Joyce Murray

December 30, 2009

VANCOUVER- Joyce Murray, MP for Vancouver Quadra and Official Liberal Critic for Amateur Sport and the Vancouver Olympics issued the following statement on the Conservative Party’s prorogation of Parliament and avoidance of responsibility:
“The Olympic Games are about the athletes, the thousands of volunteers, and the communities that make these Games possible. The Olympics should NOT be about the politicians.

Yet, the Conservative Government has chosen to use the Vancouver 2010 Olympics for political gain. With the Mr. Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament in order to attend the Games’ festivities, 35 bills, various committees, and issues are at stake and needed government action will be delayed, if not lost.

Mr. Harper is trying to use a get-out-of-jail free card and avoid inquiry on the transfer of Afghan detainees – for which Conservative Parliamentarians have failed to attend the last two meetings.

If Mr. Harper wanted to support to Canadian athletes, he would support the democratic institutions that this country is founded upon. Canada’s Olympic athletes have worked the entire lives to represent their communities. It is shameful the Prime Minister is using them to serve his partisan objectives.

A successful and memorable Games in no way requires Canada’s politicians to stop working and ignore important decisions on the various bills and work by different committees.
While Canadian athletes strive for gold, the Conservative government has failed to reach podium. This failure in leadership will cost the country hardship and money waiting for important decisions.

And this time, Canadian voters and taxpayers are the losers.”

-30-

December 22, 2009

Dear Right Hon. Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

As the Liberal Opposition Critic for Amateur Sport and the Olympics and proud supporter of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, I write to express my concern regarding the discrimination faced by women ski jumpers who have been excluded from the 2010 Games. It is unacceptable for the Canadian government to be complicit in this breach of rights, and the government can and must take immediate corrective action.

The B.C. Supreme Court has acknowledged that the exclusion of women ski jumping in the 2010 Games is a classic case of gender discrimination, a finding that was not overturned by the Court of Appeal. In 2006, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) denied women jumpers inclusion into the 2010 Games, 83 women from 14 nations were competing at the elite international level in ski jumping. By comparison, the sport of women’s ski cross, which was newly added to the Olympics at that time, included only 34 women from 10 nations competing at the elite level. Also in 2006, the International Sports Federation (which governs all snow sports), recommended by a 114-1 vote that the IOC should include the women ski jumpers; this validates their having met the criteria to qualify for inclusion.

Unfortunately, today’s refusal by the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case of women ski jumpers confirms the lack of jurisdiction of Canadian courts over the IOC, a corporation based in Switzerland. In absence of a legal resolution, a political solution is required. Gender discrimination is a clear violation of Canadian values, is contrary to Section 15 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is prohibited under both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Code of British Columbia. Therefore the government must prevent this egregious act of discrimination.

In 2007 Canadian women ski jumpers filed a discrimination complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That complaint went to arbitration and was settled with the federal government promising to lobby effectively for their participation in the Vancouver 2010 Games. To date the women ski jumpers have seen no such government advocacy on their behalf. On the contrary, by supporting and enabling the IOC ‘s discriminatory decision to bar women ski jumpers, the Conservative government is tolerating, and indeed is complicit in a policy of gender discrimination.

As an Official Partner and funder of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games taking place on Canadian soil, the Government of Canada is responsible to ensure that decisions made by the IOC do not take away the women ski jumpers’ right to equal participation. Canadian taxpayers should be outraged that the government is spending public funds promoting an initiative that blatantly violates Canadian values and policies supporting equality.

It is not too late to right this wrong, and it is not too late for the women ski jumpers to compete in the 2010 Games. Thanks to support from VANOC for these women athletes, they continue to train on Olympic facilities and remain ‘Games-ready’. VANOC has ensured the budget, facilities, and logistical capability to include women’s ski jumping in the 2010 Winter Olympics, if the decision is made soon.

I request that your government immediately exert appropriate pressure on the IOC, as promised in 2007, to do what’s right. I ask that you insist the IOC comply with Canadian principles of equality and eliminate this gender discrimination. Both men and women ski jumpers must be afforded the opportunity by the IOCto compete at the 2010 Games. If not, then to avoid discrimination, neither should be permitted to participate.

I look forward to your prompt response on this very important defense of Canada’s Charter rights.

Best regards,

Joyce Murray,
Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra
Liberal Official Opposition Critic for Amateur Sport and the Olympics

Cc:

Hon. Gary Lunn

MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands

Minister of State (Sport)

This may be the last chapter of my Copenhagen Climate reports. It has been difficult to write, and not just because conference-induced sleep deprivation meant taking some welcome time off on Saturday afternoon. It was not due to the fact I was in England on Sunday night to see my son Baba Brinkman’s performance at the Hammersmith Apollo – a 3500 seat Art Deco theatre in central London. Baba performed a scene from his new show “The Rap Guide to Evolution” as part of a sold-out Science-Entertainment Christmas show with a 6 night run, filmed by the BBC. Congratulations Baba! And it also was not due to Monday being the long commute back with a 9 hours time change.

It’s been difficult because I have had to digest and accept Copenhagen’s outcome. The optimist, rationalist side of me says “COP15 was a qualified success.” The USA, China and India are now publically committed to working towards a new agreement. Given the prospect of a deadlocked conference with some countries on board and some offside, along with the prospect of an outright failure of the UN-led process to tackle this critical global challenge effectively, the Copenhagen Accord is at least minor forward movement. It would be a herculean task to get 190 national leaders to agree on the best route from the Copenhagen airport to the conference centre, never mind the roadmap to a deal as complex as addressing climate change. At Copenhagen this past week, world leaders representing the major emitting nations (present and future) were at least seized with the issue. But the pessimist, activist side of me, convinced of the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by my global warming research (published in 1992), strongly reinforced by climate science since then, is appalled.

The “Group of Two” major emitting nations (USA and China) clung to their original positions to the end and guaranteed the conference’s failure to achieve its objective of the binding agreement negotiators have worked toward since the UN’s Bali climate conference two years ago. Those positions virtually guarantee a +3 C tipping point to run-away climate warming. European nations, which came prepared to increase their commitment from 20% to 30% reductions from the 1990 baseline year (conditional on a deal), took their offer off the table. Important sub-agreements were sidelined – protecting rainforests from destruction, fostering clean technology transfer to developing countries, reducing emissions from agriculture – taking a backseat to a hastily prepared general statement of concern and principle. And the reality remains that reducing GHG emissions will only become more urgent, and more costly, the longer we wait. Oh, and last but not least, Canada was assessed by international environment groups to be the country that most obstructed progress – congratulations Stephen Harper.

The main product of President Obama’s 11th hour intervention at COP15 is The Copenhagen Accord. The Accord lays out the principles for a future agreement to include the US and developing nations that did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, and sets up a voluntary register of commitments: developed countries register their targets, and developing countries register their national mitigation actions.

Its stated purpose is to contain global warming below 2C by cutting global GHG emissions. It commits developed countries to $10 Billion a year in initial support to poor countries, rising by 2020 to $100 Billion. Inclusion of international oversight of emissions reductions, and the use of market-based approaches reflect key US requirements. The COP15 attending nations agreed to “take note” of The Copenhagen Accord, attach it to their conference proceedings, and continue working toward a binding legal agreement at COP16 a year from now.

Poorer and low-lying countries were extremely critical of this “back room deal”. They bemoaned its regression to relying on voluntary measures, and its absence of inclusiveness and transparency, hallmarks of the process laid out by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But United Nations Director-General Ban Ki-moon called the Copenhagen Accord significant, an unprecedented commitment by world leaders who went to the brink and pulled back. The gentleman representing Exxon/Mobile Oil in a business sector debriefing was remarkably cheerful, as the possibility of a COP15 breakthrough evaporated…

So Friday’s disappointing Plenary speeches by China and USA leaders described in my previous blog were not the end of the story. President Obama personally rallied the heads of state from China, Brazil, South Africa and India, and with the assistance of two dozen other leaders (not including Canada) produced the Copenhagen Accord.

Throughout Friday afternoon and evening delegates in meeting rooms, lounges, cafes, hallways, computer zones throughout the Convention Centre chatted, worked, napped and watched the omni-present television monitors waiting for the Plenary session to be recalled. Finally at 11:30 PM, screens large and small came alive with the sight of President Obama holding a press conference.

The excitement was palpable as Obama clearly and eloquently laid out the conflicting interests and agendas at stake in the process, the responsibilities of the developed world, the clarity of the science, the stakes for those countries already in peril. Everyone gathered around the monitor felt the same hope and relief: “finally, a US leader who gets it!” When Obama’s summary of the Copenhagen Accord was complete, it took a few minutes for the implications to sink in. We were still far from a solution; the Accord was only the barest agreement in principle, falling desperately short of even our lowest expectations in terms of binding targets and a legal framework. Obama remains “the great communicator”, but the horizon of a global climate change solution seems to have receded rather than drawn closer after Copenhagen.

The climate activist in me recognizes this as a failure on a massive scale, with vast implications for the quality of life for millions. But the political rationalist in me recognizes the significance of the major powers drafting an Accord, even a toothless one, and in the case of the earth’s atmosphere all parties must move in the same direction or none will. A small step united may end up being a greater achievement than a bold step divided.

So much for horizons from Copenhagen’s lens on the world, now back to the nitty gritty, the ideas and actions by committed individuals and communities. Those may have to be the source of the real solutions after all.

Joyce in Vancouver