What Does "Tough on Crime" Really Mean to Conservatives?
Tom Flanagan, the supremely-respected Conservative and former advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, had some advice for President Barack Obama over the WikiLeaks information-release. Flanagan shared his thoughts with the media: Obama should consider the targetted assassination of Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks. Not an arrest. No trial. Even "good 'ol boy" right-wing nut-bars in the United States like Mike Huckabee are only calling for Assange's execution.
Is this the kind of "law and order" society that Conservatives want to create? Don't be dismissive here. Recently elected Member of Parliament for Vaughan, Julian Fantino (whom the pundits claim is headed straight for cabinet) is on record, questioning Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his autobiography, Fantino asked, "Who has reaped the greatest benefit from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I would argue that, if it isn't the common criminals, then it must be the Hells Angels." Nevermind the protections the Charter has afforded to visible minorities, the disabled, women, religious organizations. For Conservative MP Fantino, the Charter is just another obstacle in the war on crime. Kind of like WikiLeaks.
What's really motivating the Conservatives "Tough on Crime" agenda? It's not because we're experiencing more crime in Canada, because statistics show that crime is actually trending downward. Those are the same statistics, however, which are also under attack by Conservatives, through denial of Freedom of Information requests, and through changes made to the way in which data will be collected. The Cons(ervatives) have always had a bit of a problem with crime stats, exemplified by recent remarks from Stockwell Day about the need for more prisons to house criminals from unreported crime.
It makes one wonder just who just all of those new, expensive, prisons are being built for?
-----
Julian Fantino's Charter Challenge
Here's a link to the Globe and Mail's story about Julian Fantino's attack on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Liberal Justin Trudeau's defense of the Charter, for those who don't believe that Conservatives like Fantino might actually have a little disrespect stored up for one of the highest laws of our land. Folks, keep in mind: if the Charter goes, so do your human rights. Sure, we lived without a Charter for a very long time in this country, and we relied on common law for our legal defenses. We still do. But Charter guarantees are very powerful legal guarantees of rights. If the Charter is torn up, because it is perceived to benefit criminals, or for whatever reason, how might the Courts interpret that action when it comes to human rights cases? Getting rid of the Charter would be a game-changer. Based on Fantino's remarks, it's pretty clear where he stands with regards to his support of the Charter.
-----
Middle Class Champions In Short Supply
Thomas Walkom at the Toronto Star: the already-shrinking middle class is shooting itself in the foot by demanding tax cuts and cuts to social services. Their demands benefit the very rich, and are detrimental to the aspirations of the middle class. If we continue to support Liberal and Conservative governments throughout Canada, we can expect to see the continued erosion of the middle class. To those Liberals who continue to believe that the current Liberal Party is the same as that under Lester Pearson or even Pierre Trudeau, open your eyes: your party has become the champion of Bay Street big business, and your policies have largely abandoned the middle class. Look no further to than to the massive tax cuts and service reductions and downloading of the Chretien-Martin years. Or the health care premium established by Dalton McGuinty. No matter how much Liberals want Canadians to believe that they are interested in the well-being of the middle class, their actions strongly suggest otherwise. The middle class needs to look elsehwere for a true political champion. That's why I joined the Green Party. It's time for the middle class to understand its plight, and to do something constructively to address it. Voting for either of the twin corporate parties, red or blue, isn't the answer. They will continue to screw us over.
-----
Stimulus Spending and Jobs: Value for Dollars?
Why do people continue to believe that Conservatives can manage the economy? They plunged the country into record-setting budget deficits to finance "stimulus spending" and tax cutting, ostensbly to turn the economy around and create jobs. Did things get better? Wrong question. When you spend that kind of money, things are going to get better. Better questions: did we get value for money? Did all that money deficit money we spent, which we and our children will be paying off for years and years to come, did we receive the quick hit benefits promised to us by Harper? Budgetary watchdog Kevin Page's report is out today. When it comes to delivering on job creation for the middle class, which was ostensibly the primary motivator behind this orgy of spending, Page says that the Conservatives failed to deliver. Yes, we've built a lot of nice things, many of which were actually needed in communities. But with unemployment still high, at what cost have we mortgaged our future?
Instead of building a Canada equipped to handle the very real problems of today, through using stimulus money to target investment in green energy and green collar jobs, we built highways (for a future where there will be fewer cars on the road, due to higher gasoline prices, a shrinking middle class, and poverty). We built hockey arenas and sports complexes for a decreasing number of families who can afford to enrol their kids in sports. We built new college and university buildings at a time when we can expect fewer educators and students to inhabit them. Yes, the Conservatives were very good at spending money on stuff, but when it comes to making investments in people, the price-tag around the so-called economic stimulus has been an abject failure.
-----
Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner in Sudbury
Green Party of Ontario Leader (and my newest Facebook friend) Mike Schreiner visited Greater Sudbury this past weekend to consult on the Green Party's draft election platform. What politician does that? Imagine...sincerely asking people what they think about a party's platform before telling people what they should think. Mike is clearly a new kind of political leader
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Change is Upon Us, Part 1: Living in a Time of Transition
Climate change is happening. We are warming the globe by burning the fossil fuels which power our industries. We are warming the globe by burning oil in our cars so that we can travel to our jobs, to the shopping malls, to the soccer fields and recreation centres. We are burning coal, natural gas and oil to heat our homes in the winter and to power our air conditioners in the summer. We are burning fossil fuels when we reach for that box of corn flakes or that head of lettuce at the supermarket, because fossil fuels were burned to fertilize the crops, and to power the farm machinery which harvested our food.
The buying and selling of consumer products created by our industries drive economic growth. Wealth is created for all: by the people who make the products; by those who buy and sell (through mark-up); by the shareholders who own the corporations which profit; and by the people and corporations which produce the energy needed to fuel the economy. The creation of wealth is not only deemed to be a desirable goal for individuals and businesses, it's an integral component to the continuing success of our economy. When wealth is created, so is demand; when the creation of wealth slows, so does the demand for products produced by our industries, which leads to economic reversal.
Without a doubt, our society has benefited significantly from the burning of fossil fuels. Our standard of living has never been higher, and our quality of life seems to be pretty good. Most of us are employed, and sure, we may be working a little harder to pay the bills which always seem to be going up, but in general, we're pretty happy. We live in a country where we don't often fear for our personal safety (or that of our family). In general, while there will always be something to complain about, it seems that things are relatively ok. When we look around the world at what's going on elsewhere, the idea that we have it pretty good in Canada is affirmed.
So what if our climate is changing as a result of our economic activities? Is that really such a big deal? Humanity has adapted before; we've stared down every other significant challenge we've faced, and we've figured out a way to come out on top. Why should Canadians be worried about climate change? Why should we heed the calls of those who would have us forgo the benefits we continue to derive from the burning of fossil fuels? Why should we change?
The answer, of course, is that we have to. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Change is upon us. We are going to be changing in so many ways over the next few decades, whether we want to or not. Rather than asking “Why change?”, a better question would be, “How best can we manage change?”
Oh, wait a moment. I may have barged a little too far ahead here. Please let me back up.
Change is upon us? What does that mean? Why am I being so insistent that change is going to happen, whether we want it to or not?
Throughout the next week or so, while the Green Party's Fred Twilley and Elizabeth May are attending the United Nations COP-16 climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico, I'm going to be exploring why I believe that there will be some very fundamental changes heading our way over the next decade or two. I'm going to back up my assertion that “change is upon us”, and begin to address the question of “How best can we manage change?”
The international community has come together for the next 10 days or so in Mexico to attempt to answer that question as well. Whether they will be able to make progress in doing so remains to be seen, but I believe that the international community has a very good understanding of the nature of the changes which we can expect to encounter as our years go by. Our national leaders may not be forthright in telling you about the sorts of changes that we can expect, but I believe that they nevertheless understand that we are living in a period of transition. They are already planning for the changes which they know are coming. Yet because they are not engaging the average citizen in discussions about how best to manage change, we run the risk of heading into a future where our concerns, issues and well-being is sidelined in favour of the rich, multi-national corporations which will benefit from decisions being made by our government today.
Why are we allowing this to happen? In some respects, it's because we don't really have a good understanding of what sorts of changes we can expect to occur in the next few years. We continue to believe that tomorrow is going to be a lot like today, and that our lives will go on as they seem to have always gone on. We are not expecting massive and fundamental changes, because we are not hearing about them. When the discussion of change works its way into the mainstream, it is often downplayed. Look at the way in which discussions about climate change are addressed in the media. For some, it would seem that there remains a debate as to whether our climate is actually being altered as a result of our industrial processes. And so time is lost on the real discussion which we should be having regarding what we're going to collectively do about climate change is put off for another day.
Global warming isn't the only threat to our society, however it is the most pernicious. Other threats, such as the end of cheap oil, poverty and homelessness, food and water shortages, terrorism and war, are going to be exacerbated by a changing climate. That's why taking real action to reduce our carbon emissions is so very important. However, taking action to reduce our emissions isn't going to be easy, given the path that we are on.
I joined the Green Party a number of years back because I was impressed that the Green Party had taken a close look at the real issues facing our well-being over the next few decades, and had developed comprehensive and connected solutions. Rather than looking at issues in silos, such as “the economy”, “health care”, and “the environment”, the Green Party acknowledges that issues are interconnected, and therefore so must be any viable solutions.
The other political parties in Canada still don't seem to understand this, in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily make their ideas or proposed solutions bad in all cases, but it does raise the question as to whether all consequences of their decisions and proposed decisions are being thought through. When you start at the point where you place issues into discrete boxes, and you develop solutions without considering other impacts, you're setting yourself up for unintended consequences. When you start from the point of connectivity, there's a better chance that holistic solutions can be developed.
The one problem with holistic decision-making, though, is being able to explain why a certain decision might be better. In many cases, a holistic decision might actually appear detrimental, until it can be explained appropriately and understood. Unfortunately, politicians work in a sound-byte world where only the thinnest of ideas have much hope of finding resonance with an increasingly distracted populace. For me, this reality partly explains the Green Party's lack of success at the ballot box. Greens have good ideas, but we have not been successful at explaining them.
In Part 2 of this series, I'll be looking at how the end of cheap energy is going to initiate change over the coming decades. In Part 3, I'll look at our food supply. In Part 4, I'll discuss how climate change, expensive energy and food shortages will lead to significant risks to our security, and how that is liable to change our democratic institutions and ultimately impact our lives.
Tomorrow will not be like today. We are entering a period of transition, from the oil age into something else. We still have an opportunity to influence where we take our future, but we've got to start talking about it, and taking action.
The buying and selling of consumer products created by our industries drive economic growth. Wealth is created for all: by the people who make the products; by those who buy and sell (through mark-up); by the shareholders who own the corporations which profit; and by the people and corporations which produce the energy needed to fuel the economy. The creation of wealth is not only deemed to be a desirable goal for individuals and businesses, it's an integral component to the continuing success of our economy. When wealth is created, so is demand; when the creation of wealth slows, so does the demand for products produced by our industries, which leads to economic reversal.
Without a doubt, our society has benefited significantly from the burning of fossil fuels. Our standard of living has never been higher, and our quality of life seems to be pretty good. Most of us are employed, and sure, we may be working a little harder to pay the bills which always seem to be going up, but in general, we're pretty happy. We live in a country where we don't often fear for our personal safety (or that of our family). In general, while there will always be something to complain about, it seems that things are relatively ok. When we look around the world at what's going on elsewhere, the idea that we have it pretty good in Canada is affirmed.
So what if our climate is changing as a result of our economic activities? Is that really such a big deal? Humanity has adapted before; we've stared down every other significant challenge we've faced, and we've figured out a way to come out on top. Why should Canadians be worried about climate change? Why should we heed the calls of those who would have us forgo the benefits we continue to derive from the burning of fossil fuels? Why should we change?
The answer, of course, is that we have to. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Change is upon us. We are going to be changing in so many ways over the next few decades, whether we want to or not. Rather than asking “Why change?”, a better question would be, “How best can we manage change?”
Oh, wait a moment. I may have barged a little too far ahead here. Please let me back up.
Change is upon us? What does that mean? Why am I being so insistent that change is going to happen, whether we want it to or not?
Throughout the next week or so, while the Green Party's Fred Twilley and Elizabeth May are attending the United Nations COP-16 climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico, I'm going to be exploring why I believe that there will be some very fundamental changes heading our way over the next decade or two. I'm going to back up my assertion that “change is upon us”, and begin to address the question of “How best can we manage change?”
The international community has come together for the next 10 days or so in Mexico to attempt to answer that question as well. Whether they will be able to make progress in doing so remains to be seen, but I believe that the international community has a very good understanding of the nature of the changes which we can expect to encounter as our years go by. Our national leaders may not be forthright in telling you about the sorts of changes that we can expect, but I believe that they nevertheless understand that we are living in a period of transition. They are already planning for the changes which they know are coming. Yet because they are not engaging the average citizen in discussions about how best to manage change, we run the risk of heading into a future where our concerns, issues and well-being is sidelined in favour of the rich, multi-national corporations which will benefit from decisions being made by our government today.
Why are we allowing this to happen? In some respects, it's because we don't really have a good understanding of what sorts of changes we can expect to occur in the next few years. We continue to believe that tomorrow is going to be a lot like today, and that our lives will go on as they seem to have always gone on. We are not expecting massive and fundamental changes, because we are not hearing about them. When the discussion of change works its way into the mainstream, it is often downplayed. Look at the way in which discussions about climate change are addressed in the media. For some, it would seem that there remains a debate as to whether our climate is actually being altered as a result of our industrial processes. And so time is lost on the real discussion which we should be having regarding what we're going to collectively do about climate change is put off for another day.
Global warming isn't the only threat to our society, however it is the most pernicious. Other threats, such as the end of cheap oil, poverty and homelessness, food and water shortages, terrorism and war, are going to be exacerbated by a changing climate. That's why taking real action to reduce our carbon emissions is so very important. However, taking action to reduce our emissions isn't going to be easy, given the path that we are on.
I joined the Green Party a number of years back because I was impressed that the Green Party had taken a close look at the real issues facing our well-being over the next few decades, and had developed comprehensive and connected solutions. Rather than looking at issues in silos, such as “the economy”, “health care”, and “the environment”, the Green Party acknowledges that issues are interconnected, and therefore so must be any viable solutions.
The other political parties in Canada still don't seem to understand this, in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily make their ideas or proposed solutions bad in all cases, but it does raise the question as to whether all consequences of their decisions and proposed decisions are being thought through. When you start at the point where you place issues into discrete boxes, and you develop solutions without considering other impacts, you're setting yourself up for unintended consequences. When you start from the point of connectivity, there's a better chance that holistic solutions can be developed.
The one problem with holistic decision-making, though, is being able to explain why a certain decision might be better. In many cases, a holistic decision might actually appear detrimental, until it can be explained appropriately and understood. Unfortunately, politicians work in a sound-byte world where only the thinnest of ideas have much hope of finding resonance with an increasingly distracted populace. For me, this reality partly explains the Green Party's lack of success at the ballot box. Greens have good ideas, but we have not been successful at explaining them.
In Part 2 of this series, I'll be looking at how the end of cheap energy is going to initiate change over the coming decades. In Part 3, I'll look at our food supply. In Part 4, I'll discuss how climate change, expensive energy and food shortages will lead to significant risks to our security, and how that is liable to change our democratic institutions and ultimately impact our lives.
Tomorrow will not be like today. We are entering a period of transition, from the oil age into something else. We still have an opportunity to influence where we take our future, but we've got to start talking about it, and taking action.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Green Party's Fred Twilley at COP-16 in Cancun, Mexico
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s 16th Conference of the Parties (COP-16) is now underway in Cancun, Mexico! Sudbury’s own Fred Twilley, nominated candidate for the Green Party, will be attending this conference. He’ll be bringing an important message to other international attendees: despite the dismal actions of the Canadian government to do anything meaningful to combat climate change, average Canadians still care about finding a way forward.
Fred had the opportunity to speak with concerned Sudburians earlier this month at a non-partisan Climate Change Forum. At that forum, Fred committed to taking the important messages of Sudburians to other international delegates, to let them know that we in the community of Greater Sudbury care about climate change, and we too, are looking for workable solutions. Fred will be speaking with other delegates about local success stories which his counterparts might have experienced. Fred has committed to bringing their ideas back home to Sudbury, and sharing those experiences with Sudburians in January, 2011, at a follow-up forum.
There’s a lot happening here in Greater Sudbury with regards to tackling climate change. Earlier, in October, the first international association of the Citizens Climate Lobby was formed right here in Sudbury, thanks to the awesome efforts of Cathy Orlando of Laurentian University. Since then, at least two other Canadian associations have taken root. The Sudbury association has been participating in the Million Letter March – Canada initiative, which urges Canadians to write to our Members of Parliament with the message that we need to do more to combat climate change.
The Nickel District Conversation Authority-led Greater Sudbury Climate Change Consortium has also been actively meeting throughout the past year. Look to this organization to be involved in a few exciting ventures over the next year.
There has also been exciting news from our business community, with renewable energy initiatives being discussed, and with new renewable energy businesses locating in Greater Sudbury bringing green-collar jobs to our community.
Clearly, people in Greater Sudbury are becoming more aware of the impacts that a changing climate will have on our community. There’s a growing understanding that we need to take a very close look at many things in our personal lives, and try to figure out how we can do our part to minimize our impacts on climate. We understand that actions and efforts must be co-ordinated between all levels of government, and with all sectors of our business. Together, we can make real progress to reduce emissions, if there’s a will to do so.
And there is a will to do so, on a personal level. Last week, an Environics Research poll was released which shows that our Conservative government is considerably out of step with the will of a vast majority of Canadians on the need for urgent action on climate change. The poll reports that over 80% of Canadians believe that an emphasis on consumerism and economic growth is contributing to a changing climate. As a result, Canadians acknowledge that we must shift our economic, social and environmental priorities to deal with the climate crisis. 70% of Canadians even volunteered that Canada should reduce its military spending in an effort to tackle climate change.
Our Conservative government, however, continues to thwart the expressed will of a majority of Canadians at every opportunity. While Fred Twilley was hearing from concerned Sudburians at the December 16th Climate Change Forum, the unelected Conservative-dominated Senate was in the process of killing Bill C-311, the NDP sponsored, Liberal and Bloc supported Climate Change Accountability Act. Conservative Senators took this action to kill the bill without any debate, despite the fact that a majority of elected MP’s in the House of Commons passed the bill.
Further, in the past week, an increasing number of reports have come out in the mainstream media that our tax dollars are being used by the government to lobby against climate change policies and programs in United States and elsewhere! These shocking revelations, and the actions of Harper-appointed Conservative Senators, along with Canada’s sending a part-time Minister to COP-16 in Cancun, clearly represent a desire on the part of our government to do nothing at all to address climate change.
Personal and local actions are very important if we’re going to have any hope at all to reduce our carbon emissions. However, our upper levels of government must also be very committed to emissions reduction. So far, Harper and the Conservatives have chosen to champion inaction, claiming that Canada will be economically disadvantaged if it acted to reduce emissions on its own. This argument, however, doesn’t hold water. The proof that it’s a cop-out argument can be seen in the vibrant and growing economies of European nations like Sweden, Germany and Denmark, who have been “greening” their economies and growing highly-skilled jobs for workers. Indeed, these countries, along with South Korea and China, have begun exporting their green technologies abroad to places like Canada, who are now forced to play catch-up.
As our federal government continues to shore up the fossil fuel industry through billions of dollars in investments and deferred taxation every year, renewable energy initiatives have largely remained uncompetitive in Canada. It’s absurd that our Conservative government continues to subsidize rich oil companies, which are mostly foreign-owned, at the expense of green energy start-ups, which are in many cases home-grown initiatives, which seek to use technology developed right here in Canada. It’s no wonder that an increasing number of Canadians are beginning to question in just whose interests our government is making decisions.
I’ve received word that Fred Twilley has arrived safely in Cancun. As many of you know, travelling to by air is a very carbon-intensive form of transportation. That’s why the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association will be off-setting Fred’s air travel through a donation to the Kapuskasing Forest Project, a Carbon Zero project. While it may seem ironic to some that international leaders are travelling to Mexico by air, generating significant carbon emissions in the process, the fact is that gatherings like COP-16 are the best way for international agreements to move forward. They are a necessary step in achieving international consensus in dealing with climate change.
Like it or not, we are all in this together on Planet Earth; what one nation does with its carbon emissions is going to impact everyone else. Historically, we here in Canada have certainly contributed more than our fair share of emissions into our atmosphere, and we’ve received the economic benefits and an unparalleled quality of life for having done so. Today, per capita, Canada remains one of the dirtiest nations in the world when it comes to emissions. We must make a sincere contribution to do more in the fight against climate change. We owe it to our families, our descendants, and the world.
Fred had the opportunity to speak with concerned Sudburians earlier this month at a non-partisan Climate Change Forum. At that forum, Fred committed to taking the important messages of Sudburians to other international delegates, to let them know that we in the community of Greater Sudbury care about climate change, and we too, are looking for workable solutions. Fred will be speaking with other delegates about local success stories which his counterparts might have experienced. Fred has committed to bringing their ideas back home to Sudbury, and sharing those experiences with Sudburians in January, 2011, at a follow-up forum.
There’s a lot happening here in Greater Sudbury with regards to tackling climate change. Earlier, in October, the first international association of the Citizens Climate Lobby was formed right here in Sudbury, thanks to the awesome efforts of Cathy Orlando of Laurentian University. Since then, at least two other Canadian associations have taken root. The Sudbury association has been participating in the Million Letter March – Canada initiative, which urges Canadians to write to our Members of Parliament with the message that we need to do more to combat climate change.
The Nickel District Conversation Authority-led Greater Sudbury Climate Change Consortium has also been actively meeting throughout the past year. Look to this organization to be involved in a few exciting ventures over the next year.
There has also been exciting news from our business community, with renewable energy initiatives being discussed, and with new renewable energy businesses locating in Greater Sudbury bringing green-collar jobs to our community.
Clearly, people in Greater Sudbury are becoming more aware of the impacts that a changing climate will have on our community. There’s a growing understanding that we need to take a very close look at many things in our personal lives, and try to figure out how we can do our part to minimize our impacts on climate. We understand that actions and efforts must be co-ordinated between all levels of government, and with all sectors of our business. Together, we can make real progress to reduce emissions, if there’s a will to do so.
And there is a will to do so, on a personal level. Last week, an Environics Research poll was released which shows that our Conservative government is considerably out of step with the will of a vast majority of Canadians on the need for urgent action on climate change. The poll reports that over 80% of Canadians believe that an emphasis on consumerism and economic growth is contributing to a changing climate. As a result, Canadians acknowledge that we must shift our economic, social and environmental priorities to deal with the climate crisis. 70% of Canadians even volunteered that Canada should reduce its military spending in an effort to tackle climate change.
Our Conservative government, however, continues to thwart the expressed will of a majority of Canadians at every opportunity. While Fred Twilley was hearing from concerned Sudburians at the December 16th Climate Change Forum, the unelected Conservative-dominated Senate was in the process of killing Bill C-311, the NDP sponsored, Liberal and Bloc supported Climate Change Accountability Act. Conservative Senators took this action to kill the bill without any debate, despite the fact that a majority of elected MP’s in the House of Commons passed the bill.
Further, in the past week, an increasing number of reports have come out in the mainstream media that our tax dollars are being used by the government to lobby against climate change policies and programs in United States and elsewhere! These shocking revelations, and the actions of Harper-appointed Conservative Senators, along with Canada’s sending a part-time Minister to COP-16 in Cancun, clearly represent a desire on the part of our government to do nothing at all to address climate change.
Personal and local actions are very important if we’re going to have any hope at all to reduce our carbon emissions. However, our upper levels of government must also be very committed to emissions reduction. So far, Harper and the Conservatives have chosen to champion inaction, claiming that Canada will be economically disadvantaged if it acted to reduce emissions on its own. This argument, however, doesn’t hold water. The proof that it’s a cop-out argument can be seen in the vibrant and growing economies of European nations like Sweden, Germany and Denmark, who have been “greening” their economies and growing highly-skilled jobs for workers. Indeed, these countries, along with South Korea and China, have begun exporting their green technologies abroad to places like Canada, who are now forced to play catch-up.
As our federal government continues to shore up the fossil fuel industry through billions of dollars in investments and deferred taxation every year, renewable energy initiatives have largely remained uncompetitive in Canada. It’s absurd that our Conservative government continues to subsidize rich oil companies, which are mostly foreign-owned, at the expense of green energy start-ups, which are in many cases home-grown initiatives, which seek to use technology developed right here in Canada. It’s no wonder that an increasing number of Canadians are beginning to question in just whose interests our government is making decisions.
I’ve received word that Fred Twilley has arrived safely in Cancun. As many of you know, travelling to by air is a very carbon-intensive form of transportation. That’s why the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association will be off-setting Fred’s air travel through a donation to the Kapuskasing Forest Project, a Carbon Zero project. While it may seem ironic to some that international leaders are travelling to Mexico by air, generating significant carbon emissions in the process, the fact is that gatherings like COP-16 are the best way for international agreements to move forward. They are a necessary step in achieving international consensus in dealing with climate change.
Like it or not, we are all in this together on Planet Earth; what one nation does with its carbon emissions is going to impact everyone else. Historically, we here in Canada have certainly contributed more than our fair share of emissions into our atmosphere, and we’ve received the economic benefits and an unparalleled quality of life for having done so. Today, per capita, Canada remains one of the dirtiest nations in the world when it comes to emissions. We must make a sincere contribution to do more in the fight against climate change. We owe it to our families, our descendants, and the world.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Climate Change: It's Happening. Let's Look for Solutions.
On June 4th, 2007, in Berlin, Germany, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, called for an international consensus on climate change. Harper referred to the fight against climate change as “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.” Three and a half years later, the optimism that urgent action would be taken by the international community to combat climate change appears to have dissipated. In part this has happened as a result of the global economic downturn, and shifting of governmental focus on shoring up our moribund economies. However, certain pundits, politicians and special interests have used the economic downturn as an excuse to sabotage action on climate change in order to further their own agendas.
Since the release of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Assessment Report, there has no longer been any doubt that global warming is happening, and that it’s happening as a result of human industrial activities. Today, there remain those who want you to believe that the jury is still out on the climate change verdict, or who insist that the science is faulty. Or worse, they want you to believe that the scientists involved in the United Nations international effort to collect data and gather facts to inform world leaders are somehow complicit in an effort to mislead humanity, presumably for their own, shadowy ends.
The facts, however, are as undeniable as they are conclusive: humanity, through our industrial-scale use of fossil fuels, is having an impact on global climate. We are heating our planet. And as a result, there will be impacts associated with a changing climate which we need to begin to address at all levels of society.
There remains an urgent need to take action to combat climate change. Those who refuse to believe in scientific fact have shown again and again that they have nothing to bring to the table in terms of finding solutions. Systematically, they are being shut out of serious debates and discussions regarding what the international community should do to address climate change. The leaders of all nations are currently in agreement that climate change is happening, and that something has to be done. Disagreement between nations, often considerable, tends to occur when the discussion turns to finding ways forward.
Being shut out of conversations can be extremely frustrating, and can provoke negative, sometimes hysterical, reactions. Right now, that’s what’s happening to climate change deniers. Those involved in the denial industry (who often receive financial backing from companies who profit from oil and coal exploration and development) have been actively campaigning in the media against action on climate change. Their tactics include either denying that climate change is happening, or confusing the issue so that there is some question regarding how it is happening.
Many have fallen victim to believing the junk-science offered by climate change deniers. Indeed, the mainstream media, in their efforts to bring “balance” to news stories, often provide the denial industry with a platform from which they can expound their junk scientific theories.
The truth, however, is that there is no balance needed to be brought to a story where the facts are not actually in dispute. While there are many aspects regarding climate change which rightly should generate significant discussion and debate (such as “how is the international community going to address this dire problem?”), none of us benefit from stepping back and re-arguing the scientific merits of a changing climate. In fact, such discussions merely detract from the serious and necessary discussions which must take place in the next few years at all levels.
This week, the international community is gathering in Cancun, Mexico, for the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP-16) signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many in the media have already written off this latest round of international discussion, pointing to last year’s failure in Copenhagen, along with a growing lack of interest in many western nations to take actions which may be perceived as jeopardizing economic recovery.
Western nations, however, do not make up the bulk of participants at this international conference. Although western nations are overwhelmingly responsible for creating the problems facing the Earth’s climate in the first place (because of historic emission levels), it’s the developing nations which are feeling the most of the negative impacts of climate change today. For many years now, developing nations have been clamouring for meaningful action to address climate change. We can expect them to continue to do so in Cancun. The question is, will the West agree to necessary action?
Stephen Harper was right: climate change is perhaps the biggest threat to humanity’s future. Yet, there remain special interests out there, often in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, who are seeking to prevent action at every step, often by questioning whether climate change is happening. Well, It is happening. And a majority of Canadians are demanding that their government take this threat seriously. We understand that the cost of inaction will be vastly more expensive than the cost of reducing our emissions.
This week, Greater Sudbury’s own Fred Twilley, the Green Party’s nominated candidate for Sudbury, will be in Cancun attending COP-16. Fred will be providing a first-hand look at the international process underway in Mexico to find solutions to address climate change. Fred will be sharing his experiences and observations with Sudburians, and indeed, with all Canadians, through this blogsite. I hope that you are able to follow Fred over the next week and a half. Fred will be hosting a forum to share his thoughts with all those who are interested later in January, 2011.
In the meantime, I urge you to tune out the nonsense being offered by those who deny the existence of climate change, and focus instead on sensible solutions which can be implemented by our governments, businesses and individuals, in a collective effort to take necessary action to head off the anticipated serious effects of a changing climate. We must now be focussed on solutions to the very real problem of climate change. We can no longer allow our own limited resources of time and energy to be high-jacked by those who, for whatever reason, fail to believe that humanity is warming our global climate.
Since the release of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Assessment Report, there has no longer been any doubt that global warming is happening, and that it’s happening as a result of human industrial activities. Today, there remain those who want you to believe that the jury is still out on the climate change verdict, or who insist that the science is faulty. Or worse, they want you to believe that the scientists involved in the United Nations international effort to collect data and gather facts to inform world leaders are somehow complicit in an effort to mislead humanity, presumably for their own, shadowy ends.
The facts, however, are as undeniable as they are conclusive: humanity, through our industrial-scale use of fossil fuels, is having an impact on global climate. We are heating our planet. And as a result, there will be impacts associated with a changing climate which we need to begin to address at all levels of society.
There remains an urgent need to take action to combat climate change. Those who refuse to believe in scientific fact have shown again and again that they have nothing to bring to the table in terms of finding solutions. Systematically, they are being shut out of serious debates and discussions regarding what the international community should do to address climate change. The leaders of all nations are currently in agreement that climate change is happening, and that something has to be done. Disagreement between nations, often considerable, tends to occur when the discussion turns to finding ways forward.
Being shut out of conversations can be extremely frustrating, and can provoke negative, sometimes hysterical, reactions. Right now, that’s what’s happening to climate change deniers. Those involved in the denial industry (who often receive financial backing from companies who profit from oil and coal exploration and development) have been actively campaigning in the media against action on climate change. Their tactics include either denying that climate change is happening, or confusing the issue so that there is some question regarding how it is happening.
Many have fallen victim to believing the junk-science offered by climate change deniers. Indeed, the mainstream media, in their efforts to bring “balance” to news stories, often provide the denial industry with a platform from which they can expound their junk scientific theories.
The truth, however, is that there is no balance needed to be brought to a story where the facts are not actually in dispute. While there are many aspects regarding climate change which rightly should generate significant discussion and debate (such as “how is the international community going to address this dire problem?”), none of us benefit from stepping back and re-arguing the scientific merits of a changing climate. In fact, such discussions merely detract from the serious and necessary discussions which must take place in the next few years at all levels.
This week, the international community is gathering in Cancun, Mexico, for the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP-16) signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many in the media have already written off this latest round of international discussion, pointing to last year’s failure in Copenhagen, along with a growing lack of interest in many western nations to take actions which may be perceived as jeopardizing economic recovery.
Western nations, however, do not make up the bulk of participants at this international conference. Although western nations are overwhelmingly responsible for creating the problems facing the Earth’s climate in the first place (because of historic emission levels), it’s the developing nations which are feeling the most of the negative impacts of climate change today. For many years now, developing nations have been clamouring for meaningful action to address climate change. We can expect them to continue to do so in Cancun. The question is, will the West agree to necessary action?
Stephen Harper was right: climate change is perhaps the biggest threat to humanity’s future. Yet, there remain special interests out there, often in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, who are seeking to prevent action at every step, often by questioning whether climate change is happening. Well, It is happening. And a majority of Canadians are demanding that their government take this threat seriously. We understand that the cost of inaction will be vastly more expensive than the cost of reducing our emissions.
This week, Greater Sudbury’s own Fred Twilley, the Green Party’s nominated candidate for Sudbury, will be in Cancun attending COP-16. Fred will be providing a first-hand look at the international process underway in Mexico to find solutions to address climate change. Fred will be sharing his experiences and observations with Sudburians, and indeed, with all Canadians, through this blogsite. I hope that you are able to follow Fred over the next week and a half. Fred will be hosting a forum to share his thoughts with all those who are interested later in January, 2011.
In the meantime, I urge you to tune out the nonsense being offered by those who deny the existence of climate change, and focus instead on sensible solutions which can be implemented by our governments, businesses and individuals, in a collective effort to take necessary action to head off the anticipated serious effects of a changing climate. We must now be focussed on solutions to the very real problem of climate change. We can no longer allow our own limited resources of time and energy to be high-jacked by those who, for whatever reason, fail to believe that humanity is warming our global climate.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Facebook Wall Posts, Part V
Another edition of my latest Facebook Wall Posts. Enjoy!
-----
Who Stands on Guard for Democracy in Canada?
Op-Ed published in the Victoria Times-Colonist, from Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May regarding the use of parliamentary powers by the Conservative government which thwart democratic conventions and principles. This is a great summation of how things are continuing to trend in a lousy direction for those concerned with the health of democracy in Canada. I'm actually worried what might happen if the Conservatives don't form the next government. Will they use their Senate majority to continue to block bills, including those championed by the government (but opposed by Conservatives)? Honestly, I think it's quite likely. Harper has seized on parliamentary tools to advance his ideologically-motivated causes. Prorogation of parliament in the face of a confidence vote; stacking budget bills with environmental legislation which has no place in a budge bill, knowing that the opposition wouldn't have the courage to oppose him on a confidence matter; and now using the unelected Senate to do something he was powerless to do in the Commons (because his Party does not command a majority -- either of seats or of votes from Canadians). These tools exist, sure; but there's a reason that others haven't used them to achieve their own ends. The reason: it all bodes ill for democracy, and the health of our democratic processes used to be something all political parties took seriously. Clearly, that's no longer the case.
-----
Your Tax Dollars At Work in Other Countries: Lobbying Against Protecting the Environment
We know that the Conservative Government has been doing duck all to deal with the tar sands envrionmental track record (save and except for burying $300 million in the ground in the most expensive carbon reduction strategy ever proposed anywhere on earth, a.k.a. "carbon capture and storage"). What you might not know is that our government has been actively campaigning in other nations for policies which discourage environmental protection measures. What on Earth? Well, seems that the Conservatives are starting to get a little concerned that some nations might be ready to slap a premium or tariff on dirty oil from the tar sands. Environmental tariffs could be a tool used by other nations, perhaps under international agreements, to help reduce overall global emissions. Canada, of course, is trying to undermine any sort of global agreement to combat climate change. So, our tax dollars are being spent in other countries to lobby their governments to be as dirty as we are. What a wonderful thing for Canada to be doing in this time of "bare cupboards" (Finance Minister's Jim Flaherty's term for interest groups and opposition parties which might be thinking that there is money around somewhere for pet projects to be funded with. Hmmm…I guess it's ok to fund those pet projects when they agree with the ruling Party's ideology. I guess the major international tar sands producers somehow aren't a special interest too, again based on ideology, and not on fact).
-----
Conservatives "Out of Touch" with Canadians on the Need for Climate Change Action: The Surprise Is Just How Out of Touch They Are
Wow. This article reports on some fascinating polling figures from Environics Research, regarding just how far the Canadian public wants to go in the battle against climate change. Some highlights: 85% indicate that climate change should be tackled by industrialized countries. 70% would agree with redirecting military spending in Canada towards emissions reductions. The poll concludes that our Conservative government is vastly out of step with average Canadians when it comes to climate change. No big surprise to hear that, but these numbers were a surprise. I've not investigated the methodology behind this poll, but I'm taking the numbers with a grain of salt right now (was the poll conducted entirely online? Those kind of polls tend to favour results which are championed by younger Canadians, and action on climate change would certainly fall into that category). If anyone knows more about this poll, feel free to enlighten me through the Comments.
-----
Good News from the Cons? Don't Count On It.
Some good news from the Conservatives for a change? I'm not holding my breath, but here's an interesting article which suggests that the Conservative government, through Natural Resources Canada, might be working towards a national renewable energy plan. Of course, it's all very hush-hush. I wouldn't expect such a plan to just address renewables, though. Likely it will feature Carbon Capture and Storage, the most expensive of all proposed schemes to reduce carbon from the atmosphere, as a centre piece of any plan. This article refers to the need to begin pricing carbon, and identifies the most efficient way of doing so through the use of a carbon tax. As long as such a tax, if passed on to the consumer (which would be the likely outcome) is offset by reducing our other taxes (such as income taxes), that would make sense to me. But I don't think Harper is going to flirt with the notion of reducing my personal income taxes. He'd rather reduce corporate taxes for his big-business buddies, all in the name of investing in innovation. That seemed like a good idea in Ireland, too, up until recently (Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the industrial world, which may have contributed to their Celtic Tiger success story -- and certainly has contributed to the bare coffers which have now necessitated Ireland to go cap in hand to the EU and the IMF for a $100 million bank bail-out). While any sort of national energy plan would be better than what we have right now, one that doesn't put a price on carbon won't be much of an improvement over nothing. Given the massive government subsidies provided to the oil industry by Canada, it's time to put the focus where it belongs: on renewables, and the need to disinvest from dirty energy production.
-----
Resource Scarcity and Our Economic System: Time to Head for the Hills?
An axcellent article from Jeff Berg, founder and Vice Chair of Post Carbon Toronto. Berg discusses resource scarcity and how the next centure is going to define itself in the post-fossil fuel age. Although he reiterates ideas we all are all likely aware of, he does so with an economic bent which makes for good, if ch...allenging reading. His analysis as to why it's going to be very difficult, if not well nigh impossible, to steer the global sheep in the direction it needs to go, is very well done. Those darn "sunk investments" are going to be a problem which likely won't be overcome, that's for sure. Although Berg doesn't quite say where all of this will leave us, the answer appears to be pretty obvious. He laments that we've known about this predicament for years, and explains why we've continued to do business as usual despite this knowledge. His certainty that business will continue to be carried on as usual, even in the face of the kicking and screaming masses, is food for some very problematic thought.
-----
Who Stands on Guard for Democracy in Canada?
Op-Ed published in the Victoria Times-Colonist, from Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May regarding the use of parliamentary powers by the Conservative government which thwart democratic conventions and principles. This is a great summation of how things are continuing to trend in a lousy direction for those concerned with the health of democracy in Canada. I'm actually worried what might happen if the Conservatives don't form the next government. Will they use their Senate majority to continue to block bills, including those championed by the government (but opposed by Conservatives)? Honestly, I think it's quite likely. Harper has seized on parliamentary tools to advance his ideologically-motivated causes. Prorogation of parliament in the face of a confidence vote; stacking budget bills with environmental legislation which has no place in a budge bill, knowing that the opposition wouldn't have the courage to oppose him on a confidence matter; and now using the unelected Senate to do something he was powerless to do in the Commons (because his Party does not command a majority -- either of seats or of votes from Canadians). These tools exist, sure; but there's a reason that others haven't used them to achieve their own ends. The reason: it all bodes ill for democracy, and the health of our democratic processes used to be something all political parties took seriously. Clearly, that's no longer the case.
-----
Your Tax Dollars At Work in Other Countries: Lobbying Against Protecting the Environment
We know that the Conservative Government has been doing duck all to deal with the tar sands envrionmental track record (save and except for burying $300 million in the ground in the most expensive carbon reduction strategy ever proposed anywhere on earth, a.k.a. "carbon capture and storage"). What you might not know is that our government has been actively campaigning in other nations for policies which discourage environmental protection measures. What on Earth? Well, seems that the Conservatives are starting to get a little concerned that some nations might be ready to slap a premium or tariff on dirty oil from the tar sands. Environmental tariffs could be a tool used by other nations, perhaps under international agreements, to help reduce overall global emissions. Canada, of course, is trying to undermine any sort of global agreement to combat climate change. So, our tax dollars are being spent in other countries to lobby their governments to be as dirty as we are. What a wonderful thing for Canada to be doing in this time of "bare cupboards" (Finance Minister's Jim Flaherty's term for interest groups and opposition parties which might be thinking that there is money around somewhere for pet projects to be funded with. Hmmm…I guess it's ok to fund those pet projects when they agree with the ruling Party's ideology. I guess the major international tar sands producers somehow aren't a special interest too, again based on ideology, and not on fact).
-----
Conservatives "Out of Touch" with Canadians on the Need for Climate Change Action: The Surprise Is Just How Out of Touch They Are
Wow. This article reports on some fascinating polling figures from Environics Research, regarding just how far the Canadian public wants to go in the battle against climate change. Some highlights: 85% indicate that climate change should be tackled by industrialized countries. 70% would agree with redirecting military spending in Canada towards emissions reductions. The poll concludes that our Conservative government is vastly out of step with average Canadians when it comes to climate change. No big surprise to hear that, but these numbers were a surprise. I've not investigated the methodology behind this poll, but I'm taking the numbers with a grain of salt right now (was the poll conducted entirely online? Those kind of polls tend to favour results which are championed by younger Canadians, and action on climate change would certainly fall into that category). If anyone knows more about this poll, feel free to enlighten me through the Comments.
-----
Good News from the Cons? Don't Count On It.
Some good news from the Conservatives for a change? I'm not holding my breath, but here's an interesting article which suggests that the Conservative government, through Natural Resources Canada, might be working towards a national renewable energy plan. Of course, it's all very hush-hush. I wouldn't expect such a plan to just address renewables, though. Likely it will feature Carbon Capture and Storage, the most expensive of all proposed schemes to reduce carbon from the atmosphere, as a centre piece of any plan. This article refers to the need to begin pricing carbon, and identifies the most efficient way of doing so through the use of a carbon tax. As long as such a tax, if passed on to the consumer (which would be the likely outcome) is offset by reducing our other taxes (such as income taxes), that would make sense to me. But I don't think Harper is going to flirt with the notion of reducing my personal income taxes. He'd rather reduce corporate taxes for his big-business buddies, all in the name of investing in innovation. That seemed like a good idea in Ireland, too, up until recently (Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the industrial world, which may have contributed to their Celtic Tiger success story -- and certainly has contributed to the bare coffers which have now necessitated Ireland to go cap in hand to the EU and the IMF for a $100 million bank bail-out). While any sort of national energy plan would be better than what we have right now, one that doesn't put a price on carbon won't be much of an improvement over nothing. Given the massive government subsidies provided to the oil industry by Canada, it's time to put the focus where it belongs: on renewables, and the need to disinvest from dirty energy production.
-----
Resource Scarcity and Our Economic System: Time to Head for the Hills?
An axcellent article from Jeff Berg, founder and Vice Chair of Post Carbon Toronto. Berg discusses resource scarcity and how the next centure is going to define itself in the post-fossil fuel age. Although he reiterates ideas we all are all likely aware of, he does so with an economic bent which makes for good, if ch...allenging reading. His analysis as to why it's going to be very difficult, if not well nigh impossible, to steer the global sheep in the direction it needs to go, is very well done. Those darn "sunk investments" are going to be a problem which likely won't be overcome, that's for sure. Although Berg doesn't quite say where all of this will leave us, the answer appears to be pretty obvious. He laments that we've known about this predicament for years, and explains why we've continued to do business as usual despite this knowledge. His certainty that business will continue to be carried on as usual, even in the face of the kicking and screaming masses, is food for some very problematic thought.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A Bad Day for Democracy in Canada: Senate Kills Bill C-311
Apparently, as Fred Twilley, nominated candidate for the Green Party here in Sudbury, was hosting a forum on the United Nations and Climate Change last night, our unelected Senate, stacked with Conservative Party partisans, voted to kill Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. Fred and I were at ReThink Green last night, discussing climate change issues with Sudburians in advance of Fred's attendance at the United Nation's COP-16 conference being held in Cancun later this month. We heard some very passionate words from members of our community regarding the urgent need for governments at all levels to take action to fight climate change. Upon waking up this morning, and checking my Facebook news feed, what I read about the Senate's actions last night hit me like a slap in the face.
Here's a pretty article from today's Globe & Mail which explains the nonsense which went on in the Senate last night, as well as the reaction of NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party has been trying to turn this bill into law since 2006.
It's kind of hard to argue that the Senate remains the "chamber of sober second thought" when they kill a bill passed by parliament without any debate. And this wasn't just any bill. This was the very first bill passed by a democratic nation which established greenhouse gas emissions targets for a period beyond that mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, Bill C-311, passed by our elected officials in parliament, established that Canada would commit to reducing emissions by 25% from a 1990 baseline by the year 2020 (in contrast to the Conservative Party's stated goal of "reducing" emissions by +3% above 1990 levels by 2020, which they use weasle words to describe as a 17% reduction from a 2005 baseline, a baseline which on the United States uses, and not the rest of the international community. 1990 was the one which was established by Kyoto, and which is used everywhere else in the world). Bill C-311, introduced by the NDP, and supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, was truly a first in the world, and would have gone some to show that Canada is serious about fighting climate change.
I've been a bit of a critic of the Bill as I continue to believe that establishing targets without any sense of a plan to actually achieve those targets is largely just a political exercise. I've yet to see the NDP, Liberals or Bloc come up with the genesis of a plan to get us to the 25% reduction target by 2020, and frankly, short of economic collapse, I can't see how we would ever get there. Nonetheless, Bill C-311 was a start, and I acknowledge that its demise last night is a blow in the fight against climate change.
And now our unelected Senators have killed our Parliament's bill without any discussion. This situation is just absurd. We elect parliamentarians to represent our interests, and that's presumably what happened when parliament passed Bill C-311. What good is a Senate which can betray our elected representatives in such a way, and betray Canadians in the process? There was considerable debate in parliament before Bill C-311 was adopted; in the Senate, none at all.
For quite some time now, I've advocated for the abolition of the Senate at the federal level of government. Our provincial governments do not have equivalent upper houses. It's always been unclear to me what value the Senate adds to the legislative process, except to perhaps stand in the way of legislation adopted by political parties which don't also have majorities in the Senate. However, it was interesting to read in the G&M article that the use of a majority last night to actually kill a bill approved by the House might be a first for Canada.
What happened with Bill C-311 isn't right, despite the Bill's obvious flaws, and despite the government's expressed intention that it wouldn't implement the Bill anyway (keep in mind that the current government might not be the government for that much longer, yet a Bill, once it becomes law, stays on the books until it is amended or remvoed; usually that's a longer shelf life than a government has). It's a setback in the fight against climate change, and it's a significant setback for democracy here in Canada. Keep in mind that these Senators are appointed for life. That means even if the other parties figure out some way to form government after the next election, their bills might still end up lining bird cages as a result of political and ideological differences with unelected Conservative Senators. And isn't that a great message to tell voters before they cast their ballots: your vote doesn't matter in Canada any more, because unelected Senators will likely kill any initiative they don't agree with.
Here's a copy of a letter to the editor of the Sudbury Star that I just sent off. Please feel free to steal liberally from it and write your own letters to the media. Even if you don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a threat to the world, and to Canada in particular, you probably believe that having unelected individuals over-ride the decisions of democratically elected Members of Parliament is just plain wrong.
-----
Unelected Senate thwarts will of elected MP's
On the eve of international climate change talks scheduled to take place in Cancun later this month, our unelected Senate has just voted to kill Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. Bill C-311, approved by our elected Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, would have established meaningful greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for Canadians, and would have gone a long way to show that Canada is a serious contender in the fight against climate change.
After packing the Senate with hand-picked Conservatives, Stephen Harper, who has opposed any meaningful action on climate change, can chalk up yet another victory for his efforts to do nothing. The so-called “chamber of sober, second thought” called for a snap vote on Bill C-311, and without any debate, voted to kill the Bill outright, thwarting the expressed will of our elected representatives in the process.
This recent vote by the unelected Senate to overturn the expressed will of our elected Members of Parliament bodes ill for any and all future efforts to tackle some of the significant issues facing Canadians today, including climate change. If the unelected Senate is going to play partisan politics with bills passed by the elected House of Commons, we can expect to see more important bills bite the dust for ideological reasons. This is a bad situation for the majority of Canadians who desire our government to take meaningful action on climate change; it’s even worse for those who are concerned about democracy in this country.
Steve May
CEO, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
-----
Addendum: It looks like the Conservatives are now claiming that they weren't responsible for killing the Bill, and that it was instead the Liberals who called the vote. Read this interesting piece from Gloria Galloway at the Globe & Mail for more information. This is truly bizarre, if it's to be believed. Hansard's official transcript is actually vague on who called the vote. The Liberals, however, maintain that on the audio copy of the proceedings, it's clear that the Conservatives called the vote, and apparently they'll be going to Hansard to have the record corrected.
Does mean that unelected Conservative Senators not only killed a bill passed by the House of Commons, and are now lying about having been responsible for doing so? Fact is, it doesn't matter who called for the vote (although that's interesting): the Conservative Senators all voted to defeat the Bill, despite it having been approved by the lower House!
Here's a pretty article from today's Globe & Mail which explains the nonsense which went on in the Senate last night, as well as the reaction of NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party has been trying to turn this bill into law since 2006.
It's kind of hard to argue that the Senate remains the "chamber of sober second thought" when they kill a bill passed by parliament without any debate. And this wasn't just any bill. This was the very first bill passed by a democratic nation which established greenhouse gas emissions targets for a period beyond that mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, Bill C-311, passed by our elected officials in parliament, established that Canada would commit to reducing emissions by 25% from a 1990 baseline by the year 2020 (in contrast to the Conservative Party's stated goal of "reducing" emissions by +3% above 1990 levels by 2020, which they use weasle words to describe as a 17% reduction from a 2005 baseline, a baseline which on the United States uses, and not the rest of the international community. 1990 was the one which was established by Kyoto, and which is used everywhere else in the world). Bill C-311, introduced by the NDP, and supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, was truly a first in the world, and would have gone some to show that Canada is serious about fighting climate change.
I've been a bit of a critic of the Bill as I continue to believe that establishing targets without any sense of a plan to actually achieve those targets is largely just a political exercise. I've yet to see the NDP, Liberals or Bloc come up with the genesis of a plan to get us to the 25% reduction target by 2020, and frankly, short of economic collapse, I can't see how we would ever get there. Nonetheless, Bill C-311 was a start, and I acknowledge that its demise last night is a blow in the fight against climate change.
And now our unelected Senators have killed our Parliament's bill without any discussion. This situation is just absurd. We elect parliamentarians to represent our interests, and that's presumably what happened when parliament passed Bill C-311. What good is a Senate which can betray our elected representatives in such a way, and betray Canadians in the process? There was considerable debate in parliament before Bill C-311 was adopted; in the Senate, none at all.
For quite some time now, I've advocated for the abolition of the Senate at the federal level of government. Our provincial governments do not have equivalent upper houses. It's always been unclear to me what value the Senate adds to the legislative process, except to perhaps stand in the way of legislation adopted by political parties which don't also have majorities in the Senate. However, it was interesting to read in the G&M article that the use of a majority last night to actually kill a bill approved by the House might be a first for Canada.
What happened with Bill C-311 isn't right, despite the Bill's obvious flaws, and despite the government's expressed intention that it wouldn't implement the Bill anyway (keep in mind that the current government might not be the government for that much longer, yet a Bill, once it becomes law, stays on the books until it is amended or remvoed; usually that's a longer shelf life than a government has). It's a setback in the fight against climate change, and it's a significant setback for democracy here in Canada. Keep in mind that these Senators are appointed for life. That means even if the other parties figure out some way to form government after the next election, their bills might still end up lining bird cages as a result of political and ideological differences with unelected Conservative Senators. And isn't that a great message to tell voters before they cast their ballots: your vote doesn't matter in Canada any more, because unelected Senators will likely kill any initiative they don't agree with.
Here's a copy of a letter to the editor of the Sudbury Star that I just sent off. Please feel free to steal liberally from it and write your own letters to the media. Even if you don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a threat to the world, and to Canada in particular, you probably believe that having unelected individuals over-ride the decisions of democratically elected Members of Parliament is just plain wrong.
-----
Unelected Senate thwarts will of elected MP's
On the eve of international climate change talks scheduled to take place in Cancun later this month, our unelected Senate has just voted to kill Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. Bill C-311, approved by our elected Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, would have established meaningful greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for Canadians, and would have gone a long way to show that Canada is a serious contender in the fight against climate change.
After packing the Senate with hand-picked Conservatives, Stephen Harper, who has opposed any meaningful action on climate change, can chalk up yet another victory for his efforts to do nothing. The so-called “chamber of sober, second thought” called for a snap vote on Bill C-311, and without any debate, voted to kill the Bill outright, thwarting the expressed will of our elected representatives in the process.
This recent vote by the unelected Senate to overturn the expressed will of our elected Members of Parliament bodes ill for any and all future efforts to tackle some of the significant issues facing Canadians today, including climate change. If the unelected Senate is going to play partisan politics with bills passed by the elected House of Commons, we can expect to see more important bills bite the dust for ideological reasons. This is a bad situation for the majority of Canadians who desire our government to take meaningful action on climate change; it’s even worse for those who are concerned about democracy in this country.
Steve May
CEO, Sudbury Federal Green Party Association
-----
Addendum: It looks like the Conservatives are now claiming that they weren't responsible for killing the Bill, and that it was instead the Liberals who called the vote. Read this interesting piece from Gloria Galloway at the Globe & Mail for more information. This is truly bizarre, if it's to be believed. Hansard's official transcript is actually vague on who called the vote. The Liberals, however, maintain that on the audio copy of the proceedings, it's clear that the Conservatives called the vote, and apparently they'll be going to Hansard to have the record corrected.
Does mean that unelected Conservative Senators not only killed a bill passed by the House of Commons, and are now lying about having been responsible for doing so? Fact is, it doesn't matter who called for the vote (although that's interesting): the Conservative Senators all voted to defeat the Bill, despite it having been approved by the lower House!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Afghanistan, Nick Clegg, the Red/Blue Coalition & Norman Spector
Norman Spector makes some interesting observations about Conservative-Liberal collusion regarding the war in Afghanistan. He reviews some of the political history behind Canada's war effort and concludes that our Conservative and Liberal leaders have tried and succeeded to keep the decisions they've made regarding the war out of the light of public scrutiny. Not only has secrecy prevailed, but public statements made by our Leaders has amounted to little more than lieing. Now Stephen Harper wants to backtrack on his commitment to bring our troops home in 2011. Spector, and indeed the Globe & Mail, are calling Harper out on this notion that Canadian troops are going to play a "training" role only, safe and secure behind barbed wire fences, leading to a significant reduction in casualties. This despite the fact that Afghan forces have been at war almost constantly since 1979 and likely need little in the way of training from Canadian soldiers.
What's interesting about Spector's blogpost is that he doesn't stay in Afghanistan. He contrasts the current Conservative/Liberal collusion of secrecy with what's recently happened in the U.K. with regards to Nick Clegg's complete 180 degree change of heart on student tuition fees. Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats campaigned on eliminating tuition, and who signed a pledge to do so while trying to get students to vote for his Party, is now saying that tuition fees in the U.K. need to rise by a staggering 9,000 pounds (approx. $14,000) per year! Decisions like Cleggs, to completely reverse ones self, might spell his Party's political demise come the next election. Unlike the ruling Conservative/Liberal coalition in Canada, however, the situation in the U.K. for Liberal Democrats is a precarious one. While Canadians continue to let our politicians off the hook with their secrecy, subterfuge and lying, because this is happening mainly in the two ruling parties, the Lib-Dems in the U.K. can hardly an entrenched party. I suspect that Clegg and the Lib-Dems will be villified at the polls in the next election for their role in austerity measures which they opposed while campaigning. Essentially, by promising one thing and doing another, the Lib-Dems will be toast. Perhaps something could still be salvaged if they eventually step out of their formal coalition with the Cons, or perhaps with a change in leadership.
In Canada, we can only hope that the electorate wants to punish the ruling coaltion. Opinion polls here, however, show it's not likely to happen. That's because in Canada, the media continues to portray third parties as not ready for prime time (much as it did in Britain by ignoring the Lib-Dems, who are now a part of government…having said that, their recent actions, as noted above, may be an argument for not taking that Party seriously any longer).
What the media fails to acknowledge, however, is how the Liberals have continued to prop up the Conservative government in what can only be described as a coaltion situation. While not a formal partnership as exists in Britain, there's no question that without the support of the Liberals in parliament, the Conservatives would not have been able to succeed with their new initiatives. By putting important legislation in budget bills (even when that legislation has no business being in a budget bill) and daring the Liberals to vote them down, the Liberals have responded with their support, and claim that they were forced to do so because Canadians haven't been ready for an election. This charade continues.
It's good to see Spector and the Globe & Mail starting to call out the Red/Blue coalition on Afghanistan. Maybe this will prove to be the start of a bigger trend. Recent polling from earlier in the week show the NDP's numbers starting to rise (this week's EKOS poll has them at over 19%). The NDP have always taken a dramatically different approach to Afghanistan than the Liberals and Conservatives have. I believe that they may be able to use Liberal/Conservative backtracking as a wedge issue to increase their support, as a majority of Canadians now are in opposition to the war, and have been looking forward to bringing our troops home in 2011.
Despite polling which shows voter complacency here in Canada, I really think that Canadians are going to have an adverse reaction to the Red/Blue coalitions collusion on Afghanistan. There is already a pervasive sense out there that politicians who say one thing and do another (like Clegg; and now, like Harper, McKay, Ignatieff and Rae) should be ousted. Can the NDP, Bloc and Green Party capitalize on this growing dissent? That's the question. I believe that the answer is likely to be "yes", and expect to see some changes in the polls over the next few weeks, especially if the mainstream media remains engaged on this issue.
The NDP, however, if they are to enter into any formal coalition agreement with the Liberals, would best keep in mind Nick Clegg and the Lib-Dems. The Green Party, if we are to win any seats in the House in the next election, should carefully consider all options before making any pronouncements, even if it finds itself in a balance of power situation as the Greens recently did in Australia.
What's interesting about Spector's blogpost is that he doesn't stay in Afghanistan. He contrasts the current Conservative/Liberal collusion of secrecy with what's recently happened in the U.K. with regards to Nick Clegg's complete 180 degree change of heart on student tuition fees. Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats campaigned on eliminating tuition, and who signed a pledge to do so while trying to get students to vote for his Party, is now saying that tuition fees in the U.K. need to rise by a staggering 9,000 pounds (approx. $14,000) per year! Decisions like Cleggs, to completely reverse ones self, might spell his Party's political demise come the next election. Unlike the ruling Conservative/Liberal coalition in Canada, however, the situation in the U.K. for Liberal Democrats is a precarious one. While Canadians continue to let our politicians off the hook with their secrecy, subterfuge and lying, because this is happening mainly in the two ruling parties, the Lib-Dems in the U.K. can hardly an entrenched party. I suspect that Clegg and the Lib-Dems will be villified at the polls in the next election for their role in austerity measures which they opposed while campaigning. Essentially, by promising one thing and doing another, the Lib-Dems will be toast. Perhaps something could still be salvaged if they eventually step out of their formal coalition with the Cons, or perhaps with a change in leadership.
In Canada, we can only hope that the electorate wants to punish the ruling coaltion. Opinion polls here, however, show it's not likely to happen. That's because in Canada, the media continues to portray third parties as not ready for prime time (much as it did in Britain by ignoring the Lib-Dems, who are now a part of government…having said that, their recent actions, as noted above, may be an argument for not taking that Party seriously any longer).
What the media fails to acknowledge, however, is how the Liberals have continued to prop up the Conservative government in what can only be described as a coaltion situation. While not a formal partnership as exists in Britain, there's no question that without the support of the Liberals in parliament, the Conservatives would not have been able to succeed with their new initiatives. By putting important legislation in budget bills (even when that legislation has no business being in a budget bill) and daring the Liberals to vote them down, the Liberals have responded with their support, and claim that they were forced to do so because Canadians haven't been ready for an election. This charade continues.
It's good to see Spector and the Globe & Mail starting to call out the Red/Blue coalition on Afghanistan. Maybe this will prove to be the start of a bigger trend. Recent polling from earlier in the week show the NDP's numbers starting to rise (this week's EKOS poll has them at over 19%). The NDP have always taken a dramatically different approach to Afghanistan than the Liberals and Conservatives have. I believe that they may be able to use Liberal/Conservative backtracking as a wedge issue to increase their support, as a majority of Canadians now are in opposition to the war, and have been looking forward to bringing our troops home in 2011.
Despite polling which shows voter complacency here in Canada, I really think that Canadians are going to have an adverse reaction to the Red/Blue coalitions collusion on Afghanistan. There is already a pervasive sense out there that politicians who say one thing and do another (like Clegg; and now, like Harper, McKay, Ignatieff and Rae) should be ousted. Can the NDP, Bloc and Green Party capitalize on this growing dissent? That's the question. I believe that the answer is likely to be "yes", and expect to see some changes in the polls over the next few weeks, especially if the mainstream media remains engaged on this issue.
The NDP, however, if they are to enter into any formal coalition agreement with the Liberals, would best keep in mind Nick Clegg and the Lib-Dems. The Green Party, if we are to win any seats in the House in the next election, should carefully consider all options before making any pronouncements, even if it finds itself in a balance of power situation as the Greens recently did in Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)