity, high suicide
rate among older senior men, lack of geriatricians in our health
care system, continued low income for certain categories of seniors,
uncoordinated income-based programs that add to the burden of financial
difficulties and the need for more affordable housing options.”
In brief, life
expectancy of seniors has increased since 2001 and a higher percentage
of seniors rate their health as good. The performance of the health
care system seems to indicate that it is serving the majority of
seniors very well but there is room for improvement. Financially,
seniors are better off than in 2001 and fewer are relying on government
support programs. That being said, I am of the view that we must
be careful not to forget that the situation of many seniors is below
average. Food, clothing, safe shelter and medically necessary care
should all be rights not privileges. If you would like to see a
copy of the Report Card, visit www.naca-ccnta.ca/rc2006/pdf/rc2006_e.pdf
or contact my office.
On October 26, 2006, the National Advisory Council on Aging unveiled its 2006 Report Card on Seniors in Canada. Since the last report card was done in 2001, I was particularly interested in their observations of trends and suggestions for addressing the needs of our seniors. My personal initiatives on seniors’ priorities have received some attention but in my view, there is much work to do. The Report Card looked at how well seniors were doing in five key policy areas:
The overall grade was “B” which is an improvement over 2001, but this average grade means that improvements are still needed. As we know, the services and supports for seniors come from all three levels of government and therefore this report should provide a common foundation for all on which to build. According to the National Advisory Council: “Although Canadian Seniors enjoy relatively good health and quality of life, we must not become complacent in addressing seniors and aging issues. There are a number of bad news items when we look at specific areas. For example,
these include increased chronic diseases and obesity, high suicide
rate among older senior men, lack of geriatricians in our health
care system, continued low income for certain categories of seniors,
uncoordinated income-based programs that add to the burden of financial
difficulties and the need for more affordable housing options.” In brief, life
expectancy of seniors has increased since 2001 and a higher percentage
of seniors rate their health as good. The performance of the health
care system seems to indicate that it is serving the majority of
seniors very well but there is room for improvement. Financially,
seniors are better off than in 2001 and fewer are relying on government
support programs. That being said, I am of the view that we must
be careful not to forget that the situation of many seniors is below
average. Food, clothing, safe shelter and medically necessary care
should all be rights not privileges. If you would like to see a
copy of the Report Card, visit www.naca-ccnta.ca/rc2006/pdf/rc2006_e.pdf
or contact my office.
Visit us on the Internet: www.paulszabo.com
Constituents may write to any Member of Parliament or Cabinet Minister postage free. Simply address your envelope to the particular Member, c/o House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6. Your views and suggestions are important.
|
