text:
Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 206.
House of Commons Hansard #171 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was water.
House of Commons Hansard #171 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was water.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
June 14th, 2007 / 10:15 a.m.
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 206.
Question No. 206Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
10:15 a.m.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
With regard to the Canadian Heritage Department's decision to place the planned location of the Portrait Gallery at 100 Wellingtion Street under review: (a) what financial details have gone to Treasury Board to support any other potential sites for the Gallery; (b) was the search for an alternate location publicly tendered; (c) what are the details of negotiations with other bidders for the relocation of the Gallery; (d) what are the details of the analysis for any alternate location options considered by the Department; (e) what are the implications for the holdings in the Archives' collection; (f) what is the outcome of any risk assessment that a piece of work may be irreparably damaged due to any travel; (g) if the exhibit is housed in a private venue (i) how much influence will the landlord have on the exhibitions, (ii) who will be responsible for the cost of storage and conservation of the art work; and (h) where will the curators for the art work be located if the Gallery is located outside of Ottawa?
Question No. 206Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
10:15 a.m.
Durham Ontario
Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), financial information prepared by Library and Archives Canada to address the operating budget and capital requirement needed for the Portrait Gallery of Canada has been shared with Treasury Board Secretariat officials on ongoing and regular basis.
In response to (b), to date, no tender process has been announced.
In response to (c), to Library and Archives Canada's knowledge, there are currently no bidders for the relocation of the gallery.
In response to (d), Library and Archives Canada has provided full functional requirements needed to support any discussions of potential locations for the Portrait Gallery of Canada.
In response to (e), the portrait collection is an important part of Library and Archives Canada's holdings. The collection will continue to be cared for at the Gatineau Preservation Centre. No decisions have yet been made on where the collection will be exhibited.
In response to (f), museums and archives regularly lend and move their collections. There are well-developed and internationally accepted guidelines and practices for the movement of museum collections and objects. All movement of Library and Archives of Canada's collections conforms to these high standards.
In response to (g), (i) in any case, a decision on the location of the Portrait Gallery of Canada would not affect the governance of the program, and the collection would remain the property and responsibility of Library and Archives Canada; (ii) the collection is owned by Library and Archives Canada, which remains responsible for its care.
In response to (h), no decision has been made on the location of the Portrait Gallery of Canada. When a decision is made, all other administrative and operational decisions will be made.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
10:15 a.m.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
10:15 a.m.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Is that agreed?
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
10:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:15 a.m.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I believe that when the House was last seized with this matter the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster had 15 minutes left.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:15 a.m.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I intend to use fully those 15 minutes.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:15 a.m.
An hon. member
More, more.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:15 a.m.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I thank my colleague for encouraging me. I would certainly take more time if I were to have the unanimous consent of the House. I could speak all day on this issue.
As members will recall, last night we were talking about the fact that with the Conservatives and transportation policy it seems to be consistently one step forward and two steps back. Essentially what we have had in this Parliament is the government putting forward pieces of legislation that either make very modest improvements to the transportation system and access to it, or actually gut the principles of safety and access to our transportation system.
I cited Bill C-6, where essentially we have the government turning over safety management to the airline companies themselves, some of which will handle that very responsibly and others that clearly will not.
When we come back to the issue of Bill C-11, we are seeing the same type of very lukewarm progress. It is fair to say that Bill C-11 purported to bring forward improvements to access transportation for shippers, to provide some improvements around clarity of airfares, and as well to make some significant progress on the issue of railway noise, which is something that afflicts many communities, mine included.
I spoke about the testimony we heard at the transport committee, particularly from two individuals, Mayor Wayne Wright of the city of New Westminster, and Brian Allen from the Westminster Quay, who is involved in the residents association there, who very clearly said that what we need to do is make substantial improvements so that communities have tools to deal with the issue of railway noise.
The Senate amendments before us water down the progress that was made in committee through NDP amendments and amendments from other parties to actually bolster Bill C-11. Bill C-11 was weak and insipid to begin with. Through the transport committee process, we were able to make some notable improvements. I am very sad to see now that the Senate, the other chamber, is watering down the progress that was made. It is very clear to me that the NDP members in this corner of the House cannot support that watering down of progress that, although laudable, one might say was insufficient.
I would like to deal with these two issues of railway noise and clarity around airline advertising affairs, because those are the two key amendments that the Senate has watered down. In clause 27 there is an obligation of the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations requiring that the airlines include in the price all costs of providing the service. That is what the NDP and other parties working together were able to improve in Bill C-11. That was the bill that went to the Senate.
This is no small issue. This is an issue that Canadians who travel are intensely concerned with. I travel very frequently, twice a week, from Burnaby—New Westminster to Ottawa and back. I most often travel in economy class and talk with people about how they view the airlines and air travel in Canada.
Many Canadian consumers are concerned about the fact that when they see an advertised fare there are a lot of hidden charges. Most notably, Air Canada has attached a whole range of charges. Now we have to pay for meals and pillows. When we boarded the plane the other day, one person jokingly said that soon we are going to have to bring our own chairs to sit on in the plane.
What we have seen is a progression of user fees that Air Canada and other airlines have brought in to increase the price of the ticket. Because of all the hidden fees, what we are seeing is a huge discrepancy between what the advertised fare is and what consumers are actually paying. That is why consumer groups have been standing up for clarity on the advertising of airline fees.
Members of the Travellers' Protection Initiative appeared before the transport committee. They were very clear. The initiative, as far as the lead organizations are concerned, is composed of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
There is also Option consommateurs, a very well-respected organization in Quebec.
This protection initiative was supported by members of the Canadian Association of Airline Passengers, the Consumers' Association of Canada from Saskatchewan, Transport 2000, the Consumers Council of Canada, the Air Passengers Safety Group, the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the Ontario Society (Coalition) of Senior Citizens' Organizations, and Rural Dignity of Canada.
These are all very reputable groups. They were calling for clarity in airline advertising. That is what the transport committee endeavoured to do, even though I would not say the provisions made it all the way to that complete clarity that we are all seeking. What we had at the Senate level was the airlines then wading in and trying to water down the legislation by saying that it would be difficult for them to be honest, open and above board with the fees they are charging for airline tickets.
We in this corner of the House simply disagree, in the same way that we disagree with the price gouging we are seeing in the oil and gas sector and in the same way that we disagree with the whole range of consumer items where consumers are not protected by the Canadian federal government. We simply disagree that it is impossible to have clarity in advertising for airline fees, that the cost of the entire ticket somehow cannot be put forward. We simply disagree with that, which is why we are disappointed by the Senate bringing back these amendments that waters it down.
What essentially the Senate is saying is this: let us put it off to some uncertain date in the future and maybe some day in Canada consumers will actually know what the complete and total cost of their ticket is going to be when they purchase their airline ticket.
That is very clearly one area from the Senate that we simply cannot support. We want to see consumers protected. We want to see clarity and honesty in the whole issue of airline ticket costs. The Senate amendment is simply unacceptable and the House should reject it.
Another area that the Senate has amended is taking what was a higher bar around the issue of railway noise. We finally have a process, when Bill C-11 is adopted, for local communities such as the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster that are beset by excessive railway noise. We finally have a way by which those communities can fight back against the railways. They have tried dealing with the railways. Some of them have been good and some of them have been pretty rotten.
As a result of that, it continues to be a problem, with excessive railway noise in the early morning hours, excessive shunting and running of diesel engines all in an area where there is a wide variety of condominium and apartments within a few metres of the railway tracks.
Here is what the Senate did in regard to the requirement that the transport committee put into Bill C-11 to require railway companies to cause as little noise and vibration as possible and to set that bar fairly significantly high as far as what the requirements were of railway companies. The Senate simply imposed a standard of reasonableness.
Reasonableness is not a high standard. If the railway companies believe it is reasonable to shunt in the early morning hours because it is simply more profitable for them to do that, it is a defendable concept, but the concept that the transport committee put into the legislation was the concept of as little noise and vibration as possible. There is where there is a very clear disagreement between the two houses.
As little noise and vibration as possible would mean that railway companies would have to justify their shunting in the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster rather than shunting out in the Port Mann area where there are very few homes and where there is not that urban disruption of the environment. The running of diesel engines might be justified for a variety of reasons as being reasonable from the railway's point of view, but it does not mean that the railways are causing as little noise and vibration as possible.
What we have had is a step back. Even though I think it is fair to say that people in communities who are afflicted with this excessive level of railway noise are happy to see any movement forward, the Senate amendments water down an important bar that was set. That is why we will be rejecting this amendment as well. We hope that the Senate will simply agree that higher standards are the most important way to go as far as Canadians are concerned. This is not a small issue.
I am going to cite a community noise study that was done in the area of the member for Vancouver East. Daily average noise exposures at three monitoring sites near the railways in east Vancouver found that the 24 hour equivalent sound level was beyond the acceptable level of 55 decibels by an average of 10 to 15 decibels. In other words, the noise level was beyond the acceptable level in an urban environment. There is no doubt that in the port lands in east Vancouver the railway noise went far beyond those levels, by ten to 15 decibels, which is roughly twice as loud as the actual limit of 55 decibels that has been established by Health Canada and the CMHC.
It is important to note that the noise monitoring found that railway noise continued, to quote from the report, "largely unabated through the nighttime hours, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.". That is a problem in east Vancouver and I can tell members that it is a problem in New Westminster as well. We are seeing the shunting and the running of diesel engines right through the night.
At the transport committee, NDP members called for very strict limits as one of a whole series of amendments that we brought forward to improve the legislation. During the evening hours and overnight hours, we suggested that railways be restricted to the type of activities they could do in urban areas. Their shunting would have to take place in more rural or removed areas, away from urban areas, and they would be restricted in the type of high noise level that we are hearing now.
Those are our reasons, what I think are two powerful reasons. There is the issue of making sure that we have clarity, openness and accountability around airline fees and that this is brought in as quickly as possible, not set off for some future agenda. We want to make sure that there is a high level of requirement for the railway companies to make as little noise as possible, that they have to meet that requirement rather than what we have now, which is essentially no process at all. To say that we are subjecting it, as the Senate would have us do, to what is reasonable from a railway point of view, is simply not on.
While I have a few more minutes, I would like to talk a bit more about some of the other amendments to Bill C-11 that were brought forward by the NDP at the transport committee. It is important to raise those issues with respect to what could have been in the bill and what is not.
One of the things in Bill C-11 that both the governing party and the Liberal Party brought forward was that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency must come from the national capital region. In fact, there now is a requirement in the legislation that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency, who have an important role to play as mediators in many aspects of this legislation, have to come from the national capital region. What the NDP submitted as an amendment was that each of the regions of Canada, for example, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia, be represented because of the difference in geography and the difference in transportation requirements from coast to coast to coast.
We think it is extremely important that the regions be represented. People from Ottawa should not be making decisions about transportation policy or mediation in British Columbia. Simply put, British Columbia has different and often very rigorous transportation requirements. It does not make sense, then, to have these members sit in Ottawa. It is important to note that the amendment was refused and that all of the members of the Canadian Transportation Agency have to live in Ottawa. That is unfortunate.
I spelled out why we are rejecting the Senate amendments and we certainly hope that members from all four corners of the House will join with us, so that we can have essentially a better Bill C-11 that goes back to the Senate once we have rejected their amendments.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:30 a.m.
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague travels by train, so he knows that we must respect the nearby residents when travelling by train. Can he explain why the Senate removed the part that dealt with the possible effect on people living near train tracks? I think that when travelling by train, we should have respect for the nearby residents. I am sure he is respectful.
I would like him to explain why the Senate removed such a provision from Bill C-11.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:30 a.m.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but it is hard to explain.
It is hard to explain those two clauses. The only explanation I can give is that lobbyists told the senators that it was more important to uphold their companies' interests than to protect the interests of Canadians. We still have something. We still have the bill. Even though it is far from perfect, this bill represents some progress with regard to the rights of people living in certain communities and the right of consumers to know how much an airplane ticket is going to cost them.
The Senate considered all of these elements and said that they were not what mattered. According to the Senate, what matters is the interests of companies. That is why, for a long time now, the NDP has been in favour of abolishing the Senate. It is important for decisions to be made by the people's representatives, by elected individuals, not by appointees.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:35 a.m.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, let me say that my hon. colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did some good work on this bill, as did the Bloc Québécois, of course.
I would go even further. I would like to read him a quote from the debates of the other place, from issue 101, dated May 30, 2007. On that day, Senator Hugh Segal made the following comments:
I point out with great respect that Senator Munson and Senator Dawson, who played such a constructive role, have undertaken that when this chamber, in due consideration, ships this bill, should it decide to do so, back to the other place, they will consult broadly with their colleagues in that other place so that the bill comes back quickly. They have further undertaken on the record that should the other place dither and not approve it, they will move quickly to act with this engaged, non-partisan administration to pass the bill quickly through this chamber. We are grateful on this side for that level of engagement.
I would like to point out that Senator Munson and Senator Dawson are Liberal senators, and that the other place mentioned refers to this House. The Conservative senators decided to let the Liberal senators do as they wish. If ever "the other place" did not accept the amendments it proposed, then they would simply adopt them themselves. I would like my hon. colleague to explain the senators' behaviour. He is quite right. They heard only witnesses from the industry. They did not hear from any citizens, as we did in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. They heard only witnesses from the industry and decided to not consider the potential impact on people who live next to railways, and decided to replace "as little noise as possible" with "reasonable noise". They did this thinking that, if we did not accept it, they would accept it when the bill came back to them. They are testing us. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the Senate debates of May 30, 2007.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:35 a.m.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, as the members I have the pleasure of working with in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities are well aware, this is about the credibility of the Senate.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard representatives from New Westminster, Quebec City and other affected communities across the country. People appeared before the committee to talk about this problem. Then the bill was sent to the Senate, where they were only interested in listening to companies to find out what was going on. Clearly, the senators do not have a valid, balanced perspective because they have heard only one side of the story.
That is why the Senate's amendments lack credibility. The senators did not do their homework to find out how rail noise affects communities. They did not do their homework, and I think that is a shame. In my opinion, the amendments they proposed lack credibility.
This is not the first time we have opposed something that the Senate has sent back. For example, the same thing happened with the softwood lumber agreement. In that case, the agreement was approved in this House, but the Senate approved it in mere hours, without meeting to hear witnesses and hence give ordinary citizens the opportunity to talk about the impact of the bill. That is another case where the Senate, the other place, did not do its homework, and I think that is unfortunate.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:35 a.m.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his work on this file.
In the last session of Parliament Canadians have been railroaded several times. We have had back to work legislation that was moved in this House. We have also had the discussion around rail safety.
I would like to ask the member with regard to rail safety, how is it possible, given the record of derailments and problems that we have had across this country and the escalation of those problems in recent months and years, that the railways could actually take away some genuine rights from individual citizens who are living next to the railroads without them having some input?
As a former city councillor I can say that one of the first things I learned is that there is the federal government, there is God, and then there are the railway companies. We could not get any cooperation whatsoever without having to fight tooth and nail against the railways.
I would like to ask the hon. member this. What does he think about the Senate watering down provisions at a time in Canadian history where we have seen an increase in rail accidents across this country?
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:40 a.m.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Windsor West is absolutely correct. It is totally unacceptable to have the Senate watering down provisions that would have actually helped communities from coast to coast.
The Senate's action begs a larger question. We have seen an increase in railway accidents, an increase in deaths and injuries that have resulted from SMS, self-managed safety. The railway companies basically manage themselves and we heard that in testimony at the transport committee. Companies such as CN, and remember the employees said they cannot use the word "Canadian National" any more, they have to use the word "CN" since it was acquired by the Americans, simply cutback on basic safety requirements in order to increase their profit levels.
Now we are seeing that the government is moving forward with measures that will do exactly the same thing for the airline industry. It defies description. We have a failed system in the railways. Rather than taking action and the Conservative government saying, "Gee, we've got an escalating accident rate. We have to take action to address railway safety", instead, the Conservatives said, "We'll do the same thing for the airline industry. We'll just hand over lock, stock and barrel safety management to the airlines because we know some of them will be responsible".
Of course, the other companies we know, and we have heard testimony to this effect and we have some Conservatives who are acknowledging that now, such as DaxAir in northern Ontario said very clearly, "If the government diminishes those safety standards, we're in a race to the bottom because we'll have to compete against companies that are willing to cut corners on safety to increase their profit margins".
It is absolutely absurd now that after the failures that we have seen in the railway sector that the Conservatives are now pushing forward to do the same thing with the airlines. It simply defies description.
I think the reaction from the public will be quite another thing. When the public wakes up to the fact that the Conservatives want to do the same thing with the airlines as we have seen done with the railways, there will be a public reaction. It will not be something that the Conservatives are going to like to receive, but they need that wake up call from the Canadian public. What the government is doing is irresponsible.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:40 a.m.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the amendments to Bill C-11, which the Senate has sent back to us. The Senate did not choose to make just any amendment to the bill. I would like all my colleagues—particularly the Conservatives and Liberals—to understand how they are destroying the delicate balance between rail operations and the peace and quiet of people living near marshalling yards or rail lines.
Our country is experiencing major economic development. Rail is growing by leaps and bounds, something some companies but especially the government had not predicted. The government is investing a great deal of money in moving freight, which arrives in every port in Canada and is transported across the country. Rail transportation has therefore grown. This is good news for the railways, and we take pride in it.
But when trains get longer and come more frequently, problems are inevitable. Today, because of environmental concerns, noise pollution must be considered. Countries all over the world have adopted health standards related to noise pollution, and it is time the railways complied with these internationally recognized standards.
This bill was introduced in order to bring the industry in line. Why? Because it did not discipline itself. It turned a deaf ear when people formed associations and filed complaints. It even won in court against Transport Canada. For example, the Canadian Transportation Commission lost its case when the court ruled that it could not intervene in these matters.
This bill had two objectives: to give power to the Canadian Transportation Commission and to set out how the Commission could use that power in dealing with pollution, specifically noise pollution.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:40 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
10:40 a.m.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Speaking of noise, I can hardly hear myself talk because of my colleagues opposite.
That was the benefit of this bill. We discussed it in committee and weighed the pros and cons. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities—which you support, Mr. Speaker, as the head of this House—heard both sides, the railways and the citizens' groups.
In Quebec, these are not minor problems. We could talk about marshalling yards such as the Moreau yard in Hochelaga, Joffre in Charny—now in the city of Lévis, in the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse—, Farnham in Brome—Missisquoi, and Pointe-Saint-Charles in Jeanne-Le Ber. We are familiar with all the problems and the legal proceedings in Outremont and the rail transportation problems in Quebec City and Montmagny. All these people affected by the noise came to tell us about their failed discussions with the railway companies, which were not interested in talking to them. They knew very well that no legislation could force them to deal with the noise pollution.
That is why, after discussions among all the parties, the committee was able to table a unanimous report on Bill C-11. Amendments were proposed unanimously and no one opposed the bill as tabled and discussed in committee.
I will read section 95.1 of the bill adopted unanimously by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities when it was studied clause by clause. It is worthwhile reading so that those listening will fully understand.
Section 95.1 reads as follows:
When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible, taking into account
(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;
(b) its operational require2ments;
(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place; and
(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.
We all thought it struck a good balance to take into account both the operational requirements of the company and the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway, and we did so by adding, "as little noise and vibration as possible". All parties were unanimous on this.
Imagine that Bill C-11 goes back to the Senate. It decides to give in to pressure from the industry. That is clear because I have the list of witnesses who were heard in the Senate committee. Not a single citizens' group was heard during this discussion. The Senate heard from the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Transport Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, the Railway Association of Canada, and the Canadian National Railway Company. Not a single group of citizens experiencing problems with noise was heard from.
We did not come up with the words, "as little noise as possible". These terms were used in Bill C-26 tabled by the Liberals in the last Parliament. We used the terms, "must cause as little noise as possible" and we added the word "vibration" because it has come to that. As I was saying, because of the length of the trains, we have to deal with the noise and vibration caused by railway transportation. But we opted for "as little noise as possible", which was proposed by the Liberals in the last Parliament.
Today, in the Senate, the Liberal majority decided to change that. It decided to hear from witnesses, but not from citizens groups. It gave in to pressure from lobbyists and decided to table the amendments we are discussing today in this House and which the Bloc Québécois will vote against.
Worse yet, and this is where I have a problem understanding the Conservatives, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said, when he appeared before the Senate committee:
Today, however, I would like to discuss the many benefits of Bill C-11. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities made a number of improvements to Bill C-11 during committee review, following almost two months of meetings last fall with witnesses from across the country. I want to thank members of that committee for their diligent work. We now have a very solid piece of legislation that I hope this committee can deal with expeditiously.
He went on:
The bill will require the railway to cause as little noise and vibrations as possible when constructing or operating a railway, taking into consideration the requirements of railway operations, the interests of affected communities and the potential impact on adjacent residents. As well, the Agency would be given authority to resolve noise complaints if a voluntary settlement cannot be reached between parties. This is a long-awaited remedy that we believe will balance the needs of communities with the need for continued rail operations to move ever increasing trade volumes.
In addition, Senator Dawson, one of the people who orchestrated the amendments for the Liberal majority in the Senate, said himself in the Senate:
—the Department of Transport tells us that it can live with the text as it stands. The department is your partner. The minister could have decided to pay us a visit here in the Senate to tell us that he found the amendment tabled in the House of Commons to be unreasonable—let's not mince words—and to ask us to change it. Instead, he came here and told us that he could live with the bill in its present form.
That is why I cannot understand the Conservatives' position today. The minister could live with the bill. The definition came from the old Bill C-26 introduced by the Liberals. The Conservatives did not see what the Liberal majority in the Senate was doing or what all the Liberals in both houses were doing, unbeknownst to the entire House of Commons.
That is the big problem for me. Today the Conservative Party is supporting the amendments that were submitted by the Liberal majority in the Senate. I am going to read the text that I read a while ago to my NDP colleague. It is worth it because, after all, there are Conservative senators in the Senate, too. It is interesting to see how their own Conservative senators operate.
I am going to return to the statement by Senator Hugh Segal, who said, "I point out with great respect that Senator Munson and Senator Dawson [these are two Liberal senators], who played such a constructive role, have undertaken that when this chamber, in due consideration, ships this bill, should it decide to do so, back to the other place, they will consult broadly with their colleagues in that other place [here he is speaking of the Liberal MPs in the House of Commons] so that the bill comes back quickly".
So I understand the Conservative senator, when he says that the Liberals, are proposing amendments, and asks whether they think that will work. The Liberals then confirm to Conservative Senator Segal that, indeed, when it happens, they will turn around and be in favour of the amendments. However, the Conservative senator never says that he consulted the Conservative members and the minister. He does not say it. He does his work nicely.
Of course Senator Segal adds, "They have further undertaken on the record that should the other place dither and not approve it--"that is, if we in the House of Commons decided not to approve it"--they will move quickly to act with this engaged, non-partisan administration--"speaking of the Senate"--to pass the bill quickly through this chamber".
Throughout the text, Senator Segal says that the Conservatives want to advance the bill, that they are non-partisan and have only heard the railway companies. They are in favour of what is proposed by the Liberals, who say they have reached an agreement with their colleagues in the House of Commons. Thus the bill will come back to this House and everything will be settled. Still, Senator Segal had a moment of lucidity. At least he took the time to ask himself what the Liberals would do if ever the bill were not passed by the House of Commons? This is not a problem: they will pass it as amended by the House of Commons. This is what the text of the Debates of the Senate, Issue 101, of May 30, 2007, tells us.
I do not understand the Conservatives who are voting today in favour of the amendment by the Senate, knowing very well that if they held the line and that if they insisted at any rate on what had been adopted in committee, we would vote against the Senate amendments and the Senate would adopt it because there is already an agreement between the Conservative senators and the Liberals. If we blow hot and cold and are not in favour they will quickly adopt it.
Why not do it as early as possible today? Let us send it back to them and tomorrow they will return it to us. In that way we would have respected the wishes of the public and not just the interests of business.
I will not stop there. The representatives of the City of Quebec and the City of Lévis appeared before the committee. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse, in the Quebec City area, even had his picture taken with all those people and the photo was published in the local weekly newspapers. He was very pleased. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse was not present because he was no longer a member of the committee but when the witnesses appeared before the committee he was in favour. The definition that was contained in Bill C-11 is the definition advocated by the City of Lévis. Yet, this evening or at some other time, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse will vote in favour of the Senate amendments, which are contrary to the position put forward by the City of Lévis.
Conservative colleagues, the public have had enough of this and they want it settled. The balance that we achieved and that was defended by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, is a good balance, and he said it well, because the demands of the public were much greater and a great deal more critical about the railways than what ended up in this bill.
That balance is found in the definition "as little noise and vibration as possible" and the condition relating to the potential impact on persons residing adjacent to the railway. It is simple; it is to balance the power of the railway companies, which for business reasons have no interest in the problems of noise pollution and do not care.
As I said from the start, we can no longer ignore this noise pollution. The pubic are entitled to have their problems dealt with in an intelligent way and to come back to the definition of the word "reasonable," a definition that was in the previous legislation and about which there was much less than unanimous agreement.
Speaking of the witnesses, the residents of Charny, which is now part of the City of Lévis, formed committees and they studied the court decisions, including the Oakville decision.
They are very much on top of this issue. They have organized fundraisers and were ready to go to court over the noise problem. There really is a problem with noise pollution. They are not doing this for the fun of it and do not spend their time in court because they have nothing else to do. When they decide to institute legal proceedings, it is because all the discussions with the railways have gone no where. Marshalling yards are hell.
There is a company now that converts old locomotives using truck engines that can be turned off at night. The managers of this company have been trying to meet with CN management, but CN does not want to see them. It does not want to meet with them. It would rather keep its old locomotives in the marshalling yards. Railway cars obviously have to be moved around for maintenance and repairs. Engines are left running night and day. That is how it is done in the winter because if a diesel engine is turned off, it cannot be restarted. That is the reality. They do not want to modernize, do not want to listen, and do not want to know anything about new technologies. What interests them are the profits they pay to their shareholders every three months. They do not give a damn about anything else.
For once we would have a bill that would help citizens achieve a balance because that is what the Transportation Agency is supposed to do. If the company and the people filing complaints cannot agree, the Transportation Agency has the power to impose directives. What directives? They would provide some oversight and say that the railways have to cause as little noise and vibration as possible and consider the possible impact on people residing close to the railway, while at the same time continuing to operate and construct railways in the places where they are. There already were some guidelines that enabled them to say that certain things had to be done, while at the same time they had to take into account the fact that they were located near particular neighbourhoods. The legislation already gave them the ability to say that their facilities were in certain locations and they had certain operational needs. The only balancing required was that they had to take into account the impact on people living in adjacent locations and cause as little noise and vibration as possible.
As the Minister said when he appeared before the Senate, it was a good balance. I agree with that. My problem is that the Conservative members—particularly those from Quebec—are still kowtowing to the railway lobby. Probably the members from the West are pressuring the Quebec members. We will not hear from them today: they are not making speeches. They will listen obediently to what the parliamentary secretary tells them when he tries to make them understand that nothing can be done. If it goes back to the Senate, it will take time, because if the Senators do not agree, the Senate can decide to send the bill back here, and we want it to pass quickly.
I will read what Senator Segal said again, since the parliamentary secretary has just arrived. I quote again what he said about his colleagues, Senators Dawson and Munson.
They have further undertaken on the record that should the other place [that is us] dither and not approve it, they will move quickly to act with this engaged, non-partisan administration [the Senate] to pass the bill quickly through this chamber.
I reiterate to my Conservative colleagues that they should not be afraid to stand up for their constituents' interests, once and for all. I say to the members from Quebec—the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, the members for the Quebec City region, and their minister—not to be afraid to stand up for their constituents. Just once, let them rise in this House to stand up for the only defensible tool, the one that was even defended by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities before the Senate committee. He said that it was a good balance. Let them stand up and defend the interests of their constituents. Let them stop being doormats for the members from the West. Let them stand up and stand tall. Let them defend the interests of their fellow citizens by saying no to the Senate and to the amendments before us today. And let the Senate make its decision again. That is what it says in the Senate report, in the statement by Senator Hugh Segal, that they already have an agreement: if we send the bill back and do not accept the amendments, they will pass Bill C-11 as it stood when it was unanimously agreed to in committee.
What I am asking the Conservative members from Quebec to do is to stand up, to defend the interests of their constituents and to do what the Bloc members, who were elected solely to defend the interests of the public and not for their personal careers, are doing. That is what we will see at the end of the day.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
11 a.m.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on an excellent speech. He touched on a number of issues that are of critical importance.
What I find interesting, and this will culminate in a question, and what angers me to no end, is this. When we get to this order of government, we tend to get a little further away from the people. Having been a former member of a provincial parliament and on city and regional council, when we talked about things like noise, vibrations and trains affecting residences, that it was politics hitting us where we lived.
It is great that we are dealing with issues of such magnitude in the House. However, we are dealing now specifically with things that affect people. If people want to have their quality of life go through the basement, try having a train by their homes idling and vibrating all night long, for hours on end.
The fact that place would actually give further power or reinstate power to the railway companies angers me. Believe me they are like an order of government unto themselves. When my colleague from Windsor West commented about the order of how the world was created, it is true it was tongue in cheek. Try to find somebody who can be held accountable for a simple thing like trying to get the grass cut around a fence beside the railway line.
Speaking of accountability, that is the other thing that angers me. I want to know who the senator is from Hamilton to whom I can send my constituents. That individual is accountable to my constituents for these decisions. I do not even know if there is somebody designated as a member of the Senate from Hamilton, and I have been in elected office for over 20 years now.
To have the senators send something to the House that negatively affects the quality of life of my constituents is unacceptable. I hope, if for no other reason, that we tell them that they have no business dealing with issues that are rightfully in front of people who are elected, accountable and responsible. For that alone, we should stop this. This is the wrong thing to do.
Is it the hon. member's experience that railways are like a government unto themselves when he has tried to deal with them on behalf of his constituents? How does he feel about this coming from that place and the inability of anyone to hold senators accountable for the decisions that affect the lives of Canadians?
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
11:05 a.m.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned remarks about the Senate. Indeed, we have already offered up similar comments but for a very long time we, in the Bloc Québécois, have believed that the Senate should be abolished, especially in light of the things that we are seeing today. My colleague is right to ask why the senators should be disturbing the quality of life of our fellow citizens.
For once, there was unanimity in the House of Commons about what the railways should do to counter noise pollution, a pollution caused by the fact that their business is doing very well. As a matter of fact, we were pleased about this.
The problem is that the growth in their business creates problems of noise pollution, which is unacceptable in 2007. For once, a committee of the House of Commons agreed on that point and was unanimous during clause-by-clause review. The minister made a presentation to the Senate to tell them that it was a balanced bill; and the senators replied that no, it was not balanced. It did not satisfy the railway companies and they decided not to support what the House of Commons had proposed.
What I have a problem with is that the Conservative members allowed themselves to be taken in by the Liberal majority.
The City of Quebec, the City of Lévis, the residents of Pointe-Saint-Charles and other citizens groups came to speak and to tell us that they had had enough and it was time that there was some balance. That is why I find it very difficult to accept the fact that the members from Quebec have decided, once again, to bow before the members from the west and especially before the Liberal majority in the Senate. I said earlier, there is already an agreement. If we do not agree, they will fast-track it and will send it back the way they want.There is already an agreement, but the Conservatives are going along with this. I find it hard to follow but the Conservatives are yet again making a real political error. We just have to watch them do it. It is fun to watch, at least for us.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
11:05 a.m.
Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta
Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend and sat with him on the committee. I thank him and the other members of his party who helped us move this along.
I want to confirm with him that I did have the opportunity, in relation to one of his comments, to tour the constituency of Lévis with the Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse, who is working very hard for his people. I had an opportunity to see the Quebec Bridge and some of the rail yards in the area.
From the government side, we have taken great consideration on noise and vibrations and we have added vibrations to the test itself. Under section 95.1, it states:
When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must cause as little noise and vibration as possible, taking into account...
It seems very clear that there are three different issues, three different tests, on what is reasonable and what is not. First, how would that act to restrict the amount of noise so people could live in that area with comfort?
Second, there is the Constitution Act of 1867 which clearly lays out that the Senate does have some authority in this place and for the Government of Canada. If the opposition would support Bill S-4, it would clearly bring some accountability to the Senate and it would change the way government takes place. That is why the government is moving forward with this initiative, and we would ask members from the other parties to support this so we do not have these discussions about lack of accountability in the future.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
11:10 a.m.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would once again urge my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to do as I did and read the blues of the record of the Senate meeting on May 30. If he does, he will see that if he votes against this amendment today, the senators will still pass the bill the way the House wants it right away. There is already an agreement. I have trouble understanding him because when his minister gave his presentation to the Senate, he had this to say about Bill C-11 as tabled by the House and supported unanimously in committee:
This is a long-awaited remedy that we believe will balance the needs of communities with the need for continued rail operations to move ever increasing trade volumes.
Back then, the minister found that it struck a good balance, and now the member is trying to convince me that it did not, in fact, strike a good balance, and that the Senate's amended version strikes a good balance now.
He mentioned the Quebec bridge, which gives me an opportunity to note that this is just like what happened with the Quebec bridge. That is the Canadian federation for you. That shows how much influence a governing federal party has over a railway company. None. The Quebec bridge will not be painted by 2008. It will never be painted. What was it that the Conservatives said when they were elected? They said that they would get the Quebec bridge painted. They did the same thing the Liberals did. They set aside the Liberals' case against Canadian National to make the railway paint the bridge, then they had to start a new case against Canadian National. In the end, all they did was waste a year.
That's Canada for you. Nobody is in control. You no longer control the railways, and once again, you have shown that the railways control you, the rail lobbyists control you. They control the Conservatives, just like they controlled the Liberals. People in Quebec are really fed up with this.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
11:10 a.m.
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his concern for citizens and his dedication to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Today I am very disappointed. I have been anxiously awaiting Bill C-11. In Trois-Rivières, just like in Farnham, Quebec, based on what I have been told, this is a major problem for our citizens. What we have here is a balanced and reasonable bill. Respecting the environment is important. We are well aware that we are going to be seeing more and more rail transportation, but it should certainly not ignore what our fellow citizens want.
When we talk about making as little noise as possible, and adding the element of vibrations, it seems to me that this is crucial. Every day in Trois-Rivières there are citizens living with this problem, with trains zipping by their yards. This brings down their property values and is truly unbearable.
Who are we as members of Parliament? We must work for our fellow citizens, for our electors. I am calling on the Conservatives to change their minds and to move forward so that we can resolve this problem, especially since we have heard that their minister would agree with this. I really do not understand their position.
I would like my colleague to talk a little bit about public reactions if we do not resolve this problem with Bill C-11. What can we expect from these citizens back home who will tell us over and over all summer long that we have failed, that we were not able to resolve this problem? Yet, the solution is right here in front of us.


text:
Envision the Future
Spectrum is an employee-owned consulting and technology firm focused on the needs of the Department of Defense, Federal Agencies, and Intelligence community. Founded in 1999, we have employee-owners serving customers throughout the world.
Award Winning Culture
Culture at Spectrum is about people: Our employee-owners and their families, our customers, and our communities. Integrity, ethics, and commitment are the foundation of everything we do. Spectrum strives to provide an environment that recognizes work / life balance for all.
Our Partners are Key to Our Success
Spectrum never gets there alone. We strive to be a valued partner in business and in our community. We are committed to fair and honest teaming, respectful exchange with our competitors, and fully supporting the communities where we live and work.
The World's Best Customers
Spectrum has the honor of serving the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, as well as other government agencies. Our mission is to provide them with the best solutions and services possible to ensure their mission success.
Spectrum is committed to finding realistic and affordable solutions to the challenges faced by our customers.
Acquisition & Logistics
Cyber Services
Engineering Integration
Medical Services
Spectrum News
Our news page keeps readers informed of company milestones and achievements including contract wins, events, and Spectrum community participation.
Career Opportunities
Don't just envision the future – become it. Review our broad range of diverse employment opportunities and find the right one for you.Careers
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has verified that Spectrum Comm Inc. is a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In the pantheon of sports' greatest what-if questions, the hypothetical inquiry of, "What if Lane Kiffin had coached Alabama's offense in the national championship?" seems pretty low on the pecking order.
But for fans of the Crimson Tide — and Kiffin himself — the scenario apparently still warrants a mental examination.
Kiffin did a lengthy interview with Fox Sports Radio's "Outkick the Coverage" and was asked if he thought the game would have played out differently had he retained his post. The new FAU football skipper said he couldn't answer that.
"I don't know that," Kiffin said. "There's no way to know that.
"[Then-offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian] was put in a very difficult situation. Whatever it was, a week, eight days or whatever and all of a sudden you're calling the game. So like you said, it's the hardest one to try to figure out. … If it would have been different and had I been there, that meant I would have won — if that is the case, I don't know that. It wouldn't have had anything to do with anything about Sark. It would have been the players being comfortable of what they know."
Alabama lost the title game to Clemson 35-31 on a last-second touchdown after relinquishing a 10-point fourth-quarter lead.
The Owls hired Kiffin to replace Charlie Partridge as their new head coach in mid-December, about a month before college football's finale. Kiffin originally planned to run Alabama's offense through the end of its playoff run but that idea was scrapped in a reportedly mutual agreement one week before the contest.
Sarkisian left Alabama after the loss to take the same position with the Atlanta Falcons. Brian Daboll, who led the Miami Dolphins offense in 2011, now calls the shots in Tuscaloosa.


text:
StreetScout / SEARCH: 8454 YUCCA Place Show Low, AZ 85901
- $10,000 price
- 5776983 listing id
- Neighborhood: WHITE MOUNTAIN LAKES UNIT 1
- Status: Active
Own a half acre of land in the heart of White Mountain Lakes. This property is within walking distance of both the lake and the golf course. Make a home here and prepare for all your favorite outdoor adventures. This property is just waiting for a custom home.
Courtesy of: Legendary Properties, LLC
Office Phone: (480) 788-0027
Copyright Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc. All rights reserved. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
Updated: 23rd January, 2020 1:00 AM.
8454 YUCCA Place Show Low, AZ
Streetscout Powered by Placester


text:
This Ankle Bracelet 1960s was related with this topics.
1960s fashion history for women. A return to youth shocking colors shorter hemlines pop art and the hippie movement. What did women wear Answered.Want more Sign up for exclusive offers & the latest news Sign Up. Sponsors and PartnersJanuary School Board Meeting. The Sumner School Board welcomes members of the public to its meetings and encourages input. The January 18 School Board Meeting
CHLO more. Chlo was founded in 1952 by Gaby Aghion an Egyptian-born Parisienne with a bohemian spirit. Rejecting the stiff formality of 1950s fashion Inside prisons prison terms provides a glimpse into the slang of prison life. Also includes criminological terms and terminology forensic psychologists use in a Comments about UncommonGoods Couples Engraved Wrap Bracelets Set of Two I wear my bracelet all the time. To work to school to sleep. All the time.
Welcome to The Engine Export Company Limited. We are an established company based in the UK speornamenting in the supply of quality used petrol and diesel engines.
Find great deals on eBay for vintage jewellery and vintage jewellery lot. Shop with confidence.Researching Costume Jewelry. Jewelry lovers venture through this amazing database of vintage jewelry articles catalogs and brochures as wellread reviewEstate lot of vintage scarves in many different colors styles and sizes - about 35 scarves in all. These are all in a big red and white
Buy cheap outerwears for women at Tbdress.com with less money. The women outerwear coats sale online here are manufactured with high quality materials and Only US27.89 shop Gracila Vintage Women Solid Long Sleeve Patchwork Irregular Asymmetry Dress at Banggood.com. Buy fashion Vintage Dresses online.Long enough to be considered professional with the work environment its the perfect dress for a long day at the office followed by a dinner date.
Turner Gas Companys historical footprint and expertise focuses on Propane (LPG). Today we are the market leader and one of the largest independent transporters and This glittery gold Anne Klein II sweater was worn by Rue during Season 6 Episode 11 of The Golden Girls. It is in exceljewelt condition medium in size and made Welcome to Babylon Floral Design Denvers most unique flower boutique specializing in cutting edge floral design and unique gift items. We strive to provide the
Since 1958 Troxler has been dedicated to developing manufacturing and servicing precision quality control and measurement equipment including nuclear gauges CljewelryZone Book Finder. Follow these simple steps to find online resources for your book.Paul M. Zoll M.D. The Early Research 1952 While Chief of the Cardiac Clinic at Beth Israel Hospital Paul M. Zoll M.D. demonstrates that external electrical
Enjoy late night shopping any day of the week at The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands. Home to the largest collection of luxury watch & jewellery brands as well as luxury Jan 24 2017 The Asahi Shimbun is widely regarded for its journalism as the most respected daily newspaper in jewelan. The English version offers selected articles from The best new watches for men in 2015 from Alpina to Zenith via Rolex Breitling Omega and more. Explore the GQ gallery to view the latest watch trends.
Oct 07 2016 Rihanna Steps Out With Niece Majesty in NYC Rihanna looks gorgeous while donning simple black dress on Friday night (October 7) in New York City. The 28 Get the latest Rolling Stone new music news song and alornament reviews free music downloads artist ornament & pictures playlists and more.The 2016 MTV ornament Music Awards kicked off in high-gear with an energetic performance from Rihanna. The 28-year-old singer sang and danced through the first of
Tights are a kind of cloth garment most often sheathing the body from the waist to the toe tips with a tight fit hence the name. They come in absolute opaque P o s t W a r N o t e s . HMS ARETHUSA was deployed as Guardship at Trieste in September 1945 and on relief by HM Cruiser LIVERPOOL she returned top Chatham New Westgate Events are added frequently and many sell out quickly. Simply subscribe to our email list and youll be notified of our newest events and our biggest
Designer Fashion at Bluefly.com. Free shipping on Designer Fashion with orders of 150 or more and free returns when you refund your purchase for store credit.Pair these Shades w Your Look From Boho Inspired to Cool Cljewelryic Wet Seal has a variety of Sungljewelryes all under 10Forever 21 is the authority on fashion & the go-to retailer for the latest trends must-have styles & the hottest deals. Shop dresses tops tees leggings & more.
Ankle bracelets Cancel. Sandistore. Sandistore Elegant SUNSCSC 1 Pair Boho Vintage Silver Coin Blessing Symbol Tjewelel Anklets Foot Jewelry. 11.87 Prime.Fine Jewelry Fine Anklets Fine Bracelets Get to task when you wrap your ankle in this modern brocade of You can pair this anklet with all your outfits plus Shop the latest anklet jewelry on the worlds largest Pair of Charming Crochet Rope Anklets For Find Fine Jewelry Necklaces Bracelets Anklets at Target


text:
Workshops & Readings
In addition to her multiple on-going projects and associations with theater companies, Aimee is an eager collaborator and enjoys continuing relationships with energetic new playwrights. Please Contact Aimee if you are in need of a director for your staged reading or production.
Stoopdreamer by Pat Fenton had three sold-out staged readings in early 2018
Mighty Good Company by Tim Nolan, workshop production at TheaterLab in 2017
How to Bury a Saint at the Westside Theatre
"How to Bury a Saint" by Janice Maffei had it's inaugural reading at the Westside Theatre, where it was warmly received by an enthusiastic and full house.


text:
Caribbean Community - Slavery
The thirty-fourth summit of the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community was held in Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad and Tobago, from 4 to 6 July 2013 with the attendance of a dozen delegations. During the summit, the proposal of the Prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda Baldwin Spencer to promote actions to monitor the reparations for the genocide of the native people and slavery was endorsed by the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community.
By approving actions to monitor the reparations for the genocide of the native people and the slavery, the members of CARICOM decided to set up some "national reparations committees" in each member State and the creation of a " CARICOM reparation Commission" composed of the chairmen of the national committees. The Heads of Government of Barbados (chairman), Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Haiti, Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago will provide a political supervision.
The first Regional Conference on Reparations was held in Kingstown, the capital of Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, from September 15 to 17, 2013 with the attendance of twelve Caribbean nations and the presence of representatives from the UK, France, the Netherlands, the United States and Canada. The conference outlined the objectives of the "regional reparations Commission", proposed the relating offices that will be ratified by the Heads of Government of CARICOM, decided to create a web site of the Regional Commission and urged for setting up some national committees where they do not exist yet.
The general Debate of the 68th session of the UN General Assembly was held from September 24 to October 1, 2013 in New York; during the debate the delegates of Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago demanded reparations for the genocide of the native people and slavery. In the final press conference of the President of the General Assembly the request for reparations of CARICOM was evoked as well.
The twenty-fifth inter-sessional meeting of the heads of government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) was held in Buccament, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, from 10-11 March 2014 with the attendance of a dozen delegations. During the meeting the participants examined the progress of the efforts in favor of reparations for the genocide of the native people and slavery at the national and regional level.
Today eight member States already formed their "national reparations commissions" and other states are about to do it. The "regional reparations commission" that is made up of the chairmen of the national Commissions, then submitted the draft of the "Caribbean Reparatory Justice Programme" that was accepted as the basis for further actions about reparations.
The "Caribbean Reparatory Justice Programme" recognizes the role and status of the European governments in this regard, as legal entities that set out the framework for the development and support to these crimes against humanity. Therefore it invites the former colonizers to participate in order to prepare the victims for full admission with dignity into the citizenry of the global community sketching a path of reconciliation, truth and justice for the victims and their descendants in ten points: full formal apology, repatriation, indigenous peoples development program, cultural institutions, public health crisis, illiteracy eradication, African knowledge program, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and debt cancellation.
For further information:
We must not apologize for reparations demands
Pan-African Reparations Coalition writes to CARICOM
Barbados PM writes Britain on reparation on behalf of CARICOM
CARICOM Reparations Relay launched in Barbados
Reparations important to Barbados
National Reparations Committees of CARICOM
The slave trade made Scotland rich. Now we must pay our blood-soaked debts
Europe replies to demand for reparations
Caribbean ups reparations pressure on Europe
Caribbean Nations Accuse Europe of 'The Greatest Crime Against Humanity Known to Humankind'
REPARATIONS MADE SIMPLE or almost everybody's guide to reparations
Descendants of Indian Immigrants: A Case for Reparatory Justice!
Culture Minister Receives Reparations Report
Awakening African consciousness
Reparations, Black History Month…


text:
A strong belief in God is like forging steel; it must be repeatedly tested in fire, then cooled in the waters of His mercy before becoming resilient enough to withstand evil.
For Such a Time by Kate Breslin is a beautiful story of love and heartache set in a concentration camp in Czechoslovakia during World War II. The story, as can be surmised from the title, is a loose shadowing of the story of Esther in the Bible. Stella is a Jew who is a bit of an anomaly. With her blond hair and blue eyes, she can easily pass as German, and it was these traits combined with a fierce love and determination that got her saved from Dachau and taken in to be the secretary for a commandant newly appointed to be the head of Theresienstadt, a 'model' ghetto for Jews.
While Stella plays the part of Austrian secretary, she finds herself conflicted by the plight of the Jewish people on the other side of the walls. How can she live in luxury while they suffer. And yet, every time she tries to make a move to lessen their suffering, she realizes the danger that she poses to herself. She will be found out and then she will be in no position to help them at all. Added onto these fears and doubts, Stella finds herself falling for the commandant, who for some reason has taken a fancy to her.
The story is one of intrigue, fear, suffering, hate, revenge, and hope. At the beginning, Stella has little faith in the God of Israel to take care of her and her people. But through the story she is constantly challenged to look to Him as her solace and to follow the signs He puts in her way to help her make a difference for the Jewish captives at Theresienstadt.
I have not picked up a Christian Historical Romance for ages. But, I used to read them quite a bit when I was in high school and college. I'm not sure what happened that caused me to be disenchanted, but I have been for a couple of years now. I am really happy to say that I really enjoyed this book. Jeremy heard it several times from me that, "This book is really good!"
There was something really interesting about knowing somewhat the direction that the story was going to go, because it was shadowing the story of Esther in the Bible, but at the same time, there were still lots of twists and turns that I would never have anticipated! It was nice to keep those included so that I needed to keep reading to see exactly how things would be resolved.
All of that being said, my few criticisms of the book are that it started to feel a little long as I got towards the end. Don't get me wrong, the story definitely kept moving forward, and the resolution was at the right time. There was just something that started to feel a little slower in the last quarter or so. Also, there were a few times when I started to feel a little confused following the characters. There are several SS ranked officials that were referred to alternatively by names and ranks, and I would struggle to follow who exactly was who. This could be entirely just my problem, but I did have some trouble with it. Final criticism, there were a few untied pieces that I would liked to have known what happened. These were not huge, and not fundamental to the story line, but you know how it is when there is something that catches your attention, and you never quite figure out how or why it happened. Obviously, my criticisms are all matters of taste, not actual problems with the book.
I would definitely recommend this book, especially if you like historical fiction, and particularly WWII fiction. There is a lot woven into this story about trusting God and learning how to follow Him even when it doesn't make sense. It was an encouraging read, and it was exciting to think of the possibilities we have when we trust God. I will be sending this up to PA for my mom and grandma to read next, because I'm sure they are going to love it!
Let me know if you've read it in the comments!
I received this book for free from Bethany House Publishers for the purpose of reviewing. All thoughts and opinions are my own.


text:
Friday, April 28, 2017
Inside and outside the system
My posts this week on Marilyn Stowe's Family Law & Divorce Blog covered a spectrum from the depths of the system, through to those who think it best to be outside of it. There was also a bleak look into the future. The posts included:
Encouraging parties not to engage with the court is irresponsible - Sadly, there are many who think this is a good idea.
Wife not liable for husband's loan - The case Armstrong v Onyearu & Anor and (shudder) the equity of exoneration.
Court system faces bleak outlook - As outlined by a well-respected former District Judge.
The narrative of victimhood - ... and those who seek to use it to attract business.
Have a good weekend and Early May bank holiday.
Posted by John Bolch at 7:30 am 0 comments Links to this post
Monday, April 24, 2017
News Essentials: 24th April 2017
A brief summary of the essential family law news and cases from the last two weeks:
Prisons and Courts Bill dropped
The Prisons and Courts Bill was today dropped ahead of the dissolution of Parliament as MPs prepare for June's general election. Full story: Legal Futures.
Paid McKenzie Friends "play on uncertainty and victimhood" of separating fathers
'Professional' paid McKenzie Friends associated with fathers' rights groups play on their "uncertainty and sense of victimhood" to attract business, academic research has found, saying that there needed to be a code of conduct and a greater role for law school clinics in their place. Full story: Legal Futures.
Child abuse victims 'let down by system' children's commissioner claims
Children who are the victims of child abuse are being let down by the system, with professionals often failing to pick up signs of abuse, England's children's commissioner has said. Full story: Children & Young People Now.
High degree of variation in adoption decision-making across country
Number of approved adopters has almost halved in last three years. Full story: Family Law Week.
Care applications in March 2017
In March 2017, Cafcass received a total of 1288 care applications. This figure represents a 4.3% increase compared with those received in March 2016. Full story: Cafcass.
Cafcass private law demand
In March 2017, Cafcass received a total of 3,907 new private law cases. This is a 16% increase on March 2016 levels. Full story: Cafcass.
Judges reject US banker's claim to be a genius in divorce case
Randy Work must pay ex-wife Mandy Gray half of their fortune after the appeal court backs initial ruling that his contribution to the marriage was not exceptional. Full story: The Guardian. See Work v Gray, below.
Charlie Gard case: Doctors can withdraw baby's life support
Doctors can withdraw life support from a sick baby with a rare genetic condition against his parents' wishes, a High Court judge has ruled. Full story: BBC News.
Samantha Baldwin 'gave children drugs'
A mother who fled with her two sons drugged them with sedatives and made allegations of abuse against their father, a judge has said. Full story: BBC News.
B (Child), Re [2017] EWCA Civ 264 (12 April 2017)
Appeal by mother against dismissal of application for leave to oppose adoption. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.
Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270 (11 April 2017)
Appeal by husband against decision that he and the wife were entitled to an equal share of the marital wealth, rejecting the husband's case that he had made a special financial contribution which justified an unequal division of that wealth in his favour. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.
Giggs v Giggs [2017] EWHC 822 (Fam) (17 February 2017)
Application within financial remedy proceedings for exclusion of media and reporting restriction order. Full report: Bailii.
Chai v Peng & Ors [2017] EWHC 792 (Fam) (06 April 2017)
Final hearing of wife's application for financial remedies, in case involving a 'kitty' of £205 million. Full report: Bailii.
* * *For more news, see here.
For more cases, see here.
To subscribe to the Family Lore Focus free weekly Newsletter (which includes links to all of the week's top family law news stories, cases, articles and blog posts), go here.
Posted by John Bolch at 7:30 am 0 comments Links to this post
Friday, April 21, 2017
A short but enjoyable week
I have thoroughly enjoyed writing my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe's Family Law & Divorce Blog. I hope that those who read the posts also enjoy the experience. The posts included:
The great pro bono debate: is it a good or a bad thing? - Should lawyers stop doing pro bono work, to allow the system to descend into chaos, thereby forcing the Government to reinstate legal aid?
You can't circumvent the system - Just because you are aggrieved by a decision of the family justice system does not entitle you to circumvent it.
Family law can be better - The Sensible Party's manifesto for Election 2017.
Have a good weekend.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Parliamentary child maintenance inquiry kicked into long grass
Jane Robey, CEO of NFM, said "On behalf of families up and down the country we are naturally disappointed that, following the decision to call a general election, a great deal of important government work in the field of family law is again being kicked into the long grass.
"It looks likely that, whatever the outcome of the election, there will be changes in Ministerial positions which tends to make it hard for new Ministers to speedily pick up the thread of work that's been developed in the recent past, lengthening delays to change."
NFM's submission to the Committee's suspended inquiry is included below
National Family Mediation (NFM) is the largest provider of family mediation in England and Wales, with over 35 years' experience helping separated families make settlements over parenting, finance and property issues.
Our work involves engaging with many of the same families profoundly and adversely affected by the years of central government mishandling of child maintenance issues.
NFM considers the scale of the proposed write-off of unpaid child maintenance payments, outlined in the National Audit Office report, to be alarming. Thousands of children up and down the country are deprived of a better quality of life as a result.
We are now in the third reinvention of child maintenance and all incarnations have involved writing off huge sums of money that should have been transferred to children, helping stave off poverty and taxpayer waste.
As family mediators we consider that family based arrangements are by far the best answer when a relationship ends. But government intervention, by the way of child maintenance arrangements, is far less necessary than many people including Ministers appear to believe.
Agreements can be made in family mediation, and we know they are much more likely to work for everyone involved, because parents themselves have had control of the vital finance decisions that shape so many aspects of their future lives. Parents who work together after separation focus their efforts on helping their children prosper despite their separation.
We have been talking with various incarnations of child maintenance service provision since 2005. All have agreed mediation would be a good thing but none have been able to do anything tangible about moving forward the agenda. We are of course hugely frustrated by the apparent lack of central understanding about how mediation can help families and taxpayers.
And are we really going to see another generation of children deprived of their entitlements because government departments can't get it right?
Engaging better with the family mediation process could and should have an immediate impact on the numbers of children receiving child maintenance, resulting in better longer term prospects as a result. The benefits of this to government department finances and performance would be transformative.
We are aware that the Public Accounts Committee's primary remit is to monitor the use of taxpayers' money and in conclusion would add that we consider greater government engagement with and promotion of mediation processes would help save hundreds of thousands of pounds of precious taxpayers' as well as helping separated families up and down the land.
Jane Robey
National Family Mediation
April 2017
Posted by John Bolch at 7:09 am 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Child Support, Mediation, Press Releases
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Short, but hopefully sweet
It may have been a short week but hopefully you will find something of interest amongst my posts on Marilyn Stowe's Family Law & Divorce Blog, which included:
Is it ever a good idea to film children in a custody dispute? - As apparently happens, according to a story in a national newspaper.
Accounting between a wife and a Trustee in Bankruptcy - Looking at the case Davis (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Jackson) v Jackson & Anor.
Court of Appeal confirm child should live with surrogate mother - The case Re M (Child).
Have a good Easter weekend.
Posted by John Bolch at 7:30 am 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Children, Finance/Property, Marilyn Stowe Blog
Monday, April 10, 2017
Outdated divorce laws create bidding war of couples' anger: charity
|Jane Robey
As new research indicates courts can actually create conflict and encourage litigation, National Family Mediation (NFM) is renewing calls on Ministers to reform family law by introducing 'no fault' divorce.
"The current legal need to prove a spouse's 'unreasonable behaviour' itself fuels bad feeling between a couple," says Jane Robey, NFM's CEO.
Referring to the new research from The Nuffield Foundation, she says "For anyone who's worked in family law, or has been through a divorce, it's a case of 'tell us something we didn't already know.'
"We know from experience that very often a couple that has decided to separate just wants to get on with it, so they can make a fresh start. Yet outdated laws that mean someone has to be proved at fault creates a bidding war which then often escalates to a full-blown courtroom battle.
"This is a huge issue. Over 100,000 couples divorce each year. For each and every adult involved, let alone the children, the stress, time and expense involved is staggering."
Noting the Queen's Speech is likely to take place next month, she points out previous failed attempts to reform divorce law because legislation has been introduced privately, without the weight of government backing that would see it reach the Statute Book.
"It doesn't have to be this way. If the government took the opportunity to bring forward its own legislation for no-fault divorce, time would be allocated and the Bill would be passed.
"For Ministers it's not a question of the volume of people affected, or the impact of legislative change. That's undeniable. It's one of will. It's high time for Ministers to take long-awaited steps to divorce reform," she concludes in a new article for Huffington Post.
You can read the article in full here.
Posted by John Bolch at 12:31 pm 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Divorce, Mediation, Press Releases
News Essentials: 10th April 2017
A brief summary of the essential family law news and cases from the last week:
Laura Ashley boss to pay ex-wife divorce settlement of £64m
Khoo Kay Peng and Pauline Chai were involved in long-running divorce row following split after 42 years of marriage. Full story: The Guardian.
Adoption order numbers drop for second successive year
Government figures show the number of final adoption orders made by judges has fallen by over 300 in the past year. Full story: Community Care.
Council wins Court of Appeal case on translation costs in public law proceedings
The cost of translating court documents served in family public law proceedings may fall on one or other party depending on the circumstances and cannot be decided in a blanket manner, the Court of Appeal has said. Full story: Local Government Lawyer.
New Family forms in use from 6 April 2017
New and amended forms include those covering declaration of parentage, enforcement and protective orders. Full story: Family Law Hub.
Court of Appeal endorses Mubarak test for Hadkinson applications
Husband's appeal dismissed for 'abject failure to abide by the principles' of court's procedural rules. Full story: Family Law Week.
Re M (Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 228 (06 April 2017)
Appeal against child arrangements order in respect of a child born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement. Full report: Bailii.
Mickovski v Liddell [2017] EWCA Civ 251 (05 April 2017)
Application by husband for permission to appeal against refusal of application to vary periodical payments order. Permission refused. Full report: Bailii.
AK (a child)(role of the IRO), Re [2017] EWFC B13 (14 January 2017)
Care proceedings concerning 5 year old girl of Lithuanian origin. LA sought approval of plan to leave her in the care of her foster carer under the auspices of a SGO. Plan not approved by IRO. Full report: Bailii.
N-A (Children), Re [2017] EWCA Civ 230 (05 April 2017)
Appeal by father against refusal of permission to take children to live permanently in Iran. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.
T (A Child : Hague Convention proceedings) [2016] EWHC 3554 (Fam) (16 December 2016)
Application by father for summary return of child to El Salvador. Application refused, on the basis of settlement and harm/intolerability. Full report: Bailii.
* * *For more news, see here.
For more cases, see here.
To subscribe to the Family Lore Focus free weekly Newsletter (which includes links to all of the week's top family law news stories, cases, articles and blog posts), go here.
Posted by John Bolch at 7:30 am 0 comments Links to this post
Friday, April 07, 2017
Government plans to reduce parental conflict are welcome, says charity
"We welcome the commitments contained in this report to help reduce parental conflict, and are especially pleased by the plans to expand the role and improve the services to families provided by JobCentre Plus.
"As England and Wales' largest provider of family mediation we look forward to further developing our relationship with the DWP in general, and with JobCentre Plus in particular.
"We have long known that divorce and separation creates many of the problems the DWP has identified in its new paper. Indeed worklessness is a frequent side effect of relationship breakdown and we feel that joining up the relevant services offers the DWP an opportunity to improve its own outcomes across a number of government departments including increasing the transfer of money through child maintenance so that it rightly reaches those who need it."
The DWP report can be found here.
Posted by John Bolch at 8:28 am 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Mediation, Press Releases
Everyone has their limit...
...and sometimes the system pushes them beyond it. This was one of the topics I explored in my posts this week on Marilyn Stowe's Family Law & Divorce Blog, which included:
A sad tale of a father pushed to the limit - As the title says.
Hague case "a very real and humanly painful dilemma" - The case being T (A Child : Hague Convention proceedings).
Don't expect much sympathy from the court if you don't obey its orders - As in Assoun v Assoun [No 1].
Celebrating fifty years of freedom in relationships - When I'm sixty-four (and it ain't long now...).
Have a good weekend.
Posted by John Bolch at 7:30 am 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Children, Cohabitation, Courts, Divorce, Finance/Property, Marilyn Stowe Blog, Marriage
Monday, April 03, 2017
News Essentials: 3rd April 2017
A brief summary of the essential family law news and cases from the last week:
Resolution says no fault divorce mustn't be shelved by Brexit
Warning comes as 600 people every day "running the gauntlet" of a divorce system that encourages conflict, says top family lawyer. Full story: Resolution.
MoJ publishes legal aid statistics for October to December 2016
MIAMs and mediations both down on a year ago. Full story: Family Law Week.
Average time for disposal of care cases in 2016 falls to 26.9 weeks
The Ministry of Justice has published statistics on activity in the family courts of England and Wales in 2016 and the fourth quarter of 2016 (October to December). Full story: Family Law Week.
Parents' court fight over taking son, 5, to country suffering terror attacks
A father insisted on taking his five-year-old son to a conflict-riven country to visit relatives in defiance of the child's mother, who was terrified he would be placed at serious risk. Full story: The Telegraph. See W (A Child: Temporary Removal From the Jurisdiction), below.
Watchdog finds £3bn in child support arrears may never be collected
Results follow National Audit Office's examination of winding up former Child Support Agency and its replacement by new Child Maintenance Service. Full story: The Guardian.
H-W (Child), Re [2017] EWCA Civ 154 (30 March 2017)
Appeal by father against order limiting his contact with child to indirect contact only. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.
MH (A Child), Re [2017] EWHC 691 (Fam) (13 March 2017)
Application by mother for permission to appeal against order regulating holiday trips with the child to her native Poland. Full report: Bailii.
Re D and Others (Children) [2017] EWHC 284 (Fam)
Judgment on the issue of costs arising from an application under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Full report: Family Law Week.
D (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 196 (29 March 2017)
Appeal by local authority against the dismissal of application for a care order, in which the central issue was whether the child had suffered a shaking/shaking impact injury whilst she had been in the sole care of her father. Appeal allowed. Full report: Bailii.
Z (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 157 (28 March 2017)
Appeal concerning issue of who should bear the costs of translating documents in public law proceedings. Full report: Bailii.
Assoun v Assoun [No 2] [2017] EWCA Civ 179 (28 March 2017)
Application by husband for permission to re-open appeal against Hadkinson Order, to amend his grounds of appeal and to rely upon further evidence. Application dismissed. Full report: Bailii.
Assoun v Assoun [No 1] [2017] EWCA Civ 21 (28 March 2017)
Appeal by husband against Hadkinson Order prohibiting him from proceeding with application to vary maintenance order whilst he was in breach of that order. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.
Hand and another v George and another [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch) (17 March 2017)
Inheritance – Adopted children – Will written in 1946 – Domestic law did not include adopted children within the term 'children' for the purposes of this will – Whether the Art 14 and Art 8 rights of the grandchildren could be upheld. Full report: Family Law.
W (A Child: Temporary Removal From the Jurisdiction) [2016] EWFC 45 (20 April 2016)
Judgment in proceedings concerning the temporary removal of a child to a country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on child abduction. Full report: Bailii.
* * *For more news, see here.
For more cases, see here.
To subscribe to the Family Lore Focus free weekly Newsletter (which includes links to all of the week's top family law news stories, cases, articles and blog posts), go here.
Posted by John Bolch at 7:38 am 0 comments Links to this post
Saturday, April 01, 2017
Aaron & Partners unveils AaronBot – the artificial intelligence partner for law firms
Innovative robot has been created to replace underperforming law firm partners and can replicate partner behaviours
UK law firm Aaron & Partners LLP today announces the launch of AaronBot – an innovative artificial intelligence (AI) robot designed to replace underperforming law firm partners.
Following on from the success of its 'Expel Your Partner' app – launched exactly two years ago today – AaronBot's complex AI algorithm allows it to quickly recognise and replicate standard partner behaviours, such as shouting at trainees, never making tea or coffee in the office and taking credit for other people's work.
AaronBot also features the latest in speech recognition software and has been programmed to respond positively to any questions or criticism, whilst common law partner traits such as impatience, cynicism and petulance have all been left out of the robot's hardwiring.
"Non-performing law firm partners are a problem for many legal companies in the UK but up until we created our Expel Your Partner app there was no quick-fix solution," said Mark Briegal, who heads up Aaron & Partners' Partnership Law team. "Technology has moved on somewhat since then and that's why we are continuing to lead the way in partnership automation with the creation of AaronBot.
"It gives exasperated law firm partners the opportunity to substitute an underperforming partner with a more reliable replacement. And when placed into performance management mode, the robot can operate in conjunction with the management team to inspire improved performance or, if that fails, can even suggest the need for intervention and the possibility of expulsion with a direct connection to our "Expel Your Partner" App."
The official launch date for AaronBot is still to be announced, but law firm partners wanting to be kept up to date with the latest news and updates from Aaron & Partners can sign up to the firm's newsletter by emailing email@example.com
"Being a robot, there's also the added benefit that AaronBot has absolutely no rights whatsoever when it comes to the business," added Mark.
"Under Robot Law, a machine isn't currently entitled to any shares, profit or decision-making powers, so you can rest easy in the knowledge that the robot is there for all the right reasons. It also fits comfortably on a desk, won't require its own parking space, has no holiday entitlement and won't drink all the wine at the office Christmas party, so it really is the perfect partner."
To find out more about the services that Aaron & Partners offers visit www.aaronandpartners.com.
Posted by John Bolch at 12:01 am 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Press Releases
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Written by Mathew Naismith
This is going to be quite a heavy read for anyone just into thoughtlessness. I view my life like this, if I was supposed to be completely thoughtless, why did I choose an existence that incorporated a mind? I would have been better existing as a rock not a being with a mind. Yes I believe we should learn thoughtlessness but not over and above the mind but to use thoughtlessness to help us use the mind more wisely.
I actually wrote the following for an IONS site but once again I'm going to share this around.
I have just thought of an interesting analogy of contrasts; if a person came up to a scientist and said I saw a flying pink elephant ,the scientist would 0% believe them. If the same person came up to a psychotherapist, as opposed to a psychoanalyst, the psychotherapist would 50%-100% believe them, the difference is amazing. The psychotherapist has to believe that this person saw a flying pink elephant even if it was just a delusion.
The psychotherapist doesn't actually believe themselves a flying pink elephant exists but they do believe that the said person does believe they saw a flying pink elephant. The logics and reasoning processes used between these two sciences are quite obvious. The psychotherapist doesn't need actual physical proof of such an animal to exist to formulate a deduction but an actual scientist would. I suppose that is why psychotherapy has it's own sphere/concepts of reasoning and logics as neuroscience is to physics to one extent or another. These are not specialised fields for no reason.
This brings me to spirituality; spirituality's, similar to the sciences, has a huge array of varied ideological principles using different forms of reasoning and logics. Now if a person came up to a spiritually aware person and said I saw a flying pink elephant, what would be the answer? The answer would be between 0%-100% depending on what kind of spirituality/religion they were into.
Logically, how could anyone put all spirituality into one basket (together) especially a logical science minded person? Logically you can't, just like you can't place all sciences in one basket but it happens quite frequently. Why do supposed logically minded people do this when it's so illogical to do so? Dogmatism, to show that every other ideological principle, other than their own, is flawed.
So every other ideological principle is flawed but didn't this take flawed illogical logics to make such deductions in the first place? Of course such deductions from such flawed logics can't be taken seriously.
During the religious Dark Ages, the churches in Europe would not accept any other evidence in contrary to their own ideological principles, any evidence supplied had to be within certain doctrines otherwise it wasn't accepted as evidence.
Modern day science; this ideological principle uses the same process today, if any said evidence doesn't conform to their ideological principles of science logics, it's not evidence. I get this Dark Age mentality quite a lot on science orientated sites, if any said evidence doesn't conform to certain science principles; it's not accepted as evidence just like the churches did back in the Dark Ages of religion.
It is so easy to judge one ideological principle is wrong or right over the other, this would mean psychotherapy is wrong to physics or neuroscience. I have even had a number of science minded people tell me psychotherapy isn't a science especially when I used psychotherapy to prove a point. This kind of Dark Age mentality of judgement only clouds our logics, it certainly doesn't enhance it!!