I want to congratulate the new batch of 7 Senators and welcome them to this remarkable place. I also want to encourage their reported fervour for reform.

As good as our Parliamentary system is (it is the most successful system of government on the face of the earth today having lasted for literally hundreds of years), it needs to evolve always as it has done successfully over the years.

While electing Senators and limiting them to one term of 9 years duration are alluring politically, they are not without a number of risks which really have not been considered by their advocates:

1. An elected Senate would be inclined to exercise its considerable powers. Every piece of legislation and budget have to be passed by the Senate. If elected, the Senate would be much more inclined to defeat them creating impasses for which there is no mechanism to resolve. We need to create one if we are to avoid grid-lock.

2. An elected Senate flexing it powers will gut the power of the Prime Minister and the House of Commons. Who will be more powerful, for example, 6 Senators in Alberta or the 28 MPs? It will also reduce the power of the Premiers who are now the more significant regional spokespeople. Just look at the stature of the Senate in the US. I am not saying that these shifts in power are good or bad; I am saying that we have not had a debate as Canadians about whether we think they are good or bad.

3. Alberta and other provinces will not gain greater regional power than we have now. In fact, it will be diluted. Alberta has a greater percentage of the seats in the House of Commons than in the Senate now - 9.1% compared to only 5.7%. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have 10 seats each; Alberta has 6. The Atlantic region has 30 seats; the West has only 24. So, before elected Senators being to exercise their considerable powers, this distribution of seats needs to be revisited.

4. Finally, if Senators are to be elected, why should they only get one term? Why should the electorate not decide how many terms their Senators should get, like with every other elected office in Canada?

 And, of course, there is a real constitutional question as to whether these changes can be made without the consent of the provinces. And, Quebec and possibly other provinces will take this question to the Supreme Court.

So, in the absence of clear answers to these questions, why do we not do some reforms in the Senate that we can actually do ourselves and that will enhance openness and accountability in the way that the Conservatives say they want to.

I think the most important change we could make would be to webcast the proceedings of the Senate Chamber. Senate committee meetings are already televised and webcast, so I see no reason why we cannot at least webcast the Chamber proceedings.  I think webcasting is preferable to televising because it is radically cheaper at about $120,000 to set up and $33,000 per year to run. Not much really for greater openness and accountability.

 The Senate truly does great work. It is unacceptable that Canadians do not have open, modern-day access to it.

 

 

It is hard to believe that in this day and age there would be a Canadian government that would contemplate a draconian crime bill like the one currently working its way through Parliament.

 All of us want to see crime reduced. The question is how that can be done most effectively, both in terms of cost and outcomes, and without damaging, unintended consequences.  None of those criteria can be applied successfully to the current crime agenda of the Conservative government.

 Bill C-10 is notable for many reasons, but it is most prominently characterized by the provision of mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of offences. The problem is that there is not a shred of evidence that this approach to crime will reduce it. In fact, all the evidence is that it increases crime.

 When confronted by this evidence, the government invokes the defence of victims’ rights to justify the bill. But, there is very little in here for victims of crime. It is not a bill about compensation or counseling services for victims. In fact, it will create more victims because it will create more angry, bitter, and "competent" criminals because with harsher sentencing more people will be sent to prison or in prison longer, and generally, without access to the kinds of programs they need to address the mental health, or substance abuse, or fetal alcohol syndrome or whatever other problem lies at the root of their criminal impulses.

 Some of the "crimes" that will be addressed by this bill will be victimless in any event, until the system makes a victim of the perpetrator of the "crime". Who is the victim of an 18 year old who grows 6 marijuana plants and goes to jail for a year for it? The 18 year old.

 There are many more effective and much less expensive options than incarceration. Interestingly, authorities in Texas have said over and over again that filling the jails does not reduce crime. It just increases costs and crime. Washington State has developed a remarkable protocol and system for evaluating crime prevention programs. It assesses all the costs and benefits and best practices of various rehab programs, family support, education, intervention, and allows public crime policy to be based upon them, ranked for their actual real money savings and returns.

 Why doesn’t the government use a smart approach like the one in Washington State that could be me much more effective than Bill C-10?

I have received a number of responses to my holiday greeting (it was strictly sent out digitally - I avoid paper whenever possible in the interest of cost and the environment) lamenting the fact that it did not mention Christmas. It only wished people a happy holiday.  I get the point that these respondents were making. It is a common complaint and I understand the concern. Here is my response, in turn:

I send that message to many people who celebrate this time of the year in many different ways for many different reasons. It is not just a Christmas season, if you are Jewish or Muslim or of whatever other number of faiths and all these different peoples are represented by the Senate. One of the great things about Canada is that we respect others' backgrounds, cultures, religions and languages and are considerate of one another. Those are values that are reflected, I hope, in my greeting, and are admired by people all over the world.

 This Saturday my dear friend and colleague Senator Tommy Banks will be retiring from the Senate.  We will miss his intelligence, passion and dedication to public service.  Below is a tribute I gave to Senator Banks in the Senate Chamber.

 Tommy Banks is acknowledged by his Senate colleagues for his integrity, courage, determination to do what is right, intelligence and grasp of the issue. I have marveled at how he could grasp the nuance and complexity of an eclectic range of public policy issues. It has been a thing of beauty to share the table at various committees and to see him get exactly to the heart of a given issue in way that no body else had seen, express it clearly, and ultimately propose a solution.

Amidst all of the "to-ing and fro-ing" in the political arenas, Tommy Banks has remained above the partisan fray, has remained respected by all sides and has engendered a great deal of fondness amongst colleagues.

He is truly irreplacable and he will truly be missed.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I have been dreading the inexorable advance toward the retirement and departure of Senator Banks for a long time. Senator Banks made a remarkable contribution to the work of the Senate, of course, and to the lives of Albertans and Canadians. He has been an absolutely delightful colleague in every way. I became very aware very quickly after arriving here of how much I would miss him — all of us would miss him — when he left.

Being from Edmonton, for most of my life I have had a clear impression of Tommy Banks as a great musician. I certainly respected and admired him as a musician and as an enduring celebrity as I was growing up in Edmonton. I have always believed anyone who is really good at jazz must be very, very smart because this is a complex language that must be expressed intuitively to be at its best, and Tommy Banks knows this language intimately. In fact, he is fluently bilingual.

I met Murray McLauchlan several years ago and proudly told him that I worked with Senator Banks. This launched Mr. McLauchlan, a Canadian icon in his own right, of course, into a wonderful and animated description of his many fond memories of working with Senator Banks on various music projects, his obvious admiration for him and his genuine interest in how he was doing. When I think of that encounter, I can see myself and so many other colleagues, fans and friends launching into exactly the same kind of spontaneous explanation of how much we admire him and of how fond we are of him.

To play music at the level he has played music and to sustain his kind of creativity and energy for it over all these many years truly requires a certain genius, a genius that I believe has been equally apparent in his career as a senator. Senator Banks took so many of those attributes that made him great in his first career — a keen intelligence, a disciplined mind, compassion, passion and, of course, an ability to perform — and he transformed himself seamlessly into a skilled and respected senator, advocate and leader in the public policy arena in Canada.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly he grasps a new issue, sees something in it that no one else has seen, expresses the essence of the matter and proposes a solution. He always inspires me with his profound empathy for people and the human condition, with his courage and integrity and with his passionate advocacy for what he believes to be right for his community of Edmonton, the environment, the military, the arts, the farmers, Canada and Alberta.

I am very sad about having to say goodbye to Tommy Banks. He is irreplaceable, and he will be truly missed.

I remember many years ago being approached by a former Edmonton Eskimo football player (interesting as I wrote this on Grey Cup day) who was selling a personal development program of some kind. I do not remember what the program was but I do remember the technique he used to get my interest.

He gave me a card with a paragraph written on it. He asked me to read it and count the number of "f"s in it. I did so, gave him a number and he said I had missed 3 or 4 "f"s. Would I try it again? I did and still could not find the 3 or 4 "f"s I had missed. He then showed me why. These were "f"s in the word "of" that appeared 3 or 4 times in the text. It is spelt "o" "f", but it sounds "o" "v", "ov". For some reason, the majority of people given this test, miss these "f"s all the time. They see "f", but lose that in hearing "v".

The point it made in that context was that we are often so limited by what are our preconceived or "grooved" perceptions of the world, and the way we process them, that we can miss the obvious.

It has struck me recently that this observation may help explain some of the incomprehensible misconceptions that surround the climate change issue and prohibit action to fix it in spite of the risks and lost opportunities of not doing so:

1. Those opposed to action say it will kill those jobs that come from the fossil fuel industries. But how will investing in alternative energy kill jobs in the fossil fuel industry? How? If the projected demand for energy for India and China, just for starters, is even close to reality, we are going to need pretty much all the sources we can find and certainly Canada will be able to sell all the oil we can produce. Why would we not want to take advantage of new and emerging markets to diversify our economy. Would we somehow not want to produce Blackberrys because they are not of the conventional oil industry? Do we have a government that simply cannot imagine doing things in addition to the traditional oil industry?

2. One pervasive  conventional wisdom (or should we start saying "politically correct" statement) seems to be that government should not be investing in alternative fuels as this will cause taxes to rise, or government intervention is unacceptable,  and/or these fuels are not commercially viable.

Yet, the oil sands were kick-started in the 1970's with direct government involvement through an equity stake in Syncrude and later in the 1990's by government action to give them special tax advantages. They have been supported by massive government funding of technology development.

Moreover, I can remember visiting the oil sands in around 1990 and being told that it was costing about $25 per to produce a barrel of oil sands oil and the selling price at the time was $10 per barrel. They were prepared to lose $15 per barrel because someone had the vision that technology improvements, economies of scale and price rises would mean that the oil sands wouold become the future engine of our economy.

Why is it that alternative fuels development and serious conservation intiatives do not warrant the same patience, government involvement and leadership and vision?

3. The jobs argument is invoked as an endless mantra in defence of all things big oil. But what about all the jobs that will be lost due to climate change and are already being lost? Why can we not work to protect both energy jobs and other jobs hurt by climate change, like forestry, agricultural and fisheries jobs?

4. Economist Jeffrey Rubin made the case that the real catalyst for the 2008 meltdown was the rapid rise of oil prices to $150 per barrel. It makes sense in the context of peak oil analysis. How can an economy, world and other wise, sustain energy costs at that level? It is a given that we have to keep costs down in our economy to remain competitive. Yet, this government cannot see that alternative fuels and conservation intitiatives would provide competition and reduce demad for fossil fuels, keeping prices lower. When do we start to realize that the current strucutre of energy in the world may be unsustainable from an input cost  point of view.

5, The government put almost none of its stimulus money into green, climate change fighting projects. Why is building a brigde seen to be stimulative but develpoing liquid natural gas fuel station infrastrucutre is not?

6. The Conservatives make the implict argument (sometimes explicitly) that with the emerging economies of China and India, there is really little point inCanada trying to fix cliamte change and we would never be able to influence change in their behaviour that would lessen or fix the probelm.  This is just such defeatism. Canada has so often "punched above its weight" in world affairs. From developing peace keeping in the 1950's to winning at Vimy, to creating the G20, etc, we have lead the world. Why not with climate change. Are we not simply saying to future generations "that we did not fix the problem becasue it looked too hard to do?" Since when woould we ever say to our children, it is OK to give up before you even try? What kind of value is that?

It is hard to answer these questions, but there are probably many reasons why what is clear but not obvious cannot be seen:
1. Change is a threat to what appears to be comfortable and in this case, it is taken as a threat by some of the most powerful economic interests in our economy and society.

2. Change means new risk to business.

3. Perhaps, the Conservative mentality really does not have the imagination to see the possibilites, the new opportunities for the future. Wold this Conservative government ever have taken the leadership role that the Liberal governments did in developing the oil sands?

I wish I had the answer to the question of why inthe face of all kinds of evidence to the contrary, this government simply cannot break out of its tired, old and terribly dangerous paradigms and lead Canada to a new and exciting future with untold opportunities, jobs and health and other benefits.

Il y a bien des années, un ancien joueur de football des Eskimos d'Edmonton (comme par hasard, j'écris ces lignes le jour même du match de la Coupe Grey) qui vendait un programme de développement personnel m'a approché. Je ne me souviens pas en quoi consistait son programme, mais je me souviens de la technique qu'il a utilisée pour capter mon intérêt.

Il m'a remis une carte sur laquelle était écrit un texte de quelques lignes. Il m'a demandé de le lire et de compter le nombre de « f ». Après avoir entendu ma réponse, il m'a dit que j'en avais oublié trois ou quatre. Il m'a offert de recommencer, j'ai relu le texte, mais je n'arrivais pas à trouver les « f » manquants. Il m'a alors montré pourquoi je ne les voyais pas. C'étaient les « f » du mot « of », qui revenait trois ou quatre fois dans le texte. Le mot s'écrit « of », mais on le prononce « ov ». Étrangement, la majorité des gens qui font le test omettent ces « f », même après plusieurs tentatives. Ils voient « f », mais ils entendent « v ».

Cette anecdote montre que nous pouvons être tellement limités par les jugements préconçus et les idées reçues, et par notre façon de les traiter, que l'évidence nous échappe.

Je me suis dit récemment que cette observation pourrait expliquer en partie certaines idées fausses qui circulent à propos des changements climatiques et qui freinent la lutte contre ce problème. Faut-il rappeler les risques que l'on court et les occasions que l'on perdra si on ne fait rien?

1. Les opposants à la lutte contre les changements climatiques disent qu'on fera disparaître les emplois créés par les industries des combustibles fossiles. Mais comment les investissements dans les énergies de remplacement pourraient-ils faire disparaître ces emplois? Comment, au juste? Si la demande d'énergie projetée de l'Inde et de la Chine, pour ne prendre que cet exemple, s'approche seulement de la réalité, nous aurons besoin de toutes les sources disponibles, et le Canada pourra certainement vendre tout le pétrole qu'il sera capable de produire. Pourquoi donc ne pas profiter des marchés nouveaux et émergents pour diversifier notre économie? Est-ce qu'on s'empêcherait de fabriquer des BlackBerry parce que ce n'est pas du pétrole? Serait-ce que le gouvernement ne peut tout simplement pas imaginer une économie qui produit quoi que ce soit en plus du pétrole?

2. Selon une idée reçue très répandue (ou devrais-je dire une idée « politiquement correcte »), le gouvernement ne devrait pas investir dans les énergies de remplacement parce que cela ferait augmenter les impôts. On entend aussi dire que l'intervention étatique est inacceptable et que les carburants de remplacement ne sont pas viables commercialement.

Et pourtant, si les sables bitumineux ont pris leur essor dans les années 1970, c'est parce que le gouvernement est intervenu directement en entrant dans le capital de Syncrude et qu'il a, dans les années 1990, accordé des avantages fiscaux particuliers à l'industrie. Celle-ci a aussi profité des fonds considérables que le gouvernement a consacrés au développement de la technologie.

Je me souviens d'avoir visité un champ de sables bitumineux vers 1990. On m'avait alors dit que la production d'un baril de pétrole provenant des sables bitumineux coûtait 25 $. À l'époque, le baril se vendait 10 $. L'industrie était prête à perdre 15 $ le baril parce que quelqu'un avait prévu que, grâce aux progrès technologiques, aux économies d'échelle et à la hausse des prix, les sables bitumineux deviendraient un jour le moteur de notre économie.

Pourquoi le développement des carburants de remplacement et les initiatives de conservation sérieuses ne bénéficient-ils pas d'autant de patience, d'engagement gouvernemental ainsi que d'esprit de leadership et de vision?

3. C'est immanquable : chaque fois qu'on parle de ce dossier, les défenseurs des grandes sociétés pétrolières ressortent l'argument de l'emploi. Mais qu'en est-il des emplois qui disparaîtront – ou qui sont déjà disparus – en raison des changements climatiques? Pourquoi ne pas protéger à la fois les emplois du secteur de l'énergie et ceux des industries touchées par les changements climatiques, comme la foresterie, l'agriculture et les pêches?

4. L'économiste Jeffrey Rubin a démontré que c'est la hausse rapide du prix du baril, qui a atteint les 150 $, qui a vraiment précipité la crise de 2008. Quand on le place dans le contexte du pic pétrolier, cet argument est plein de bon sens. Comment l'économie, mondiale ou autre, peut-elle supporter des coûts énergétiques de ce niveau? Pour que notre économie reste concurrentielle, il faut limiter les prix, cela va de soi. Pourtant, le gouvernement actuel refuse de comprendre que les carburants de remplacement et les initiatives de conservation stimuleraient notre compétitivité et réduiraient la demande en combustibles fossiles, ce qui ferait baisser les prix. Finira-t-on par comprendre que le système mondial actuel de production d'énergie est difficilement viable lorsqu'on considère le coût des facteurs de production?

5. De son financement visant à stimuler l'économie, le gouvernement n'a presque rien donné aux projets de lutte contre les changements climatiques. Pourquoi voit-on la construction d'un pont comme un projet stimulant, et pas le développement de stations de ravitaillement en gaz naturel liquéfié pour le transport des marchandises?

6. Les conservateurs disent implicitement (et parfois explicitement) que, compte tenu de l'essor économique de la Chine et de l'Inde, il est inutile que le Canada essaie de contrer les changements climatiques, et qu'il est même impossible de susciter un changement de comportement dans l'espoir de régler ou de réduire le problème. Quelle attitude défaitiste! Le Canada a très souvent joué un rôle de premier plan sur la scène internationale. Notre victoire à Vimy et nos efforts qui ont mené au développement du maintien de la paix, dans les années 1950, et à la création du G20, par exemple, montrent que nous pouvons être des chefs de file. Pourquoi ne pas faire de même dans le dossier des changements climatiques? Voulons-nous vraiment dire aux générations futures que « nous n'avons pas corrigé le problème parce que cela semblait trop dur »? Depuis quand disons-nous à nos enfants que ce n'est pas grave d'abandonner avant d'avoir essayé? Est-ce vraiment une valeur à leur inculquer?

Il n'est pas facile de répondre à ces questions, mais il y a sans doute de nombreuses raisons qui expliquent pourquoi certaines vérités ont du mal à éclater au grand jour.

1. Tout changement est vu comme une menace à l'ordre des choses. Dans ce cas-ci, la menace est perçue comme telle par certains des intérêts économiques les plus puissants de notre société.

2. Tout changement est accompagné d'un risque pour le monde des affaires.

J'aimerais pouvoir dire pourquoi, malgré toutes les preuves qui existent, le gouvernement actuel refuse de comprendre et se cantonne dans ses vieux modes de pensée, qui datent d'un autre temps et qui présentent de sérieux dangers. Il devrait plutôt guider le Canada vers un avenir rempli de possibilités, de perspectives d'emploi, de bienfaits pour la santé et d'autres avantages.

Le 2 novembre 2011, le ministre de l’Énergie de la Norvège a visité Ottawa, en route pour l’Alberta. Lui et ses fonctionnaires ont rencontré les membres du Comité sénatorial de l’énergie et de l’environnement. Il est lui-même impressionnant et les politiques de son pays en matière d’énergie, d’environnement et de « fonds patrimonial » sont uniques et inspirantes.

La Norvège produit énormément de pétrole et de gaz, principalement en mer. Au départ, elle dépensait la plupart de ses recettes pétrolières en Norvège même. Mais cette pratique s’est avérée préjudiciable parce qu’elle stimulait l’inflation et qu’elle nuisait aux autres industries d’exportation. Après avoir revu ses façons de faire, elle a créé l’équivalent du fonds du patrimoine de l’Alberta et a limité la portion pouvant être investie ou dépensée en Norvège. En fait, elle utilise à ces fins 4 % des recettes annuellement et investit le reste à l’extérieur de la Norvège. La valeur totale du fonds est actuellement de 600 milliards de dollars. La Norvège a aussi établi des lignes directrices d’investissement responsable à l’égard du fonds.

Il est très intéressant de constater combien le gouvernement retire du total des recettes pétrolières. Il impose les sociétés à un taux de 78 % et participe financièrement à chaque projet dans une proportion variant entre 20 et 30 %. Le ministre a indiqué que le public obtient environ 90 % des profits. Voilà qui contraste plutôt avec ce qui se fait ici. Chose intéressante, le gouvernement rembourse aux entreprises 78 % de leurs coûts d’investissement. Le gouvernement indique aussi que beaucoup d’entreprises sont heureuses de participer au secteur pétrolier et gazier, malgré cette structure de redevances.

Il est également vrai que la Norvège possède une politique inspirante en matière de changements climatiques, elle qui applique une taxe sur le carbone depuis le début des années 1990. Elle accorde une grande importance à l’économie d’énergie et aux énergies de remplacement.

J’ai récemment rencontré des représentants de la Fédération canadienne des étudiantes et étudiants. Les trois m’ont beaucoup impressionné. Ils luttent pour diverses questions qu’ils résument dans le titre de leur document intitulé « L'éducation publique pour le bien commun ».

Ils présentent cinq recommandations de base : développer une vision nationale pour un système d’éducation postsecondaire abordable et de haute qualité; réduire la dette étudiante; financer la recherche et les études supérieures; financer l’éducation des Autochtones; et évaluer les résultats. Ils nous rappellent l’importance que jouent l’équité et l’accessibilité du système d’éducation dans la force de notre société.

Il me vient à l’esprit qu’il doit y avoir une bonne raison pour expliquer le fait que les jeunes ne s’intéressent pas particulièrement à la politique. Peut-être y voient-ils un système fondé sur les intérêts des baby-boomers; un système selon lequel ils devront porter le fardeau du désastre financier et climatique; un système selon lequel il leur sera de plus en plus difficile de se payer des études postsecondaires; un système selon lequel ils devront suivre des cours de premier cycle dans des classes de  500 étudiants, s’ils trouvent l’argent; un système selon lequel ils ne pourront obtenir d’emplois offrant des possibilités de carrière une fois leur diplôme obtenu; un système selon lequel ils ne pourront même pas voter en ligne. Pourquoi devraient-ils s’intéresser à la politique?

On November 2, 2011 the Minister of Energy from Norway visited Ottawa on his way to Alberta. He and his officials met with the members of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. He is a very impressive person in his own right and his country's energy, environmental and "heritage fund" policies are very enlightened and unique.

Norway is a huge energy producer, both oil and gas, most of it offshore. Originally, they spent most of their oil revenues internally in Norway. But, that proved to be a bad idea because it stimulated inflation and hurt other exporting industries. So, they started over and created their equivalent of Alberta's heritage savings fund and restricted how much of it that can be invested or spent in Norway. In fact, they take 4% out of it each year for these purposes and the rest they invest outside of Norway. Today, its total value is $600 billion. They have rigorous ethical investing guidelines on the fund too.

What is very interesting is how much they (government) take out of total oil revenues. They tax companies at 78% and take between 20% and 30% equity positions in each project. The Minister indicated that the public gets around 90% of the profits. Quite a different from the experience here. Interestingly, they reimburse companies with 78% of their capital costs. Interestingly also, they say that there are many companies that are happy to be active in their oil and gas sector despite this royalty structure.

It is also true that they have a very enlightened climate change policy, having had a carbon tax since the early 1990's. They are working rigorously on conservation and alternative energies as well.

 

I met with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students recently. There were three of them, each very impressive. They are fighting for a variety of matters which they capture in the title of their booklet, “Public Education for the Public Good”.

They have 5 core recommendations: develop a national  vision for high quality and affordable post-secondary education; reduce student debt; fund research and graduate studies; fund Aboriginal education; and  measure results. They remind us how important a fair and accessible education system is to the strength of our society.

It dawns on me that there might be some good reason why young people are not particularly interested in politics. Perhaps they see a system based on the baby-boomers’ interests that is dumping fiscal and climate change disaster on them; making it increasingly difficult for them to afford a post-secondary education; putting them in undergraduate classes with 500 students if they can find the money; and making it impossible to find career track jobs once they graduate. And, not even allowing them to vote on-line.  Why would they be engaged with politics?