Le Senateur Le Senateur

Share this website!

  • Digg
  • TwitThis
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • Sphinn
  • Technorati
  • Wikio
Send to a friend Send to a friend

Send to a friend:



S'enregistrer au Flux RSS Le Sénat du Canada

‘Politics’ category

Senator Hervieux-Payette applauds the European Court of Justice’s decision to suspend the boycott of seal products in Europe

19 August 2010 at 14h59

tribunaljusticia_ue_jpg_1957592664

OTTAWA, August 19th 2010 —

“The European Court of Justice has just confirmed what we knew all along, that the legality of the boycott was far from being obvious as demonstrated by a former European legal opinion”, declared Senator Hervieux-Payette.Anti-Sealing vegetarian groups have profited from distorting this legal and legitimate seal hunt to finance their ideology. “I am happy to know that coastal Canadians and aboriginal people have just won a small battle but we are all determined to win the war!” added Senator Hervieux-Payette.
“The Universal Declaration that I have initiated is the perfect platform to create a dialogue between Canadians and Europeans to define an ethical model of sustainable management of this species”, she said.

The Universal Declaration has received the support of the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Québec, as well as the International Organization for Animal Conservation IWMC World Conservation Trust, based in Switzerland along with the Canadian Fur Council and the Fur Institute of Canada.

Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette urges all governments and concerned organizations to promote and study the application of the Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals written and endorsed by a panel of experts (http://www.sealsonline.org/) .

“I tend my hand once more to our European friends.”

Women in Power!

12 August 2010 at 15h21

 

I currently am in the capital of Ecuador, Quito at the National Assembly for a summit of Women Parliamentarians of the Americas. Our discussions revolve around the participation of women in politics, the means to promote their presence and the improvement of governance.

These meetings are part of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, which I am a founding member and vice-president.

I invite you to sign my petition to support my Bill S-206 aiming to achieve parity between men and women in boards of administration for crown corporations and public companies.

The EurekaWatt prize goes to Stockwell Day (according to unreported votes)!

5 August 2010 at 12h50

euerkawattmetre3

I have decided to award the EurekaWatt prize of 0 Watts to the Honourable Stockwell Day P.C. for his comments at a press conference on the rise in unreported crimes. Apparently, this government possesses the gift to measure data that has yet to be collected.

Thus, according to the non collected data of the conservative government, I have the pleasure to announce the disappearance of CO2 emissions, the elimination of our public debt and an incredible increase in tourism around the G20 fake lake.

With such an ideology and such great illusionists at the head of our country no wonder statistics Canada is unnecessary!

Mexico 2010: interparliamentary discussions within the framework of the WTO

15 July 2010 at 15h39

 untitled

 

The Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas (FIPA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) held a joint workshop for parliamentarians on May 20-22 in Mexico City, in which I participated. The event, entitled “The Doha Development Round: Challenges and Opportunities for the Region”, was attended by parliamentarians of 16 countries of the Americas.  It sought to promote greater knowledge of the multilateral trade system, of WTO functioning and of the status of negotiations of the Doha Development Round in areas such as agriculture, trade in services and non-agricultural market access. The workshop also provided an opportunity to discuss the role of Parliaments in trade policy.

End of Parliamentary Session marked by Harper`s Secretive Plans

13 July 2010 at 14h57

I just finished the parliamentary session in Ottawa while enduring the heatwave and studying such complex issues as the creation of a new type of credit union (128 pages) and the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The 24 amended laws were buried within the 900 pages of the Budget Act. Heresy!


The Senate National Finance committee which I was exceptionally a member, sat for 61 hours, heard 122 witnesses and tabled its report in the Upper House last night by removing the proposed amendments to the most contentious laws, having lost the majority of seats in the Senate, we could not convince our fellow Conservatives to return to better democratic practices, i.e. consulting Canadians on important issues.

 

 Follow this closely in the fall. In the meantime, I wish you a good summer and invite you to consult my site regularly during the summer as I will be updating regularly.

 

Feel free to write to me about your ideas, concerns and solutions so we can be ready to hold the conservatives to account.

 

Yours truly,

 

The Honourable Céline Hervieux-Payette P.C.

Senator

French connection in AECL sale sparks conflict concerns

28 June 2010 at 10h21
June 25, 2010

Joan Bryden

 

OTTAWA—French nuclear giant Areva may have been given the inside track to snap up Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s reactor business, critics say.

Some industry watchers and politicians are raising concerns about potential conflict of interest after learning that N.M. Rothschild and Sons — the investment bank hired by Ottawa to develop the restructuring plan for AECL — has also acted as financial adviser to Areva on numerous acquisitions and takeovers in the past.

The bidding process for AECL’s commercial reactor business is a closely guarded secret. But there are only a handful of major nuclear players in a position to bid and industry insiders say the Paris-based, state-owned Areva is likely one of them.

Finalists could be announced as early as this month.

“I’m calling that an incestuous relationship,” said Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, who uncovered the link during examination of the Harper government’s massive budget bill.

“The investment banker that is analysing (the bids) on behalf of our government has a very close relationship with a company that I suspect has made a proposal.”

The omnibus budget bill has been approved by the House of Commons and is currently being studied by a Senate committee. It contains a host of non-budgetary provisions, including provisions for the potential privatization of AECL.

Hervieux-Payette’s suspicions were further fuelled when she discovered that Areva, which for years employed a small army of outside consultants to lobby the federal government, abruptly stopped all lobbying activity three months after the government hired Rothschild in May 2009.

According to the federal lobbyist registry, no one has lobbied on Areva’s behalf since last August.

“By some coincidence, they have been using (lobbyists) for many years … and all of a sudden, no more, they don’t need anybody,” Hervieux-Payette said in an interview.

“Well, if they have somebody inside, they really don’t need a lobbyist.”

Rothschild did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Roger Alexander, president and CEO of Areva Canada Inc., confirmed his company “has been engaged with the Rothschild process with the federal government” related to restructuring proposals for AECL.

He would not confirm or deny that Areva has made an offer for AECL, citing confidentiality of the bidding process.

Other than that, he said: “I’m not aware of any prior relationships that Areva and Rothschild may have had in the past.”

However, records show Rothschild was listed as financial adviser to Areva on numerous deals around the globe, including the $2.5-billion takeover of UraMin, an international uranium mining company with operations in Canada, in 2007.

Also that year, Rothschild advised Areva on a strategic alliance with Summit Resources Ltd. and the acquisition of Northern Uranium Ltd.

Alexander acknowledged Areva’s parent company may have worked closely with Rothschild — hardly surprising given that both are based in Paris. He likened it to a Canadian company seeking financial advice from the Royal Bank.

But he doubted any of the deals involved operations in Canada.

In any event, Alexander said, Rothschild is running an “independent, verifiable” process for evaluating AECL proposals and doubted any concerns about apparent conflict of interest with regards to Areva would arise.

“I can’t imagine that there’s any issue with any of that.”

Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis’ office referred questions about Rothschild’s relationship with Areva to a departmental spokesman who, in turn, referred the matter to the Public Works Department, which awards government contracts.

Public Works spokeswoman Marjolaine Rocheleau said in an email that Rothschild was chosen through a competitive process from a list of 25 candidates to advise the government on AECL’s restructuring.

As part of the terms of its contract, she said Rothschild “must not have a conflict of interest in connection with the performance of its obligations and is required to declare any such conflict should it arise at any time.”

As for the sudden absence of lobbyists employed by Areva, Alexander said that’s “not related to the AECL activity or Rothschild’s activity.”

“Just for internal Areva strategic and financial reasons, we decided to not continue with those lobbying relationships,” he said.

Still, some industry players are concerned that Areva’s past relationships with Rothschild may give the company a leg up when it comes to AECL.

If Rothschild ends up recommending the sale of AECL to Areva, David Shier, president of the Canadian Nuclear Workers Council, said: “I definitely think it would be more than us saying, hey, there’s a conflict there.”

Indeed, sale of AECL’s reactor business to Areva is among the worst-case scenarios envisaged by some of those involved in the Canadian nuclear industry. They fear Areva, which manufactures a reactor that is incompatible with AECL’s unique Candu technology, would move the cream of Canadian nuclear engineers to France while shutting down the entire Candu operation in Canada.

“Of all the competitors out there, Areva is the one I’d be most concerned about grabbing the talent pool and basically shutting down the business,” said Chris Hughes, president and owner of Laker Energy Products Ltd., which manufactures Candu components.

“If Rothschild is working tightly with them, the more I think about it, the more concerned I get.”

Shier echoed the concern: “We’re quite clear on the fact that if it was bought by Areva, then that would be the end of our industry. … There’d be lots of jobs in France but there wouldn’t be that many left in Canada.”

However, David Novog, associate professor of nuclear engineering at McMaster University, said Areva shouldn’t be viewed as “the bogeyman.”

Whether AECL ends up in Canadian or foreign hands or in some sort of public-private partnership doesn’t matter, he said, provided the restructuring ensures the continued survival of the domestic nuclear industry with its many ties to the high tech, nuclear medicine and university sectors — the combination of which has made Canada a world leader in nuclear science.

Done properly, Novog said: “I think (AECL) can come out of this much stronger than they were before.”

Nevertheless, Novog said he’s concerned the entire process has been carried out secretly thus far so there’s no way of knowing if such matters are being taken into consideration.

“So far, there’s been no information available on how that process will work or how we ensure that we’re getting the appropriate debate or public input with respect to those indirect but very important parts of the industry.”

Delayed: exclusive interview on CBC The National regarding the incestuous business relationships of the Harper government

21 June 2010 at 14h36

DETAILS TO COME…

Child rearing violence leads to agressive children. Support S-204!

11 June 2010 at 16h12

enfant

Does violence leads to the use of force, or does using force lead to violence?

According to the religious precepts of Christianity, violence was innate in man — and I must say, women also.

This meant that the proper way to raise them was to submit them to parental authority, and to control them through authority rather than through argument in order to bring them under control or domination. The Church and, beyond that, society itself felt that it was legitimate for parents to strike their children and they acknowledged parental corrective action to be effective.

But, honourable senators, the whole centuries-old concept of parental authority is based on religious beliefs and on empirical knowledge whose basis was laid down long before we began to understand the psychology of child development.

Since then, science has worked wonders, if I may put it that way.

Twentieth-century science has shown us that men and women are not aggressive by nature, but that they become aggressive because of forces in their environment. External stimuli play such an important role in the origin of violence that talking of an “innate” tendency to be aggressive makes little sense for animals, let alone for humans. Children learn to become aggressive when they are treated aggressively.

A solemn declaration to reflect a global scientific consensus was written in Seville, Spain, in 1986, and was made public during UNESCO’s general conference in Paris in 1989.

In 1917, science began to report on the disastrous consequences of corporal punishment. The following signs were evident in children: rebellion, hypocrisy, a taste for cruelty, vengeful feelings, anti-social tendencies, onset of nervous illnesses, loss of activities, and loss of capacity to enjoy and to act.

Since we now know that the way today’s children are raised will map society’s future and since we know that the community can pay dearly for parental use of force, state intervention is apparently not only justified but necessary. The use of force in child rearing, spanking for example, is not a problem that affects only families. It also affects society as a whole.

There is no reason to keep allowing ourselves to believe the traditional argument, under the guise of religious beliefs or some kind of empirical knowledge, that authoritarian child rearing, which includes physical violence, is necessary or more effective.

Consequently, please, support Bill S-204

Please read my full speech

 

The most expensive 72 hours in Canadian history!

28 May 2010 at 08h53

g8-angl1

Question period

Cost of Security for G8 and G20 summits

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Canada is proud to be hosting the G8 and G20 summits, but I doubt it is proud of the Harper government’s spectacular ability to squander public money and run up deficits, which is one of the Conservative government’s bad habits. In the midst of a global economic crisis, the Conservative government plans to borrow — since the deficit already stands at more than $50 billion — over a billion dollars for a two-day summit.

I would like to compare the Conservatives’ so-called sound money management with the cost of past summits: $30 million for the G20 in Great Britain in April 2009; $110 million for the G20 in Scotland in 2005; $381 million for the G8 in Japan in 2008; and under a Liberal government, $190 million for the G8 in Alberta in 2002. The Harper government claims it needs to borrow $1.1 billion, with the interest. That simply does not make sense.

And security is just the beginning. The Conservatives’ favourite television network, CTV, has reported that on top of the $933 million — which seems a little short — spent on security, the government plans to spend another $161 million. The Conservatives have no reason to be proud of how they manage Canadian taxpayers’ money.

Can the Leader of the Government explain to us how the Conservative government has gone — in a few short weeks — from a spending estimate of $179 million to an actual expenditure of $1.11 billion, which will further increase our deficit?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. I read in the newspaper this morning what it cost for the G8 meeting in Italy. I hasten to remind the honourable senator that we are hosting the G8, and then backed right up against it is the G20 meeting.

Honourable senators, we have always stated that the final figure for the costs for the summits will be finalized after the summits are over. However, based on the best expert advice that the government was given and on a medium level threat assessment, we did in fact budget, as was stated on the record, $930 million for security. This amount should come as no surprise. It was already on the record that $930 million was budgeted and, of course, a few days ago a significant portion of this $930 million was accessed.

(1400)

Canada, as we know, will host the world’s most influential leaders in June. The scope and magnitude of the security operations associated with hosting these two major summits back to back, as I mentioned, is unprecedented, and of course, it will represent the largest deployment of security personnel for any major event ever held in Canada.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I would like to point out to the leader that the difference between the estimated $179 million and $1.1 billion is $921 million, which is a 500 per cent increase.

Since the Conservatives are such good managers, it will not have escaped the honourable senator that with this borrowed $921 million, you could have continued supporting organizations whose funding you cut, such as the Edmonton Folk Music Festival and the FrancoFolies de Montréal — it is true that this has to do with culture; the gay pride festival in Toronto — it is true that this has to do with homosexuals; as well as the Alberta Network of Immigrant Women, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women and the Réseau des tables régionales de groups de femmes du Québec — these are just women’s organizations.

Can the leader tell us how the Conservative government plans to improve the way it manages public funds, so that Canadians will not have to pay for its inability to control its spending? She might also ask the Auditor General to examine these costs and these funds and the advisability of committing them on Canadians’ behalf.

[English]

Senator LeBreton: The honourable senator is incorrect in her statement. I have already said $930 million was budgeted for this event, so it should come as no great surprise that $800 million has been accessed for security at the summits.

Security is expensive. The experts we have to rely on base their assessments on low-, medium- and high-level security matters. We had a firebombing in Ottawa a week or so ago. Obviously, this firebombing has heightened the concern of security personnel. We will not allow thugs and lawless individuals to interrupt and disrupt the summit.

Senator Hervieux-Payette mentioned many programs that could have been funded from this money. We are hosting the summit. This event is something that is a reality. We must ensure the security of all world leaders who travel to Canada. However, if the senator wants to address what programs could have been funded in the past, she can ask herself what could have been funded from the $1 billion blown on the long-gun registry or the billion-dollar boondoggle at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, or the $40 million that went out the back door and we still do not know where it went.

We can address these specious arguments, but these monies were budgeted for the summit and, obviously, the safety and security of the world leaders attending the G8 in Huntsville and the G20 in Toronto are paramount. We must not sacrifice the safety and security of our summit. Unlike the Liberal leader, who said he is embarrassed by Canada, we are proud of Canada.

Scientology and Conservatives: is the government burying its head in the sand?

27 May 2010 at 14h00

scientology_stop

Question period

Church of Scientology

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On May 15, Le Devoir reported that the Church of Scientology was preparing for a major offensive in Canada. This pseudo-church seems obsessed with the idea of establishing itself in Canada in order to recruit new members. According to the president of Canada’s Church of Scientology, Yvette Shank, they hope to open another seven churches by the end of 2011 in Canada’s major cities, much like the one opened in downtown Quebec City in January 2010. They are looking to build in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Kitchener.

We know that the founder of the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud by a French court in 1977; that in 1992, Toronto’s Church of Scientology was condemned by the Ontario Court of Justice for ordering some of its members to spy on government authorities, including Ontario’s police service and the Office of the Attorney General; and that in 2009, the two main branches of France’s Church of Scientology and seven of its leaders were prosecuted for organized fraud and illegally operating as a pharmacy, eventually paying hundreds of thousands of Euros in fines. How does your government intend to limit the growth of this movement and take appropriate measures to ensure that it does not receive any public funding or claim a federal property tax exemption and also ensure that it is never recognized as a charitable organization for tax credits under the Income Tax Act?

(1420)

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am puzzled that the honourable senator would address the activities of the Church of Scientology. These activities have nothing to do with government policy, although I recognize that at the end of the honourable senator’s question, she talked about tax charitable status and things of that nature.

I will not comment on a newspaper report of any organization that may be coming to Canada, but I will take as notice the portion of the honourable senator’s question with regard to charitable status.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: To help the honourable senator with her inquiry, I point out that the Church of Scientology is no stranger to criminal accusation or prosecution. Its message of deceit has spread, through brainwashing vulnerable people in the United States, France, Spain, Ireland, Canada and dozens of other countries, and the organization is banned in some countries such as Germany. The global spread of the Church of Scientology coincides with a number of events orchestrated by the organization that are of questionable legality and morality. The Church of Scientology’s rap sheet contains charges and accusations of fraud, extortion, capital flight, coercion, the illegal practice of medicine, taking advantage of mentally ill persons and murder.

When will this government get tough on crime and ban organizations like the Church of Scientology and other sects that prey on the weak and put all Canadians at risk through the use of theft, violence and manipulation?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, this matter is not something that directly involves the government, other than the honourable senator’s question about charitable status. A newspaper report based on stories about the Church of Scientology is interesting to some, I am sure. There have been all kinds of accusations, which have nothing to do with the government, and it is therefore not appropriate for me to respond any further.

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up