(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)
From the beginning, the Harper government’s attitude towards our judiciary has been baldly partisan. In the 2006 election Stephen Harper informed Quebecers not to fear any excesses from a Conservative majority. “Liberal courts” would hold him in check, limiting his ability to impose a right-wing agenda. To so brand Canada’s strictly independent courts was an early red flag in the politicization of our judicial system. Harper’s first (In)justice Minister, Vic Toews, was a long-time critic of judges(1) and immediately began politicizing their appointment.
Two of the three mandates of the Department of Justice are “working to ensure that Canada is a just and law-abiding society with an accessible, efficient and fair system of justice” and “promoting respect for rights and freedoms, the law and the Constitution”. Clear direction for how the Minister (and government) should behave, yet we see the opposite.
Presented with a court decision contradicting their ideological sensibility, the Tories refuse to accede. They fight and delay, wasting public funds and tying up our courts. In the end, appeals exhausted, they essentially ignore the verdict and carry on unconcerned. For Toews this was old hat; as Manitoba’s (In)justice Minister in 1997 he’d refused to implement Canada’s gun registry. Is this an example to set for our citizens, especially our children? If you don’t like the rule, fight it doggedly; if you lose, break the rule anyhow. I would not call this respect for the law or constitution.
Canadians facing execution abroad traditionally had our government’s help getting their sentences commuted to life in prison. Not anymore. Shunning a series of federal court orders, our government routinely turns its back on Canadians on death row. We don’t execute our own citizens, but we don’t object when others do.
With Omar Khadr, captured in battle at age 15, the path should be clear. For child soldiers, the Convention on the Rights of the Child mandates “all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.” Yet we’ve left him to rot as President Obama tries to close Guantanamo down; even abetted his illegal interrogation. Despite repeated federal court rulings, our government continues to ignore our treaty obligations.
Likewise with Vancouver’s Insite safe injection centre. Unhappy with a negative decision, the Tories appealed. The appeal court handed down an even stronger ruling against them, so now Minister Rob Nicholson is spending more of our tax dollars taking it to the Supreme Court.
Decades of acting “tough on crime” in the United States had little benefit, and measures like mandatory minimum sentencing are being relaxed in favour of greater judge discretion. Here in Canada, despite a decreasing crime rate, we go the other way, reducing the power of judges to sentence based on the specifics of a crime. Apparently what Canada needs is more one-size-fits-all incarceration at an annual taxpayer expense of $90 million.
A colleague observed: “responsible government knows its limits. We don’t want politicians running our businesses – that’s why we have a free market. We don’t want them performing open-heart surgery – that’s why we have surgeons. Likewise, we don’t want politicians deciding matters in our criminal courts – that’s why we have judges.”
Our elected Parliament has the power to write laws. It falls to our courts to interpret and enforce them. What part of this do our Ministers of (In)justice not understand? Rule of law should mean you follow the laws, not ignore them until you can re-write them in your favour.
Next week: Minister Against Fisheries.
(1) Carol Harrington, "Manitoba minister riles justice conference", Globe and Mail, 30 January 1999, A16 & Paul McKie, "Top judge takes shot at justice boss", 10 June 1999, City Page.
UPDATE For some reason this particular column has attracted a lot of attention. People have reposted it to three other sites so far:
Free Dominion
Parry Sound-Muskoka Liberal EDA blog
Canadian Election 2009
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Ministers Against Portfolio, Part 2: Minister Against Democratic Renewal
(Originally written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner; this is the original, without the Examiner's minor edits).
In the past, Canada had “Ministers without Portfolio,” but today I again describe a distressing new trend, “Ministers Against Portfolio,” whose efforts oppose what the ministry is supposed to achieve.
This week: Minister of Democratic Renewal, created under Prime Minister Paul Martin to address what the 1990s deficit-killer coined our “democratic deficit”. Certainly such deficit exists; the number of people who don’t even vote outnumber those who voted for our governing party. Add the fact that only 30,000 voters elect each Bloc MP, but almost a million Green Party voters get none, and you can see that we indeed have a real democratic deficit.
Such is to be expected with an obsolete system, designed over 5 centuries ago, not changed much since. Would you trust 19th-century medicine to heal you? Would transportation options of the 18th century get you where you need to go on time? Would a pre-industrial communications system keep you in touch? Of course not. So why rely on such an out-of-date approach to elections?
The Minister for Democratic Renewal certainly has his work cut out for him. What, then has he been up to? Harper’s first appointment, Peter Van Loan, passed the Fixed Elections Act, a great idea I wholeheartedly support. Too bad Harper decided to ignore his own law, rendering the Act meaningless.
Next Van Loan attacked voter fraud with strict new photo ID and address standards. Since voter fraud was never really a problem, this didn’t do much good, but it did see many thousands of bona fide voters turned away from the polls. (The most affected? Students and the homeless, who don’t normally vote Conservative.) His most trumpeted measure was adding a couple of extra advance polling days. Of course, when Harper broke the fixed election date in 2008 this bill died on the order paper. So Van Loan’s successor, Steven Fletcher, re-introduced it last summer, only to see it die again under prorogation. Apparently even this minor tweak can’t make it past Harper’s House games.
Fletcher has opined against the per-vote political funding. It is this which marks him as the Minister Against Democracy. In all their wailing about taxpayer money subsidizing political parties, the Conservatives ignore two of the Big Three. Each party gets 50% of their election spending back, which favours established parties able to borrow millions of dollars. Local candidates exceeding 10% of the vote likewise get a 60% rebate – again favouring old-line parties. But the privately-donated money Fletcher prefers over per-vote funding is also taxpayer-subsidized, although the Minister never mentions that. Up to 75% of each “private” political contribution is publicly refunded through income tax credits. This favours those with higher incomes who can afford to give, and pay enough tax to use the credit Advantage: parties of the rich elite.
Of these three public subsidies, the fairest is per-vote, since you don’t have to be rich to support your party, and the party needn’t be long-established to benefit. Each party gets what exactly voters give them. So naturally, this is the funding the Minister Against Democracy wants to kill. Yet not a word about restricting how much MPs can spend from the public purse promoting themselves and their own party. (Three of the top 10 spenders? Helena Geurgis, Peter Van Loan, Patrick Brown).
Next week: Minister Against Justice.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
In the past, Canada had “Ministers without Portfolio,” but today I again describe a distressing new trend, “Ministers Against Portfolio,” whose efforts oppose what the ministry is supposed to achieve.
This week: Minister of Democratic Renewal, created under Prime Minister Paul Martin to address what the 1990s deficit-killer coined our “democratic deficit”. Certainly such deficit exists; the number of people who don’t even vote outnumber those who voted for our governing party. Add the fact that only 30,000 voters elect each Bloc MP, but almost a million Green Party voters get none, and you can see that we indeed have a real democratic deficit.
Such is to be expected with an obsolete system, designed over 5 centuries ago, not changed much since. Would you trust 19th-century medicine to heal you? Would transportation options of the 18th century get you where you need to go on time? Would a pre-industrial communications system keep you in touch? Of course not. So why rely on such an out-of-date approach to elections?
The Minister for Democratic Renewal certainly has his work cut out for him. What, then has he been up to? Harper’s first appointment, Peter Van Loan, passed the Fixed Elections Act, a great idea I wholeheartedly support. Too bad Harper decided to ignore his own law, rendering the Act meaningless.
Next Van Loan attacked voter fraud with strict new photo ID and address standards. Since voter fraud was never really a problem, this didn’t do much good, but it did see many thousands of bona fide voters turned away from the polls. (The most affected? Students and the homeless, who don’t normally vote Conservative.) His most trumpeted measure was adding a couple of extra advance polling days. Of course, when Harper broke the fixed election date in 2008 this bill died on the order paper. So Van Loan’s successor, Steven Fletcher, re-introduced it last summer, only to see it die again under prorogation. Apparently even this minor tweak can’t make it past Harper’s House games.
Fletcher has opined against the per-vote political funding. It is this which marks him as the Minister Against Democracy. In all their wailing about taxpayer money subsidizing political parties, the Conservatives ignore two of the Big Three. Each party gets 50% of their election spending back, which favours established parties able to borrow millions of dollars. Local candidates exceeding 10% of the vote likewise get a 60% rebate – again favouring old-line parties. But the privately-donated money Fletcher prefers over per-vote funding is also taxpayer-subsidized, although the Minister never mentions that. Up to 75% of each “private” political contribution is publicly refunded through income tax credits. This favours those with higher incomes who can afford to give, and pay enough tax to use the credit Advantage: parties of the rich elite.
Of these three public subsidies, the fairest is per-vote, since you don’t have to be rich to support your party, and the party needn’t be long-established to benefit. Each party gets what exactly voters give them. So naturally, this is the funding the Minister Against Democracy wants to kill. Yet not a word about restricting how much MPs can spend from the public purse promoting themselves and their own party. (Three of the top 10 spenders? Helena Geurgis, Peter Van Loan, Patrick Brown).
Next week: Minister Against Justice.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Ministers Against Portfolio, Part 1: Minister Against the Environment
(Written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)
Decades ago, Canada had a cabinet position called “Minister without Portfolio”, used by the Prime Minister to keep a senior MP in Cabinet without having to assign them specific roles.
But now we see a whole new phenomenon, the “Minister Against Portfolio”. This is not an official title, but it might as well be for several ministers in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet. It’s a title for any minister whose words or actions seem to actively work against what his or her ministry is supposed to accomplish.
The most prominent would be Jim Prentice, “Minister Against the Environment”. Traditionally this minister’s duty is protecting our natural environment, foundation of our health and wealth, against harm. He should provide a check or balance against ministries whose actions could lead to environmental destruction. For example, he could prevent Natural Resources Canada from depleting our natural resources or destroying biodiversity in its rush to promote mining and logging interests. Likewise, someone must ensure the Minister of Fisheries will have something to administrate at the end of the day.
Prentice’s mantra is we must “balance” environmental and economic concerns. Setting aside that this feeds the false and harmful idea that business and ecology must oppose each other, his stance leaves the situation dangerously unbalanced. It is the job of the Environment Minister to provide balance by advocating for the environment. If he takes a “balanced”(*) view while the rest of Cabinet pushes the for-profit rape of the Earth, then there is no advocate for the Earth. It’s like having a referee, but no opposing team. I think we know how one-sided that game would be. Prentice is not supposed to sit on the fence; he’s supposed to take a side.
Well, actually, he has taken a side; unfortunately, the wrong one. The Navigable Waters Protection Act helped guard our streams, rivers, and lakes from harmful development for over a century. By gutting these protections, Prentice took the side of those who would divert, pollute, or consume our most precious resource, clean water, as a side-effect of depleting some other resource. Among the most water-intensive and water-polluting industries in Canada is the strip-mining of the tar sands. Prentice knows all about this, of course, because it takes place in his home province of Alberta. A Calgary MP in charge of the Environment Ministry? Can you say fox guarding the henhouse?
This week Prentice attacked Quebec’s new stricter auto emissions standards as “absolutely counter-productive, utterly pointless,” a “folly of attempting to go it alone”. He hasn’t done his homework – over a dozen states and provinces comprising almost half the North American auto market are heading this direction. A minister for (not against) the environment would know that.
Serious accusations should be supported by facts, so how about these: since becoming Minister (against) the Environment, Prentice has met with environmental groups only 10 times. In that same period, he has met with oil and other industry lobbyists 90 times! What’s wrong with this picture?
Instead of a player on the side of the environment, or even a referee with the impossible task of ensuring a one-sided game is fair, Jim Prentice is actually cheerleading for the other side. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Next week: Minister Against Democratic Reform.
* Sorry, this is actually a speech from when Jim Prentice was Industry Minister. But since his speaking points didn't change one iota when he moved to the Environment portfolio, does it really matter?
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
Decades ago, Canada had a cabinet position called “Minister without Portfolio”, used by the Prime Minister to keep a senior MP in Cabinet without having to assign them specific roles.
But now we see a whole new phenomenon, the “Minister Against Portfolio”. This is not an official title, but it might as well be for several ministers in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet. It’s a title for any minister whose words or actions seem to actively work against what his or her ministry is supposed to accomplish.
The most prominent would be Jim Prentice, “Minister Against the Environment”. Traditionally this minister’s duty is protecting our natural environment, foundation of our health and wealth, against harm. He should provide a check or balance against ministries whose actions could lead to environmental destruction. For example, he could prevent Natural Resources Canada from depleting our natural resources or destroying biodiversity in its rush to promote mining and logging interests. Likewise, someone must ensure the Minister of Fisheries will have something to administrate at the end of the day.
Prentice’s mantra is we must “balance” environmental and economic concerns. Setting aside that this feeds the false and harmful idea that business and ecology must oppose each other, his stance leaves the situation dangerously unbalanced. It is the job of the Environment Minister to provide balance by advocating for the environment. If he takes a “balanced”(*) view while the rest of Cabinet pushes the for-profit rape of the Earth, then there is no advocate for the Earth. It’s like having a referee, but no opposing team. I think we know how one-sided that game would be. Prentice is not supposed to sit on the fence; he’s supposed to take a side.
Well, actually, he has taken a side; unfortunately, the wrong one. The Navigable Waters Protection Act helped guard our streams, rivers, and lakes from harmful development for over a century. By gutting these protections, Prentice took the side of those who would divert, pollute, or consume our most precious resource, clean water, as a side-effect of depleting some other resource. Among the most water-intensive and water-polluting industries in Canada is the strip-mining of the tar sands. Prentice knows all about this, of course, because it takes place in his home province of Alberta. A Calgary MP in charge of the Environment Ministry? Can you say fox guarding the henhouse?
This week Prentice attacked Quebec’s new stricter auto emissions standards as “absolutely counter-productive, utterly pointless,” a “folly of attempting to go it alone”. He hasn’t done his homework – over a dozen states and provinces comprising almost half the North American auto market are heading this direction. A minister for (not against) the environment would know that.
Serious accusations should be supported by facts, so how about these: since becoming Minister (against) the Environment, Prentice has met with environmental groups only 10 times. In that same period, he has met with oil and other industry lobbyists 90 times! What’s wrong with this picture?
Instead of a player on the side of the environment, or even a referee with the impossible task of ensuring a one-sided game is fair, Jim Prentice is actually cheerleading for the other side. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Next week: Minister Against Democratic Reform.
* Sorry, this is actually a speech from when Jim Prentice was Industry Minister. But since his speaking points didn't change one iota when he moved to the Environment portfolio, does it really matter?
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
Monday, February 1, 2010
No gold medal in democracy for our prime minister
(This is based on the text of my speech to the Barrie CAPP rally January 23, and published in my Root Issues column in the Barrie Examiner.)
The funny thing about Prime Minister Steven Harper's prorogation of Parliament is how many reasons he has given for it.
It's a chance to "re-calibrate" -- whatever that means.
It's so we don't get distracted from the Olympics. It's so a shuffled cabinet can bone up on its new portfolios.
It's for this, it's for that. Yet all of these shuffling reasons are just excuses. The real reason is to avoid accountability, especially for the cover-up of mistakes made about Afghanistan.
The government has been putting forward a smoke screen of excuses and accusations. It claimed it didn't know about any abuses - then respected diplomat Richard Colvin said it did.
The government denied he had warned it - he proved he had. It tarred Colvin as a Taliban sympathizer, a terrorist dupe - then he proved that other countries' officials were telling their own governments and ours the same thing as he was.
We learned the Red Cross had sent warnings as early as 2006. That Lawyers Against War had provided legal briefs to all MPs back in February 2004. The signs had all been there, the lies were running out, the truth was in danger of being revealed.
So Harper pulled the plug. The House has been prorogued, MPs sent home. Peter Tinsley, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, has been dropped from his job before he can finish. His desk sits empty.
We saw the same with the RCMP. Paul Kennedy, chair of the commission for public complaints, documented a number of serious problems. He too was dropped, with no permanent replacement expected anytime soon. We have lacked a permanent information commissioner since June - a role critical to transparency and accountability.
Canada plays a key role on the world stage as peacekeeper and rescuer. Countries like Afghanistan and Haiti need to trust us, and know that we play by the rules.
Nobody expects us to be perfect. But what Canadians need to know, and what other countries need to see, is that when we screw up, we 'fess up.
Yet that's something that our government isn't too good at. Oh, it can screw up - it can screw up with the best of 'em. But it doesn't know how to 'fess up. Instead, it covers up. And that's not transparency, that's not accountability, that's not democracy. That's not why we elect our MPs.
This is no partisan matter. It appears that Canada may have failed to live up to its obligations under the Geneva Convention and other human rights treaties going back as far as 2002. If any party is at fault, it was the Liberals as much as the Conservatives. But by covering this up, the Conservatives have drawn the blame to themselves.
And this isn't the fault of our troops. They do us proud, and do what we tell them. If we give them bad orders, it's not their fault. But when the going gets tough, they stay in the fight. They don't pack up and go home just because it's stressful, it's inconvenient, it's a hassle.
So how come Harper can just cut and run? This is not a drill.
We elect MPs to make wise decisions, to keep a close eye on our government, our bureaucracy, our military. But right now they're not. They must get back to work.
As our MPs kick back to watch the Olympics in paid comfort - on their home theatre, by satellite at the local sports bar, or from front row seats in Vancouver - keep one thing in mind: Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Be involved.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
The funny thing about Prime Minister Steven Harper's prorogation of Parliament is how many reasons he has given for it.
It's a chance to "re-calibrate" -- whatever that means.
It's so we don't get distracted from the Olympics. It's so a shuffled cabinet can bone up on its new portfolios.
It's for this, it's for that. Yet all of these shuffling reasons are just excuses. The real reason is to avoid accountability, especially for the cover-up of mistakes made about Afghanistan.
The government has been putting forward a smoke screen of excuses and accusations. It claimed it didn't know about any abuses - then respected diplomat Richard Colvin said it did.
The government denied he had warned it - he proved he had. It tarred Colvin as a Taliban sympathizer, a terrorist dupe - then he proved that other countries' officials were telling their own governments and ours the same thing as he was.
We learned the Red Cross had sent warnings as early as 2006. That Lawyers Against War had provided legal briefs to all MPs back in February 2004. The signs had all been there, the lies were running out, the truth was in danger of being revealed.
So Harper pulled the plug. The House has been prorogued, MPs sent home. Peter Tinsley, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, has been dropped from his job before he can finish. His desk sits empty.
We saw the same with the RCMP. Paul Kennedy, chair of the commission for public complaints, documented a number of serious problems. He too was dropped, with no permanent replacement expected anytime soon. We have lacked a permanent information commissioner since June - a role critical to transparency and accountability.
Canada plays a key role on the world stage as peacekeeper and rescuer. Countries like Afghanistan and Haiti need to trust us, and know that we play by the rules.
Nobody expects us to be perfect. But what Canadians need to know, and what other countries need to see, is that when we screw up, we 'fess up.
Yet that's something that our government isn't too good at. Oh, it can screw up - it can screw up with the best of 'em. But it doesn't know how to 'fess up. Instead, it covers up. And that's not transparency, that's not accountability, that's not democracy. That's not why we elect our MPs.
This is no partisan matter. It appears that Canada may have failed to live up to its obligations under the Geneva Convention and other human rights treaties going back as far as 2002. If any party is at fault, it was the Liberals as much as the Conservatives. But by covering this up, the Conservatives have drawn the blame to themselves.
And this isn't the fault of our troops. They do us proud, and do what we tell them. If we give them bad orders, it's not their fault. But when the going gets tough, they stay in the fight. They don't pack up and go home just because it's stressful, it's inconvenient, it's a hassle.
So how come Harper can just cut and run? This is not a drill.
We elect MPs to make wise decisions, to keep a close eye on our government, our bureaucracy, our military. But right now they're not. They must get back to work.
As our MPs kick back to watch the Olympics in paid comfort - on their home theatre, by satellite at the local sports bar, or from front row seats in Vancouver - keep one thing in mind: Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Be involved.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
My Haitian Connection
(Originally written for Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)
The news from Haiti is particularly poignant for me. For more than half my life, I've been a foster parent to a series of young boys in that destitute nation.
I began when I was only 16. I discovered the biblical idea of tithing - giving 10% of one's income to good works - and made that commitment for the earnings from my part-time jobs. I didn't trust my money to organized religion, with the scandals that seemed always in the news, so I chose a charity I trusted.
I signed up and never looked back. Twenty-seven dollars a month was a lot for a teen, but my job pumping gas provided enough.
My first "son", Jean Phenice Raymond, was only a year younger than me, so I thought of him as a foster-brother. He lived in Jacmel, hometown of our own Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean. A few years later, Jean Phenice turned 18, too old for Plan, so I was assigned another: Jonas Gelin, four years my junior.
After he, too, graduated, his own much younger brother, Evens, became my next foster "child." Their family lived in Croix-des-bouquets, a community just east of Haiti's capital Port-au-Prince.
When Evens in turn outgrew Plan in 2004, my monthly support shifted to another family, that of Valdrist Petite Frere in Sibert, a little to the north-west. Finally my foster child was actually young enough (or really, me old enough) to be my own child, had I become a father in my 20s.
Through lean times at university and then working overseas to pay off student debt, I never lapsed in my monthly support, even as inflation brought the amount up to today's $35. No matter how tight finances were, things for me were infinitely better than for those I helped, and I was glad to be able to give them a chance at a better life.
Plan is not a direct handout to children; the money also provides community support through basic facilities like water and latrines, health and vocational training, and building and maintenance of schools.
You may recognize the names of these boys' towns, because they are near the epicentre of the earthquake. Towns near Port-au-Prince have been shaken to rubble, and Canadian troops are experiencing firsthand the chaos of Jacmel.
I don't expect to hear for several weeks the status of Valdrist or his family. I can only hope they are relatively unharmed, and still housed. I have lost touch with my previous foster children over the years, so I don't know if they still live in their hometowns.
Certainly, the employment situation there was not good, so they may have left seeking work. But since employment elsewhere in Haiti isn't much better, they had hoped to establish small businesses or farms where they grew up.
One of the main goals of Plan is to create sustainable, self-sufficient communities as an alternative to the migration of landless, jobless poor.
It breaks my heart to know that so much of the facilities my donations built over decades were destroyed in mere minutes last week. It hurts even more that the lives improved may be scarred forever - or ended.
Canada will match all individual donations to Plan and other qualified charities up until Feb. 12, so my family will send extra support this month, even though it is a lean time for us, too. At least we still have a roof over our heads, clean food and water, and good schools for our daughters. I hope that, with our help, my Haitian "children" will someday have the same.
Learn more about Plan International at plancanada.ca.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
The news from Haiti is particularly poignant for me. For more than half my life, I've been a foster parent to a series of young boys in that destitute nation.
I began when I was only 16. I discovered the biblical idea of tithing - giving 10% of one's income to good works - and made that commitment for the earnings from my part-time jobs. I didn't trust my money to organized religion, with the scandals that seemed always in the news, so I chose a charity I trusted.
I signed up and never looked back. Twenty-seven dollars a month was a lot for a teen, but my job pumping gas provided enough.
My first "son", Jean Phenice Raymond, was only a year younger than me, so I thought of him as a foster-brother. He lived in Jacmel, hometown of our own Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean. A few years later, Jean Phenice turned 18, too old for Plan, so I was assigned another: Jonas Gelin, four years my junior.
After he, too, graduated, his own much younger brother, Evens, became my next foster "child." Their family lived in Croix-des-bouquets, a community just east of Haiti's capital Port-au-Prince.
When Evens in turn outgrew Plan in 2004, my monthly support shifted to another family, that of Valdrist Petite Frere in Sibert, a little to the north-west. Finally my foster child was actually young enough (or really, me old enough) to be my own child, had I become a father in my 20s.
Through lean times at university and then working overseas to pay off student debt, I never lapsed in my monthly support, even as inflation brought the amount up to today's $35. No matter how tight finances were, things for me were infinitely better than for those I helped, and I was glad to be able to give them a chance at a better life.
Plan is not a direct handout to children; the money also provides community support through basic facilities like water and latrines, health and vocational training, and building and maintenance of schools.
You may recognize the names of these boys' towns, because they are near the epicentre of the earthquake. Towns near Port-au-Prince have been shaken to rubble, and Canadian troops are experiencing firsthand the chaos of Jacmel.
I don't expect to hear for several weeks the status of Valdrist or his family. I can only hope they are relatively unharmed, and still housed. I have lost touch with my previous foster children over the years, so I don't know if they still live in their hometowns.
Certainly, the employment situation there was not good, so they may have left seeking work. But since employment elsewhere in Haiti isn't much better, they had hoped to establish small businesses or farms where they grew up.
One of the main goals of Plan is to create sustainable, self-sufficient communities as an alternative to the migration of landless, jobless poor.
It breaks my heart to know that so much of the facilities my donations built over decades were destroyed in mere minutes last week. It hurts even more that the lives improved may be scarred forever - or ended.
Canada will match all individual donations to Plan and other qualified charities up until Feb. 12, so my family will send extra support this month, even though it is a lean time for us, too. At least we still have a roof over our heads, clean food and water, and good schools for our daughters. I hope that, with our help, my Haitian "children" will someday have the same.
Learn more about Plan International at plancanada.ca.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
A-bus-ive Transit
This is a letter to the editor I wrote for the Barrie Advance. (For some reason, it also ran in the Alliston Herald).
It was in response to this story in the Advance, which was also covered more briefly by a letter to the editor in the Examiner. My letter was printed alongside an editorial which essentially reinforced my points.
-------------
Kudos to The Advance for giving full-page coverage to the plight of mother Joelle Fournier, who experienced great frustrations simply trying to go shopping with her young children using Barrie Transit.
This isn’t the fault of drivers, but a lack of vision in our transit thinking. Public transit was mainly designed for commuters: to carry students to class, and workers to their jobs. It’s not as well suited for other functions.
If you need a bus Sunday, it may run only half as often, or not at all, because most people don’t work or study on Sunday. If you need to get home late at night after having a few too many at the bar, service may have ended for the day.
If you are travelling with young children in a stroller, you’re obviously not commuting, so transit isn’t designed for you. Ditto if you are shopping and want to get several bags of groceries home.
And heaven forbid you try to do both: go shopping with young children in tow.
Our bus system was not designed to replace the car, only commuting. Yet we use our cars for so many more things and those who don’t drive need transit for more reasons. We need a system that accommodates children, families, and seniors.
As a society, we must re-evaluate our entire thinking on public transit and find ways for it to replace more of the trips now requiring a car.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie Green Party
It was in response to this story in the Advance, which was also covered more briefly by a letter to the editor in the Examiner. My letter was printed alongside an editorial which essentially reinforced my points.
-------------
Kudos to The Advance for giving full-page coverage to the plight of mother Joelle Fournier, who experienced great frustrations simply trying to go shopping with her young children using Barrie Transit.
This isn’t the fault of drivers, but a lack of vision in our transit thinking. Public transit was mainly designed for commuters: to carry students to class, and workers to their jobs. It’s not as well suited for other functions.
If you need a bus Sunday, it may run only half as often, or not at all, because most people don’t work or study on Sunday. If you need to get home late at night after having a few too many at the bar, service may have ended for the day.
If you are travelling with young children in a stroller, you’re obviously not commuting, so transit isn’t designed for you. Ditto if you are shopping and want to get several bags of groceries home.
And heaven forbid you try to do both: go shopping with young children in tow.
Our bus system was not designed to replace the car, only commuting. Yet we use our cars for so many more things and those who don’t drive need transit for more reasons. We need a system that accommodates children, families, and seniors.
As a society, we must re-evaluate our entire thinking on public transit and find ways for it to replace more of the trips now requiring a car.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie Green Party
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Latest prorogation is an insult to our democracy
(Written for the Root Issues in the Barrie Examiner)
A smart man once said: “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”
By proroguing Parliament, the Harper government continues to show contempt for our democratic process. It continues a pattern of avoiding the valid criticisms of question period or awkward demands of investigative committees.
A number of serious issues face Canadians, including our role in preventing or enabling torture in Afghanistan, an economy entering a long, tough, jobless “recovery”, and travel security which clearly isn’t up to the threat of terrorism. Issues such as these must be handled by our elected officials. Yet those officials have all been sent home, essentially on paid vacation, in one of the longer prorogations in Canadian history.
Conservative mouthpieces like Monte Solberg or Patrick Brown would have you believe that this is normal, and an MP’s role in Ottawa is only a minor, almost inconsequential aspect of his job. Far more important, they tell us, is the work done in the riding. I would beg to differ. There is little value in MPs showing up to hand out oversized cheques for photo-ops. New facilities and businesses will open regardless of who cuts their ribbons. Such ceremonial actions are mainly of value to the incumbent, as a way to indicate that he’s engaged with the community, so you’ll re-elect him.
A century ago, prorogation gave MPs a chance to catch up on local issues. But today, MPs have plenty of opportunity to keep up to date with the needs of their voters. As a “perk”, they receive 64 free round-trip flights from Ottawa per year, and unlimited VIA travel. Our own MP has no trouble spending the week in Ottawa and getting back to Barrie for beers at the Queen’s *on a Friday night. And that’s just when Parliament is sitting. There are already many months of the year, Christmas/New Year’s and all summer, when MPs are on recess. More than enough time for them to keep up with what’s happening at home.
But the core of representative democracy isn’t electing someone to represent government to us, big scissors and giant cheques in hand. It’s about representing us to government. We choose our representatives to oversee the legislative process and manage the government on our behalf. Without them, government becomes unmanaged bureaucracy or dictatorship. Our MPs can’t oversee government if they are locked out for months at a time.
The pretext for this shutdown is to allow for “recalibration” on the economy and a break during the Olympics. Again, I don’t recall electing our MPs to watch Olympics from VIP seats, and I am stunned that our government can’t handle the economy while Parliament sits. They can’t walk and chew gum at the same time either? A government generally prorogues having passed most of its agenda. This government hasn’t gotten through even half of it, with most of their much-vaunted crime bills still outstanding. (Just last week our MP’s crowed about the government’s great dedication to fighting crime – as Harper trash-canned over a dozen crime bills.) Clearly this prorogation is a cowardly run for cover, not a “recalibration”.
If this upsets you as much as it should, visit www.noprorogue.ca or email capp-Barrie@hotmail.com and join hundreds of thousands of Canadians expressing their frustration. Attend the democracy rally in Fred Grant Square on January 23. Show that real Canadians care about democracy more than Mr. Harper or his servants.
By the way, the man who made the statement above about losing governing authority through avoiding dissent… was Stephen Harper (April 18, 2005).
*this comment was censored out of the print edition
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
Update: Deborah Anne Butt liked my article enough to quote me twice in her own letter to the editor.
A smart man once said: “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”
By proroguing Parliament, the Harper government continues to show contempt for our democratic process. It continues a pattern of avoiding the valid criticisms of question period or awkward demands of investigative committees.
A number of serious issues face Canadians, including our role in preventing or enabling torture in Afghanistan, an economy entering a long, tough, jobless “recovery”, and travel security which clearly isn’t up to the threat of terrorism. Issues such as these must be handled by our elected officials. Yet those officials have all been sent home, essentially on paid vacation, in one of the longer prorogations in Canadian history.
Conservative mouthpieces like Monte Solberg or Patrick Brown would have you believe that this is normal, and an MP’s role in Ottawa is only a minor, almost inconsequential aspect of his job. Far more important, they tell us, is the work done in the riding. I would beg to differ. There is little value in MPs showing up to hand out oversized cheques for photo-ops. New facilities and businesses will open regardless of who cuts their ribbons. Such ceremonial actions are mainly of value to the incumbent, as a way to indicate that he’s engaged with the community, so you’ll re-elect him.
A century ago, prorogation gave MPs a chance to catch up on local issues. But today, MPs have plenty of opportunity to keep up to date with the needs of their voters. As a “perk”, they receive 64 free round-trip flights from Ottawa per year, and unlimited VIA travel. Our own MP has no trouble spending the week in Ottawa and getting back to Barrie for beers at the Queen’s *on a Friday night. And that’s just when Parliament is sitting. There are already many months of the year, Christmas/New Year’s and all summer, when MPs are on recess. More than enough time for them to keep up with what’s happening at home.
But the core of representative democracy isn’t electing someone to represent government to us, big scissors and giant cheques in hand. It’s about representing us to government. We choose our representatives to oversee the legislative process and manage the government on our behalf. Without them, government becomes unmanaged bureaucracy or dictatorship. Our MPs can’t oversee government if they are locked out for months at a time.
The pretext for this shutdown is to allow for “recalibration” on the economy and a break during the Olympics. Again, I don’t recall electing our MPs to watch Olympics from VIP seats, and I am stunned that our government can’t handle the economy while Parliament sits. They can’t walk and chew gum at the same time either? A government generally prorogues having passed most of its agenda. This government hasn’t gotten through even half of it, with most of their much-vaunted crime bills still outstanding. (Just last week our MP’s crowed about the government’s great dedication to fighting crime – as Harper trash-canned over a dozen crime bills.) Clearly this prorogation is a cowardly run for cover, not a “recalibration”.
If this upsets you as much as it should, visit www.noprorogue.ca or email capp-Barrie@hotmail.com and join hundreds of thousands of Canadians expressing their frustration. Attend the democracy rally in Fred Grant Square on January 23. Show that real Canadians care about democracy more than Mr. Harper or his servants.
By the way, the man who made the statement above about losing governing authority through avoiding dissent… was Stephen Harper (April 18, 2005).
*this comment was censored out of the print edition
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a teacher, father, volunteer, and politician.
Update: Deborah Anne Butt liked my article enough to quote me twice in her own letter to the editor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
