text:
Voting debate roils Washington but leaves many voters cold
Posted on June 19, 2021 by ericadminchia
By Nicholas Riccardi | Associated Press
PLANO, Texas — Brenda Martinez, a 19-year-old community college student, thinks the government should help immigrant students more. Donald Huffman is worried about turning 50 next week with no work available because the federal government is delaying the pipelines he usually helps build. Binod Neupane, who just moved to Texas to research alternative fuels, wants action on climate change.
The three Texas voters have little in common politically other than one thing — none considers voting and election reform, the issue that has dominated partisan debate this year, a top priority.
As politicians from Austin to Washington battle over the practical aspects of how to run elections — clashing over details such as polling booth hours and the number of ballot drop boxes per county — many voters are disconnected from the fight. A passionate base of voters and activists on both sides may be intensely dialed in on the issue, but a disengaged middle is baffled at the attention.
"Unemployment, climate change — this stuff should be on the top of the list, not the voting thing," said Neupane, 34.
That disconnect is now the challenge before Democrats, who are trying to marshal public support for federal legislation that would thwart a series of new state laws tightening election procedures. With rallies, ads, White House events and a certain-to-fail vote in the Senate next week, Democrats are aiming to fire up their voters around the issue, hoping their passions hold through next year's midterms.
Republicans face their own pressures. Donald Trump's false claims of massive fraud in the 2020 election have so eroded some GOP voters' confidence that they say they won't vote again. Meanwhile, the party's push for additional restrictions runs the risk of driving away moderate voters.
That debate is still roiling in Texas, where the legislature is due to return to a special session to consider voting legislation. That comes after Texas Republicans, following the lead of Republican-controlled legislatures in more than a dozen states, tried to muscle through a sweeping elections bill that increased the power of partisan poll watchers, limited the power of local election officials and prevented voting on Sunday mornings when Black churchgoers traditionally flock to the polls. Democrats in the Texas House walked out in the final hours of the legislative session, depriving the GOP of the quorum needed to pass the bill.
Since then, advocacy groups have stepped up organizing and outreach. Former congressman and presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has seized on the issue, holding rallies and knocking on doors to discuss voting, as he considers launching a campaign for governor. On Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Biden administration's point person on the voting debate, hosted the Texas Democrats at the White House.
"We have a great challenge before us and a fight, which is to fight for every American's right — meaningful right — to vote," Harris said as she was flanked by the Texas lawmakers.
But Harris' message has yet to reach many back in the politically mixed suburbs north of Dallas, a potential battleground in next year's midterm elections. The swath of comfortable, diversifying neighborhoods was once dominated by the GOP but is now politically divided.
As a heat wave this week brought fresh warnings of blackouts reminiscent of the electrical grid's collapse during a February snowstorm, several voters were confused about why legislators are spending so much time on election issues.
"Making it difficult for people to vote, it's just ridiculous," said Marcin Mazurek, a 50-year-old construction worker who only started following politics during the Trump era because he was so outraged by the former president.
Of more than a dozen voters interviewed, only one brought up the issue unprompted: Nathan Nowasky, a retired certified public accountant, Texas native and lifelong Republican whom Trump drove out of the party. He cited the state voting bill as one of the reasons he and his wife were "thinking about moving elsewhere, because Texas is a political backwater."
A self-professed news junkie, Nowasky was familiar with the conspiracy theories and false allegations about the 2020 election. He believes the Texas voting bill is fueled by those ideas and illustrates the political extremism that pushed him out of the GOP. "There's conservative, and then there's this," Nowasky said.
The major political parties for years have fought furiously in the courts over the mechanics of elections. But rarely does the fight become a central part of the parties' pitch to voters. That changed when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, many states liberalized their voting laws to make it safer to vote and Trump seized on the changes as a source of fraud, triggering new state laws often billed as making it "hard to cheat."
"It's more of a live issue than it has been probably since the civil rights movement," Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said of voting rights. Still, she noted, voting remains relatively simple for most citizens. The voters most animated by the issue are those who believe the system is rigged against them or those who see a pattern of racial discrimination in new laws.
"There are lots of people keeping it on the agenda even if, for your average swing voter, it's not their No. 1 issue," Greenberg said.
Kevin Bivens is one of those voters who's paying attention to the issue. He followed the debate in the legislature carefully and was frustrated that Republicans brushed off Democrats' attempts for a compromise. He sees the push as the latest in a long line of racial injustice.
"As African Americans, it's nothing new to us," said Bivens, who said he is in his 50s and has lived in Texas for decades, acutely aware that he is both a political and racial minority. "We know we have no power over what's going on but our votes, and if you take that away from us … ," he said, trailing off.
In a December poll from The Associated Press-NORC, only 7% of voters listed voting laws as a top issue, though it gained disproportionate interest from Republicans, 14% of whom cited it.
Martinez, who's studying to teach English as a second language, is one of those people who hasn't thought much about voting. She cast her first vote for Biden in November, and neither she nor anyone else in her family had any issues or concerns. "Everything was fine," Martinez said. Martinez thinks it would be nice to vote by mail — something Texas makes difficult for most voters — but it's not an issue that drives her.
Voting may be a side issue for many, but it could still play a role in helping Democrats solidify the coalition they assembled last year. Barbara Van Hollenbeck is a longtime Republican who voted for Biden last year — but still voted for Republicans for the legislature and Congress. She says she wanted a counterbalance to the Democratic president. Now, Van Hollenbeck says she's most worried about climate change and the economy, but she's also confused and concerned about what the GOP-led legislature is doing with voting.
"Instead of punishing them, help them find a way to vote," she said of voters.
Andy Wojtovec came at the issue from the opposite end of the political spectrum. "The last election was like communism," said the 66-year-old Polish immigrant, who owns an air conditioning company and has cheered the lawmakers' voting changes. He claimed that Venezuela helped hack voting machines to hand the election to Biden — a common, discredited conspiracy theory in pro-Trump circles.
Huffman, the pipeline welder, also was suspicious about the election, "like everyone I know," he said. A Trump supporter, he is convinced the only reason the former president didn't win in a blowout was some kind of fraud.
But as he sat in a…
Read More:Voting debate roils Washington but leaves many voters cold
Posted in PublicTagged cold, Debate, leaves, roils, voters, Voting, Washington
Charles Payne presses House Budget Chair on Democrats' taxation and spendingA moment in local history: Home construction in 1853, by Alan F. Rumrill | Local


text:
Ica () (Quechua: Ika) is a city and the capital of the Department of Ica in southern Peru. While the area was long inhabited by varying cultures of indigenous peoples, the Spanish conquistador Jerónimo Luis de Cabrera claimed its founding in 1563.

As of the 2017 census, it had a population of over 282,407. The city suffered extensive damage and loss of life during the 2007 Peru earthquake.

Geography
The city is located on the Ica River about  to the south of Lima, along the desert coast of southern Peru. Further south along the Pan-American Highway lies the city of Nazca.

Climate

Ica lies on the border of the Atacama desert and has one of the driest climates in the world Köppen BWh, with only around 1 centimetre of rainfall for the whole year. Temperatures are hot during the summer months (December – March) and warm through the winter months (June – September).

History

In 2007, researchers found the fossil remains of a prehistoric penguin, Icadyptes salasi, which inhabited the Atacama Desert about 30 million years ago.  Scientists estimate it was about  tall, with a  beak.

Evidence of prehistoric indigenous civilizations has been found in the nearby deserts, such as that of Paracas.  Other cultures include the Chincha and the Inca, the latter of whom ruled this area beginning in the 14th century. Numerous pre-Columbian archeological artifacts are now displayed in the Museo Regional de Ica.

The Inca were still in power when the Spanish conquistadors invaded the territory. The Spanish colonial city was founded on 17 June 1563 by Gerónimo Luis de Cabrera as Villa de Valverde. It was ruled by Spain under colonial rulers until Peru achieved independence in 1821.

On 15 August 2007, a magnitude 8.0 earthquake occurred off the coast of Peru, severely damaging buildings, houses and infrastructure in Ica. Initially 17 people died and 70 were killed when a church collapsed. Pisco was even more severely damaged and many people were buried under buildings that had collapsed. Some 80% of the city's buildings were destroyed.

Transportation
Ica can be reached from Lima by the Pan-American Highway, a journey of .

The Tren de la Costa is planned.

Tourism

Ica and surrounding areas are the traditional source of Pisco brandy. Ica is the site of the Museo Regional de Ica, a regional museum with exhibits ranging from prehistoric artifacts to the Spanish colonial era. On display are pre-Columbian funerary bundles and mummies. The elongated skulls from the Paracas and pre-Inca cultures suggest ritual deformation, perhaps to mark an elite class. Some skulls also bear evidence of trepanning, a kind of early brain surgery to relieve internal pressure or remove damaged skull matter suffered in battle.

A collection of furniture, paintings and artifacts date from the Spanish colonial era.

The Department of Ica encompasses considerable desert, giving it unique opportunities for tourism. The nearby Huacachina oasis is located in the midst of sand dunes. The city of Ica attracts international travelers, as well as resort seekers from Peru. Some young visitors try sandboarding; others travel the dunes in sand buggies.

Agriculture
The many days of sunshine have made Ica the center of an important agricultural region.  Commodity crops are cotton, grapes, asparagus, avocado, mango, olives and other produce. It is known by Peruvians as the "Land of Eternal Sun".

Although the area has four seasons, the climate is warm and dry. Visitors say that it feels like a northern summer year-round. The climate of the city can help in easing asthma, which is aggravated by damp and humid climates and their associated allergens.

The desert city has drawn water for domestic and agricultural needs from an aquifer fed by glacial melt water. The regional usage is exceeding the inflow of water into the aquifer.  Because the aquifer is quickly drying up, activists have called for more efficient irrigation, or adding dams and water diversions.

See also
Ica stones
Irrigation in Peru
Administrative divisions of Peru

References

External links

Ica and the Huacachina Oasis , Trekker
"History of Peru, Ica", TampoPampa
Museo Regional de Ica Website

Populated places in the Ica Region
Populated places established in 1563
Cities in Peru
1563 establishments in the Viceroyalty of Peru
Regional capital cities in Peru

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


« Don Miguel Ruiz Jr.
The follow-up to Pinker's groundbreaking The Better Angels of Our Nature presents the big picture of human progress: people are living longer, healthier, freer, and happier lives, and while our problems are formidable, the solutions lie in the Enlightenment ideal of using reason and science.
Far from being a naïve hope, the Enlightenment, we now know, has worked. But more than ever, it needs a vigorous defense. The Enlightenment project swims against currents of human nature–tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking–which demagogues are all too willing to exploit. Many commentators, committed to political, religious, or romantic ideologies, fight a rearguard action against it. The result is a corrosive fatalism and a willingness to wreck the precious institutions of liberal democracy and global cooperation.
You will receive a ticket in exchange for your purchase of ENLIGHTENMENT NOW: THE CASE FOR REASON, SCIENCE, HUMANISM, AND PROGRESS ($35 + tax) through Books & Books. This voucher entitles you to receive (1) one copy of ENLIGHTENMENT NOW: THE CASE FOR REASON, SCIENCE, HUMANISM, AND PROGRESS and also serves as your entry for (2) two people to Steven's talk at the Coral Gables Congregational Church. Seating is general admission, first-come, first-served.
ENLIGHTENMENT NOW: THE CASE FOR REASON, SCIENCE, HUMANISM, AND PROGRESS will be published on February 27. You may claim your copy of the book any time after publication at a Books & Books location, or at the event on March 8. Your voucher will be stamped to reflect whether or not you have claimed your book. A book signing will follow Steven's talk.
You must show your voucher and attached receipt to claim entrance to the event, so please remember to bring it with you that day. Books & Books is NOT responsible for lost or stolen vouchers.
Steven Pinker is the Harvard College Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. A two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist and the winner of many awards for his research, teaching, and books, he has been named one of Time's 100 Most Influential People in the World Today and Foreign Policy's 100 Global Thinkers.


text:
Brazil's Parana beefpackers reeling from cattle crisis
Processing Meat Processing Markets
Cattle futures weighed down by weakness in cash markets - CME
UK beef production up on 2021 - AHDB
Feed Markets Market Trends Markets
Ukraine says speeding up inspections key to Black Sea grain deal
Vessels are waiting for an average of more than a month
By: Global Ag Media
Ukraine's efforts to increase exports under the Black Sea grain deal with Russia are currently focused on securing faster inspections of ships rather than including more ports in the initiative, reported Reuters, citing a senior Ukrainian official on Wednesday.
Ukraine is a major global grain producer and exporter, but production and exports have fallen since Russia invaded the country last February and started blockading its seaports.
Three leading Ukrainian Black Sea ports in the Odesa region were unblocked in July under an initiative between Moscow and Kyiv brokered by the United Nations and Turkey. Under the deal, all ships are inspected by joint teams in the Bosphorus.
Kyiv accuses Russia of carrying out the inspections too slowly, causing weeks of delays for ships and reducing the supply of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets. Russia has denied slowing down the process.
"Ukraine focuses on normalising inspections rather than opening new ports," the senior Ukrainian official said.
Referring to a port that is not part of the deal, the official said: "Why open the port of Mykolaiv if at the current rate of exports we can close half of the ports of Odesa, which are already open?"
Ukraine exported around 7 million tonnes of agricultural products in September and October and 6 million in November, but shipments fell sharply to less than 4 million in December. Kyiv attributes the drop to a slowdown of inspections.
Ukraine's infrastructure ministry said on Tuesday that no new vessels were currently expected to arrive in Ukraine for loading.
It said 94 vessels were waiting for inspection in the Bosphorus, including 69 empty vessels for loading and 25 which had already been loaded with agricultural products.
Vessels are waiting for an average of more than a month, the ministry said.
Global Ag Media
Whole Hog: Market Trends Markets and economics
Hog futures rebound
December beef and veal production up 11.1%

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Senate home >>
Follow @SenateCA
Latest Order Paper and Notice Paper
Latest Debates
Previous Sittings - Order Paper and Notice Paper
Previous Sittings - Journals
Previous Sittings - Debates
2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Alice Munro, O. Ont.
Congratulations on Nobel Prize in Literature 2013
Foster Families Week
Flooding in Alberta
Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
City of Kamloops, British Columbia
Winner of 2013 Communities in Bloom International Challenge
The Honourable Terry M. Mercer
Congratulations on Honourary Degree
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Notice of Motion to Suspend the Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau, the Honourable Senator Michael Duffy and the Honourable Senator Pamela Wallin and Continue to Provide Life, Medical and Dental Insurance Coverage
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Tabling of Documents
L'Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie
Regional Assembly and the Conference of Branch Chairs of the America Region, August 19-22, 2013—Report Tabled
La Francophonie Games, September 11-14, 2013—Report Tabled
Notice of Motion—Business of the Senate
Privacy Commissioner
Security of Revenue Canada Information
Speaker's Ruling
Business of the Senate
Motion to Authorize Committee to Hear Testimony—Debate Adjourned
Motion to Suspend the Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau—Subsidiary Motion Negatived
Motion to Suspend the Honourable Senator Pamela Wallin—Motion in Amendment Negatived
Motion to Suspend the Honourable Senator Michael Duffy—Motion in Amendment Negatived
Motion to Suspend the Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau—Debate Continued
Motion in Amendment
Motion to Suspend the Honourable Senator Pamela Wallin—Subsidiary Motion—Debate Continued
Motion to Suspend the Honourable Senator Michael Duffy—Subsidiary Motion—Debate Continued
The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.
Prayers.
Hon. Janis G. Johnson: Honourable senators, let us segue for a few minutes before we resume our senatorial debates and congratulate one of Canada's national treasures, Alice Munro, for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature on October 10. My colleague Senator Black spoke of this last week. I want to remind you she is being celebrated this week in Toronto at the International Festival of Authors.
Munro has long been an icon of Canadian literature, winning the Governor General's Award for fiction on three separate occasions over a six-decade career. Described as the "master of the modern short story," Munro has been writing unique and deep-reaching stories about the lives of ordinary women, beginning with her first major work in 1968, entitled Dance of the Happy Shades.
Following her widely acclaimed debut came Lives of Girls and Women in 1971, a collection of interlinked stories critics describe as a "novel of formation" or a coming-of-age story.
She wrote stories about women in small-town Canada constrained by the mores of their times and how they lived through the restrictions society imposed. Munro intrigued us with how they handled their lives. Each story has many layers and compelling twists and turns.
Honourable senators, the genius of Alice Munro's writing is her ability to crystallize for the reader those moments we have all had throughout our lives when we grow morally through extraordinary occurrences and difficult experiences: moments of epiphany. I can think of no other writer who does this better. Indeed, Alice Munro has been referred to as "Canada's Chekhov."
Her stories are not easy reads.
Works such as Who Do You Think You Are?, The Moons of Jupiter, The Progress of Love, Too Much Happiness, Dear Life and many others have enthralled readers of all generations, culminating with the 2009 Man Booker Prize for her lifetime of work. Now with this historic win, a whole new generation of young readers worldwide will be introduced to the masterpieces of this Canadian icon.
While she cannot attend the ceremony in Sweden this December, Canadians from coast to coast will be celebrating her lifetime of great literature.
As she quietly celebrated on Monday in Victoria with another Canadian literary legend, Margaret Atwood, and will on this coming weekend at her tribute in Toronto, we thank her for paving the way for the many other great Canadian women authors whom she has inspired so greatly. Thank you.
Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize Foster Families Week, which took place October 20 to 26, 2013.
Foster families are an essential part of our society, as they open up their hearts and homes to children and youth who are unable to live with their families. They offer a comfortable, caring and secure home for vulnerable members of our society. Their selfless dedication for the care and well-being of our community's children deserves to be recognized. For that reason, last year Senator Callbeck and I gave Diamond Jubilee medals to an exceptional group of Island foster parents.
Foster families are a very special group of people who are passionate about what they do, and they are some of the most hard-working, generous and dedicated individuals we have in our society.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all foster families for the essential role they play in our communities and for their dedication to the care and well-being of our community's children. Thank you.
Hon. Douglas Black: Honourable colleagues, on June 21, I spoke in this chamber on the devastating flooding that was overrunning significant portions of southern Alberta. My hometown of Canmore and Senator Tannas' hometown of High River were and continue to be affected.
Today I rise to recognize, with great pride, the tremendous collective effort undertaken by Albertans as a result of flooding in southern Alberta. I also want to acknowledge and thank the many Canadians who came to Alberta to assist with cleanup efforts, as well as those who generously donated to flood relief.
The largest natural disaster in Canada's history, the June floods caused damage and dislocation that was frightening. In southern Alberta, a month's worth of rain fell in a span of 12 hours; and this, coupled with the rapid melt of the heavy winter snowpack in the Rockies, washed away homes, bridges, schools, businesses and dreams.
The Government of Alberta estimates the damages will surpass the $6 billion mark. Sadly, four Albertans lost their lives as a result of these floods.
However, during this time of great hardship, Albertans rallied from across the province to pitch in, contributing countless hours of volunteer service and millions of dollars in flood relief. All levels of government — federal, provincial and municipal — united to deliver support.
Alberta, as we all know, is a can-do province. "Come hell or high water" became our rallying cry as we set about to tackle the problems and alleviate the loss and hardship. Even the Calgary Stampede, "The Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth," opened on time, with huge crowds. This collective effort made me proud to be an Albertan and a Canadian.
What we can learn from the June floods is that governments must work together to identify where natural disasters are likely to occur and make the decisions and investments now to mitigate the effects of future disasters.
In closing, I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate for the support they showed to me and Albertans during this dark time.
Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: Honourable senators, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, referred to as CETA, will bring benefits to every region of our country, including my home province of British Columbia. It will create new opportunities by opening new markets for Canadian businesses and creating new jobs for Canadian workers.
Businesses and investors will benefit. Consumers will benefit. In fact, all Canadians will benefit too.
The EU has some 500 million people: more than the populations of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico combined. With annual economic activity valued at almost $17 trillion, the EU is the largest and most lucrative market in the world.
British Columbians will benefit in many areas, with duty-free access for forestry and wood products, new markets for agricultural and agri-food products, new markets for fish and seafood, as well as improved access for professional and technology services.
The forestry industry in B.C. is a huge economic driver in the province. It contributes approximately $6 billion to Canada's GDP and the sector employs some 56,000 British Columbians. B.C. accounts for the largest share of Canada's forestry product exports to the EU. B.C.'s exports are worth approximately $527 million annually. The new trade agreement will eliminate EU tariffs on forestry products, making them more competitive and creating more sales.
British Columbia's fish and seafood sectors also contribute significantly to the provincial economy. Over 7,000 British Columbians are employed in this sector. Seafood exports from B.C. to the EU are worth some $56 million annually. With this trade agreement, almost 90 per cent of these fish and seafood products will be duty free.
Honourable senators, the Canada-European Union trade agreement is a win for all Canadians. It is very good news for our economy. I congratulate everyone who has worked over the years to bring this agreement to fruition.
Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: Honourable senators, before I sit down, may I take the opportunity to salute the city of Kamloops for winning the recent Communities in Bloom International Challenge for cities with a population of more than 50,000 people. More than a beautification contest, the competition looks for examples of civic pride and citizen involvement, and rewards the city's quality of life and environmental sustainability. The competition is about getting people involved in making their community a better place to live, to work and to visit.
I congratulate the Kamloops Communities in Bloom Committee for fostering civic pride and for their hard work in creating a beautiful city. Well done.
Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, I rise today to extend congratulations to our colleague the Honourable Senator Terry Mercer, who received an honorary degree from our alma mater Saint Mary's University of Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Friday, October 18.
Senator Mercer graduated from Saint Mary's in 1971 with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Following a stint in sales, he was executive assistant to the Minister of Labour and Housing for the Province of Nova Scotia from 1974 to 1978. That work was followed by various positions with numerous provincial and national charities, which led to his leadership in fundraising for those institutions. His peers recognized his dedication when they elected him chair of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Foundation for Philanthropy in Canada. He is a Certified Fundraising Executive and has lectured extensively in Canada and the United States on modern, ethical fundraising techniques.
He served as National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1995 to 2003. During that period, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien regularly sought Terry's opinions on a range of topics. His strong personal values, forged by his education at Saint Mary's, enabled him to discharge those duties with distinction. In recognition of that leadership and community work, Prime Minister Chrétien appointed him to the Senate of Canada on November 7, 2003.
Senator Mercer has given back to his community, doing yeoman volunteer work for numerous community organizations when they sought out his energy and leadership. One beneficiary of his volunteerism has been Saint Mary's University. His deep personal commitment and work as an alumnus has been exemplary. In recognition of his many achievements and service, Saint Mary's University conferred upon Senator Mercer the degree of Doctor of Civil Law, Honoris Causa.
That was a great day for the Mercer family, many of whom were in attendance, including the senator's wife Ellen and their son Michael. I know how proud his parents, the late Bessie and Bob, were as they looked down from the best seats in the house.
Congratulations, Senator Mercer.
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I give notice that at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
Notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament;
Notwithstanding the provisions of this motion, the Senate confirm that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration retains the authority, as it considers appropriate, to take any action pertaining to the management of the offices and personnel of the senators affected by this motion for the duration of a suspension;
That the Senate order:
A. The suspension of the Honourable Senator Brazeau for sufficient cause, considering his gross negligence in the management of his parliamentary resources, until such time as this suspension is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:
i) Senator Brazeau, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;
ii) Senator Brazeau's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of his suspension;
iii) Senator Brazeau shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of his suspension; and
iv) notwithstanding paragraphs i), ii) and iii), during the period of his suspension, Senator Brazeau shall have normal access to Senate resources necessary to continue life, health and dental insurance coverage; and
B. The suspension of the Honourable Senator Duffy for sufficient cause, considering his gross negligence in the management of his parliamentary resources, until such time as this suspension is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:
i) Senator Duffy, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;
ii) Senator Duffy's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of his suspension;
iii) Senator Duffy shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of his suspension; and
iv) notwithstanding paragraphs i), ii) and iii), during the period of his suspension, Senator Duffy shall have normal access to Senate resources necessary to continue life, health and dental insurance coverage; and
C. The suspension of the Honourable Senator Wallin for sufficient cause, considering her gross negligence in the management of her parliamentary resources, until such time as this suspension is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:
i) Senator Wallin, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;
ii) Senator Wallin's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of her suspension;
iii) Senator Wallin shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of her suspension; and
iv) notwithstanding paragraphs i), ii) and iii), during the period of her suspension, Senator Wallin shall have normal access to Senate resources necessary to continue life, health and dental insurance coverage.
Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): May I ask for a clarification? Is this a government Notice of Motion?
Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): Yes.
The Hon. the Speaker: Yes.
Senator Cowan: Does it now replace the motions that Senator Carignan had placed on the Order Paper before that we have been debating?
Senator Carignan: A motion for the moment.
Senator Cowan: Just so I am clear, we have been debating motions that Senator Carignan has proposed, and several of us have proposed amendments. Some of those amendments have been dealt with and others will be dealt with later. Now what I heard is a government notice of motion seemed to incorporate at least some of the wording we already have before us. I wasn't comparing the two, but the first part seemed to be identical or similar to Senator Carignan's motion.
Are we now moving to where we're going to have a notice of motion today? Tomorrow, are we going to be dealing with government notices of motions which include what we've been dealing with for the last two weeks in Senator Carignan's motion?
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we are under the item Government Notices of Motions. It's a long motion, as we heard it read, which speaks to the importance of having notices on things that are long and complicated. At this stage we have only received a notice, and as I am often told by my students, it's much safer to speak as an historian than a prophet.
Leave having been given to revert to Tabling of Documents:
Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Honourable senators, I'd like to table, in both official languages, an email I had sent on May 16 to the then-chair of the board of internal economy, Senator Tkachuk, as well as an email sent to all senators, dated June 17, 2013.
[Translation]
Hon. Andrée Champagne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the twenty-ninth Regional Assembly and the Conference of Branch Chairs of the America Region of the APF, held in Quebec City, Canada, from August 19 to 22, 2013.
Hon. Andrée Champagne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the VII La Francophonie Games, held in Nice, France, from September 11 to 14, 2013.
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Would it be possible to obtain an estimate of the cost of overseas operations incurred by the Armed Forces between 1991, the time of the first Gulf War, and 2011, when the Afghanistan operations ended? I would like to know the approximate total cost including salaries, equipment needs and ammunition to the Canadian government for these operations.
Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): I would like to thank Senator Dallaire for the precise questions. As I said yesterday, I will take the question as notice and respond as soon as possible.
Senator Dallaire: We know, without a doubt, that the total will be in the tens of billions of dollars, and I am not even talking about the 168 soldiers who lost their lives during these operations, which represents an incalculable loss. I am talking about the monetary cost.
The reason I ask is that it took a massive investment to prepare these soldiers, sailors and airmen, deploy them and bring them back to Canada. However, the government does not seem as willing to invest in those who survived, in other words our veterans. We have seen figures: $5 billion over 20 years. Can the government provide figures that reflect how much it has invested so far to take care of the injured? Did the government do a cost projection for this aspect of the issue?
Senator Carignan: Our government has invested heavily in psychological care and health care for our veterans, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Canada has one of the highest doctor-to-veteran ratios and we will continue to take care of our veterans.
Veterans are important to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs, Julian Fantino. He will continue to listen to them and ensure that they receive the care they need. In the coming days, on Remembrance Day in particular, we can reach out to veterans and tell them how proud we are of their service to their country.
Senator Dallaire: Be careful when talking about being proud of the help provided to veterans. First, we often hear that this help is limited and that we should be reasonable. When soldiers are sent overseas, they are given everything they need to win and survive, but when they return injured, we are told the cost has to be reasonable. There is an imbalance between operational expenses and the expenses for veterans when they return.
The mindset is completely different. What bothers me even more is trying to figure out what this government really has in mind for the Charter when we hear lawyers say:
There is no legal or social responsibility to care for those they ask to put in harm's way.
When you sign up in the forces, you sign what is called an "unlimited liability." No other organization in the country has that clause. There is no option of going, no option of facing risk — that is your duty.
Under that context, do you not believe that we should have a philosophy of providing everything that is essential to ensuring that the veterans and their families don't have to fight again to live decently in this country?
Senator Carignan: While the Speaker pro tempore is getting settled in the chair, I wish to take this opportunity to wish him a happy birthday today.
You raised a contentious issue, Senator Dallaire. Of course, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case that is currently before the courts. However, I would like to point out that our government has made significant investments to support Canadian veterans; a total of $5 billion has been invested since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. That money has served to improve financial benefits, create world-class rehabilitation programs and pay tuition fees, all in order to ease veterans' transition to civilian life.
Since coming to power, we have made steady progress on helping veterans and their families, and that is what we continue to do. We have increased efforts to give veterans and their families the care and support they need.
Senator Dallaire: I have a supplementary question. Very good. You have done some work. The question is, under what context? What does "meeting the requirement" mean?
There is a very clear delineation of meeting a requirement when we are in operational theatres. You had a great time of insulting the previous government for seeing our soldiers in green in Afghanistan, where everything is brown. You recognized that, equipment-wise, you had to provide that capability, and it was done in order to meet the challenge.
The problem, though, is that when they came back, the philosophy shifted. Instead of continuing that same level of commitment and concern to the individuals as they are working their way through life with injuries incurred in these operations —along with their families — we shifted to something that has to be reasonable. All of a sudden, affordability comes into it.
In fact, you even introduced with the New Veterans Charter a sort of insurance policy framework, where, contrary to all previous veterans and all previous wars, at the age of 65, everything shuts down. There's no long-term care, nothing — bingo, you are out.
Why did you adopt an insurance policy philosophy versus recognizing that that covenant with the people of Canada, putting people in harm's way for Canadian security, is just as applicable in the theatre of operations as it is when they are home licking their wounds?
Senator Day: Hear, hear!
Senator Carignan: Senator Dallaire, you talked about equipment. As you know, we have invested a great deal in equipment, and we believe it is important that the men and women of the Canadian Forces have the appropriate equipment in order to carry out their duties. That is one of our government's top priorities.
As for investments, I would like to point out that, in eight federal budgets, our government has allocated nearly $4.7 billion in new funding in order to improve the benefits and services provided to veterans and their families. We have introduced the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act — you referred to it yourself — offered new options for how veterans receive disability awards and improved benefits for veterans.
With these improvements, seriously injured and ill veterans have access to the financial assistance and support they need and so richly deserve.
We have also created the Hire a Veteran program, which matches Canadian companies with veterans who are transitioning to civilian life. Not everyone can transition to civilian life with a Senate appointment.
We announced a $150,000 contribution to the Helmets to Hardhats program, which brings together unions and the public and private sectors to offer construction job opportunities to veterans.
In the 2013 Budget we allocated $65 million to improve the program that provides funeral and burial assistance — an unfortunate reality — by simplifying the process for veterans' estates, and we doubled the amount provided for funeral costs. We have cut down on paperwork and improved service delivery so that veterans can get the care and support they deserve in a timely manner.
Senator Dallaire: I have a supplementary question. You can list all of the things you want, but we are not seeing results. As you said, $67 million has been invested for veterans' funerals, but there is no mention of the need. That amount represents less than half the cost of ammunition for a year of training in the army. Imagine how much was spent to train these people and prepare them for operations.
When veterans return, the budget cuts start adding up. Veterans must pay out of pocket to get care, because the department is not able to pay, as a result of budget cuts. In addition, the government has made cuts to key positions.
I want to come back to a point that I believe is crucial to the debate. The minister recently announced that he wants to conduct a major review of the New Veterans Charter. Could you ask the minister if the Senate could conduct the review instead of the people in the other place, since they play to the cameras? They should come here and the review should be conducted here because, I believe, we are able to conduct a more in-depth review, as opposed to something that might be too superficial.
Senator Carignan: I can make the suggestion, if you like. However, I must reiterate our unwavering commitment to veterans. We are demonstrating that commitment by supporting them and integrating them into the labour market. I could list many more measures we have implemented to ensure that our veterans receive an appropriate welcome and transition when they come home and can join the labour market, even if they have some sort of disability.
Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): If I may, I would like to interrupt and ask Senator Carignan a question, and then perhaps my colleagues could pursue their discussion with him on those important issues.
I want to return to the notice of motion that your deputy leader made a few moments ago. I asked for a clarification, which was probably out of order at the time, so I will take the opportunity of Question Period to ask you to clarify the situation.
For eight days, I think, we have been debating your motions, not government motions, but your own motions imposing sanctions on three of our colleagues. Then you attempted to bring in closure or time allocation on non-government business, and that is the subject matter of a point of order which is before our Speaker as we have this conversation.
Now, I understand your deputy leader is proposing a notice of motion that essentially includes the essence of the elements of your motion. It doesn't change the sanctions. It puts them all in one motion and enables those three senators, if they were suspended, to draw or to continue to enjoy the benefits of health and life insurance during the period of suspension. Can you explain what in the world you are doing?
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Mitchell: He doesn't know.
Senator Cordy: He is waiting for the PM to phone him!
Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): We have to act in good faith. The chamber debated the various motions for several days, and that led to good discussions and exchanges. You will recall that I asked you to support my motions so we could make them non-partisan. You told me then that you appreciated the fact that they were under non-government business, because you would have more leeway to support them, participate in debate and move them forward in a non-partisan way.
Yesterday your side criticized me for giving notice of these motions when government business was called. I was told that if we wanted them to be government business, they should have been called under government business. Your side then engaged in various interventions to extend the debate.
My point is that we have been debating these three motions for several days now; we have spent entire days discussing them. I explained yesterday that we had to move forward with our government's agenda within the next few days. Therefore we decided to present a notice of motion that incorporated some elements from the three notices of motions and included life insurance and dental insurance benefits. These were discussed during the debate and appeared to be justified, since stopping insurance for two years would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to apply for private life insurance in case of health problems.
In that general spirit of openness and compassion, we decided to move an amended motion.
Senator Cowan: I appreciate that, Senator Carignan, and I can understand why you would do that.
I just want to know now. Tomorrow, presumably, Senator Martin will actually move the motion, the notice of which she gave today, so we will then have before us a government motion dealing with three senators in the form that she has outlined to us today, and we'll also have three other non-government motions on the books.
Now, a lot of the points that have been made on both sides apply equally to both motions, obviously, but is it your intention to proceed now with the government motion, rather than with the three separate motions? I'm not suggesting one way or the other. I'm asking so we know what is ahead of us because there has been a lot of speculation and confusion in the minds of many people as to how all of this is going down and how it is being managed.
I would like to be clear for our purposes, and I think all colleagues would appreciate clarification from you. I would take it that what you intend to do now is move forward with the government motion, which will be moved tomorrow, notice of which was given today, and, therefore, you will not be proceeding further with your other motions, which are "Other Business." Is that a correct assessment of the situation, senator?
Senator Carignan: For now, it is a government notice of motion. We will see over the next few hours and tomorrow how we intend to proceed. It is important to point out that the debates that have been held on the motions I moved covered a lot of ground in terms of the arguments from senators on both sides, as I mentioned yesterday in response to the point of order. We do not want to get caught up in procedural issues, which is the path that you began leading us down yesterday with your points of order.
What is important is that we vote on these motions within a relatively short period of time so that we can move forward with the government's agenda, since the chamber has been debating this issue for almost two weeks now.
Senator Cowan: You would agree with me, Senator Carignan, that the government controls the pace of the government's agenda in this place. Under the rules, the government has the right — perfectly legitimate — to decide when it calls its items of business up for debate or when it doesn't.
You would also agree that for the past several weeks, we have passed over, at your choice, government business before the chamber, including the Speech from the Throne, to get to other business. The government could have at any time decided that we would debate the government bills that are on the agenda or that we would debate on the Speech from the Throne. That was the government's choice. It was not our choice to debate these motions.
I am sure you would agree that that is a correct assessment of the way in which our Order Paper operates and the way the business of the house is run.
Senator Carignan: I will complete your observation by telling you that, of course, the government has options. However, there is also the possibility of negotiating a schedule with the Leader of the Opposition in order to finalize the debate on government or non-government motions. We have the ability to set a schedule with a deadline. Despite the discussions that we have had over the past few days, I did not receive any suggestions from you about a schedule to finish the debate and move on to the government agenda, even though I made this suggestion a number of times.
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Thank you, Your Honour, and happy birthday.
Hon. Joseph A. Day: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the Privacy Commissioner and the report that she issued earlier this week.
Her office explained that they have received thousands of complaints with regard to personal information being accessed inappropriately in the Canada Revenue Agency, which the Privacy Commissioner just audited.
Employees are looking into income tax files of neighbours, former partners and others, for goodness knows what reasons. Ms. Stoddart decried these intrusions as becoming a pattern or a systemic situation within the government, and she is seeing a significant trend upward in these intrusions.
Ms. Stoddart stated: "Canadians deserve to have their personal information protected, particularly when they provide it to the government under legal compulsion."
Considering that in the past year the number of complaints to the Privacy Commissioner has increased over 130 per cent, can the Leader of the Government in the Senate confirm that the Privacy Commissioner will have the full support of the executive of the government in working to implement the recommendations that she has made in this report?
Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): On the recommendation of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency has already begun implementing substantial changes that will contribute to protecting taxpayers' privacy. Among those changes, we have the appointment of a Chief Privacy Officer, the development of a harsher disciplinary policy in order to improve accountability in cases of inappropriate use of information and, finally, improvements to information technology infrastructure for the swift detection of any misuse of information.
Maintaining Canadians' trust, which is essential to the integrity of the tax system, is our priority. We expect the Canada Revenue Agency to continually monitor its operations in order to protect taxpayers' personal information, and we are pleased to have received the report of the Privacy Commissioner. The Canada Revenue Agency has accepted all of the recommendations.
Senator Day: Thank you very much for your indication of cooperation. I think this is critically important for the citizens of the country to be assured that the information they are being required to give to the government is being properly protected.
One of the interesting and novel suggestions by Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner, is that an individual whose privacy has been breached as a result of information given to the government should be compensated with funds for that breach.
Is that one of the items that is being introduced and supported at this time?
Senator Carignan: CRA has decided to implement the recommendations of the Office of the Commissioner. Every change and every aspect of the report is being heeded with great care. We expect CRA to do whatever it takes to comply with these recommendations.
Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: I would like to remind honourable senators that this is not the first time that the federal government has violated the privacy of individual Canadians. A while ago, in this chamber, I raised the case of Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada.
Ms. Blackstock has been particularly outspoken on the fact that federal funding for child welfare in First Nations communities is at least 22 per cent lower than it is for the provinces.
So she took her claim to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. After she filed her Human Rights Tribunal complaint, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and the Justice Department monitored her Facebook and other social media accounts that she had in an effort to stymie her complaint to the tribunal.
Earlier this year, Ms. Blackstock won a decision by the Privacy Commissioner, who stated that the federal government violated her rights repeatedly.
My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is this: Does the government have a plan to limit privacy violations by government departments, as in the case of Ms. Blackstock, or will Canadians have to continue to take the federal government to court or to the Privacy Commissioner in order to protect their privacy rights?
Senator Carignan: As I said earlier, mechanisms are in place to protect Canadians' personal information and privacy. We expect these mechanisms to comply with the law and the agencies mandated to use personal information do so in accordance with the law.
Senator Dallaire: Supplementary?
The Hon. the Speaker: No, it is time for delayed answers.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, yesterday, after Senator Martin moved Government motion 4, Senator Fraser rose on a point of order. She questioned the propriety of this motion.
Government motion 4 is what can be called a "disposition motion." These are motions establishing specific procedures to determine how the Senate will deal with a particular item or items of business. Such motions are uncommon, but a ruling of April 28, 2004, indicated that they are generally in order. That ruling stated that a motion of this type is not a violation of our Rules and practices. As the ruling noted, "Since the Senate has complete control over the disposition of the motion, it maintains its fundamental privilege to determine its own proceedings."
This particular disposition motion proposes to establish a process to deal with motions 2, 3 and 4 under Other Business. These motions propose to suspend Senators Brazeau, Wallin and Duffy. They were brought forward at the initiative of Senator Carignan. He moved the suspension motions as his own proposals, not as initiatives of the Government. He has been quite clear on this, and proceedings in the Senate have gone forward on that basis.
Any suspension motion is difficult, honourable senators. No senator would deny that. These motions require that the Senate, as a body, consider disciplinary actions. This is part of how we can maintain the reputation of this chamber and public confidence and trust in one of the basic institutions of our system of governance.
Debate on the motions to date has been vigorous and productive. Many senators have participated, and they have done so in a respectful and serious manner. I wish to thank honourable senators. The process has been dynamic, informative and instructive, not repetitive. The debate has captured the attention of the Canadian public. It has provided information that was previously unknown or not well understood, helping us to better appreciate the work that remains to be done to improve our internal administrative operations.
As I noted in a ruling last week, suspension is a mechanism available to the Senate. Our debate has referenced the use of suspension in other Westminster Parliaments, where it has been exercised with caution, so as not to prejudice external proceedings.
In a court of law there are detailed rules and processes to govern proceedings. In considering the matter of suspension, the Senate is following its longstanding parliamentary Rules and procedures. In a parliamentary body like the Senate, with the very word Parliament coming from parler, to speak, we use debate to reach the best possible result. Debate is at the heart of what we do, and it has been the means to explore and evaluate the suspension motions.
Honourable senators, Senator Fraser recognized that disposition motions, although unusual, are available under the practices and procedures of the Senate. She noted the 2004 case to which reference has already been made. Her concern was not about the motion, but the fact that it was brought forward as a Government proposal targeting non-Government business. As such, she asserted, it violates the basic distinction in our Rules between Government Business and Other Business. She characterized this distinction as one of the most important to be found in our Rules. As she explained, a motion can be either a Government motion or a non-Government motion, but it cannot fall into both categories. Senator Fraser argued that, with disposition motion number 4, the Government is seeking to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. She felt this is a dangerous precedent, and must be ruled out of order.
Honourable senators, later, Senator Cowan spoke to support Senator Fraser. He emphasized the importance of respecting rules and normal processes. He called for caution if the Senate is to lay aside its Rules, practices and precedents. In this vein, he argued, our Rules make a clear distinction between Government and Other Business, giving the government certain tools to advance its business. The Leader of the Opposition said these provisions should be respected.
For her part, Senator McCoy expressed dislike for the regularity with which the Senate is asked to set aside its Rules and its practices, especially when the effect is to truncate debate artificially. After all, she noted, debate is what we do. Instead, she asked the Speaker to give his guidance as to how the Senate might proceed, and encouraged us to take the necessary time to consider what we are doing.
A number of other senators also questioned whether the time taken in debate thus far is really so extraordinary, given the importance of the issues under discussion.
Senator Martin argued that while the suspension motions are under Other Business, she did not accept that this prevents the Government from proposing a timeline. The Senate can amend, accept or reject the timeline the Government has proposed. Both Senator Martin and, later, Senator Carignan argued that unlimited debate is not always desirable. In particular, Senator Carignan was concerned that while the questions of suspension are pending, the business of the Senate, and particularly Government Business, is being hampered. He suggested that there will be continual questions about the participation of the three senators. For this reason, he argued that a level of certainty is required, to help bring the debate to an end within a reasonable timeframe.
At the very outset, let us be clear that disposition motions are part of our practice. The core issue here is that the proposal by Senator Martin dealing with disposition has been brought forward as a government motion, though it would determine the course of proceedings on the three suspension motions, which are Other Business.
If the disposition motion is accepted as an item in the category of Government Business, time allocation could be applied to the motion. If the Senate agrees to this, the Government would then be able to limit debate on items in the category of Other Business using specific powers that are now clearly reserved only for Government Business.
Since 1991 the Senate has made a distinction between the categories of Government Business and Other Business.
Honourable senators, Appendix I of the Rules defines Government Business as:
A bill, motion, report or inquiry initiated by the Government. Government business, including items on notice, is contained in a separate category on the Order Paper, and the Leader of the Government or the Deputy Leader may vary the order in which these items are called.
Other Business, on the other hand, is:
Items of non-Government business on the Order Paper and Notice Paper. These may include bills, motions, reports or inquiries. Unless the Senate otherwise orders, items of Other Business are called in the order in which they are printed, which is determined by the Rules.
Honourable senators, Rule 4-13(1) establishes that Government Business shall have priority over all other business before the Senate. Furthermore, rule 4-13(3) allows the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Government to vary the order of Government Business from that published in the Order Paper and Notice Paper.
Other Business, however, is called in its published order, unless the Senate decides otherwise. There are numerous other references in our Rules to the different provisions that apply to Government Business and Other Business. For example, items of Government Business remain on the Order Paper until they are disposed of, but items of non-Government business are dropped if they are called for fifteen consecutive sitting days without being proceeded with. Should motions 2, 3 and 4 not be addressed for 15 consecutive sittings, they too would drop.
In addition, it is significant to note that under Chapter 7 of our Rules, the Government has, as already mentioned, the option of initiating the time allocation processes in relation to items in the category of Government Business.
Honourable senators, there is a coherence in our Rules. Government Business has priority, and there are mechanisms to facilitate its dispatch. As to Other Business, the Senate follows more traditional practices, so that debate is more difficult to curtail. The disposition motion currently before the Senate appears to cross the boundaries between these two categories.
A proposal of this type could, in the long term, distort the basic structure of Senate business, allowing the government's time allocation powers to, in effect, be applied to items of Other Business. To avoid the long term risks to the integrity of the basic structure of our business, it would be preferable to find a solution to this particular case that avoids establishing such a far-reaching precedent.
Given the government's important role, it has specific means, already discussed, to secure the dispatch of its business. But even under Other Business, there are ways to seek to curb or limit debate and to come to a decision. The most obvious is by moving the "previous question," which forestalls further amendments, but is only available on the main motion.
Honourable senators, my concern as Speaker in this case goes beyond the specifics of this particular point of order. All senators have an obligation to the long term interests of the Senate, to maintain the integrity of its traditions and practices, especially open debate within a clear structure, that have been hallmarks of the Senate since its very beginning. The changes that have been made over the years to modernize our practices, and to establish mechanisms to facilitate the dispatch of Government Business, were made after consideration and reflection. This approach should not change. At the same time, I am aware that the Speaker's preoccupations cannot trump the judgment of the Senate itself, which always remains the final arbiter of any point of order or question of privilege.
Given my concerns, I would strongly urge the Leaders of the Government and Opposition to work out a timeline that would find a solution to the current challenges facing the Senate, without fundamentally distorting the integrity of the basic structure of our business. As chair, I am more than willing to offer any assistance I can.
Honourable senators, this ruling is based on a thorough examination of the matter, including a full review of the Rules, precedents and procedural literature. I have also considered advice from senior advisors, over several meetings in a short period of time. The issues raised are complex, important and sensitive, and could have profound effects on how the Senate works in the future.
All senators must consider the appropriate way to respond to the challenges posed in this point of order, since the Senate is a largely self-regulating chamber. Thus far we have conducted ourselves in a manner that does credit to the upper house of Canada's bicameral Parliament, applying the basic approach we have at our disposal, namely debate, thoughtfully and carefully.
Honourable senators, through a disposition motion or other means it is possible to propose a way to end debate. The suspension proposals have been moved as non-Government initiatives. To allow a process that could result in the application of the Government's time allocation powers to non-Government business is not in keeping with the current Rules and practices.
Whatever the final outcome on this specific point, the chair remains available to assist the Senate in finding a solution. The ruling is that Senator Martin's motion is out of order and is to be discharged.
Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order, or perhaps point of clarification?
My friends have been accusing those of us on this side of impeding the passage and the consideration of Government Business. We've just now stood all the items of Government Business that are on the Order Paper. Can we get some indication from the government of when it intends to proceed to debate its own business before this house? As I understand the Rules, we are not in a position to advance their bills or the Speech from the Throne. Since these items have been here, they've stood them every day. They say they want us to deal with their business. When are they going to let us do it?
Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in my point of order yesterday I explained the importance of being able to dispose of the suspension motions involving the three senators before beginning to study public and government bills. We need to ensure that this process, and the decisions that are made, are transparent. It needs to be clear that senators are independent and impartial when they take a stand in the debate. That is how we will move forward with government bills once this situation is resolved.
Hon. Patrick Brazeau, pursuant to notice of October 22, 2013, moved:
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, once the new membership for this session has been appointed pursuant to rule 12-2, be authorized to examine and report on the living allowance of the Honourable Senator Brazeau;
That the committee hear from the senator, who will be entitled to be accompanied by counsel;
That, notwithstanding rule 12-16(1), all proceedings of the committee on this study be held in public; and
That the committee report to the Senate no later than December 20, 2013.
He said: Honourable senators, I'm in the midst of preparing notes with respect to this motion which will clearly demonstrate the total and lack of due process that at least has taken part, I believe, in my situation, and therefore I'd like to adjourn the motion for the remainder of my time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(On motion of Senator Brazeau, debate adjourned.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 7-2, the sitting is now suspended until 5:15 p.m. this afternoon, and the bells will start ringing at 5:15 p.m. to call in the senators for the vote at 5:30 p.m.
Just to remind all honourable senators: There are three votes that have been ordered. They will proceed beginning at 5:30 and continue ad seriatim, with a five-minute bell between the end of one vote and the taking of the next vote.
The house now stands suspended until the 5:15 p.m. ringing of the bells.
May I have permission to leave the chair?
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis:
That, notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, the Senate order a suspension for the Honourable Senator Brazeau for sufficient cause, considering his gross negligence in the management of his parliamentary resources, until such time as this order is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:
(a) Senator Brazeau, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;
(b) Senator Brazeau's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of the suspension; and
(c) Senator Brazeau shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of the suspension;
That, notwithstanding the provisions of this suspension motion, the Senate confirm that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration retains the authority, as it considers appropriate, to take any action pertaining to the management of Senator Brazeau's office and personnel for the duration of the suspension.
On the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:
That this motion be referred to our Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, when and if the committee is formed, for consideration and report;
That Senator Brazeau be invited to appear; and in light of the public interest in this matter, pursuant to rule 14-7(2), proceedings be televised.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question before the house is the subsidiary motion moved by the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by Honourable Senator Fraser:
Subsidiary motion negatived on the following division:
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
Callbeck Joyal
Campbell Kenny
Chaput Lovelace Nicholas
Charette-Poulin Massicotte
Cordy Mercer
Cowan Merchant
Dallaire Mitchell
Dawson Moore
Day Munson
Downe Ringuette
Dyck Rivest
Eggleton Robichaud
Fraser Segal
Furey Smith (Cobourg)
Hervieux-Payette Tardif
Hubley Wallin
Jaffer Watt—34
Andreychuk Martin
Ataullahjan McCoy
Batters McInnis
Bellemare McIntyre
Beyak Meredith
Black Mockler
Boisvenu Neufeld
Buth Ngo
Carignan Nolin
Champagne Ogilvie
Comeau Oh
Dagenais Patterson
Demers Plett
Doyle Poirier
Eaton Raine
Enverga Rivard
Fortin-Duplessis Runciman
Frum Seidman
Gerstein Seth
Greene Smith (Saurel)
Housakos Stewart Olsen
Johnson Tannas
Lang Tkachuk
LeBreton Unger
MacDonald Verner
Maltais Wallace
Manning Wells
Marshall White—56
Cools—1
The Hon. the Speaker: Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Poirier:
That, notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, the Senate order a suspension for the Honourable Senator Wallin for sufficient cause, considering her gross negligence in the management of her parliamentary resources, until such time as this order is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:
(a) Senator Wallin, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;
(b) Senator Wallin's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of the suspension; and
(c) Senator Wallin shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of the suspension;
That, notwithstanding the provisions of this suspension motion, the Senate confirm that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration retains the authority, as it considers appropriate, to take any action pertaining to the management of Senator Wallin's office and personnel for the duration of the suspension;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:
That this motion be referred to our Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for consideration and report;
That Senator Wallin be invited to appear; and in light of the public interest in this matter, pursuant to rule 14-7(2), proceedings be televised.
On the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:
That the motion be amended by replacing the words "Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament" with the words "Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration".
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question before the house is the motion in amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by Honourable Senator Munson:
Motion in amendment negatived on the following division:
Chaput Kenny
Charette-Poulin Lovelace Nicholas
Downe Munson
Fraser Smith (Cobourg)
Furey Tardif
Hervieux-Payette Watt—27
Ataullahjan Massicotte
Batters McCoy
Bellemare McInnis
Beyak McIntyre
Black Meredith
Boisvenu Mockler
Buth Neufeld
Campbell Ngo
Cools Patterson
Dagenais Plett
Day Poirier
Demers Raine
Doyle Ringuette
Eaton Rivard
Enverga Runciman
Fortin-Duplessis Segal
Jaffer Tannas
Johnson Tkachuk
Lang Unger
LeBreton Verner
MacDonald Wallace
Maltais Wallin
That, notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, the Senate order a suspension for the Honourable Senator Duffy for sufficient cause, considering his gross negligence in the management of his parliamentary resources, until such time as this order is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:
(a) Senator Duffy, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;
(b) Senator Duffy's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of the suspension; and
(c) Senator Duffy shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of the suspension;
That, notwithstanding the provisions of this suspension motion, the Senate confirm that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration retains the authority, as it considers appropriate, to take any action pertaining to the management of Senator Duffy's office and personnel for the duration of the suspension;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:
That Senator Duffy be invited to appear; and in light of the public interest in this matter, pursuant to rule 14-7(2), proceedings be televised.
On the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif:
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question before the house is the motion in amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by Honourable Senator Tardif:
Hubley Watt—26
Furey—1
Hon. Elaine McCoy: The debate, as everyone has been saying, has been good and has been far-ranging, but I want to come back and put my position very clearly on the floor of this chamber.
I have maintained all along that had a simple motion come forward to ask these three senators to step aside until all was known and how we might proceed in the most cautious and judicious way, we wouldn't have blinked an eye.
When I have been arguing all along, I have never argued for these three senators. It's obvious that something terrible has happened. What we don't know is what and how that can be characterized, and we still don't know. So to rush to judgment, in my view, is unwise. It's uncharitable and it is not fitting behaviour for a senator of the Canadian Senate.
It is no secret what I have been saying to all those people who email me asking, "What can we do? Please, we need due process." I have been saying to them that I think senators have been looking for a way to find a compromise, and my suggestion is that we hold off until the RCMP have completed their investigations, and then we come back and re-examine the situation.
I have had any number of responses to those emails, people saying, "It's a compromise, but it's a fair one. I hope your senators agree with you."
It's no secret I've spoken of that same possible course of action to many of you senators in this chamber, all around this room, and I've had mostly positive responses, but I haven't seen that proposal on the floor.
We've talked about what is the normal practice in private sector. Anybody who's under investigation by the police is generally asked to pack up, go home and wait until the police investigation is completed before any other proceedings are taken.
We talked about what happens in disciplinary hearings. Senator Dallaire shared with us what would happen in a military setting. For a police investigation, wait until the investigation is concluded to see whether charges are laid or what other action would be suitable to go forward.
We talked about what happens in my profession, the legal profession, in disciplinary hearings. The lawyer is removed from office, essentially given a leave of absence, until the police investigation is complete, and then some course of action is followed, whatever is appropriate.
We've talked about the precedent of the British parliamentary system on two levels, one being whether we have the authority — and, of course, we have; that's not under dispute. But how do they proceed? It's the order in which we proceed that is important here. They have a whole code of conduct. It is in this book. Section 112 of their code of conduct says very clearly that they suspend everything until such time as the police investigations are complete. I will find that and read it into the record. It states:
The police and other agencies investigate allegations of criminal misconduct and the Commissioner will not investigate any related allegation of a breach of the Code while the agency is conducting its own investigation.
They even go further:
The same suspension of investigation applies while related proceedings (for instance, an action for defamation) are before a court of law.
That is what the British Parliament, the British House of Lords, would do, and that is what I suggest is the wise, cautious and appropriately fair behaviour for us to follow.
One of the senators said to me, "It's not my style; my father taught me to never kick somebody when they're down, and I don't like the course of action we're following." Even to give only the health benefits is like kicking someone when they are down and then saying, "Never mind, I'll buy you the Band-Aid."
It is not appropriate. It is not fair, and I would urge you all to consider another option. So I am putting forward an amendment to this motion.
Hon. Elaine McCoy: I move that the motion be amended:
(1) by deleting the first paragraph and replacing it with the following:
That, pursuant to rules 15-2(1) and 15-2(2), and in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, that the Senate order a leave of absence for the Honourable Senator Brazeau to last until the RCMP have concluded their investigations into these matters; and
(2) that the second paragraph be deleted and be replaced with the following words:
That concurrent with the RCMP investigation, the Speaker, the Government Leader and the Opposition Leader should engage in regular consultations (with each other), with the goal of identifying an appropriate course of action for the Senate to take with respect to Senator Brazeau, when the outcome of the RCMP investigation is known.
It seems to me that would give us all a chance to take a deep breath. It would give us a chance to understand the parameters of what we might do in an appropriate manner moving forward. It would be fair to all individuals, most particularly the senators, and to due process.
We are, at our best — I keep saying this — a council of elders. Elders don't rush to judgment. Elders sit back and take into consideration everything there is to be considered. Elders most particularly show respect for the due process of law when the consequences of these actions could be serious criminal charges. But on the other hand, they may not be, which would open up a different path forward.
I will, in due course, if the opportunity arises, move the same amendment to apply to the motion with respect to Senator Wallin and to the motion with respect to Senator Duffy. I would suggest that this is an appropriate manner in which to go forward.
So I say, do not suspend these senators now. It may be appropriate later. I think the appropriate course of action for us to take at the moment is to suspend our judgment prematurely. Thank you very much.
The Hon. the Speaker: We are now on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator McCoy.
Hon. Hugh Segal: Would the honourable senator take a question?
Senator McCoy: Yes.
Senator Segal: Noting that the senator voted against the proposals to send this matter to committee, and noting that her amendment now calls for a consultation between the leadership of the chamber, both sides and the chair, could I ask her to help us —
The Hon. the Speaker: I apologize, Senator Segal, for interrupting, but it being six o'clock, pursuant to the rules, I leave the chair to return at eight unless there is unanimous consent to not see the clock.
The Hon. the Speaker: There is unanimous consent to not see the clock. Senator Segal.
Senator Segal: Could I ask Senator McCoy if she could clarify how she would like to see the chamber address her amendment in view of the fact that, up until earlier today, we had a separate motion dealing with each one of our senatorial colleagues. We now have, as I understand it, a new government motion, which enumerates our colleagues as A, B and C, not allowing us the opportunity to vote separately on those matters.
Your proposition is an amendment to one motion, and you have said, no doubt in the best of faith, that your intention is to make a similar motion with respect to the other senators who are being discussed by us on these days.
Would she give us her best advice as to how we might proceed in view of the range of motions we now face? I'm not asking particularly for any procedural insight, but, based on the spirit of her proposal, could she indicate how she thinks we would be best able to meet the standard of fairness and decency that her amendment very much underlines?
Senator McCoy: Thank you, but you're tempting me greatly.
I would suggest that the notice of motion that was made earlier by Senator Martin be left to stand on the Order Paper and not be moved. That's number one. If it were moved, I would suggest it be defeated.
Number two, I suggest that the other amendments to the other motions be defeated and my amendment be put forward and put to the vote and agreed upon with a majority, at least, if not unanimous accord.
But I will say this: I've been standing against the amendments to refer the matter to either the Rules or Internal Economy Committee. I think Internal would not quite command the respect of Canadians at this time. But in any event, I think they have, as Senator Comeau has said, undertaken a task which is to look at the financial pieces, but there are more questions to be answered than just financial.
Basically, I think that it is premature even to suggest that it go to the Rules Committee. I think that we simply haven't got the foundation; we don't know the parameters; we don't know all of our possibilities.
I'm perfectly willing to trust to Senator Carignan, Senator Cowan and Senator Kinsella, as our Speaker, to have consultations with one another and to seek counsel elsewhere as they see fit. I expect them to be wise; I expect them to come back with information that is pertinent; I expect them to find a process that will keep our honour whole, keep the integrity of this institution whole and see to it that these three people are dealt with in an appropriate fashion. I do not believe that that appropriate fashion will be acquittal — I do not know acquittal of what — I don't know the range of penalties and sanctions that might be appropriate at this stage.
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Senator McCoy, are you saying that your side has lost confidence in the work of Internal Economy? Are you speaking on behalf of a number of your colleagues on that side that this chamber has lost confidence in Internal Economy? If so, say it.
Senator McCoy: No. First of all, I have no side. I'm an independent. I suppose if you were just to relax for a little minute, I certainly did not mean to impugn the integrity of that committee.
Let me clarify what I said. It has been to Internal, and people feel that they have dealt with the financial aspect, but that's not all there is, and that's why I'm saying that to send it back there right now I don't think would quite satisfy many Canadians. But we need to know more.
You said it yourself, Senator Comeau. The mandate, as you now chair the Internal Economy Committee, is to look at the finances. There are more questions than just that.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is there further debate?
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Could Senator McCoy explain why this motion shows a leave of absence —
The Hon. the Speaker: First of all, Senator McCoy's time has expired. Is she asking for more time?
Senator McCoy: Yes, if I may, senators, have more time?
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed?
Senator Cools: I wonder if Senator McCoy could explain why this motion, as seconded by myself, employs a leave of absence as distinct and distinguished from the previous motion, which prescribes a suspension?
Senator McCoy: As I suggested earlier, common practice in most walks of life — in corporate life, professional life, the House of Lords — is to suspend judgment until investigations and a proper course of action can be concluded. In effect, you are suspending judgment, giving yourself time to find the pertinent information which gives you sufficient grounds to move forward in the most appropriate manner, which may be even more draconian than a suspension from the Senate.
Senator Cools: I wonder if the Honourable Senator McCoy could touch on the legal consequences of suspension versus a leave of absence. Suspension is very judgmental compared to leave of absence.
Senator McCoy: I think what the honourable senator is suggesting is a suspension is judgment; it is a sanction. A leave of absence leaves the field open to determine what sanctions will be appropriate, and it could be plural and it could include suspension; it could be more draconian than that, in my view. And that is one of the reasons why we need to be so cautious.
Senator Cools: Do you want to move the adjournment? The reason I am taking the adjournment and not speaking tonight is because I accepted the leaders' wish that they want to adjourn very shortly. However, I am taking it on your word that this debate will be continuing tomorrow and that you're not going to bring any unusual procedure and switch it. So this debate will be continued tomorrow. In that case then, I move adjournment.
(On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.)
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): I move the adjournment of the debate in my name.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
(The Senate is adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)


text:
Survivor inspires Valley Stream kids
Students in Richard Mansfield's fifth-grade class at Clear Stream Avenue School have never met 9-year-old Bella Tucker, a girl from New Hampshire who lost both of her legs and arms to an infection last year. Yet they are doing what they can to make her life a little better.
Mansfield, who grew up in Lynbrook with Bella's stepfather, Peter Roarty, and his students have organized a bake sale at the school this Friday to raise money for Bella's many expenses. She needs extensive physical therapy and will also require new prosthetic limbs every year as she gets bigger.
Bella came down with a rare infection last April, Streptococcus Pneumonia Sepsis, and nearly died. Doctors initially said it was unlikely she would survive, but after five days in a coma, she began her recovery. A quadruple amputation was necessary to save her life.
Students in Mansfield's class have been visiting other classrooms in the school, talking about Bella, her needs and the upcoming fundraiser. Some children also made posters that are hanging around the school to promote the bake sale.
"She is an amazing girl who is so very brave and strong," said student Natasha Dhanraj.
The bake sale will take place during lunch and after school. There will be cupcakes and cookies for sale provided by parents, teachers and staff. The school nurse is even providing peanut free baked goods. "Bella Tucker" wristbands will also be on sale, as well as T-shirts.
Mansfield's class is also putting together a video to send to Bella, with personal messages from each student. And the class is creating a journal to send, with pictures, messages and poems from students and teachers throughout the school.
The class hopes to raises $2,000 for Bella. Mansfield said he is appreciative of the compassion students have shown for her. "They all feel very passionate and connected to Bella," he said, "even though they don't know her."
Cookies and cupcakes will be on sale at the Clear Stream Avenue School to raise money for the Bella Tucker fund.
When and where: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. outside the cafeteria, and 3 to 4 p.m. outside the gymnasium.
Prices: $1 for three cookies or cupcakes, $5 for a "Bella Tucker" wristband and $10 for a T-shirt.
For more information about Bella, visit www.bellatucker.org
Orignal Article By This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


text:
Eileen L. "IKE" Hart
Eileen L. "IKE" Hart, 78, of Carrollton died early Sunday morning May 22, 2016 in the Aultman Compassionate Care Center at Canton. Born May 27, 1937 in Steubenville, she was a daughter of the late Clarence and Wilma Thompson Clark. She is survived by her husband Douglas Hart; one daughter, Kathy (Tom, Sr.) Lucas of Carrollton; three grandchildren, Tom, Jr. (Amber) Lucas, Dallas (Jen) Lucas, Justin (Jen) Hart; seven great-grandchildren, Isaac, Blake, Zayden, Nautia, Justin, JoAnna, and Jessica; and Shannon Tucker, who Eileen thought of as a daughter. Eileen was preceded in death by one son, Doug, one brother, Jim, and one sister, Jean. Funeral services will be Thursday at 1:00 PM in the Dodds Funeral Home at Carrollton with Deacon Dave Kenney officiating. Burial will follow in the Westview Cemetery at Carrollton. Visitation will be Wednesday from 6-8 PM in the funeral home.
Eileen L. "IKE" Hart, 78, of Carrollton died early Sunday morning May 22, 2016 in the Aultman Compassionate Care Center at Canton. Born May 27, 1937 in Steubenville, she was a daughter of the late Clarence and Wilma Thompson Clark. She... View Obituary & Service Information
The family of Eileen L. "IKE" Hart created this Life Tributes page to make it easy to share your memories.
Eileen L. "IKE" Hart, 78, of Carrollton died early Sunday morning...
Send flowers to the Hart family.


Andrew has illustrated books on various aspects of Irish mythology including The Creatures of Celtic Myth, The Field Guide to Irish Fairies and The Dark Spirit. Since 2007, he has illustrated a series of popular children's picture books: Gaiscíoch na Beilte Uaine (Bisto shortlist, Ibby Award and Réics Carló Award 2007); Balor (Réics Carló Award 2009); An Gréasaí Bróg agus na Sióga (Bisto & Réics Carló shortlists 2010, R.A.I. winner 2011); Mac Rí Éireann (Réics Carló Award, Bisto illustration winner and R.A.I. winner 2011); Ó Chrann go Crann (CBI shortlist, Réics Carló Award 2012 and R.A.I. award 2013); Pop! (Réics Carló shortlist 2014); An tÉan Órga (R.A.I. shortlist 2015).
In 2011, Andrew received the Bisto honorary award for book illustration. In partnership with Caitríona Nic Sheáin, Andrew has co-written and illustrated three books of fiction for children, Cogito, Pop! and Cúraille i gCeannas.
In June 2018 Graffeg published Molly and the Stormy Sea, a children's picture book illustrated by Andrew and written by Malachy Doyle. The book was published simultaneously in English paperback and hardback as well as Welsh and Irish language editions, Mali a'r Môr Stormus and Muireann agus an Fharraige Fhiáin.


Our suggested bet prediction tip for this Eerste Divisie game located in Netherlands is a AWAY DNB for G.A. Eagles. G.A. Eagles has 1.55 odds to win the football match, odds provided by probably the best online bookmaker, Unibet. If you want to bet on this soccer game, our advice is to to bet on a AWAY DNB for G.A. Eagles.


Dove Season Kicks Off (September 1st) It's going to be a Great Season, Lots of Dove Flying! Come out and Enjoy a Hunt!
Deer Season Begins (Mid September–Mid October) Deer are in Hard Rut…. Come to experience the amazing sounds of the season…..Red Deer Roar, Fallow Deer Grunt, and Sika Deer Bugle, It's a Vocal Time at the Ranch!
Whitetail Season (October 1st–February 28th) It's our Specialty, Bucks are Big, Hunt 130-150+. Book a Hunt with Us at Nine Bar Ranch!
The Nine Bar Ranch is located east of Decatur, Texas about 45 miles northwest of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex area. The ranch is owned by the Waggoner-Sauder family, a fixture in the Texas ranching community since the early 1900's. The ranch is comprised of over 12,000 acres of beautiful Texas scenery.
If you're looking for some of the best in fair chase Whitetail Deer Hunting, you've come to the right place.
Our all-inclusive Whitetail deer hunting packages will take care of all of your hunting needs.
We have some of the best in Texas Aoudad hunting. Indigenous to the Atlas Mountains and Barbary Coast of Northern Africa, aoudad sheep, commonly referred to as Barbary sheep, were introduced into the Northern Panhandle and Trans-Pecos mountain regions of Texas in the late 1950's.
Texas fallow deer hunting can be extremely challenging. These animals are very cautious and will flee immediately once they sense they are being followed. Nine Bar believes in allowing fallow deer to reach full maturity. This philosophy allows our hunters to harvest huge trophy Fallow.
Hogs, Hogs, Hogs! That's about the best way to describe the hog hunting here at the Nine Bar Ranch. The sows have been working overtime and we have plenty of hogs to hunt. Most hunts are conducted from blinds over corn feeders, these feeders go off twice in the morning and twice in the evenings. Most shots are 75-100 yards.
The Nine Bar is home to a substantial number of Sika Deer that provide a hunting challenge year round. These medium sized deer range from 25 inches at the shoulder to almost 40 inches with bucks larger and heavier than does. The color of Sika deer varies from a reddish chestnut brown of the does through to a dark brown to almost black coloration of the bucks. The antlers of the species are a great addition to any trophy wall. They are similar to the Elk antlers with four to six tines per side.
Nine Bar will you put you on a Trophy Blackbuck you'll want to hang on your wall. We offer hunts for awesome Trophy Blackbuck Antelope of which some 4 and 5-curl are available. All of the Blackbuck Antelope that we hunt are of trophy quality and average between 18-19 inches straightline, some as large as 29 inches around the curl. There are no seasonal restrictions on hunting the Blackbuck Antelope in Texas, which makes it a suitable trophy year round.
We allow the opportunities to hunt and harvest the Trophy Scimitar Horned Oryx you'll want to hang on your wall. Year round, we offer hunts for awesome Scimitar Horned Oryx. There are no seasonal restrictions on hunting the Common Scimitar Horned Oryx in Texas, which makes it a suitable trophy year round.
On 287 just as you enter the southern edge of Decatur, exit right on Business 287. Take this north 1 mile and turn right onto CR 4010. Go 6.6 miles east.
Stay on 287 south through Decatur. After passing James Woods Chevrolet on your left and Karl Klement Ford on your right, you will take next exit which is Business to 81 & 2264 Decatur then turn left at the stop sign. Go 1 mile and turn right onto CR 4010. Go 6.6 miles east.
From the intersection of I-35 and Hwy 380 on the west side of Denton go west on Hwy 380 for 12.2 miles. Turn left onto County Line Rd., south for 1.9 miles. The road will "T". Turn right and go 0/3 mile. Turn right onto 101 PR 4010 (you will not be able to see the road sign until later down the road. Just go by mileage). Go 4.3 miles west.