Michael Charrois

Dear Michael

The North Shore Girls Soccer Club and North Vancouver Football Club would like to thank you for volunteering your time to participate in the 2011 civic election. We would  like to provide you with the opportunity to express your views on the issue of sports fields in North Vancouver City and District.

The NSGSC and NVFC membership will be invited by e-mail, prior to the upcoming civic/school board elections, to review your responses to the questions below.  The questions are being distributed to all nominated candidates for both the City and District of North Vancouver Councils, and the North Vancouver School Board and the responses will be posted on a to be announced website.

The North Shore Girls Soccer Club and North Vancouver Football Club represent approximately 7,500 families in North Vancouver who are involved in the game of soccer. The soccer community is constantly searching for field space  to practice and play games. 

Thanks for the questions. Full disclosure- I have an SPCA rescue dog, a border collie cross named Eddy and we use the North Van off-leash parks almost every day. I guess that makes my opinion less than objective, but I support the off-leash dog park at that waterfront park and throughout the City of North Vancouver. Again, full disclosure- I live next to the art park on west 1st and of all the options you suggest, I am in favour of changing the designation of this park to leashed dogs only.

All the best-

Michael Charrois

Click to read Michael's answers- PDF

.

The royal wedding is historic and full of pageantry, and I’ll be watching it for sure. But it’s a reminder that we’ve got some unfinished business to discuss—the future of the monarchy in this country. After nearly 150 years of nationhood, we still rely on Buckingham Palace to give us a head of state, and I want to encourage forward thinking and leadership on the subject.

National symbols are important, and I believe it’s detrimental to Canada to continue labeling British ones “Canadian” when they’re not. A few examples:

• Canada’s sovereign does not live here, nor share our citizenship

• Any achievement of government is officially credited to the sovereign, not to those who wrote and passed it

• New citizens must swear personal allegiance to the sovereign, instead of Canada and the Constitution. We intentionally divert the patriotic zeal of our newest citizens overseas.

• The Maple Leaf flag must be removed from the position of honour for royal and vice-regal flags–even on Parliament Hill on the First of July. It insults the nation.

• No Canadian has ever appeared on the head of a Canadian coin, a profound way we should honour national heroes

• There’s a reason you never see the Great Seal of Canada. It shows virtually nothing Canadian, featuring Elizabeth II sitting on a British throne, holding British crown jewels

The monarchy is grand, but it’s of Britain, not of us. Over the last decade, every poll I’ve seen indicates a majority in favour of ending monarchy here. Our membership in the Commonwealth would remain unaffected.

Therefore, it’s politically safe to suggest we start looking at options for Canadianizing the head of state. In fact, it might be a key plank which distinguishes the NDP from others. By being the first major party to stake the issue, you’d own it, and put other parties on the defensive, forcing them to either agree with your patriotic vision for the country, or defend an antiquated status quo.

Yes, the country has other pressing issues, but we can handle multiple priorities. And frankly, this is a subject which answers the call of a country in need of an inspired national vision–one of leadership that takes us into the future.

I wonder if you might support giving Canada her own head of state, and raise the topic with your colleagues in the party. Imagine daring to make this a goal for our sesquicentennial in 2017, as a grand birthday gift to a country that’s long deserved it.

Many thanks, enjoy the wedding, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Wayne Adam

Michael replies:

Dear Wayne-

You have presented me with one of the most interesting questions of this campaign; what do we do with Canada’s Head of State? You’re right, no one seems to have a policy (although I have strong opinions) regarding what, if anything, to do about all those problems you list with our national symbols. Being a democrat, I’m not that fond of the idea of Royalty and the divine right of Kings, but I figure as long as we don’t have to have them on the payroll they give us a nice cultural continuity. Personally, I love your idea of “giving Canada her own head of state for our sesquicentennial in 2017, as a grand birthday gift to a country that’s long deserved it”. Perhaps that is something that would make Quebec feel more at home and entice them to sign on to the constitution. We’ll be thinking about the Royals this week and I will bring this idea of yours up when the conversation turns to the big wedding. Thanks for taking the time to pass along your ideas.

.

The accord will guarantee a continued strong federal contribution – including the 6 per cent escalator – to Canada’s public health care system – in return for a clear, monitored and enforced commitment to respect the principles of the Canada Health Act and to the integrity and modernization of health care;

We will work with provincial and territorial partners to:

• Promote a clear commitment to the single-payer system;

• Make progress on primary care;

• Take appropriate steps to replace fee-for-service delivery;

• Take first steps to reduce the costs of prescription medicines for Canadians, employers and governments;

• Extend coverage to out-of-hospital services like home care and long-term care.

 Investing in More Family Doctors and Nurses

We will work with the provinces and territories to address the shortage of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals by training 1,200 new doctors over the next 10 years, adding 6,000 new training spaces for nurses over six years and substantially increasing the number of training spaces for other health professionals;

In collaboration with the provinces and territories, we will establish programs aimed at recruiting and supporting low-income, rural and aboriginal medical students.

Expanding Care for Seniors

Establish a new designated federal home care transfer to guarantee a basic level of home care services to all Canadians wherever they live;

Initiate a new designated federal long-term care transfer to begin addressing the shortage of quality care spaces across the country;

Double the funding for forgivable loans under the Home Adaption for Seniors’ Independence Program (HASIP) to help seniors remain in their own homes;

We will introduce an Inter-generational Home Forgivable Loan Program, modeled on a Manitoba Government initiative, to help up to 200,000 families a year retrofit their homes to create self-contained secondary residences for senior family members. Families will be eligible for a forgivable loan to cover 50 per cent of the costs of a renovation up to a maximum of $35,000.

Making Medicines More Affordable

• We will work with the provinces and territories to save Canadians money on the cost of their prescription medications, including, as finances permit:

• Improved assessment to ensure quality, safety and cost and health effectiveness of prescription drugs;

• Using bargaining power in pharmaceutical purchases;

• Cutting administrative costs through public administration;

• Establishing science-based formularies and clinical guidelines to advance evidence-based practice by physicians;

• More aggressive price review;

• Eliminating kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies to pharmacists;

Keeping Kids Healthy and Safe in Sports

• We will implement a Children’s Nutrition Initiative to support and expand provincial and local programs that provide healthy meals to school-children;

• We will enact the NDP’s National Strategy for Serious Injury Reduction in Amateur Sport Act.

.

As a professional actor and someone who has performed on the CBC, I know first hand the great work that the CBC does to promote the Arts and Culture in Canada. The CBC gives back to the community through sponsorship of live productions like our multi-media production of Brecht’s The Life of Galileo. 

The CBC shows their commitment to the next generation of actors by providing professional development workshops in microphone technique for radio drama and are the only organization producing “theatre of the mind” in the 21st Century. I have toured many shows across the provinces and it is always comforting to be connected through the familiar personalities of CBC as we travel across the vast land.

I have have stood up for the CBC and I will continue to advocate for public broadcasting. I took our I Love the CBC petition to the street, stood in the rain collecting signatures and raised awareness with the public and in the North Shore News because I love the CBC.

When both the provincial and federal governments are slashing public support for our cultural institutions, the CBC continues to promote the arts and culture in Canada. Will you give your vote and the $2.00 that goes with it, to the Liberals, people who say they support the CBC but whose actions clearly prove otherwise? Or do you give your vote to the people who put their words into action? New Democrats care about public broadcasting. I love the CBC and am proud to stand with the New Democrats when we say

• We will strengthen public broadcasting with long-term stable funding for CBC, Radio-Canada and other public broadcasters, including capacity to deliver superior regional production and internet services;

The New Democrats will further protect and enhance the Arts and Culture in Canada by:

Ensuring Canada’s Arts and Culture Thrive

We will promote the production and broadcast of Canadian content on Canadian television and in Canadian theatres, and will strongly support Canada’s performing arts, cultural institutions, and creators.

Building Home-grown Film and TV Production

• We will ensure Canadian TV and telecom networks remain Canadian-owned by maintaining effective regulations on foreign ownership;

• We will re-focus the mandate of the CRTC to promote and protect Canadian cultural industries;

• We will provide sustained funding for the Canada Media Fund and Telefilm Canada, enhance federal film incentives and develop a targeted strategy for the promotion of domestic films in Canada;

• We will set license requirements for broadcasters based on clear, binding and enforced performance standards for broadcasters, including increased Canadian drama.

Investing in our Shared Cultural Heritage

• We will increase public funding for the Canada Council and implement tax averaging for artists and cultural workers;

• We will explore the creation of a new international arts touring fund to replace the now-defunct Trade Routes and PromArt programs;

• We will implement a matching grant for Canadian museums, historic buildings and heritage lighthouses;

• We will introduce tax incentives to ensure the restoration and preservation of historic buildings;

• We will strengthen public broadcasting with long-term stable funding for CBC, Radio-Canada and other public broadcasters, including capacity to deliver superior regional production and internet services;

• We will reform the CRTC and also ensure it better reflects Quebec’s cultural and linguistic reality and that of the francophone community;

• We will develop a digital on-line culture service to broaden access to Canadian content.

There is a huge and troubling gap between Stephen Harper’s words and deeds regarding the CBC and Canada’s cultural sovereignty, as well as a continuing pattern of contradictory statements, both from Harper and from other Conservatives:

• In the lead up to the 2004 election, on May 19, 2004, when Stephen Harper was asked by a a CBC reporter in Winnipeg to comment on his plans for CBC, he said: “I’ve suggested that government subsidies in support of CBC’s services should be to those things that are not…do not have commercial alternatives.” He then added: “When you take a look at things like main-English language television and probably to a lesser degree Radio Two, you could there (sic) at putting those on a commercial basis.” (www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles05190403)
• Several months later, Harper contradicted that comment in a speech to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters when he stated that “we would seek to reduce the CBC’s dependence on advertising revenue and its competition with the private sector for these valuable dollars, especially in non-sports programming.” (www.friends.ca/news-item/6480)
• During the 2004 election campaign, John Reynolds (who subsequently chaired the Conservatives’ 2006 campaign) wrote a constituent who is a FRIENDS’ supporter as follows: “CBC Television will be completely cut loose to compete and will have to depend entirely on its advertising revenue.”
• During the same election campaign, Stephen Rogers, the Conservative candidate in Vancouver Quadra told a FRIENDS’ supporter that he calls CBC “the Communist Broadcasting Corporation”.
• Yet the Conservative Candidates’ Pocket Policy Guide from the 2006 election states (on page 10) that “arts and culture make essential contributions to our national identity. A Conservative government will ensure that the CBC and Radio-Canada continue to perform their vital role as national public service broadcasters.” (www.friends.ca/News/Fact_Sheets/factsheets01230601)
• On May 30, 2006, the Liberals moved the following resolution in the House of Commons: “That the House insist that the government, its departments and agencies, maintain the program policies and regulations in support of Canada’s artistic and cultural industries. in particular, by maintaining or enhancing: (a) existing Canadian cultural content requirements; (b) current restrictions on foreign ownership in the cultural sector; and (c) financial support for public broadcasting in both official languages.” This resolution passed in a recorded vote: 155 in favour; 121 opposed. All 121 opposing votes came from Conservative MPs.
• On November 5, 2007, Harper appointed Hubert Lacroix President of the CBC. Lacroix, who contributed $1,000 (the maximum legal amount) to a Conservative candidate during the previous general election, is a Montreal-based mergers and acquisitions lawyer. His only known broadcasting governance experience has been as executive chair of TeleMedia during the period when that family-controlled company sold off its broadcasting properties some years ago.
• Why would Stephen Harper appoint a mergers and acquisitions lawyer with no management experience in radio or television production, programming or scheduling as President of the CBC?
• In February 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage released a major study on the future of the CBC CBC/Radio-Canada: Defining Distinctiveness In The Changing Media Landscape. Among its recommendations: that the annual parliamentary grant to the CBC increase over a seven-year period from the current $33 per capita to $40 per capita and that the government commit to multi-year funding. The Conservative members of the Committee dissented from these recommendations.
  (www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles02280802)
• In early September, 2008, just before Harper announced the general election, Conservative Party Campaign Director, Doug Finley wrote to Conservative supporters to solicit funds and ask them to complete a “2008 National Critical Issues Survey” which he described as “extremely important” and promised that “I will personally share the overall results and any comments with the Prime Minister”.
• Question 5 of this survey read: “The CBC costs taxpayers over $1.1 billion per year. Do you think this is a good or bad use of taxpayer dollars?” (www.friends.ca/files/PDF/DougFinley.CPC-survey.pdf)
• On September 20, 2008 journalist Glen McGregor wrote in the Ottawa Citizen: “Mr. Harper was asked yesterday by a reporter if he believes the $1.1 billion annual parliamentary appropriation for the CBC is a good use of taxpayers’ money. The question was apparently inspired by a fundraising letter sent out before the election from Conservative campaign Rasputin Doug Finley. The letter includes a survey that asks the same question. The Conservative leader replied to the question with telling brevity. ‘All I can say is I support government budgets.’ ” (www.friends.ca/news-item/7278)
• In late 2008, FRIENDS learned from a reliable source in the Conservative Party’s headquarters of the existence of an official document calling for a cut of $200 million from CBC’s annual parliamentary grant. In response, FRIENDS developed a research briefing note to highlight the impact of such a cut on CBC’s public broadcasting operations. (www.friends.ca/fact-sheet/7620)
• On February 26, 2009 CBC President Lacroix announced “a revenue shortfall of $55 to $60 million for the year ending March 31, 2009″ and suggested that CBC is looking at options such as “(a) introducing more American programming into our television schedules, (b) downgrading or selling parts or the whole of some or our TV or Radio services, (c) increasing the advertising we accept on the air, or (d) shrinking our geographic coverage of the country by consolidating local stations.” (www.friends.ca/news-item/7842)
• Later that day on As It Happens, Lacroix spelled out option (c) more clearly, when he said that “ads on CBC Radio are on the table.” (www.friends.ca/news-item/7843)
• In an interview on CBC Radio’s Q cultural affairs show on January 21, 2009 Harper’s Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore promised there would be no cuts to arts and culture spending in the upcoming federal budget. Asked specifically whether there would be cuts to the federal allocation to the CBC, Moore denied there would be cuts. (www.friends.ca/news-item/7665)
• However, on February 26, 2009, when Stephen Harper’s government tabled its Estimates for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2009, the allocation to the CBC was reduced by 5.6% from $1,115,424,000 in 2008/09 to $1,052,608,000 in 2009/10 – a cut of $63 million. With inflation, this amounts to a year-over-year cut of $75 million. (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20092010/me-bd/docs/index-eng.pdf)
• In the March 6, 2009 edition of the National Post, Gerry Nicholls, a former vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, wrote about why the NCC “chose a young MP named Stephen Harper as its new president in 1997″: “Being NCC president is not a run-of-the-mill job. First of all, you need to be an ideologically pure, small “c” conservative. That means you must reject Pierre Trudeau and all of his works. You must view the CBC as a socialist-run boondoggle. In general you must believe that whatever the private sector can do, the public sector can do – worse.” (Excerpt from Loyal to the Core, by Gerry Nicholls (www.freedompress.ca)
• On November 23, 2010, Dean Del Mastro, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage mused publicly (www.friends.ca/files/Sounds/DelMaestro-10Nov23.mp3) about killing the CBC. According to Del Mastro, “Maybe it’s time we get out of the broadcasting business…. The $1.1 billion, plus a whole bunch of other stuff that we’re investing into the public broadcaster, should we look at reorganizing that in some fashion?” This policy would kill CBC Radio One, CBC Radio Two, CBC Television and CBC NewsNet, leaving Canadian broadcasting entirely in the hands of the private broadcasters, and in the case of television, private broadcasters controlled by cable monopolies.
• On February 16, 2011, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was quoted by the Canadian Press as saying “The CBC lies all the time.” (http://www.friends.ca/news-item/10022)
• On March 1, 2011, the Harper government tabled its spending plan for the coming year in Parliament. Included in the fine print of the Main Estimates 2011-12 is a reduction to the CBC’s grant of $16 million ($42 million in purchasing power after inflation is taken into account). For our public broadcaster, a reduction of this magnitude might seem manageable, but it is yet another cut in a series that, taken together, is having devastating consequences obvious to every listener and viewer. (http://www.friends.ca/fact-sheet/238)

Source

.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-536, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (genetic characteristics).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, genetic characteristics. I thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for seconding the bill.

The bill would add the term “genetic characteristics” to the list of prohibitive grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is an updated version of a bill tabled by my former colleague, Judy

Wasylycia-Leis, earlier this year. At the time she tabled it, she said that this bill would stop Canadians’ personal genetic information from being used against them. Employers, insurance companies and others have already begun to discriminate against people based on their genetic makeup. People are being punished in fundamental ways, like being prevented from earning a living or buying a house for something they have no control over. That is unfair, and this bill would update the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal with this 21st century problem.

She also pointed out that health conscious Canadians were increasingly testing for genetic clues so they can take steps to avoid diseases or conditions to which they may have a genetic predisposition. Their reward should be better health but the information is increasingly being used to exclude people from job opportunities and limit access to mortgages and insurance benefits. There is currently nothing to prevent insurance companies and others from demanding test rests and basing decisions on them.

This issue was brought to my attention by Kristina Vandervoort of North Vancouver and it is supported by the Canadian Coalition for Genetic Fairness, whose members include the Huntington Society of Canada, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Muscular Dystrophy of Canada, the Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics, the Parkinson Society of Canada, the Spina Bifida & Hydrocephalus Association of Canada, the National Ovarian Cancer Association, the ALS Society of Canada, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Osteoporosis Society–

Jack Layton was in Toronto today where he announced his plan to put consumers first in the digital economy.

Stephen Harper is siding with the big service providers making digital services more expensive and less accessible. That’s bad for consumers. And it’s bad for our economy. 30 per cent of Canadian families still don’t have access to broadband.

The New Democrat plan unlocks cell phones, allowing consumers to change providers without changing phones. It protects Canadians from usage-based billing and other forms of price-gouging. And it ensures all Canadians have access to internet services.