Segal: Ten questions we should ask all party leaders in Canada’s federal election

2019/08/20 Leave a comment

Former Senator Segal is always worth reading as he tries to elevate political debate and discussion to more long-term perspectives. Unfortunately, politics has a short-term bias, particularly during election campaigns:

In the normal rhythm of election campaigns, coverage includes polls, the horse race and transient controversies of lasting or little significance. They occupy much media and narrative space.

The fact that shorter-term questions dominate the agenda is not a sign of weakness in our politics. It merely reflects the focus on the urgent and timely, rather than the long-term and more complex. But we should not minimize the longer term.

Here are 10 questions we should ask party leaders:

• With a population about the same as California and three per cent of the world’s capital, are you happy with our small population and economic capacity? Our population and modest capital markets do not enhance Canada’s clout in international negotiations with powers like China, the U.S. and the EU. Neither birth rates nor present immigration levels will change our population size or economic heft. Are leaders happy with the status quo? Are they content with our present approach to managing migration?

• Our able and well-trained military is under consistent pressure from international commitments and demands for civil aid at home. Can a country with our geography, neighbours and international commitments manage with a small armed force? Does Canada wish to be a global partner with allies who defend democracy, gender equality, human rights, freedom of the press, open navigation of international waters, diversity and freedom, or would we rather leave that to others? What should the projected strength of our Armed Forces be through the next decade?

• Under the present and most recent past government, Canada’s development investment to combat global poverty, human rights violations and promote economic opportunity among the least advantaged has been sharply reduced. We minimally assist our Commonwealth Caribbean, African and Central American partners. Yet many migration pressures facing Canada emanate from these regions. Is our continued withdrawal the right long-term course?

• The spectrum of reconciliation and partnership opportunities with First Nations is an amalgam of respect, economic rights recognition and commitment to economic rents and royalties for First Nations whose land is the source of economic profit for others.  Are our leaders satisfied with the slow progress on this file, evidenced by the continuation of the Indian Act and other colonizing and public policy practices?

• Setting aside the short-term debate about how best to price carbon, where are our leaders on the massive but economically productive investments necessary for adaptation to rising temperatures? Do leaders have a long-term view on scope and funding and are they prepared to share that with us?

• Gaps between our richest and poorest are increasing. Most provincial welfare plans keep poor Canadians trapped in poverty. Do any of our leaders care? And, if so, what are their long-term plans?

• If over-regulation is a detriment to economic productivity and investment, what about the impacts of under-regulation? From largely unregulated online platforms, to airline passenger rights, to digital privacy protections, to the private use of surveillance for profit-making, are leaders content with the status quo? If not, what is their long-term perspective?

• The Arctic remains an area where successive Canadian governments delivered far less than promised. The Chinese and Russians have made substantive investments in infrastructure, military and national capacity. Do leaders have a long-term strategy for protecting Canadian sovereignty and rights in that region – especially since climate change appears to be taking a toll on ice-field and glacier melting?

• With electoral reform on the sidelines, what do leaders feel are the priorities for strengthening Canadian democracy? Campaign finance, unregulated (allegedly) third-party coalitions with obvious partisan bias, invasive exploitation of social media, foreign intrusion in the voting process itself – all require updating. Do leaders have long-term priorities in this area?

Other valid questions will suggest themselves to many. The short-term is important. But in an election, the long-term should not be ignored.

Source: Segal: Ten questions for party leaders in Canada’s federal election

Filed under Government Tagged with

Canada’s future prosperity depends on opening — not closing — our borders

2018/07/06 Leave a comment

More support for the “big Canada” approach by Hugh Segal, Maureen Silcoff and Karen Chen who write in favour of the Century Initiative and against the Safe Third Country Agreement.

And like the Century Initiative, little acknowledgement of some of the realities involved, along with the standard affirmation that Canada is largely empty. True of course, except for the places that the vast majority of Canadians, both long-standing and newcomers live and will likely continue to do so:

Canadian immigration policy and Canadian sovereignty have a shared purpose, and that purpose has a front door. Growing the size of our population, across the second largest land mass in the world, has always been a priority.

Canadian immigration policy and Canadian sovereignty have a shared purpose, and that purpose has a front door.

Growing the size of our population, across the second largest land mass in the world, has always been a priority. Economic prosperity, national security, development and opportunity require a growing population. Trading and, when necessary, competing with our southern neighbour, and the rest of the world, with a population smaller than California’s is difficult.

The front door for that policy has and will always include our formal border crossings, and will include refugee claims.

Processing refugee claims through the front door concurs with our international duties under the 1951 Refugee Convention, when, following the Second World War, we committed to do our part and accept refugee claimants, and not treat them as illegal while their cases are being processed.

The number of refugee claimants who cross our southern border irregularly rose dramatically after President Donald Trump took office — some 9,481 so far this year.

Many have taken the unsanctioned path of Roxham Road, the street between Champlain, N.Y., and Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., thus avoiding official ports of entry. They do this because the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) requires refugee claimants to seek protection in the first “safe” country they enter, with narrow exceptions. The agreement applies only at official ports of entry, so by entering somewhere other than the front door, they can access Canada’s refugee system.

Critics say irregular arrivals have the effect of bringing the administration of our borders into disrepute. People have questioned how we can allow such crossings under the rule of law, for it questions the notion of “order” found in the “peace, order and good government” clause of our constitution.

Once we relegate people to irregular means of arrival, which the STCA has done, we risk seeing them as an undesirable element that bypasses the front door. We speak of them in numbers, using words like surge and flood. We respond by bemoaning our lack of capacity, assuming ill intentions, accusing them of cutting the queue and breaking the rules.

There is a solution.

The STCA was Canada’s idea. Bordered by the Arctic, two oceans and the United States, Canada sought to further limit the number of refugees able to claim protection here.

That makes sense, if you believe that limiting the number of refugees is a benefit to Canada. While the selection of immigrants and the determination of refugee status are subject to different criteria, overall, the country needs more people.

Most of Canada, well beneath the more climactically difficult extreme parts north, is empty. We have room for new cities, expanding communities in every province. Bangladesh received the same number of asylum-seekers in one day as the total number who entered Canada last year.

Moreover, whatever our views on America’s present immigration policy, the STCA no longer serves the purposes of Canada’s overall immigration policy. Canada needs population growth at a much faster rate. From Diefenbaker in the 1950s, through the Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau governments, Ottawa has raised the annual immigration levels, not enough, but consistently under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

A distinguished group of Canadians launched an organization in 2016 called the “Century Initiative” aimed at growing our population to one hundred million by the next century. Experts in investment, finance, economics and planning argued this number was essential to building prosperity and opportunity. Barring an increase in the birth rate, immigration policy is key to accomplishing this goal. Our economic capacity to compete with our American allies, and not be intimidated by capricious, illegal and unjustified tariffs, would be enhanced by a population 300 per cent larger.

Canada has a tradition of responding to groups of people who require protection. Since the 1950s, Canada has responded with an open heart and an open front door to waves of Hungarian, Vietnamese, Syrian and other refugees. Each inflow has made us economically and socially stronger.

Our need for growth and our humanitarian commitment have led to a coherent policy championed by parties of all political stripes. As Barbara McDougall, a former Immigration and foreign minister in the Mulroney cabinet, once said when confronted by an unexpected landing of Tamil asylum seekers on the East Coast, “we don’t turn back boats filled with people.”

Opening the front door has another benefit. It removes the stigma and spectacle of families pushing strollers and pulling suitcases down Roxham Road; it removes the risk of people losing fingers, toes and even their lives to cross clandestinely in harsh weather; and it removes the pressure on Quebec.

We should return to our long-held immigration, growth and humanitarian principles, for they remain intertwined. Suspend the STCA and open the front door.

Source: Canada’s future prosperity depends on opening — not closing — our borders

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Massey College professor resigns over racially offensive remark, cites lack of ‘due process’ 

2017/10/03 Leave a comment

Opportunity for dialogue lost.

Who among us has never made any such missteps? Marrus’ comments below highlight his personal dignity in dealing with the complaint, as well as the serious process issues he raises.

There is something shameful here about the lack of willingness or openness for dialogue, and the lack of grace in acknowledging that someone can make an inappropriate comment without being automatically labelled as racist, irrespective of their personal and professional history:

Michael Marrus, the history professor whose racially offensive remarks have led to a public controversy at the University of Toronto’s Massey College, has submitted his resignation as a Senior Fellow from the college, but says he is “disheartened” by the lack of dialogue between him and those who asked for his resignation.

“Where was the due process, where was the effort to hear me out, where was the effort to relate to 30 years of scholarship that have a lot to do with human rights? There is something cruel and reckless about this campaign,” he said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

He had been trying to apologize for the comment he made, e-mailing the person he hurt and offended and trying to talk to them, but his apology was not accepted, he said.

“I was so sorry for having wounded someone,” Dr. Marrus said. “But nothing availed,” he said.

The resignation comes after an incident during a lunch last week that gave rise to a petition that was signed by almost 200 students and faculty at U of T.

Dr. Marrus was seated with three Junior Fellows, graduate or professional students who live in residence at Massey. Hugh Segal, the head of the college, who has – until recently – carried the formal title “Master,” came to join them. As Mr. Segal sat down, Dr. Marrus said to a black student:

“You know this is your master, eh? Do you feel the lash?”

The students have filed a written complaint with the college. They have not spoken about the incident to The Globe and Mail. Mr. Segal could also not be reached.

The petition, which was made public on Thursday, demanded extensive changes and asked Massey to sever its ties with Dr. Marrus.

“In our eyes, the very legitimacy of Massey College hinges on the effectiveness of your response to this incident,” the petition stated. “We encourage you to approach this moment with the seriousness it demands, and with the courage and vision to make this an occasion for fulsome transformation.”

On Friday, Massey College agreed to almost all the demands made in the petition, temporarily suspending the title of “Master,” beginning anti-racism training and offering a “sincere and unreserved apology” for the incident.

On Sunday, Dr. Marrus sent a resignation letter to Mr. Segal, in which he conveyed his “deepest regrets to all whom I may have harmed.”

“I am so sorry for what I said, in a poor effort at jocular humour,” Dr. Marrus wrote in his letter. ” I want to assure those who heard me … that while I had no ill-intent whatsoever I can appreciate how those at the table and those who have learned about it could take offence at what I said,” he wrote, adding that he will leave his office of 20 years as soon as possible.

An emeritus professor and internationally respected Holocaust scholar, Dr. Marrus is retired from U of T. But he has maintained an office and senior fellowship at Massey College, an affiliated independent college at U of T which opened its doors in the late 1960s. The fellowship carries no financial stipend.

“The decision [to resign] is the best one for me, the best one for my family, the best one for Massey College, for which I have a lot of affection and respect, the best one for the students who are so angry,” he said. “If so many people have announced that they don’t want me at Massey College, why should I persist?”

People may not believe him, Dr. Marrus added, but he is on the same side as those who launched the complaint against him. “I understand the anti-racist commitment of the people who have mobilized,” he said.

In addition to his scholarship, he has fundraised for Massey College’s Scholar-at-Risk program, which offers a haven for refugee researchers and has worked and written on international humanitarian law, he said.

“I feel uncomfortable citing all the work that I’ve done, but I have, and no one seems interested in it or interested in me,” Dr. Marrus said. “To be treated as a non-person is so wounding and so cruel. If you want to know what racism is it’s to treat someone as a non-person.”

 Source: Massey College professor resigns over racially offensive remark, cites lack of ‘due process’ – The Globe and Mail
Today’s Globe editorial says it well:

A senior fellow at a University of Toronto college made a stupid and hurtful racial comment to a black student last week and has been drummed out of his position. There is much to discuss here.

First, the comment. There is little dispute about what happened: Michael Marrus was sitting at lunch with three junior fellows at Massey College when the Master of the college joined them. Dr. Marrus turned to one of the students, who is black, and said, “You know this is your master, eh? Do you feel the lash?”

It is easy to imagine how hurt the student was. To find oneself the target of a bad joke about plantation owners and their tortured slaves, delivered by someone you barely know, at one of Canada’s leading academic institutions, would have been a deeply painful shock – one that absolutely required redress.

Now, the redress. Dr. Marrus has been forced to resign after a petition signed by fewer than 200 U of T students and faculty called for his removal.

He has not been given an opportunity to defend himself, or to apologize directly to the student. Nor is anyone on campus willing to take into account his much-praised scholarship about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. That has been conveniently erased.

“I understand the anti-racist commitment of the people who have mobilized,” he said – something he would do, of course, given that he is a Jewish scholar who has spent a lifetime studying one of the greatest acts of racism in history.

In short, Dr. Marrus has been treated unfairly, which is as unacceptable as the remark he made. He has not sought to exonerate himself, but he deserved the right to make amends, just as the petitioners deserved the right to complain.

Instead, the professor has been summarily exiled by a widespread on-campus climate of illiberality that can fairly be characterized by “its self-exoneration from any and all contradictions; and its contempt for precedent, conventions… and civility.”

Those are Dr. Marrus’s words, from a piece he wrote in The Globe and Mail last July. He was describing the subtler traits of totalitarianism.

As for Massey College, it has announced that its head will no longer be called “master,” pending a search for another title, because the word, intended in this context to denote expertise – as in a Master of Arts degree – is presumed racist, and must be expelled.

Oh the irony. As Massey College was purging itself of Dr. Marrus, the Invictus Games for wounded warriors were holding their closing ceremonies a few blocks away. The event is named after a 19th-century poem, whose final lines are, “I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul.” That is also the Invictus Games’ motto.

The poem was Nelson Mandela’s favourite and an inspiration to him during his long imprisonment, before becoming South Africa’s first black president. In 2013, Barack Obama, America’s first black president, speaking at Mr. Mandela’s funeral, closed his eulogy by quoting its last stanza.

If only they’d been educated at Massey College.

Source: Editorial Globe editorial: Massey professor showed terrible judgment, but the response was worse

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Government looks to counter what Harder calls Conservatives’ ‘coordinated’ stall tactics in Senate and House @TheHillTimes

2017/04/11 Leave a comment

Bill C-6 appears to the “poster child” for these delaying tactics:

One of the examples of legislative slowdown that Sen. Harder cited is Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.

The legislation addresses promises made by the Liberals during the last election campaign to amend parts of the previous Conservative government’s Bill C-24.

The legislation has had a slow slog through the Senate. It’s been before the Upper Chamber since it passed the House of Commons without amendments on June 17, 2016, and was debated eight times at second reading between September and December 2016.

As of deadline, it had received six days of debate at third reading. Amendments are being put forward, with at least two amendments passing by deadline, meaning the bill will have to return to the House.

The bill it is repealing, Bill C-24 spent four days total in the Senate, between first reading and royal assent.

Sen. Harder said both approaches are wrong, and the holdup on this and other bills have impacts on Canadians, or “want-to-be-Canadians,” in the case of Bill C-6.

“Our legislative agenda is very much tied to bringing what the government feels are important matters of conclusion to the Canadian public,” said Sen. Harder.

“All senators have a duty to review Government legislation, but also to decide in a reasonable timeframe, putting aside partisan gamesmanship and focusing on public policy,” Mr. Harder said in the paper. He also argued that the future reputation of the Senate does rely in part its ability to process government business.

“The final weeks of each Senate sitting—in June and December—are quite chaotic, as the Senate pulls out all the procedural stops to expedite government legislation, trying to do in two weeks what it could have done in two months. Government bills should not be rushed through the Chamber in extremis following a successful round of horse-trading,” Sen. Harder wrote.

Now, with six weeks to go until the scheduled end of the sitting, Sen. Harder in the interview, wouldn’t commit to not using time allocation in the remainder of the session to get things passed.

While the discussion paper is anticipated to go to the Senate Modernization Committee for further consideration, Sen. Harder said he’s hoping to work with the Senate leadership and all Senators to either find an agreeable approach to manage debate on bills, or to try out his proposal of a business committee on an experimental basis to get through to the summer.

“That’s all open to discussions amongst leaders and I hope that we can find some middle ground as to how to move forward,” Sen. Harder said.

Source: Government looks to counter what Harder calls Conservatives’ ‘coordinated’ stall tactics in Senate and House – The Hill Times

In response to John Ibbitson’s article and my retweet (To truly reinvent itself, the Senate must first prove its value), Senator Housakos and I engaged in a long Twitter debate where he placed the blame on the Independent Senators Group and tried to argue that the delays were not excessive and reflected the need for debate. In our back and forth, over the time required, we compared C-6 with both its predecessor, C-24 (2014) and C-14, assisted dying, dealing with a more complex and controversial issue.

C-6 has been in the Senate for 298 days and counting, C-14 took 31 days, C-24 16 days. Table below provides details.

C-6 2016 C-14 (assisted dying) 2016 C-24 2014
Committee Pre-Study

17 May 2016

03 Jun 2014
First Reading

17 Jun 2016

31 May 2016

16 Jun 2014
Second Reading

15 Dec 2016

03 Jun 2016

17 Jun 2014
Committee

07 Mar 2017

07 Jun 2016

18 Jun 2014
Third Reading Ongoing

15 Jun 2016

19 Jun 2014
Royal Assent

17 Jun 2016

19 Jun 2014
Total number of days 298 (11 April 2016)

31

16

And an op-ed by former Senator Hugh Segal on the need for equal treatment of all three groups: independents, conservatives and liberals:

The Senate must move past partisan paralysis

Filed under C-6, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

How complexity imperils faith in our public institutions – Hugh Segal

2015/03/31 Leave a comment

Thoughtful comments. Money quote:

One must also be clear that certain aspects of the public sector have an interest in the salutary obfuscation of complexity. National security agencies, finance departments, central banks, some immigration and social service regimes find complexity and conflicting goals and applications helpful in maintaining their unchallenged jurisdiction and broad discretion. Their intent may be constructive but constructing through rules, regulations, contradictory and time-sensitive criteria and related machinations a cloud of uncertainty raises complexity and its construction to an act of sheer artistry.

The challenge for governments and those who care about democracy is not of doing away with complexity – which in a multifaceted, multi-racial and economically diverse society is unavoidable. The challenge is in finding ways to reduce it, simplify it and manage it so that the complexity itself does not destroy the efficacy of public institutions but even the public desire for those institutions to exist and be of service in the first place.

How complexity imperils faith in our public institutions – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Government Tagged with

Fixing the public service: Groom stronger, specialized managers, says Hugh Segal | Ottawa Citizen

2014/09/04 Leave a comment

Always worth listening to Hugh Segal, given his long and distinguished career and of course his current role as co-chair of the PM’s blue-chip advisory committee on the public service.

His thoughts help address some of the systemic issues:

Segal said the committee will have to grapple with these changes but he broadly supports getting rid of management layers, scrapping more rules and reorganizing work to give public servants more flexibility and authority to do their jobs. It will demand stronger managers and more training for them.

He said the existing snare of rules, structures and processes limit managers’ power and “discretion” in influencing or making change. He said they need more discretion to open up and speed up decision-making. Also, he said the managers’ talents will vary by department with, for example, Canada Border Services Agency needing very different skills than Canadian Heritage.

Segal isn’t wed to the longstanding notion that managers are generic and can be moved from department to department.

He argued the second-in-command in the navy wouldn’t have got there without specific training, credentials and expertise, but the same isn’t expected of civilian public servants as they climb the ranks of the bureaucracy. The government needs to offer employees specific career paths with opportunities to get specialized certifications or designations.

Segal said the government must get a better handle on the work of some 7,000 executives and whether they are really doing executive work.

At the same time, he said deputy ministers should be skilled and knowledgeable about their portfolios when appointed to the job. He argued deputy ministers should stay put in their jobs for four or five years before being rotated into the next senior post.

Fixing the public service: Groom stronger, specialized managers, says Hugh Segal | Ottawa Citizen.

Filed under Government Tagged with ,