/columns/134/Hyer-On-The-Hill MP Bruce Hyer is the Member of Parliament for the Thunder Bay-Superior North riding. Thu, 23 May 2013 10:17:16 GMT 5 http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/271016/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Budget-plan-does-little-for-Northwest The Harper Government’s latest update to its Economic Action Plan – the one you are paying so much to advertise for them – in its 2013 Budget introduced less than a week ago. Unfortunately, it is a plan that does little to help Northwestern Ontario or our residents. It’s a plan where ideology opposes facts and science. The Harper strategy has been to kill inconvenient science and scrap environmental controls in order to exploit our natural resources as fast as possible – even if that means handing control of key resources to the communist Chinese. So far, it’s a strategy that isn’t working. On top of stalled unemployment and growing inequality between rich and poor, we’ve just had the largest budget and trade deficits in Canadian history. Not a track record many Prime Ministers would be proud of. Those Economic Action Plan ads never mention the deep cuts made to key services in our region. Cuts like closing the Thunder Bay Citizenship and Immigration office. Or next years’ closure of the Thunder Bay Marine Communications and Traffic Services centre (and transfer to a call centre 1,000 kilometres away) after 105 years of life-saving service. The Thunder Bay Veterans Affairs Canada office is also closing. It served 500 senior veterans, 600 younger veterans, and several RCMP officers. Including family members, it helped an estimated 3,000 people from the Manitoba border to Blind River. Twenty-five positions were lost at HRSDC in Thunder Bay, which will devastate Employment Insurance program delivery. The Canada Revenue Agency in Thunder Bay has closed its service counter that local residents and small businesses relied on. Fisheries and Oceans has lost fish biologists with the Habitat Management Group, which will impact fish and fish habitat protection in whole region. This is on top of the closure of the Experimental Lakes Area. Thunder Bay is losing 75 people at the Canadian Grain Commission. Deep cuts mean no more research. No more inward inspection and weighing of shipments will damage Canada's good grain quality reputation. Service Canada in Thunder Bay-Superior North has seen over 20 jobs lost, impacting front-line service delivery to constituents. In total, over 130 people have been axed from important government service positions in Thunder Bay, and that number will grow to over 300 this year. Front-line services people rely on will suffer. The Budget introduced last week compounds these cuts with further problems. There are a lot of them: • A tax hike on credit unions • A job-killing hike in payroll taxes (EI premiums). In contrast, the UK just reduced them to zero for small businesses, to stimulate job creation • No end to $1.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the profitable oil and gas sector • Nothing to bring new doctors & nurses to rural areas • Re-announcing old money for youth employment, when there is a critical need youth jobs • Still no price on carbon • No rules on exorbitant bank & credit card charges (just a voluntary code) • Nothing at all to deal with the pensions crisis …just more talk • Nothing but consultations on First Nations education, when Aboriginal students are funded at only half the level as other students in Ontario • No end to paying temporary foreign workers less, which isn’t just a bad policy for foreign workers - it steals jobs from Canadians. Will Conservatives allow companies to bring in foreigners to work the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario, like mining companies in BC planned? No Budget is completely bad or completely good. There are some things in it I can support. But I hope the Harper Government will have a change of attitude and be open to changes that will improve its Budget this year. I will again be proposing many. Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:03:49 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/271016/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Budget-plan-does-little-for-Northwest http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/238677/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Selling-China-the-rope Selling China the rope The $15 billion takeover of Nexen Inc., one of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies involved in the oil sands, by Chinese state-owned China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) has been in the news a lot lately. Many in Canada’s corporate sector have rightly noted that Canada must diversify its trade. CEOs and Chinese officials note that increasing trade in a growing Pacific Rim, including with what will soon be the largest economy in the world, will be important for Canada’s long-term economic health. China is looking at more than just Canadian natural resources. In 2008 CNOOC signed a $16 billion investment deal with Iran. CNOOC’s extensive business in Iran becomes very relevant now that the Harper Government has just suspended all Canadian diplomatic ties with the Iranian regime and imposed trade sanctions. If companies operating in Canada must abide by Canadian law, including trade restrictions on them from these sanctions, will a CNOOC-owned Nexen be exempted? Another consideration is highlighted by the recently-signed (but little known) Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA) which has apparently granted investor-state protections to foreign companies operating in Canada - more protections than Canadian companies themselves have. This includes the ability to sue the Canadian government if it introduces new safety, health, labour, or environmental laws that threaten the company’s profits. Is Harper smart to be granting Chinese state entities rights that could effectively be used by the Chinese Communist Party to further their interests over Canadian ones? This is not an idle consideration: recent comments by CNOOC’s own chief, that his company is amongst China’s “strategic weapons,” seems to back up evidence that China uses its state-owned companies to further its geopolitical goals. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) said as much in a tabled in Parliament last month, warning that state-owned enterprises get “clandestine intelligence support” from their foreign governments and that they are playing a growing role in “opaque” foreign government agendas. CSIS had already revealed that China was involved in half the open counter-espionage cases in Canada and that a top target is industrial espionage. When our own spy agency warns that the takeover of strategic sectors by what are effectively arms of foreign governments could threaten Canada’s national security, maybe we should listen. Last week in Question Period I asked: “The Prime Minister refused to attend the Beijing Olympics, accusing China of industrial espionage and deplorable human rights. One of his Ministers called China ‘one of the world’s worst violators of human rights.’ Will the Prime Minister stand up for democracy and Canadian control over strategic resources ... and say NO to this insane NEXEN deal!?” The response, as always, has been that the Nexen takeover will be scrutinized under the Investment Canada Act and that it won’t go ahead unless it’s of “net benefit” to Canada. But key “net benefit” considerations are left ill-defined or omitted entirely from this Act: nowhere does it define what exactly is in Canada’s “national security” interests, for example. Other countries seem to have little trouble grasping what is in their nation’s security interest. The US Congress blocked CNOOC’s 2005 bid to take over California-based Unocal Inc. on security grounds. Congress was also aware that Chinese state-owned enterprises have a massive and market-distorting trade advantage: Fully backed by the Chinese government, CNOOC has been provided billions in zero-interest loans from Beijing. With the unlimited resources of the Chinese Communist Party behind it, it is effectively able to beat out any ordinary private enterprise in markets where capital is king. A commitment to international trade and investment is admirable …if it is fair. Rather than taking a foolish “boy scout” attitude or keeping a slavish devotion to free enterprise, the government must mind they do not sell others the rope that will be used to hang us in our own natural resources sector.   Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:34:41 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/238677/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Selling-China-the-rope http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/233137/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Restoring-confidence-in-Parliament Before this year’s omnibus budget was passed, Conservative Member of Parliament David Wilks discussed it with his constituents. They were upset with many of the clauses, and Wilks explained that, even though he agreed with many of their concerns, it was impossible for him to vote against the bill. The government had whipped the vote on Bill C-38, because it was a matter of confidence– meaning if it didn’t pass, the government would fall.  Confidence votes deal with major government priorities. But, as many Canadians have noticed by now, the Harper Government has been pushing through more and more unrelated measures in the name of “economic growth.” While budgets are typically matters of confidence, many of us are still struggling to figure out how exactly gutting the Fisheries Act and slashing the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency relates to Canada’s economic health. Cramming so many wide-ranging changes into one huge bill (they are named omnibus bills) as they did with their so-called “tough on crime” bill – makes everything a vote of confidence. This tactic poses a number of problems. Though many Conservative MPs, Wilks included, said they did not support some of the changes in C-38, they still voted for the bill to avoid triggering an election. The government forced them to vote against their conscience, and against their constituents. But Canadians expect better of their elected representatives. During their minority rule, the Conservatives abused the principle of confidence a number of times. The government passed the fixed election date law in 2007 to set elections once every four years. Harper said this would improve accountability and prevent minority governing parties from calling an election any time they were up in the polls. Fair enough. Constitutional scholars pointed out that the Prime Minister could still ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election at any time. And sure enough, Harper called an election barely a year later – because his party was doing well in the polls. It’s become clear that the fixed election date law isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, especially if the government of the day insists on abusing the principle of confidence. The British Parliament was well aware of this fact when they passed their Fixed-Term Parliaments Act in 2011. Under this law, elections are held every five years, unless the House specifically passes a resolution declaring a lack of confidence in the government. In the UK, it is up to Parliament as a whole, not only the Prime Minister, to call an early election. While I support fixed election dates, that should occur ONLY AFTER we achieve a proportional representation electoral system This distinction makes a fixed election date law much more effective. Concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister has become a major problem in Canadian politics, and a change like this would put decision-making power back in the hands of all representatives. It would foster a more cooperative Parliament, encouraging parties to work together, rather than and spending millions to send Canadians to the polls every time they think they have a better shot at winning. Right now, our fixed election date law is useless. The government abused the legislation the first chance it got, and there is no indication this or future governments will respect our fixed election dates anymore. In effect, little has changed.  The reality is that under our current system, Canadian voters are still used as pawns by political parties. We must change the principles of confidence to require that the entire Parliament expressly vote to dissolve government, so as to avoid abuse of the system. This change could improve our democracy, and keep Parliament working for Canadians the way it should be.   Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:38:42 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/233137/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Restoring-confidence-in-Parliament http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/224296/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Energy-Security-from-West-to-East Energy Security from West to East When it comes to Canadian natural resources, the talk is often about the “need” to ship our crude oil and bitumen (the tar-like product of the oil sands) to China and Texas as fast as we can. That may serve to maximize profits for multinational oil companies, but is it what’s best for Canada? This is more than just a question about environmental risks posed by tankers on the rugged coast of British Columbia or Rocky Mountain oil spills; it’s also one of dollars and common cents. Without a pipeline to ship Alberta oil eastward, Eastern Canada is forced to import expensive foreign oil from across the Atlantic, at benchmark Brent Crude prices. At the same time, we now ship our Western oil and bitumen to foreign markets at much lower West Texas Intermediate prices. You don’t have to be an economist to know that “buy high, sell low” is a dumb way to run an economy. This price difference cost us Canadians almost $20 billion dollars last year. Even Stephen Harper’s former Industry Minister Jim Prentice has criticized these costs and has spoken out in favour of a cross-Canada pipeline alternative. The irony is that Canada produces 40 per cent more oil and bitumen annually than we consume: We should have a surplus, not a deficit of billions of dollars. This isn’t just bad business. Canadian governments have never provided energy security for our citizens in case of a crisis. Since the 1973 oil shock, the United States has an emergency strategic supply of oil worth of over $64 billion. All of Canada’s major trading partners have national energy strategies in place, but our government apparently thinks we’re immune to any crisis that could occur in places that we import our oil from (like Venezuela or the Middle East). It is time to start protecting our own interests. A West-to-East pipeline would help protect Canadians from shortages and oil price shocks, and it would also be a better environmental option. The TransCanada gas pipeline has carried natural gas from Alberta across Manitoba, to Thunder Bay-Superior North and as far as Montreal for many years.  Laying another pipe along this existing route to carry bitumen to Eastern Canada would be a cost-effective and far more environmentally friendly alternative than crossing the Rockies. Using Canadian resources to supply Canada’s needs first would certainly be better than seeing super-tankers risk disaster on the rugged North Coast of British Columbia. A refinery in Thunder Bay could supply high quality, lower cost gasoline and heating oil to Eastern Canada and Europe. Finally, a cross-Canada pipeline could help ease political tensions between East and West. The Western provinces, led by Alberta Premier Alison Redford, have recently agreed to consider a strategy to ship Alberta oil across the country. Eastern Canadians are tired of overpaying for foreign oil. As former Liberal premier of New Brunswick Frank McKenna has pointed out, all parts of Canada have important roles to play in our country’s energy future. It is ridiculous that, as a potential “energy superpower” we don’t even have such a pipeline to let us use our own resources. I have raised the idea in the House of Commons repeatedly, and it is steadily gaining support – across all party lines. Harper claims that the economic climate is not right for a cross-Canada pipeline. He may have a free market philosophy, but he cannot continue to ignore Canada’s strategic interests or simple economics. The federal government must be proactive in encouraging - or even mandating - the kind of investment that would enable such a pipeline to be built. This would be an important step on the path to real long-term jobs and prosperity for Canadians...rather than for Communist China.       Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:49:39 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/224296/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Energy-Security-from-West-to-East http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/222997/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Northern-gateway-pipeline The development of the Alberta oil sands is a hot topic. Harper’s Conservatives have promoted Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline ever since it was proposed in 2006. It is supposed to carry raw bitumen – the tar-like product of the oil sands – from Alberta to Kitimat, on the rugged Northern Coast of British Columbia, to be shipped across the Pacific Ocean to China. Pipeline supporters say it will create jobs and stimulate the economy. Others argue that the pipeline will carry major environmental risks and bulldoze through the treaty rights of many First Nations. Let’s compare the potential benefits and risks. The project could be lucrative: it is expected to cost $5.5 billion, with a projected return of $270 billion over 30 years. Job creation is not as bright, however, with only 104 permanent jobs being created after 3,000 short-term jobs to construct the pipeline. But the economic analysis isn’t so cut and dry. Projects like this will encourage even more rapid development of Canada’s oil sands, which will continue to hyper-inflate the Canadian dollar. This drives up the price of other exports (forest sector products, manufactured goods, etc), kills tourism, and makes it difficult for Canada to compete in international markets. This so-called “Dutch Disease” is real and worrisome, according to international organizations such as the 34-nation Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The oil in the ground isn’t going away, and prices for it will only increase over the long term. Is it wise for Canada to rush to sell our hydrocarbon cheap and fast, and become an economy dependent mostly on crude oil? There are the environmental risks to consider. The project poses very real threats to the ecosystems of Northern British Columbia, including the Great Bear Rainforest. The coast is home to a thriving wild salmon industry, which stimulates the provincial economy and is a source of food for many residents. Locals are rightly concerned with the possibility of oil spills. There is great risk of at least one 1,000,000-litre spill over the course of the project. This risk is very real, especially given the rushing rivers, avalanches and earthquake risks of the mountain terrain in Northern British Columbia. The rough waters off of BC’s North coast are another cause for concern, with volatile weather throughout the year. Repeated studies have shown that the risk of a tanker spill on the Northern coast is high – that’s why there is currently a ban on oil tanker traffic there. The Northern Gateway pipeline would bring in over 200 super-tankers a year! British Columbians are right to ask whether the risks to our industries and environment are worth it. Most are saying “No!” An increasing number of Canadians and politicians across the country are agreeing with them. The Harper Government is becoming increasingly isolated in their blind promotion to ship crude oil to Communist China. Oil sands development will be at the top of Canada’s energy policy debate for years to come. Instead of rushing to send our unprocessed raw resources off to foreign markets, the oil sands debate presents an opportunity to develop policies that meet domestic energy and resource needs, that will keep upgrading, refining, and value-added jobs in Canada, achieve energy self-sufficiency and reduce risk to our natural heritage. Rather than politicizing the debate into a simplistic and divisive “anti-environment” side versus “anti-development,” the let’s open a rational discussion about what is best for Canada’s economic, conservation, and energy needs. So that all Canadians benefit, including Eastern Canada.   Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:13:26 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/222997/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Northern-gateway-pipeline http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/219971/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Return-of-warrantless-wiretaps With technology advancing at a rapid pace, balancing security with the public’s privacy rights has become a real challenge. The Harper government’s Bill C-30, which pushes for new Internet surveillance capabilities, caused a big backlash from the Canadian public – especially after people were told they either supported the bill or were “with the child pornographers.” While the outcry caused Public Safety Minister Vic Towes to put the bill on ice in a special committee for the time being, he is “intent on proceeding” with it and we’re likely to see it come back in the next session of Parliament. The Harper government claims the bill will help fight child pornography, identity theft and organized crime. Critics call it is an assault on privacy and skirts the rule of law. Bill C-30 deals with the kind of information that can be obtained by Canadian police and the ways in which they can access it. Under it, police could compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to hand over the name, home address, phone number, Internet address and email of their customers without a warrant. Under current legislation, Internet user information can only be disclosed voluntarily by ISPs, or with a warrant. But more disturbing parts of the bill permit the Minister of Public Safety to designate anyone as an “authority” to enforce the Act (not just police). Under section 34, this appointed person can then go to any ISP location, and watch internet traffic or review and make copies of any data he or she wishes. This could, for example, include political operatives. One wonders why such powers should be granted to those outside the police. The legislation lets authorities gather private user information without a warrant under “exceptional circumstances,” which are not clearly defined. Christopher Parsons, an online surveillance expert at the University of Victoria, noted that the bill lacks specific language describing how and what data will be used, despite serious implications for the freedom of Canadians. There is no evidence that the extraordinary powers granted under the bill are even necessary. Law enforcement has yet to present a convincing argument as to why current laws are insufficient. Statistics show that 95% of requests for information by police are already met voluntarily by ISPs. Canadians value their privacy. Rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure are enshrined in the Charter. Any breach of these crucial liberties must be fully justified before a law like this is passed. The government claims that it has proposed this bill to address serious crimes only. Why, then, does the bill apply to all crimes, even very minor ones? And aren’t warrants already granted under our current law when serious crimes have been committed? This undefined legislation would permit the police or anyone the Conservative Minister appoints to go on fishing expeditions, looking into the private activities and emails of Canadians if they so choose: an open door to abuse. C-30 won’t just cost Canada the presumption of innocence, it will also cost real money. ISPs would be required to install special equipment so that authorities can easily access and monitor Internet activity. This could cost hundreds of millions – and Canadian Internet users would have to foot the bill. Our current Internet legislation was last updated in 1975, and is clearly outdated. Previous attempts to bring the law up to speed with technology failed because they didn’t protect basic civil liberties. This proposal has the same problem. The government is asking Canadians to pay for a scheme that clearly infringes their rights. Rather than bring Bill C-30 back from Committee, it must be scrapped. Canadians deserve a better effort to balance their privacy and security than a 1984-style surveillance state. It comes down to this: if authorities have good reason to access the private information of Canadians, they should obtain a warrant.   Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:54:07 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/219971/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Return-of-warrantless-wiretaps http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/216606/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Adapting-to-climate-change-right-here-in-river-city Last month Thunder Bay area had a heck of a downpour. Roads washed out. Sewers backed up.  Thousands of homes and businesses have water (and worse!) in our basements. I was one. MPs John Rafferty and myself, Bruce Hyer, immediately researched the Federal Disaster Financial Assistance Agreement, and relayed that information to the city, Minister Gravelle, and MPP Bill Mauro. It required that the city declare an emergency, keep track of all flood related costs (including to small businesses and homes), apply to the province for disaster relief, and ask Ontario to declare our region a disaster area. On a sliding scale the federal government will share costs based on a formula that starts at zero for the first $13 million, half for the next $13 million, and increasing dramatically as costs rise. The Federal Public Safety Minister assured me that he will help. City workers, firefighters, police officers, non-profits like Salvation Army and RFDA, many churches, and just plain hero citizens have all worked tirelessly to help families in need. There has also been anxiety, anger, frustration, and blame. Sections of the city are built in hazard areas. There is a reason that they are called flood plains but we hoped the hundred year flood would come in 100 years. We combined storm and sewage drains. Many cities’ building codes require anti-backup sewage valves for our homes; ours did not. Some of us continue to ignore the clear science of human-caused climate change, with implications for extreme weather events like droughts, floods, dramatic temperature changes, and violent storms . We all make mistakes, people and organizations alike. Hopefully we learn from them, and try not to make the same ones twice. We can look ahead and make the investments in strategic planning, policies, and infrastructure to avoid or reduce future problems. Last week I attended the release of a report by the Climate Change Adaptation Project, led by University of Waterloo and key financial and insurance moguls. They are not optimistic about the current Canadian government doing much to reduce greenhouse gasses to prevent dangerous climate change. “The continued increase of atmospheric carbon abundance is as near certain as any properly sceptical scientist would admit.... We are obliged to assume that high CO2 levels will be associated with climates inconsistent with our present way of life.... We must therefore, learn to adapt to climate change.” Climate Change Adaptation: A Priorities Plan for Canada predicts that Northwestern Ontario and the Hudson Bay area will be wetter and warmer than in the past – up to 4-8 degrees Celsius warmer on average when your two-year-old toddler is 40 years old. Their panel of experts rated the sectors by the urgency of priority for adaption as follows: • City Infrastructure • Biodiversity • Freshwater • Aboriginal communities • Agriculture • Fisheries • Transportation • Forestry No. 1 on their list is city infrastructure. We need to determine infrastructure vulnerability to climate-induced failure. It will not be cheap, but the costs of not doing so will likely be far higher.  We need to assess risk and engineering vulnerability in our planning. It is timely, because the City’s Official Plan Review is now in progress. The Earthwise processes are a great start. Addressing infrastructure needs will require engineers, planners, managers, climate scientists, and other professionals working with politicians and citizens. It will require cooperation between Federal, Provincial, and municipal governments. I will do my part to seek information, intergovernmental coordination, and financial resources.   Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:17:17 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/216606/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Adapting-to-climate-change-right-here-in-river-city http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/204779/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Why-I-chose-Independence- I was honoured when the voters of Thunder Bay-Superior North chose me to be their voice in the House of Commons. I committed to them: To be honest, To be open To be accessible To keep my campaign promises   Despite wide life experience with dozens of organizations... none was as dysfunctional as Parliament. I have much respect for most Members in the House of Commons. But our three main parties require lockstep discipline, with little room for meaningful public debate... or for putting constituents ahead of party politics. Fuelled by a flawed and antiquated electoral system where 39 per cent of the vote can gain 100 per cent of the power, the main parties are mired in a win-lose battlefield mentality. Instead of Cooperation and compromise, our voters see mindless solidarity, where political parties are always right and they are always wrong. So I have decided to sit as an Independent Member of Parliament. I did not make this decision quickly or easily. Ever since the October, 2012 election, whenever I meet a Thunder Bay-Superior North constituent for the first time, I often say something like “You are my employer, and I work for you!” And I mean it. When John A. MacDonald became Canada’s first prime minister, one of his biggest challenges was getting agreement from his caucus. In those days, and for a century thereafter, candidates were selected by their riding associations. Period. Their name was on the ballot, without the name of the party. Voters actually had to know who they were, what party the belonged to, and what they stood for. They worked for the people who nominated them, and the people who elected them. And the leader of their party worked for them. In the 1960s, the ballots were changed to include the party name alongside the candidate’s. The bureaucrats were concerned that some interloper might claim to represent a party, so they changed the rules so that the national party leader had to sign and approve the nomination of all candidates running for their party. It could have been just as easy (and in my mind better) to have the riding president do that, but in one fell swoop the national leaders had a sword of Damocles to hold over every MP. And they use it. Pierre Trudeau described his own backbenchers as mere “trained seals.” Now leaders rule with iron fists. We are told daily what to say, when to say it, and how to vote. Mr. Mulcair has now made it clear he will bring back the long gun registry, and will use the whip. This flies in the face of both current NDP policy and my commitment to constituents. Another example is how parties are hopelessly locked to polar positions on climate change, making compromise to achieve even piecemeal progress impossible. And parties rarely, if ever, co-operate, with Mr. Mulcair already indicating he is unwilling to co-operate with other parties.    This does not serve voters well. Most MPs work hard, and sincerely want to do the best for their country and citizens. There are two things that keep them in line: party discipline, and nice perks. Travel around the world. Infinite supplies of wine and Camembert. Good paychecks. Pensions that are whole lot better than the average Canadian’s. After over three years of trying to work within this flawed system, I have some ideas on how to make Parliament work better: • Instead of sitting us in hockey benches waiting for the coach to send us over the boards, randomize us so that we are more likely treat the fellow MP sitting next to us from a different party with respect. • Have the Riding President sign our nomination papers, rather than the Leader. Or better still; go back to having just the candidate names on the ballot. • After each election, have the elected MPs from each party select (or re-confirm) their Leader, as in Great Britain. The party President would be elected by all party members, and the caucus Leader selected by the caucus. • Reform our electoral system, so that when a party gets 39 per cent of the vote, they 39 per cent of the seats (as in most of the world’s democracies), and will learn how to cooperate and compromise. I am committed to working to reform our outdated and undemocratic electoral system. I know that my decision to be an Independent voice will disappoint or even anger some voters who believe that a person elected as an NDP candidate should stick with the party, no matter what. I will also acknowledge that the procedures in the House are heavily weighted in favour of the parties, and especially the first two parties.  Nevertheless, I believe I can better represent my constituents with an independent voice. For now, I will focus on doing what I have worked hard to do for over three years: Help the people being mistreated by CRA or EI. Work with all parties or MPs when possible to make parliament work. Speak up inside and outside the House for issues important for our region, and Canada.   Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:59:59 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/204779/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Why-I-chose-Independence- http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/196443/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Old-Age-Security-Under-Threat You may have heard: the retirement security of Canadians is under threat. At the World Economic Forum in January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the future of Canada’s Old Age Security program into question. OAS provides supplementary income to 98 per cent of Canadians over the age of 65. The government has since said they are considering raising the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67. The number of Canadians over 65 is expected to double by 2030, and the government has said they will not be able to afford the program unless changes are made. As the baby boom generation starts to retire, Canada is facing a major shift in priorities. Health care and financial support for the elderly will soon become more expensive. But the government’s claim that we will face a financial crisis without a major OAS overhaul is exaggerated. Right now, Canada spends 2.4 per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP) on OAS, a figure that will rise to 3.1 per cent by 2030. While this is a substantial increase, it is by no means unsustainable (Italy, for example, spends 14 per cent of their GDP on support for the elderly – that’s a real crisis). While prudent steps need to be taken to lessen the impacts of these costs, drastic changes to OAS are not the answer. Many low-income seniors depend on OAS to stay out of poverty. Canadians who have worked in lower-paying or lower-skilled jobs tend to depend more on OAS, in part because labour-intensive work is difficult to maintain in old age. For these people, access to a number of provincial support programs often depends on eligibility for OAS. What’s more, raising the age of eligibility to 67 will strain the provinces, either driving up the cost of welfare programs or simply leaving seniors without a social safety net. In sum, those who need OAS the most will be the ones that suffer from the government’s proposed change. Many experts, including the government’s own Budget watchdog, have said that there is no crisis and we can afford to maintain OAS as-is. Our grey demographic shift is real, but it is only temporary. The costs of the program will peak in 2030 before coming back down by 2055. Spending priorities will indeed need to be shifted during that period, but Canada already spends less than other developed countries to support seniors, and an immigration policy centred on skilled workers will help to offset a shrinking workforce. Raising the age of OAS eligibility is not the only option before us; many experts have suggested others. Some have proposed an ‘actuarial adjustment,’ meaning that seniors would have the choice to take their OAS at a lower rate at 65, or a higher rate at 67. Sweden, for example, coordinates their eligibility with life expectancy. Another solution could be to take back a greater sum of money from the highest income seniors, to ensure that every aging worker stays out of poverty. In their 2007 budget, Stephen Harper committed to publish a report detailing how an aging population would impact our economy and social services. He has yet to fulfill that commitment. It’s important because the greying demographic shift will have far-reaching impacts that will be felt for generations. The government must do everything it can to ensure that the solutions they are proposing are in the best interest of Canadians. A decision like this on OAS can only be made with extensive consultation and research. I welcome discussion about how we can better support our seniors, but to choose the best route forward we need to know the long-term consequences of any solution - especially for the poorest of us. Canadians who have worked their whole lives to support their families, and build Canada, deserve nothing less.   Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:11:25 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/196443/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Old-Age-Security-Under-Threat http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/167009/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Coping-with-the-HST There is no question about it -- the Harmonized Sales Tax has made life more expensive for Ontarians. But nowhere is this statement more true than in our communities right here in the Northwest. We are already dealing with high local unemployment and feeling the effects of a stalling national economy. Pensions are at risk, futures are uncertain. Just about only thing that does seem certain is that the provincial and federal governments have turned their backs on the North by ignoring the harm the HST tax hike would cause. The HST has been imposed on almost everything a person needs in daily life. Families feel the pinch most when they pay for energy. Many people in Southern Ontario may have parked their cars and taken public transit when the HST pushed gas prices higher, but here in the North there is limited public transit service, or none at all. People here need their trucks to work and to get by.   The burden of the HST, coupled with the deregulation of Ontario's power sector, has led to near record-high energy prices. It has come to the point where many people have to decide between paying for hydro or food.   Under this backroom tax scheme cooked up by the Harper Conservatives and McGuinty Liberals, an average family of four is expected to pay $1,500 more per year now than under the PST regime. You may have noticed how there is now more tax on a huge number of goods services, many of them essentials. I don’t believe politicians are elected to make essentials more expensive for everyday people - in fact that’s the opposite of what they should be doing. Life is getting expensive enough as it is without tax hikes on necessities. The politicians who promoted the HST argue that it is important to keep Ontario businesses competitive. Obviously, a shift in the tax burden from big business onto the backs of consumers will help the bottom lines of large companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange, but many small businesses across Ontario are finding the tax a problem. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses found that three-quarters of them were very concerned about the impact the increased tax burden would have on their customers, and their businesses. The CFIB's Ontario Director, Satinder Chera, has said the provincial and federal governments have, "clearly dropped the ball in the handling of this tax reform initiative." Across Thunder Bay-Superior North, I’ve heard tragic stories of people trying to cope under the HST. Companies were supposed to save money and pass savings along to consumers, but these promises of trickle-down savings at pump or on your hydro bill have gone unrealized. What did we end up with? Costs for the necessities of life have gone up, just as our unemployment remains stubbornly high. B.C. voters may have recently voted to scrap the HST there, but people in Northern Ontario have never been given a choice on the issue and we don’t have any way to recall it like they have in B.C. A year after it was imposed, the HST remains a regressive tax that has added to the burden carried by everyday families - especially our poorest and most vulnerable. It’s time to remove the HST from essentials so that life in the Northwest isn’t harder than it needs to be.   Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:38:31 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/167009/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Coping-with-the-HST http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/163388/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Terry-Fox’s-spirit-is-stronger-than-ever- Like so many in Canada and around the world, in the spring of 1980 I was absolutely captivated by the courage of a young man named Terry Fox, running across Canada. As fate would have it, I watched him run on Highway 11-17 and saw him collapse. Little did I know then that his fight against cancer would impact me in a very personal way later in life. At the age of just 18, Terry Fox was diagnosed with osteosarcoma, a form of cancer that often starts near the knees. Losing his leg must have been very difficult for a young varsity basketball player like Terry, but his tenacity and positive outlook carried him through sixteen months of chemotherapy and his undiminished passion for the sport led him to win three national championships with Rick Hanson’s wheelchair basketball team. While undergoing extensive treatment in cancer clinics, Fox was struck with the plight of his fellow cancer patients, saying “ there were faces with the brave smiles, and the ones who had given up smiling. "There were feelings of hopeful denial, and the feelings of despair. My quest would not be a selfish one. I could not leave knowing these faces and feelings would still exist, even though I would be set free from mine. Somewhere the hurting must stop … and I was determined to take myself to the limit for this cause .” Terry Fox had decided to run across Canada to raise funds for cancer research, something he felt was desperately needed if the disease was ever to be beaten. So on April 12, 1980 he dipped his artificial leg in the Atlantic near St John’s, N.L., to little public attention. By the time he arrived here in Northwestern Ontario he was known across the country. Sadly, the cancer spread to his lungs and after 5,373 kilometres, he was forced to end his run just outside Thunder Bay. In less than a year, he would be gone. Terry had hoped to raise $1 for every one of Canada’s 24 million people at the time. Today, of course, he has helped raise far more in Canada and over 60 countries around the world where his marathons inspired by him are now run. In the years that followed his death, thanks to research and improved treatment funded by Terry’s Marathon of Hope and runs that followed, countless people stricken with cancer have successfully beat the disease. I count myself as one of them. In 2009 I was diagnosed with cancer, and it was one of the most difficult challenges I’ve ever faced in my life. But thanks to new treatments I fully overcame the disease. I count myself very lucky … and I am immensely grateful to Terry’s monumental effort and sacrifices. Not everyone is as fortunate. Recently, a good friend of mine was struck down by cancer in the prime of his life. Amongst the last words Jack Layton wrote was a message to fellow Canadians with cancer:    “To other Canadians who are on journeys to defeat cancer and to live their lives, I say this: please don’t be discouraged that my own journey hasn’t gone as well as I had hoped. You must not lose your own hope. Treatments and therapies have never been better in the face of this disease. You have every reason to be optimistic, determined, and focused on the future. My only other advice is to cherish every moment with those you love at every stage of your journey, as I have done.”   I knew Jack as optimistic and full of hope, even in the face of cancer. It’s a hope that many more of us can share thanks to Terry’s marathon and the advances it has brought about. So to those running in this year’s Terry Fox Run: Thank You. Your support means the world to countless cancer patients and survivors.   This year’s five kilometre Thunder Bay Terry Fox Run will be held at 2 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 18 (starting from St. Ignatius High School), preceded by the Thunder Bay Marathon at 8 a.m. Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:54:10 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/163388/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Terry-Fox’s-spirit-is-stronger-than-ever- http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/133127/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Canada’s-Housing-Policy- Only 5 per cent of Canada’s households live in non-profit housing or government housing – the smallest percentage of social housing of any western country, except the U.S.  This is a growing problem for those too poor to pay market rates for shelter. Canada’s housing policy emphasizes ownership and about two-thirds of Canadians live in homes that they own, most often with the help of a mortgage.  Since 1946, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has focused almost all public dollars and programs on subsidizing home ownership, with little help for renters or rental properties, even though most homeowners have double the income of renters.  In recent decades, the gap between owners and renters has grown along with the increasing disparity in incomes of Canadians. In the 1960s, the gap between renters and owners was about 20 per cent. By 1999, the gap had ballooned over 200 per cent. Further, almost 20 per cent of renters live in housing that is overcrowded or needs major repairs.  Ironically, much rental housing is poorly insulated; many landlords simply aren’t motivated to insulate if the tenants pay the bills. That not only creates a lot of greenhouse gasses but adds a lot of expense to the functional rent cost, especially when the heat is electric. Canada’s housing system is out of balance. Its reliance on market supply-and-demand works pretty well for homeowners, but even there we find growing problems. In many parts of the country housing prices are getting so high that it’s difficult to see how young people will ever be able to afford to buy a family home of their own. Renters are having even more trouble. Some parts of the population are inhibited from access to acceptable housing. At the worst end of the housing deficit, homelessness is growing. After 50 years of federal leadership, the 1996 federal budget shifted administration of federal social housing to the provinces and territories. This was not in response to a legal or constitutional dispute; it was unilateral policy decision by Paul Martin, to help save money and balance federal budgets on the backs of the provinces. Dismantling the federal social housing supply program meant that provinces and territories had to bear the direct responsibilities for housing costs, but also the indirect costs of inadequate housing and homelessness, such as the costs of physical and mental health care, policing, and emergency shelters. In theory, there is a constitutional barrier to direct federal funding to municipalities for housing. Nonetheless, in the 1970s, the federal government did directly fund new social-housing projects, like Castlegreen Housing Co-op in Thunder Bay, built by non-profit societies or non-profit housing corporations established by municipalities. After years of talk and a lot of promises, the 2004 and 2005 federal budgets did allocate some new funds for housing and municipal infrastructure, as a result of political and public pressure. While it was a promising start, there is a long way to go. Castlegreen is an example of one way we could choose to invest: a cooperative community of mixed income renters: safe, clean, green, with a wonderful sense of cooperation, pride, and belonging.  In the absence of federal leadership and initiative, its time to bring back co-ops and other public partnerships that rebuild communities, provide lower income Canadians with healthy housing, and give children a quality environment to grow up in. I believe that there is an important federal role in helping to achieve more balance between both helping home ownership (a very good thing!) and safe, energy-efficient rental housing. I will be looking for such programs and funding in the upcoming federal budget. But what do you think? I’d like to hear your ideas at bruce@brucehyer.ca .   Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:13:45 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/133127/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Canada’s-Housing-Policy- http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/130142/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Listening-to-the-People My recent January town hall tour included a week to Rocky Bay First Nations, Beardmore, Geraldton, Nakina and Longlac. The following week included stops in Pic River, Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber, Pays Plat, Nipigon, and both Red Rocks. On my way to Marathon and Pic River I got to battle the combination of blizzard and narrow Trans-Canada highway that we all know so well. I held public meetings and canvassed small businesses and residences in many communities.  I came away from this tour wiser, after listening and learning from you – the people who live, work, play and sometimes struggle in our communities.  Listening is what Mr. Harper should be doing.  He should be listening to families who are struggling to pay their bills.  He should be listening to small business owners who find the cost of doing business often outweighs the price that products can be moved off the shelf.  He should be paying heed to seniors who find that life is becoming unaffordable due to inadequate CPP, OAS and GIS.   And in a minority Parliament, he should be working with opposition MPs to help. But Mr. Harper is focused on his own agenda – spending our money on fighter jets and huge prisons, gigantic tax breaks to large multinational corporations, and his bloated chauffeur-driven largest-in-history cabinet.  Is this at odds with the reality in which we live?  Does this bring jobs to Northwestern Ontario? I am grateful for the thoughtful and intelligent opinions that I heard during my pre-budget consultations. They help me focus on what’s really important in Ottawa. I heard that our tax dollars would be better spent on: •  Accessible funding for small businesses to start, expand and/or diversify. •  Incentives to promote and encourage value-added production. And disincentives for the exporting of our raw natural resources for other countries to add value and then sell back to us as finished products.  One person said “Canada should put an immediate halt to the export of raw materials.  Imagine the jobs that would be created.  Large and small businesses would flourish.  Canadians are too nice – we don’t look after our own interests. Shouldn’t this be the vision of our Prime Minister?”                                                                                                                                           •  Lowering hydro prices to attract investment to our region (it may be largely a provincial responsibility, but someone has to show leadership on electricity rates). •  Bringing back the EcoENERGY Program to promote jobs and provide homeowner energy savings. •  Enhancing EI benefits to assist those who remain out of work, through no fault of their own, after their benefits have run out. A constituent mentioned “EI fund money ($57 Billion) that was stolen from the workers to pay off general revenues should be put back and used to enhance the unfair EI system.” •  Fixing bankruptcy legislation to ensure that workers are prioritized as insured creditors, so that severance and back-wages is paid when a company goes under; •  Ensuring pensions are 100 per cent protected when a corporate entity closes its doors. I sense a new widespread optimism with respect to the Ring of Fire development.  Critical to its far-reaching success is full and accountable consultations with all affected communities.  We must do it well from the start. While in Nakina for a town hall meeting I hitched a flight with Nakina Air Service to the site of the Nor-Ont exploration camp at the Ring of Fire.  I was impressed.  A hardy crew of up to 90 was busy at work.  The conditions for workers (including many Aboriginal people) was immaculate, highly professional, and respectful of our ecosystem. Thank you for opening up your homes, businesses, community centres and band office to me.  I appreciate your candid and thoughtful advice, and will bring your ideas to Ottawa. Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:57:09 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/130142/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Listening-to-the-People http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/129991/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Canada’s-Health-care-dilemma Popular speculation is that we may soon have a Federal election. Some Canadians are concerned that Stephen Harper may get a majority in the House of Commons and be able to run the country as he wishes, without checks or balances. One reason people are concerned is that our universal health-care system might be severely compromised even more than it already is. In 1997, when he was vice-president of the National Citizen’s Coalition, Harper declared “It is past time that the Federal government scrapped the Canada Health Act.” Now, in addition to huge cuts to the Federal share of health-care funding under Paul Martin, Canada is feeling the pressure from an older population, the costly demands of high-tech medicine, and a national shortage of doctors, nurses, and other key health-care workers. Canadians haven't forgotten the slashing that occurred in the ‘90s, when enrolments at medical schools were frozen and acute care beds were closed. That led to hospital hallways crammed with patients and long waits at emergency departments. Today, almost five million Canadians don't have a family physician. Recent data from the OECD show that Canada is well behind countries like Sweden on the number of physicians and nurses per capita, on infant mortality, and on other health parameters. Sweden gets better outcomes on 9.2 per cent of their GDP, compared to 10 per cent in Canada, and a whopping 16 per cent in the U.S. system. The Conservative government, which will introduce its budget soon, faces pressure from Canadians to tackle the record national deficit, caused mainly by a reduction over years in the tax rate for large corporations from the original 36 per cent to our current 16.5 per cent. When Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson teamed up in a Liberal-NDP minority government in 1966 to create Medicare, the federal share of health-care funding was 50 per cent. In the early 1990s, Paul Martin tightened the fiscal belt to deal with budget deficits and drastically cut health-care funding to the provinces. By the time former Saskatchewan NDP Premier Roy Romanow released his landmark report on fixing Medicare in 2002, Ottawa had slashed its share to about 16 per cent.  Romanow recommended an immediate infusion of federal dollars to bring Ottawa's share up to at least 25 per cent. Romanow’s Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada found that most Canadians agreed on the following basic values: •  Every Canadian should have access to health care •  No Canadian should be bankrupted by the cost of necessary health-care services •  Need should determine what medical services are covered by public health insurance •  Both federal and provincial governments must help restore the health-care system •  New targeted funds should be established in key areas immediately     A six per cent increase in the Federal share was negotiated with provinces in 2004. It will expire in 2014. The question then, and now, will be: Will we shift to a model more like in Sweden, where health care is both more effective and cheaper, or continue our slide toward the dysfunctional U.S. model, which costs more and covers far fewer? A second question is: Who will pay for it? As I head back to the House of Commons and consider the upcoming 2011 federal budget, these questions will be on my mind.  But I’m interested in what you think: I hope to hear from you at bruce@brucehyer.ca   Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:11:48 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/129991/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Canada’s-Health-care-dilemma http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/129362/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Fixing-the-hyper-partisan-Parliament There’s no doubt about it – Parliament needs to work better. The hostile theatrics that Canadians see at question period, which you’ve likely noticed is not called answer period, are just the tip of the partisan iceberg in Ottawa. Hostility and tribalism between parties are getting worse. Parties fight for every electoral seat in a desperate quest for majority government that Canadians have been repeatedly and wisely denying any party. Politicians’ mailboxes are filled with pleas to get along better and get things done for struggling regions, industries, citizens, and families. I agree. Most Parliamentarians went to Ottawa to improve the lot of our constituents, but we seem to have built a system that often brings out the worst in our elected representatives. How can we turn that around to encourage cooperation and effectiveness in governance? I have been proposing some ideas. A NEW SEATING PLAN : In the House we are seated hockey-bench style with team captains facing each other, occasionally urging us to go over the boards for a verbal brawl. Fun for some, but frustrating to others. It’s the reason why school teachers don’t bring their students to question period anymore. But we could randomize seating in the House. It would be difficult to heckle and insult MPs from other parties sitting in the next seat. Some time spent next to other members from all parties will lead to recognition of them as people with whom we can share ideas and work on solutions in an atmosphere of respect. ALLOW MPs FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES TO CO-SPONSOR LEGISLATION : Private member’s legislation – bills and motions introduced by MPs, not by the government or a party – are one of the last truly democratic institutions in Parliament. Members are free to table just about any good initiative, and votes are usually free. They make up the majority of legislation introduced, but they face steep challenges to actually passing. Of the 1,005 private members’ bills introduced since the 2008 election, only one has been signed into law. Few successfully pass the House, with my Climate Change Accountability Act being a rare exception. A key reason is that private legislation is often branded as a party initiative. If an MP tables a good bill or motion, other parties are often reluctant to see it pass because it will give the other party political points. This is our system actively working against the interests of Canadians. That’s why I recently tabled a motion to change the rules. M-597 will allow cross-party sponsorship of legislation, in order to allow more co-operation between parties and to give private bills and motions a better chance of passage. Co-operation on the drafting of bills would lead to more co-operation and compromise after they are tabled, in committees, and around the Hill. Private legislation would be more about ideas, and less of a zero-sum political game. A MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTING SYSTEM : Most democracies in the world have some sort of proportional representation. Of Western democracies, only Canada and the U.S. are left clinging to the antiquated winner-take-all system with false majorities, where a party can win near-absolute power with only 37 per cent of the vote. Even the UK is changing. Proportional representation would mean that if 20 per cent of voters voted for a party, that party would get 20 per cent of the seats. In Scandinavian Parliaments, I have seen firsthand how this leads to rational discussion and debate, mutual respect, workable compromises and much better governance. Canadians are looking for statesmanship, leadership and effective government that represent all Canadians. They want better. They deserve better. Let’s act to improve our system and our behaviour. Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:12:40 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/129362/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Fixing-the-hyper-partisan-Parliament http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/121735/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Senate-Kills-Bill-C-311 On Nov. 16, the Conservatives called a surprise Senate vote on the country’s only federal climate bill and killed it. I worked on hard on C-311 for almost two years. After much consideration and debate it was passed by the majority of elected Members of the House of Commons and supported by the vast majority of Canadians. The bill required the Environment Minister to ensure that Canada reduces our absolute greenhouse gas emissions. It proposed greater accountability by requiring the Environment Minister to prepare five-year target plans and biennial progress reports. It mandated the independent National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy to review and report on the feasibility of plans. It did not prescribe any particular means of accomplishing these goals, leaving that flexibility to the government of the day. After all, there is no magic bullet to tackling climate change; instead, we need all the tools at our disposal. The Senate action was unprecedented in Canadian history. Stalled deliberately in the Senate for 193 days while Harper muzzled senators, there was no debate or consideration of the bill before Harper’s unelected Senate killed it. It is colossally hypocritical of Harper to use the appointed party hacks in the Senate to kill bills passed by the democratically-elected House. Remember how he spent most of his political career railing against similar tactics used by the Liberals, and that he would never even appoint unelected Senators? He has now appointed more Senators than any other Prime Minister in our history. Harper is shaming Canada with his head-in-the-tar-sands approach. Canada heads to the UN climate change negotiations this week in Mexico without a single law or bill or plan that tackles greenhouse gas pollution. Harper is waiting for the U.S. Congress to act, effectively letting the Tea Party write Canada’s climate change policies. Harper isn’t even harmonizing with the U.S. The falling behind report states: "When it comes to investing in clean energy jobs, Canada doesn’t even come close to matching US efforts." The U.S. is investing eight times more per capita than our government is in energy efficiency, public transit and renewable power. It’s estimated we’re losing out on at least 66,000 jobs. Harper has also just shut down the popular ecoENERGY programs for renewable power and green home retrofits. Canadian business has called for a plan for years. Shell Oil CEO Brian Straub recently called for firm targets. But the government isn’t serious: it’s changed its (weak) targets as often as it has changed Environment Ministers – almost every year. They have never set those targets in law or even tabled a plan to achieve them. This isn’t helping investor confidence. Harper claimed, without evidence, that C-311 would be unaffordable and cost jobs. The former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern has made it clear that not adopting the targets in C-311 will cost far more than will the costs of action. Economic modelling done on this bill in a Canadian context by renowned economists at MK Jaccard & Associates show that it’s not only affordable, but will result in job growth a steady increase in GDP. The Prime Minister is merely spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The science is now unequivocal: unchecked greenhouse gas emissions will lead to catastrophe. Further, this sets a deeply disturbing precedent for our entire democratic system. When Members in the House of Commons, elected by the people of Canada, work diligently to pass good legislation they at least expect the Senate to study it carefully and give it due consideration. Unaccountable appointees killing legislation outright without even hearing evidence puts our entire parliamentary system into question. Canadians are wondering: "What just happened to our democracy?" Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:25:18 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/121735/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Senate-Kills-Bill-C-311 http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/121034/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Time-for-an-Election? Two or three times a year the rumour mills awaken and the cry of "The election is coming!" rings from Ottawa across the land. So far, the moment has passed each time and Parliament gets back to work. Predicting election dates is impossible. Like guessing the weather 10 days ahead, or the score of the Grey Cup, there are too many variables. Still, there are things to consider: Polls matter . No party willingly goes to the public with low poll numbers. The last few polls show voters are dissatisfied with both Harper and Ignatieff, who are barely able to attract a third of voters each. If polls predicted a Conservative majority Harper would call an election in a minute. If the Liberals saw the same, they would try to force one. But that’s not happening right now. Money matters . After the 2008 election, all parties faced depleted war chests. The Liberals were said to be the poorest, and therefore gun-shy. Without them, the other opposition parties couldn’t bring down the government. So Harper has run roughshod over Parliament since 2008. He filled his budgets with "poison pills" and made the country eat them. Harper pulled money from many groups - savage attacks on the status of women were only the most publicized. Dozens more wounds were inflicted on the powerless. But until the Liberals stop losing votes because of too many empty seats, such actions continue. Issues? Sometimes a defining issue can require an election. An issue so important to voters that they demand an election. Voters have no real switch to throw, but the mood of the people can be so clear that none dare to ignore it. There are a lot of issues that are making voters angry: The HST, Harper’s disrespect of democracy and our traditions, his stubbornness on climate change, broken promises (such as on spending, senate reform, or Afghanistan), and neglecting the cost of living increases people are burdened with. But no single issue is galvanizing voters. But sometimes even without a single defining issue, the public will seize some less obvious issue and then make it clear that they will be heard. Election fatigue . We’ve often seen a public mood that doesn’t want any more elections. It’s understandable, since Canada has now had far more elections since World War II than Italy (often cited as unstable). But it’s Canadians that are often tired of an election every two years in what’s become the Western world’s most wobbly democracy. They’re tired of the constant politicking and they don’t want to spend $350 million on yet another election. That fatigue with elections helped keep Harper there, even though his party was the least committed to working with others to run the country. Timing matters . Harper can avoid the embarrassment of an election for awhile, but his options are limited. This fall was impossible. Municipal elections in many provinces – especially vote-rich Ontario – kept all activists busy with neither time nor money for their federal parties. In October of 2011, Ontario and Manitoba go to the polls provincially. Again, less time and money for a federal campaign. This brings us to next spring, 2011 – the next logical time. In Ottawa and in ridings across the country, parties are moving planning and mobilizing into higher gear. New Democrats are ready for an election, if one arrives. We have many talented, experienced MPs. We’ve kept our promises. Our people are professional and ethical. New Democrats - not the Liberals - have been the real opposition to Harper since 2008. We have been the leaders, not just in holding Harper in check but in bringing our own sensible and practical ideas to Parliament. We’re ready. Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:20:01 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/121034/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Time-for-an-Election? http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/119454/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Let-us-Remember- A few weeks ago, I was honoured to spend a day with our reservists from Thunder Bay. About 50 of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment (including some from the 18 Service Battalion) were in Shilo, Manitoba on a live-fire training exercise. I was impressed with the esprit de corps, the proficiency, and the professionalism of these reservists, most of them young -- very young. That got me thinking a great deal about what we owe to our men and women of the armed forces, whether those are from almost a century ago, the Second World War, the Korean conflict, many peace keeping missions around the world, or... as I write these words... in far-away Afghanistan today. When I pinned on my poppy last week, I got thinking about what that meant today. Most of us know the history of "Poppy Day" here in Canada. But it never hurts to reflect. The first connection between the poppy and battlefield deaths was apparently during the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century, when one writer noted that the battlefields bloomed with the blood-red flowers after the fighting was over. During the First World War, some battlefields became enriched by the lime from rubble caused by the bombardments, encouraging the small plant with the Latin name of Popaver rhoeas to thrive. After John McCrae's poem famous "In Flanders Fields" was published in 1915, the poppy became a popular metaphor for soldiers who died in battle. In 1918, an American, Moina Michael, working in a New York City YMCA canteen, started wearing a poppy in memory of the millions who had died on the battlefield. The symbolic custom started to spread. When a French woman named Madame Guerin visited the United States in 1920, she brought the custom to France, where she used handmade poppies to raise money for poor children from war-torn areas of her country. In November of 1921, the first poppies were distributed in Canada. Millions of Canadians keep the tradition alive today. Remembrance Day is observed on November 11 to recall the end of World War I. Major hostilities of World War I were formally ended "at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" of 1918 with the German signing of the Armistice. The day was specifically dedicated by King George V on 7 November 1919. Remembrance Day is a very special day. It is our time to salute the brave men and women who sacrificed so much to valiantly defend our country and the freedoms we take for granted. This year’s Remembrance Day caps off National Veterans’ Week, an entire week to honour those who served our country in conflicts past, and especially those who continue to serve us with distinction in Afghanistan. It is not enough to simply remember their sacrifices. It is equally important that we as a country tend to the needs of veterans who return home with missing limbs or shocked nerves. We must help the families of soldiers, sailors and airmen who don’t return at all. It is incumbent upon us to serve our veterans as they have served us. Three years ago, my own father passed away. He served with honour in World War II, and was wounded in the South Pacific. Many times when he was alive, I thanked him for his service in fighting for us, so that my family and I today can enjoy freedom and democracy. Let us all give thanks to all the men and women who have risked their lives, or given their lives, whether long, long ago... or today. Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:29:34 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/119454/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Let-us-Remember- http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/117969/Hyer-On-The-Hill/The-Chinese-are-coming Recently I was invited, in my role as Tourism Critic for the New Democrats, to accompany the federal Minister of Tourism to Shanghai and Beijing on a Canadian tourism trade mission. As I have many critic areas besides tourism --small business, water, environment, national parks, climate change -- I receive many requests to travel. I usually say no, being just too darned busy with demands in both Ottawa and Thunder Bay-Superior North.  But I said yes to this trip for many reasons, such as: China is the third largest economy in the world, and will soon replace Japan as No. 2. The chance to explore with embassy officials how we might pursue Chinese markets for forest products: 1.3 billion Chinese consumers are potential users of Canadian products (but most Chinese forests were decimated long ago). Shanghai is the largest port in the world, and Beijing is the capital of China. Those two cities combined have 40 million people -- more than Canada’s entire population. Shanghai presently has 432 km of passenger rail which will increase to over 1,000 km in less than 20 years, with obvious rail car potential for Bombardier. Canada already welcomes 160,000 tourists from China each year, who inject $250 million into our economy. But this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the 100 million Chinese tourists who will be looking for places to travel by 2020. Here was an opportunity to work with leaders from other provinces and parties, and our embassies, to advance the broader goals and needs of Northwestern Ontario. This mission put the icing on the cake on the recent agreement that grants Canada Approved Destination Status (ADS). Chinese tourists can now visit freely through Canadian wholesalers and tourist operators. The potential is for millions of tourists and billions of dollars to balance our trade deficit.  Immediate benefits will accrue mostly to Vancouver and Toronto, but these can spread outward. I will be working with the North of Superior Tourism Association (NOSTA), Tourism Ontario, and the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) to see how we can attract some of those millions of tourists and billions of dollars to the Northwest.  I accompanied the following delegation members: Hon. Rob Moore, Conservative Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism Hon. Gerry Byrne MP, Liberal Tourism Critic Michele McKenzie, CEO of the Canadian Tourism Commission Hon. Flor Marcelino, Manitoba Minister of Tourism Hon. Robert Vessey, P.E.I. Minister of Tourism Hon. Terry French, Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Tourism Hon. Kevin Krueger, B.C. Minister of Tourism Canadian Ambassador David Mulroney, Beijing Embassy Nadir Patel, Canadian Consul General, Shanghai On the trade mission I was able to attend some exhibits at the Shanghai World Expo 2010, where 6-million Chinese visited Canada’s beautiful pavilion. I also attended the Canadian Tourism Commission Showcase in Beijing. There were dozens of Canadian tour operators, many Canadian and Chinese tour wholesalers, and hundreds of Chinese travel agents. I will be connecting many to NOSTA so that they can explore how they can match up our regional tourism gems with eager and curious Chinese travelers.  One thing that was abundantly clear was that many Chinese people like things that are big and dramatic. They will love taking the Lake Superior Circle Tour to see the biggest lake in the world. They will also love our Sleeping Giant, our vast forests, our superlative fishing, and hiking, boating or driving for hours without seeing another human - quite a novelty.  I am glad that our embassies in China are ready for the onslaught: 85 per cent of tourism visas are approved and delivered in less than a week.  Hang on Canadians: soon, the Chinese may be coming.   Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:18:42 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/117969/Hyer-On-The-Hill/The-Chinese-are-coming http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/117254/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Consulting-Constituents- Earlier this month I spent a fantastic week visiting some of the many communities across our riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North. It’s a spectacular riding covering more than 82,000-square kilometres, about the same size as Ireland. I held meetings and public town halls in various places, including Longlac, where I had an unusual experience. Near the centre of town is a rail crossing that was recently altered, making it quite the ski jump. The locals know about it, but I didn’t and my little car became airborne going over it. When it came down, splitting the oil pan, it left an oil stripe down the main street, and an oil spill when I parked. I had to be in another town the next day for another Town Hall meeting, and expected my week’s schedule to be in shambles. Then a small town with a big heart came to the rescue. Jim and Frank from the small computer store helped clean up my oil spill, and called around for repair possibilities. Marilyn and Claude from the Ran-Dan motel helped in many ways, Lindsey from Matawa shuttled us to meetings, and most dramatic of all were the men from Kal Tire. They hand pushed my car into their shop, combed the region for parts, had them rushed overnight, and came in early to make the repairs. Owner Robert Beaudoin even lent me his truck to get around. Before I could finish the hearty and delicious breakfast served to me by a cheery Claire at the Pizza Place, my car had completed its autumn oil change, and was ready to get me on my way. What I was sure would take days was accomplished in hours. The whole experience goes to show that Longlac, like many of our small resource-dependent towns in Northwestern Ontario, has a really big heart. It’s one of the reasons I’ve always loved our region, and meeting the incredible people in it. It’s been two years since the citizens of Thunder Bay-Superior North elected me to represent you in Ottawa. Ski jumps aside, it has been quite the ride. Lots of learning. Conflicts and collaborating. Parliament prorogued twice. And lots and lots of hard work. According to the statisticians in the Library of Parliament, in two action-packed years I seem to have introduced more legislation than any single MP in the history of this riding, and even more than all the previous MPs from here put together. Some of my legislation working its way through Parliament includes: • C-312: the Made in Canada Act : would mandate at least 50% Canadian content for all federally-funded projects. • C-560: the Cell Phone Freedom Act would force cell phone companies to unlock client cell phones, and increase choice and competition in the wireless market. • M-291: to return passenger rail service to Thunder Bay and the Lake Superior North Shore. • C-311: the Climate Change Accountability Act sets targets, timetables and government accountability for reducing our greenhouse gas pollution and catch up to other countries in creating the economy and jobs of the future. • M-532: a motion regarding ethical investments by the Canada Pension Plan. • M-531: a motion to provide tax and other incentives to encourage medical professionals to live and work in rural areas. No wonder the last two years have zoomed by. Many of these bills and motions came about because you, my constituents, asked me to take an issue on. This is another reason why talking to constituents is the best part of my job. There’s a lot to concern people right now, so please join me in upcoming Town Hall meetings to talk about the rising cost of living (or anything else): Terrace Bay – 8 p.m. Monday, Nov. 8 Community Centre (Conference Room), 1 Selkirk Ave. Marathon – 7 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 9 Royal Canadian Legion, 37 Howe St. Nipigon – 6 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 10 Community Centre, 138 Wadsworth Ave. See you there. Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:23:17 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/117254/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Consulting-Constituents- http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/101253/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Cell-phone-freedom One of the symbols of modern life is the cell phone, and for good reason. More and more people rely on them for business and to connect with family and friends. You don’t have to be a chatty teenager to understand that they have become an indispensable part of our economy and society, or to grasp how much freedom they can bestow. So why is it that we, in Canada, have allowed such unprecedented restrictions on our use of cell phones? If you have a cell phone, chances are it's locked to work only on the network of the company you bought it from. You’re not alone. Most consumers don’t know their cell phones are deliberately “network locked” in this way ...and that they can’t easily move to a competitor if they’re unhappy with the service they’re getting or the price they’re paying. You’ve been locked out of consumer choice. Network locks, also called “SIM locks,” cost consumers in other ways too. They stop you from switching SIM cards when you travel, forcing you to pay expensive international roaming fees if you want to use your phone abroad. And they make it harder to sell your used phone easily because it will only work on one network. Just as bad, these locks limit competition in the Canadian wireless market. Less competition means higher prices, and worse service. To illustrate how bad it’s become, a 2009 report by the 31-nation Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that Canada had amongst the highest prices for mobile phone calling amongst all OECD countries. Another industry report released last year found that Canadian cell phone use is second last in the OECD, and implicated high prices as the reason. And just this week, Canada's cellphone companies were each handed an “F” in customer satisfaction by the Better Business Bureau. Lack of competition and regulation has led to this situation. The ‘Big Three’ providers - Bell, Telus & Rogers - currently control close to 95 per cent of the Canadian market. And as far as network locks are concerned, there are no regulations. So mobile phone companies routinely lock all the phones they sell. While it’s possible to have your phone unlocked at a grey aftermarket shop, it can be expensive, time-consuming and potentially damaging to unlock a mobile phone without knowing how to do it or where to go. But unlocking a phone is a trivial matter for mobile service providers - usually, they just have to give you an unlock code. Comparing internationally, cell phone network locks have been virtually eradicated in many countries where there is sufficient competition. In others, they've been regulated to make sure consumers are adequately protected. So why can’t we do better? When we buy or lease a car, we would never accept the dealer telling us we can only fill up at one gas station, so why do we let this slide when big wireless companies lock us in? Mobile phone customers should have the freedom to choose whether they’re locked in or not, like they do in most other countries. This week I introduced legislation to give Canadians that freedom. Bill C-560, the "Cell Phone Freedom Act" takes an important step to promoting competition and more consumer choice in the domestic wireless market. It makes sure that:   • Consumers buying new cell phones in Canada will be informed of any network lock on their phones, before sale.   • Phone companies must unlock new phones upon request, without charge, when consumers buy new phones outright, or at the end of their service contract. This will help level the playing field for Canadian cell phone customers... who need all the help they can get. In the coming months, I will be working to earn the support of other Members of Parliament for this important legislation. People can find out more about the Cell Phone Freedom Act at www.DontLockMyFreedom.ca   Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:35:01 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/101253/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Cell-phone-freedom http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/95926/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Flies-in-the-Ointment Stimulus projects have often been used to help struggling economies back on their feet, and this year’s Budget is being advertised as just that. Despite stimulus funds that aren’t flowing, key sectors (like forestry) being largely ignored, and reckless billions spent on corporate welfare, the Harper government has marketed this year’s Budget as a cure-all economic ointment. Trouble is, sometimes the cure is as bad as the disease. This past week Parliament has been debating a controversial budget bill called C-9. It’s the latest example of a disturbing trend. To be fair, it’s a trend that previous Liberal governments started. Mr. Harper is merely perfecting it. That trend is towards American-style “junk” legislation. The US is famous for having massive omnibus bills stuffed with every pork-barrel initiative and pet project; bills are often so large that elected representatives can’t possibly have a reasoned debate or decide on issues independently. It’s no way to run a country. But that approach is now being copied here. C-9 is a bloated 902-page bill that stuffed with policies that have little or nothing to do with the Budget. MPs were expected to carefully pore through its 2,200 legal clauses (and debate their impacts) in only seven short debates. The House Finance Committee passed all 2,200 clauses without amendment in a single day. Maybe that’s just the point. Perhaps Harper didn’t want elected representatives to be able to carefully study and debate the bill. If the function of Parliament is to scrutinize the government, legislating this way is nothing but a ploy to avoid scrutiny. Mr. Harper knows that budget bills are matters of confidence, and defeating C-9 would trigger an election. By shoving everything that won’t pass independently into his budget bill, Harper is abusing our system of confidence. It’s his self-proclaimed “accountability” government using another gimmick to avoid accountability. As a result, Canadians get little chance to see or debate what Harper is doing. It’s a tune we’ve heard before: last year’s budget bill had provisions denying women in the public service the right to fight for pay equity. It also gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, by granting the government unprecedented powers to re-define which projects on heritage waterways will be exempt from environmental assessments. Harper has expanded on that scheme in 2010. In C-9, the government is seizing new authority to unilaterally scrap up to 95 per cent of all environmental assessments so they can steamroll ahead with controversial projects like oil sands expansions. On top of all this, Harper’s new budget bill introduces a new tax on air travel, massive payroll tax hikes, the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, and the privatization of Canada Post delivery services, to name just a few hidden bugs. In previous columns I’ve said that the payroll tax hikes in this Budget amounts to a tax on work. At the end of this year, workers and employers alike will be hit with the maximum EI premium hike allowed under the law, and again the year after that. And the year after that. And on for the foreseeable future. Shouldn’t this be debated? The exclusive privilege of Canada Post to deliver international mail is also being scrapped. If passed, this will allow foreign postal services and private companies to take over one of the few profitable revenue streams that Canada Post has. A stream that the post office depends on to help offset the cost of local and rural mail delivery. This threatens the long-term viability of Canada Post itself as a universal service to Canadians. All these bugs in C-9 - and countless more - really should be given the full debate they deserve. Harper has a right to propose pet policy projects, but they shouldn’t be hidden under the cover of a budget bill. Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:53:54 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/95926/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Flies-in-the-Ointment http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/92869/Hyer-On-The-Hill/New-balance-on-nuclear- This March, a very thoughtful letter to the editor from Betty Brill appeared in the Nipigon Gazette ("Say it Ain’t So, Joe" Nipigon Gazette, March 2010). She detailed her experiences analysing nuclear waste disposal, storage, and treatment options, as part of public consultation for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). She has asked her elected representatives for years, without concrete answers: "Can the federal or provincial government override the Nuclear Free Zone designation of communities if they are in the path of transporting used nuclear fuel?" If I may offer an answer, legal researchers looked into the issue at my request, and the answer, unfortunately, is yes. Municipalities are legal creatures of provincial legislation. Provinces therefore have the constitutional power to change municipal bylaws; if they want to transport nuclear waste through any community, they only have to pass legislation to do so. The federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (1992), and broad residual powers of anything "in the national interest" means the feds could do something similar. Issues surrounding more nuclear power plants, putting limits on the liability owed to the public regarding nuclear accidents, and the storage and disposal of nuclear waste will affect taxpayers across Canada. This week the government introduced Bill C-15, legislation that would cap the total liability of nuclear plant operators for an accident at a ridiculous $650 million - a miniscule fraction of the likely true cost of a nuclear disaster. That would mean likely a few dollars of compensation for the loss of a home. Taxpayers have long subsidized the development and operation of Canada's nuclear facilities, including a whopping $19 billion to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. alone. If passed, Bill C-15 will amount to another massive handout; taxpayers will be picking up the tab for anything over the cap if an accident happens. So far, only New Democrats are opposing C-15. Why is the federal government doing this? Because no insurance company in the world will insure private property against a nuclear leak or catastrophe. The fact that they won’t should give us a hint at the enormous risks and costs involved. In the Northwest, we don’t have nuclear reactors nearby. Unfortunately we might have to live with their legacy anyway. NWMO is expected to make an announcement soon on a process to deal with Southern Ontario’s accumulated nuclear waste. Some people worry that Northwestern Ontario might become the ultimate target for a disposal site. They have good reason to. About 30 years ago, Atikokan was considering nuclear waste disposal and test drilling was done there. Last year, Ignace was exploring possibilities of hosting nuclear waste. Recently, the issue of a Nuclear Fuel Waste Site has come up at Nipigon town council. It is supposedly up to each community to decide if hosting Canada’s 36,000 tons of nuclear waste is for them. However, because of potential accidents along the way, each community along radioactive waste transport routes could be affected. They should have a say too. Wed, 19 May 2010 13:48:50 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/92869/Hyer-On-The-Hill/New-balance-on-nuclear- http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/85541/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Home-care-vital-to-health-care Home care is the quiet and often overlooked bedrock upon which a good portion of our health-care system rests. Without the estimated 4 to 5 million Canadians that play the role of home care providers for loved ones, many of our elderly and disabled would not be able to live at home or with the same amount of dignity. Countless billions are saved every year from the public purse because of the invaluable services of home caregivers. Quite simply, without the help of caregivers in the home, our health care system would likely break down. Caregivers provide care and assistance to the elderly, or to people with physical or mental health conditions. Most often they are family members or friends performing the role, unpaid, through choice or necessity. In fact, it’s been estimated that these “informal” caregivers provide 80 per cent of the care needed for those with long-term health problems. They are often asked to make real sacrifices to provide care to their loved ones, including giving up their jobs or working only part-time, retiring early, moving, and struggling with financial hardship. With such a crucial role, it goes without saying that governments should be making life easier for caregivers, both professional and unpaid alike. But government support has been a mixed bag. Under the Canada Health Act, home care is an uninsured “extended service” for which the Act largely doesn’t apply. This contributes to a bewildering patchwork of access to home care across the country. The new Harmonized Sales Tax is another blow. Just one example: the BC Care Providers Association says the new HST will cost the residential care sector for seniors an extra $10.5 million in taxes annually in that province; Ontario’s sector is three times as large. That means layoffs, service cuts, and worse care for our seniors, with more unable to afford the care they need. On the bright side are federal tax credits that my office helps many constituents with, such as the Medical Expenses tax credit and Attendant Care tax credit, and the Caregiver tax credit. The Employment Insurance Compassionate Care Leave Benefit offers six weeks of partial income replacement for family members who leave work to care for a dying relative. There are also some limited federal home care programs for veterans, First Nations, and service personnel. While these measures are a start for those that qualify, or those who can take advantage of the tax credits, more can be done. For caregiving to be truly sustainable, caregivers need both personal support networks and community support, like from the local nonprofits which are crying out for stable funding. We should be holding a national caregivers summit every year to focus attention on this “invisible” sector. A true national framework for home care should be developed that supports accessible, quality services that are publicly administrated and responsive to local community needs. And since most providing home care for loved ones are not health professionals, a central online knowledge forum would be very useful to help with best practices, help navigate the patchwork of provincial systems, and connect with the myriad agencies and organizations that can help. Given our population is aging and the elderly are living longer, there is a growing imbalance in the rising need for caregivers just when the supply is dropping. Before it becomes a real crisis, now is the time to focus on home care & caregiving. After all, it’s something that touches virtually all of us: chances are we will each have to become a caregiver at some point our lives. Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:25:53 GMT http://www.tbnewswatch.com/Columns/134/85541/Hyer-On-The-Hill/Home-care-vital-to-health-care