Parliament in Review: December 13, 2011

Tuesday, December 13 served to confirm the range of concerns that hadn't yet been taken into account in the Cons' seat redistribution bill - even as debate came to a close and the bill was rammed through against the protests of a united opposition.

The Big Issue

In response to the start and end of third reading debate on C-20, Stephane Dion and Mike Sullivan wondered why the Cons had been unwilling once again to countenance any amendments. And Scott Reid answered the latter question with a remarkable assertion:

Mr. Speaker, I have been around here for five Parliaments now and three of those were minority Parliaments. Two of them were Conservative minority Parliaments. My experience was that it was very difficult to get any legislation through at all.

I think I am correct in saying that aside from legislation initiated by the opposition, no legislation went through unless it was being presented on the condition that should it be defeated on a bill, the government would fall and have an election.

Of course, that can be disproved simply by looking at the progress of the first substantive bill ever introduced by the Cons after they took power, not to mention dozens of other examples (as a stroll through the progress of bills in the 39th and 40th Parliaments on LegisINFO would reveal to anybody concerned about facts). But it doesn't come as much surprise that Reid and other Con MPs have been instructed to wilfully ignore what actually happened in order to portray themselves as victims of democracy.

Meanwhile, Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out the obvious flaw in the Cons' statement that the bill had to pass immediately, since on its face it includes transitional provisions to allow for different possibilities as to when it would take effect. Francoise Boivin spoke about how Ed Broadbent convinced her of the need for proportional representation. Pat Martin discussed what consultation really means and looked forward to an NDP government putting the principle into action. Martin then noted the need for specific representation for different types of communities of interest - intriguingly adding socio-economic needs to the usual list based on culture and geography. David Christopherson noted that part of the effect of the Cons' bill would be to limit the time for public input on the redrawing of riding boundaries. Peter Julian pointed out a noteworthy correlation between provinces who elected Lib MPs and those who would lose seats under the Libs' proposal. Jamie Nicholls noted that pure representation by population (absent regard for provincial and cultural concerns) was never the basis for agreement on Canada's historical development.

Selective Benefits

Alexandre Boulerice spoke on his bill to bring federal parental leave up to par with that provided under provincial jurisdiction, with Christine Moore pointing out the existing gap. Kellie Leitch confirmed that the bill would do nothing more than to bring federal standards in line with provincial ones - but nonetheless declared that the Cons have no interest in bothering. And Rodger Cuzner similarly declared his party would rather see a uniformly lower standard of benefits for employees under federal jurisdiction than try to ensure equity within each province.

Pop Quiz

Terence Young compared the Cons' seat reallocation bill to which of the following events?

A. the Arab Spring
B. the fall of the Berlin Wall
C. the French Revolution
D. the war of 1812

The answers are: A and C. Which would raise far more questions about the Cons' total lack of perspective if anybody were paying attention.

In Brief

Kennedy Stewart presented a petition for a more systematic approach to combating hate crimes, while Claude Gravelle offered one seeking improved rural access to communications technology. Elizabeth May lamented the Cons' decision to tear up the Kyoto Protocol. James Rajotte was entirely unabashed about declaring the Cons' fealty to bankers. Nycoel Turmel wondered whether the Cons would reconsider their determination to shred the data underlying the federal gun registry under threat of legal action by Quebec, while Francoise Boivin noted that the Cons' own vandalism in refusing to ensure the current registry was accurate didn't provide an excuse to do otherwise. Libby Davies challenged the Cons' unilateral plan to limit health care transfers. In a series of questions on the latest report from the Environment Commissioner Megan Leslie wondered why the Cons had no interest in enforcing the law when it came to environmental offenders, Laurin Liu asked about dangerous goods transportation only to be met with the clearest indication yet that the Cons couldn't care less about preventative measures before an accident actually happens, and Philip Toone highlighted the need for accurate data about fish stocks in order to make decisions about Canada's fisheries (then followed up in adjournment proceedings). Carolyn Bennett reminded the Cons of the "99 other Attawapiskats" which have just as much need for federal action even if they aren't in the headlines at the moment. Peter Julian contrasted the virtuous circle of investment in needed services and infrastructure against the Cons' vicious cycle of handouts to the corporate sector coupled with an eroding standard of living for most Canadians. Andrew Scheer delivered his decision letting the Cons off the hook on technical grounds for their attempt to push Irwin Cotler out of his seat. Larry Miller introduced a private members' bill to prevent the bulk export of transboundary waters - but with a noticeable lack of interest in extending the standard any other types of water. And Wayne Easter slammed the Cons' disrespect for the law in forcing through their attack on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Parliament in Review: December 5, 2011

Monday, December 5 saw the House of Commons debate the NDP's motion on climate change. And while the Cons tried to put up a relatively brave facade on an issue where they've been fighting progress at any turn, they inevitably ended up showing their true colours.

The Big Issue

At the outset, it's worth noting that Megan Leslie's motion was worded in a way that wouldn't be at all objectionable to any party except to the extent one wanted to focus on a mention of the Kyoto Protocol:

That this House urge the government to: (a) play a leadership role in tackling global climate change and ensuring Canadian jobs aren’t lost as the rest of the world moves towards a new sustainable energy economy; (b) work in a leadership role at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Durban towards a binding climate change treaty with the goal of limiting average global temperature increases to 2°C; (c) recognize the real, science-based threat of global climate change, as well as respect and adhere to its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord; and (d) take immediate action to lower net carbon emissions in Canada and increase Canadian trade with our major partners in a new sustainable energy economy.

But it shouldn't come as much surprise that the Cons opposed the motion in its entirety even while claiming to be meeting most of its objectives. Michelle Rempel suggested it's the duty of any patriotic Canadian not to accept valid criticism from abroad, though she had rather less to say in response to Pierre Nantel's observation that Cons actually applauded their own government for receiving fossil awards. Michael Chong took credit for provincial programs in his spin as to how much the Cons' current and planned programs figure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stephen Woodworth rather undermined his party's "only 2% of global emissions!" line by listing off a grab bag of projects featuring such global-scale impacts as a 52-home development and batteries installed in two B.C. communities. And Brad Trost mocked the idea that a transit strategy could be useful in Saskatchewan, only to have Mike Sullivan inform him that in fact the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is demanding the type of transit strategy that Trost's party can't be bothered to provide.

All of which goes to show that Francois Choquette's hope that a few Cons might be more open to action than they appeared was entirely misplaced.

Meanwhile, Leslie criticized the Cons' lack of interest in developing an economy that wasn't totally dependent on the fossil fuel industry. Kirsty Duncan and Leslie agreed on the grave dangers posed by increasingly severe weather events. Charmaine Borg and Hoang Mai noted that the costs of climate change are being foisted on future generations - making for a far more severe intergenerational transfer of wealth than the one the Cons have tried to invent when it comes to pension funding. Bruce Hyer noted that the Cons have been outright destructive rather than merely lax in dealing with climate change. Ted Hsu mentioned the jobs available in the green energy sector while wondering why the government wouldn't support further development. Jinny Sims challenged the Cons' jingoistic view that being Canadian means cheerleading for environmental damage. Francine Raynault noted that the Cons are two years behind their own promised schedule in regulating oil and gas sector emissions.

Finally, Linda Duncan deserves plenty of credit for a number of well-thought-out interventions. In her speech, she listed off the international commitments which the Cons have either outright broken or sloughed off - including ones made at Copenhagen and Cancun under the Harper government. In response to a question from Christine Moore, Duncan noted that it's perfectly possible to develop the oil sands within a reasonable climate-change policy framework - but that the Cons have no interest in bothering. And under fire from, she highlighted the Cons' hypocrisy in claiming that it's not worth engaging with developed countries to reduce emissions when China's emissions might increase, while simultaneously encouraging the export of bitumen which can only contribute to that very expansion.

Bottom Lines

The Cons have come under plenty of criticism for being willing to give away the farm in trade negotiations - including billions of dollars in increased prescription drug costs and most ability to support local economic development through procurement policies among other major giveaways. But Brian Masse pointed out one of the few concessions that the Harper Cons were seeking from a potential trading partner which signals where the government's priorities really lie:

Apparently it is not enough that the government dumps hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cancer-causing asbestos onto developing countries every year, now a trade official confirms that Canada wants India to drop its 10% duty on Canadian asbestos exports.

While other countries are banning or restricting the deadly material, the Prime Minister is actively seeking ways to profit even further from it.

In Brief

Pierre Dionne Labelle took a turn lamenting the increasing use of (and need for) food banks. Peter Julian highlighted the OECD's findings about growing inequality, while Louis Plamondon noted that Canada's unemployed were taking the brunt of the Cons' EI failings. Helene Laverdiere wondered why the Cons were still allowing Suncor to funnel money into Syria's repressive regime even while engaging in a display of fist-shaking for the cameras. Olivia Chow followed up on her safety theme by questioning the Cons on their failure to require terrain warning systems on airplanes. Maria Mourani introduced a bill to expand the availability of family leave, while Russ Hiebert tried again to attack unions through his own bill. Larry Miller was caught napping during the presentation of reports - but the opposition parties, unlike the Cons, were willing to allow him the courtesy of consent to making up for the mistake. And a take-note debate on organ donation led to the Cons evading responsibility by claiming the issue is beyond their jurisdiction, while Dany Morin repeatedly and effectively questioned the government as to how it could seek to inform the public about a need for organs while categorically rejecting them from anybody who had engaged in homosexual activity over the previous five years.

Parliament in Review: November 28, 2011

Monday, November 28 saw the final day of debate in the House of Commons on the Cons' legislation to trash the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board. And not surprisingly, the result was a particularly focused set of concerns about the bill - though those were waved aside yet again.

The Big Issue

The line of the day went to Carol Hughes on the empty promise of "freedom":

Perhaps the Conservatives are correct in a sense in that they are giving our farmers more freedom. However, what they are doing is freeing our farmers from the protection that the single desk provides. They are giving them freedom from financial stability, freedom from proven risk management, freedom to be bullied and bought by big agriculture. They are now freed from a guaranteed decent price on the global market.

Meanwhile, the Cons decided not to stay seated for the debate. Instead, David Anderson kicked off proceedings by hearkening back to the 1920s as his apparent ideal for agricultural marketing systems. Pat Martin again asked for any evidence whatsoever as to the anticipated impacts of demolishing the single desk, only to receive no answer even from the parliamentary secretary responsible. Alex Atamanenko and Frank Valeriote tested whether the Cons had paid any attention to the disastrous effects for farmers when the Australian Wheat Board was similarly torched. Atamanenko also criticized the replacement of an elected board of directors with a set of undemocratic political appointees. Wayne Easter wondered why the Cons were effectively taking the side of the U.S. and its agribusiness giants against Canadian farmers. Randy Hoback described what he would see as a fair voting process based on acres farmed, but didn't bother to explain why his party hadn't bothered to conduct that kind of plebiscite rather than overruling the only votes ever actually taken. Niki Ashton remarked on the helpful declaration by Gordon O'Connor that she could count on being attacked by the Board-bashers brought into Parliament by the Cons. And Alain Giguere pointed out that plenty of institutions beyond the Wheat Board itself stand to be affected by the Cons' attack.

But all the arguments in the world were ultimately for naught, as the Cons voted down any amendments (including the ones limited to preserving some semblance of democracy in the Wheat Board) and rammed through the bill.

Dumb on Crime 33 1/3: Too Dumb to Count

Meanwhile, some time was also taken debating David Wilks' bill to increase the mandatory minimum sentence for the kidnapping of a child by a stranger. Needless to say, the Cons' speeches didn't present the slightest justification for the bill other than their usual stream of declarations of (paraphrased for greater eloquence) "tough! good! criminals! bad! tough! good!". Jack Harris responded by imploring the Cons to take into account the exhortation to make good laws and wise decisions. Sean Casey nicely discussed the need for proportionality based on the facts of a particular case. And Jonathan Genest-Jourdain focused on prevention on the basis that the minimum sentence was nothing more than a sideshow.

In Brief

Peter Julian decried the Cons' environmental vandalism in reneging on Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and standing in the way of any meaningful replacement. Robert Aubin again pointed out the absurdity of the Cons' unfunded, unplanned and unfocused committee on French language rights in Quebec workplaces. Rodger Cuzner highlighted the disastrous results of Con neglect and austerity when it comes to processing EI claims. Anne Minh-Thu Quach questioned what Canada would have to show for billions in extra prescription drug costs based on CETA. Kennedy Stewart wondered why the Cons led the City of Calgary on for three years before declaring that recreation centres weren't eligible for P3 funding. Olivia Chow reiterated her call for legislation requiring side guards. Chris Charlton introduced a bill to bring Canada into compliance with an ILO convention against child labour by raising the minimum age requirement for workers, while Atamanenko proposed to allow conscientious objection to the use of tax dollars for military purposes. Linda Duncan asked the Cons to lift the 2% cap on aboriginal education funding. And Francois Lapointe asked an adjournment question about the opportunity to transition away from asbestos mining at a time when nobody is actually employed in the industry, only to receive an extra-long version of the Cons' greatest denial hits from Jacques Gourde.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Thomas Walkom notes that based on the Cons' Kyoto embarrassment, Canada is now the odd man out on the world stage when it comes to climate change discussions:

(I)n terms of international efforts to curb global warming, Kyoto is the only serious game in town. It is the only effort that all nations except Canada and the U.S. (which never joined) can agree upon.

Its deliberate two-track strategy is the only way to draw newly industrial nations, like China, into a better and more comprehensive climate change treaty.
...
Kyoto lives. It is what it always was — necessary but not sufficient, a binding if virtually unenforceable first step on the way to a better climate change treaty.

Most other nations recognize its worth. Like Canada, Japan was not prepared to sign onto a second Kyoto round. But unlike Ottawa, Tokyo understands that scrapping the existing treaty can only reduce the world’s ability to negotiate a more comprehensive climate change pact — which is why it too, along with Britain, France and Germany, criticized Canada’s withdrawal.

Sometimes, it’s hard to figure out whether Canada’s Conservative government is venal or merely clueless. At times, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s approach to climate change appears venal: He really doesn’t seem to think global warming merits attention.

But Ottawa’s take on international relations also has a disturbingly feckless quality. Canada, which was determined to squelch Kyoto, misread the international mood. It now finds itself again the odd man out, the only nation in the world planning to withdraw from a treaty that virtually every other country thinks indispensable.

- Ossie Michelin points out that the housing crisis at Attawapiskat can be traced in no small part to exactly the type of dependence on corporate development that the Cons want to push on First Nations across the country.

- John Ivison is right to note that federal health care funding figures to be a major issue in the years to come. But he glosses over a rather important part of the story: most of Canada's provinces may (and by all rights should) push back hard against any plan sets a limit on federal contributions that bears no resemblance to actual anticipated costs, particularly if it directs more of that money where it's least needed.

- Finally, Romeo Saganash implores the Cons to stop their push toward regressive policies on copyright and other technological issues.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Yes, it's absolutely asinine that the Cons' attacks on Muslim women have been extended to denying citizenship based on a particular type of clothing. But after the Cons' repeated efforts to suppress veiled voting, we shouldn't expect anything less from them. And indeed the goal looks to be the same: having been rebuffed in their attemps to prevent citizens from voting while wearing burqas, the Cons have apparently decided instead to deny suffrage to a substantial group of immigrant women by decreeing that they're not allowed to become citizens in the first place.

Instead, let's focus on those who should know better - like Chris Selley, who somehow lauds Kenney for openly sending the message that we should debate which minorities to attack and how, rather than considering the possibility that maybe a government could focus on starting public policy discussions that don't involve gratuitous culture wars and the opening lines of of a "first they came for _______" parable.

- John Ibbitson comments on the Cons' unfortunate withdrawal from Kyoto:

The Harper government’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol tarnishes Canada before the world. Liberal and Conservative incompetence and mendacity are to blame. You and I are to blame. And Lehman Brothers had something to do with it as well.

It isn’t easy for a country to descend, in the space of a single decade, from crusader to pariah, as Canada has done on the environment. But our political leaders were up to the task.
...
The Conservative Prime Minister made no effort to hide his skepticism over the treaty and his determination not to allow carbon caps or carbon taxes to undermine the Canadian economy. Still, polls showed that most Canadians were deeply concerned about climate change and wanted the government to take action.

The first effort, in 2006, was such a mess that it cost Rona Ambrose her job as environment minister. After that, Mr. Harper took a personal interest in the matter, and that interest consisted of vetoing any meaningful action. The Conservatives were willing to take steps to reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions, but not the actual level of emissions, which would have crimped the oil sands’ expansion plans.
...
Canada gave its word to the world. Canada broke its word. The final confession was as shameful as it was inevitable. No one should feel anything other than ashamed. Not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, not us.

- Which would surely come as a deep personal embarrassment to this fellow:



- At the same time, we shouldn't be surprised that as part of the Con/industry campaign to obstruct action on climate change, we've also seen tar sands operators backing off of whatever nominal effort it was once prepared to make to feign concern.

- But lest it appear there's no reason for optimism, Lawrence Martin places Niki Ashton at the forefront of a youthful brigade in Parliament, while Barbara Yaffe profiles Peggy Nash's leadership run.

Monday Evening Links

Assorted content for your evening reading.

- While I'm less than convinced about his desire to break down party loyalties, David Thompson highlights the need for progressives to fight back against decades of corporatist dominance in both political messaging and policy development:

To win over the long run, progressives will need, among other things, each of these three key elements. Policy wonks and activists will need to get outside of the mainstream comfort zone and articulate big ideas that can move the Overton window. They should not fret about whether their policy ideas will be "dismissed" as unthinkable, or that they may be seen as outliers in the political debate. That's their job.

Unions will need to ramp up funding of progressive thought and communication by orders of magnitude, supporting an infrastructure of success. They will need to get out of the comfort zone of immediate, short-term, bread-and-butter work; indeed their survival may require it.
...
Progressives involved in these three areas will need to understand their very different roles and strategies; they are not interchangeable. They will need to co-operate and be mutually supportive, however, which may prove challenging for some. Even more challenging is that they will be operating outside of their comfort zones. Anyone involved in a competitive field will confirm that's what it takes to win.

However, the big question remains: do progressives want to win? Some may prefer to lose and be honourable outsiders. It's certainly easier, and it won't upset anyone. For those who do want to win, there is much work to be done.

- Kathryn May proposes a "moral contract" between politicians and civil servants to ensure that public resources actually serve the public. But of course, the next time the Cons show any particular respect for either will be the first.

- Speaking of which, the Cons have wasted no time engaging in something they themselves know to be an unfortunate surprise.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk (in between his mandatory gratuitous slams at the NDP) expresses hope that Saskatchewan's new auditor general will help keep the Sask Party somewhat more honest than it's been to date.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Duncan Cameron points out how the Cons are copying the Republican economics that have led the U.S. to ruin:

The Harper Conservatives model their economic policies on beliefs held dear by American Republicans: just lower taxes, and reduce government, and business will create the wealth.

With this approach, not only is income becoming less equal as the OECD just noted, Canadians and Americans are not becoming wealthier. The "give business a tax break" and the "let the invisible hand of the market do the rest" policies are not improving life for Canadians or Americans.
...
There is a role for active government in creating wealth, working with trade unions and using knowledge invested in the workforce, and local resources to create new relationships between employers and communities.

Setting out performance criteria for business, taxing business income, and re-investing in businesses that create wealth in Canada is the way to go. Of course to get there is going to require a change in government, and a new approach by the next Canadian government. The American Republican growth model hold out little hope for a better future in Canada.

- No, it shouldn't be news that the Cons have no qualms about setting up shadow MPs to try to attack incumbents. But it's interesting to note that they're still trying the tactic when their previous efforts have failed so miserably.

- Lost in the midst of plenty of justified frustration with the Cons' climate-change obstruction and marginalization is a remarkable admission from Peter Kent:

Environment Minister Peter Kent has pledged to the United Nations that Canada won’t pull out of the Kyoto climate treaty during the final days of the Durban conference – but he refuses to rule out a decision to withdraw shortly after the global talks wrap up.

Asked about Canada’s rumoured withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. Kent said he assured the UN that he won’t unleash any “unfortunate surprises” before the end of the Durban conference Friday.

And we should be entirely willing to echo Kent's view that it would be both unfortunate and surprising for a country of Canada's stature to simply tear up an international agreement on climate change - particularly as Kent plans to do exactly that later this month.

- Finally, if we didn't have enough reason to worry about the Saskatchewan Party's financial mismanagement, surely the revelation that the Premier apparently can't make ends meet on his publicly-funded salary (and thus need to take taxpayer-subsidized dollars from his party as well) should raise some concerns.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- With prorogation looking like it's bound to be back on the table fairly shortly, Lori Turnbull offers a worthwhile suggestion to end the Cons' abuses:

The 2012 prorogation would be substantively different. First, there is no obvious political land mine to avoid. Second, the Conservatives have demonstrated how majority status confers an immunity of sorts from even the most scathing criticism from the opposition benches. These factors make a potential upcoming prorogation less necessary from a political standpoint, but the fact remains: We live in a country where a prime minister can shut down the House, the pre-eminent institution of our parliamentary democracy, on a whim, for no particular reason.

In our new book, Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government, we argue that prorogations should occur only with the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House. This would place the balance of power in the hands of elected representatives, where it belongs. The House would have to consent to turning the lights off. If we allow the prime minister to unilaterally decide whether and when the House can perform its scrutiny function, we reverse the basic logic of responsible government, which dictates that the government must be accountable to the House. The two-thirds majority threshold is high enough to nearly always necessitate multiparty support.

A simple majority, as suggested by the Liberals and the NDP, would still allow a majority government prime minister to get his way just by whipping the votes of his own caucus. We argue that where prorogation is routine, the supermajority threshold should be reached easily. But, if adopted, our proposal would enable the House of Commons to protect itself against a prime minister who is motivated to avoid it. We seem to be living in an era where elected representatives have to stand up for their right to do their jobs; this reform would change that.

- Meanwhile, it shouldn't come as much surprise that the Cons plan to formally declare that they see no problem tearing up international climate change agreements. But the more remarkable part of Roger Smith's revelation that they plan to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol is that the Cons' plan was to wait until after the next major round of negotiations - at a point when global reaction will likely determine whether it's possible to make progress despite the Cons' constant obstruction on behalf of the tar sands - to repudiate the work that's been done in the past.

- And the Cons' spirit of openness and honesty can also be found in their systematic deception about the cost of renovating the Nortel campus for the Department of Defence.

- Finally, pogge chronicles the birth of a zombie lie (which we can expect to hear repeated ad nauseum as the Cons attempt to distract from the appalling conditions facing Canada's First Nations by attacking their leaders).

Friday Morning Links

Assorted and environmentally-themed content to end your week.

- Lloyd Alter highlights the Cons' contrasting treatment of environmental scientists (who are being fired in droves) and oil lobbyists (who figure never to lack for work).

- And allies around the world are starting to take notice of the Cons' dirty reputation.

- Fortunately, though, the oil lobby's advantage in money seems to be compensated for in creativity. While the tar sands lobby engages in clumsy manipulations to try to sell its case publicly, the Yes Men managed a slick PR move to smoke out the difference between anybody concerned with truly "ethical oil" and those who just want to paper over the entire industry's abuses.

- And finally, Susan Riley notes that we've managed to make strides on at least some environmental issues such as smog:

There is another factor at play, although it is often downplayed: the cumulative impact of government regulation. Starting in 1991, with the signature of a Canada-U.S. acid rain accord, there has been a steady decline in various pollutants in central Canadian air, not only those linked to acidification of lakes.

Last March, on the 20th anniversary of the pact signed by Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan, Environment Canada released an update, trumpeting a one-third reduction in smog-related pollutants and elimination of 50 per cent of sulphur dioxide since the accord was signed, along with declines in nitrous oxide and particulate emissions.
...
We have, figuratively and literally, breathing space this summer. But clean air shouldn't depend on prevailing winds. It will also take politicians blessed with the foresight of their predecessors - including their conservative predecessors.

On misplaced celebration

Shorter Norman Spector:

Huzzah! We've successfully killed off any global action on climate change! Let's party while we burn!

On battle strategies

Shorter Stephen Harper:

On second thought, I'm all about the socialist schemes to suck money out of rich countries - just as long as they buy us out of having to agree to emission reduction targets.

On false reports

Shorter Jim Prentice:

It's completely false to say that G77 countries walked out on a UN climate meeting to protest Canada's position that Kyoto should be effectively torn up. What really happened is that they (checks thesaurus) departed the (checks thesaurus) gathering to (checks thesaurus) disapprove of Canada's (checks thesaurus) stance. And we're positively outraged that anybody would fail to see the difference.

On global impact

Two decades of inaction on climate change from Lib and Con governments alike sure have put Canada on the map internationally:

Last Monday afternoon, standing outside the Houses of Parliament in London in Parliament square, I held my cell phone aloft with a hundred other protesters, taking part in a “climate flash mob,” a seemingly spontaneous but pre-arranged protest against the British government’s inaction on climate change. Everyone was there to flood MPs with phone calls demanding a fair and effective treaty at Copenhagen this December.

Nearby a man stood, holding an upside-down Canadian flag.

“Sorry to bother you—but why are you holding the Canadian flag upside down?” I asked, a little timidly (I figured with my accent he might clock my Canuck identity and tell me off).

“Flying a flag upside down is the internationally recognized symbol of distress,” he answered. “We are facing a climate emergency—and there is no better symbol for that than the nation of Canada.”

Given that Canada has higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than any other G8 nation, and was branded the “Colossal Fossil” at climate talks in Poznan, Poland, last year for blocking efforts to arrive at an effective treaty on climate change, I couldn’t argue with him.

Apocalypse

John Baird's latest excuse excuse for deferring to Bushco's refusal to accept any emission reduction targets is that an "environmental Armageddon" could result if a deal doesn't rein in emissions for the U.S.

The statement will be worth tucking away for the next time the Cons try to pretend that global warming isn't really a problem worth dealing with at all. But if taken at face value, it only highlights the dishonesty of the Cons' bargaining position.

After all, how could Baird's own dire prediction possibly be averted by Canada's refusal to allow a deal to happen at all? And if global emission reductions are indeed needed to avoid "Armageddon", why would Canada have any hesitation in agreeing to reductions of its own?

Update: More from Steve V on the incoherence of Baird's position.

Declining investment

I'm surprised that this hasn't received more notice when Kyoto and Bali have both been receiving ample attention. But as NDP MP Nathan Cullen pointed out in Thursday's Question Period, the "strategy" of both the Libs and the Cons since Canada ratified Kyoto seems to have been a miserable failure.

Here's what Cullen had to say about investment in emission reductions by Canadian industry:

Statistics Canada reports that spending by industry on capital investments to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions actually dropped by 35%. Oil and gas slashed its investments by 46%, while the power industry cut its investments by 96%. The government ensures that Canada will fall further and further behind.

Now, it's worth noting that the numbers in question are from 2002-2004 - meaning that they pre-date the Cons' stay in power. But it's not hard to draw a link between factors which likely led to the decline, and ones the Cons are seeking to entrench as a long-term policy.

Remember that in 2002 Canada actually ratified Kyoto, signalling an apparent commitment to international reduction targets, with a concurrent intention to require substantial emission reductions from industry. And it only makes sense that Canadian businesses would have sought to get the jump on their likely obligations when there was some prospect that the required reductions would actually be enforced.

After 2002, however, the Libs chose not to take their own government's commitment seriously. By 2004, Canadian industry seems to have figured out that the Libs weren't going to actually put any teeth behind the targets - and naturally reduced its investment accordingly.

At the same time, though, it seems clear that the earlier commitment to an internationally-enforceable target did serve to drive investment in emission reductions. And the Cons' current stance of holding out for the lowest common denominator can only send an equally strong signal in the opposite direction: when Canada's government is looking to avoid any real commitment to emission reductions, there's no reason for industry to bother investing in reductions of its own.

It remains to be seen whether the current cycle of neglect can be reversed. But it appears plain that with Canadian industry plainly taking its cues from the federal government, neither Lib-style dithering nor the Cons' state of denial is going to lead to any progress in the fight against climate change.

On leadership

Shorter Stephen Harper:
If others fail to meet their commitment to a goal which they claim to share in common, it's your own fault for trying to reach it.

Bound to fail

Unfortunately, it looks like the Cons have managed to obstruct against any reference to binding greenhouse gas emission targets. But let's take a moment to quickly dispose of Harper's predictable spin:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper successfully pressed for the deletion of key wording in a climate change communique that would have specified that all members support a "binding commitment" on developed countries to reduce emissions by specific targets.

"Canada's view is we need binding targets on all nations," said Mr. Harper, who dismissed reports that other countries opposed Canada.

Now, it should be obvious that if Canada's goal was in fact to ensure that all countries are subject to binding targets, then the logical course of action would have been to actually ask for that. And the wording presumably wouldn't have been difficult to work out: simply remove "developed" from the phrase "developed countries", and you get to a declaration which would indeed call for binding targets for everybody.

But instead, the Cons held out for a resolution which instead eliminated any reference to "binding targets" - demanding a lower standard rather than a higher one. And combined with their inexplicable pride over an APEC declaration which is explicitly "aspirational", there's plenty of reason to think the lone change in the Cons' position on climate change is a poor effort to pretend to care.

To sum up...
What Harper claims Canada wants: Binding targets for all
What the Commonwealth resolution would have included if not for Harper's obstruction: Binding targets for some
What Harper actually fought for and won within the resolution: Binding targets for none

Needless to say, fighting against binding targets for anybody is no way to make progress against climate change. And Harper's latest step in that direction should offer ample reason to make sure he isn't in a position to embarrass Canada abroad any longer.

Off target

When asked to explain their withdrawal from Kyoto in all but the ability to show up at (and disrupt) ongoing negotiations for the next phase, the Cons have generally made excuses based on the need for reductions from the U.S. and China as part of a global effort to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Which, if the Cons were remotely willing to defend their position, would suggest that they should be first in line calling for a truly global treaty to the same effect.

Not surprisingly, though, the Cons are doing nothing of the sort. Instead, they're blocking a Commonwealth resolution calling for just such a global agreement:

Canada is reportedly holding up a resolution at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda which calls for binding climate change targets, sources have confirmed.

Environmentalists and Commonwealth sources claim Canada has problems with the resolution despite virtually all other countries in attendance, except Australia, supporting it, reports The Canadian Press.

The resolution calls for global emission targets and comes ahead of next month's UN-sponsored meeting in Bali, Indonesia where negotiations will be made to find a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

Not that this comes as much of a surprise based on the Cons' track record of opposing Kyoto from the beginning, and doing their utmost to avoid real reduction targets in Canada regardless of who's been in power.

But today's move should make it all the more clear that the Cons' problem with Kyoto lies not in the countries who haven't signed on to reduction targets, but in the fact that it demands emission reductions at all. And the Cons' usual combination of dishonesty and conflict with the values of Canadian voters will offer just one more reason to make sure Harper can't continue to stand in the way of progress either at home or in the world.

Kyoto by the numbers

Total federal surpluses announced over the last two days alone: $21.6 billion

Total cost of purchasing enough international greenhouse gas emission credits to meet Canada's Kyoto Protocol obligations in full at the Cons' assumed price of $25/tonne, assuming that emissions stay at their current level of 747 megatonnes per year until 2012 (compared to Canada's target level of 572 megatonnes per year): $21.875 billion

Number of corporate media pundits who figure to stop parroting the Cons' patently false spin that Canada can't afford to meet its Kyoto commitments: All too likely zero

Radioactive policy

The Globe and Mail goes into more detail about the Cons' plan to put Canada on the hook for international nuclear waste disposal through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. And the assumptions behind the Cons' current stance show just how problematic their position is.

First, here's Gary Lunn's take:

This week, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said he believes it is inevitable that the spent fuel, which contains significant energy potential, will be reprocessed, and then reused by the domestic Candu owners. However, Mr. Lunn denied Canada would be required to accept imported waste under the global partnership agreement.

Once again, it's worth highlighting what the Cons are willing to assume for the sake of signing on to the nuclear deal. Lunn's view is based on the assumption that as-of-yet nonexistent technology to reprocess nuclear waste will "inevitably" turn up in time to avoid the requirement to dispose of the waste otherwise. And if that doesn't happen...well, it's inevitable, so why worry?

Compare this to the Cons' stance on Kyoto, where they can't repeat often enough that it's simply impossible to meet international standards where (1) the technology already exists to actually meet Canada's targets, and (2) there are other compliance mechanisms available besides implementing immediate technological change.

Based on that contrast, it's clear that the Cons are as devoted to pushing the increased use of nuclear technology as they are determined to avoid doing anything about global warming. And the former position seems to be downright contagious among the Cons and their provincial allies.

Mind you, Lunn wasn't the only Con to speak out about the nuclear proposal. So let's see what Deceivin' Stephen is concerned about in considering the GNEP:

Mr. Harper told a Friday afternoon press conference in Sydney that he felt no pressure to decide, within a particular time frame, whether Canada should take part in the initiative.

"Obviously, in terms of anything internationally in this, Canada would have two priorities. One is to ensure that our uranium industry and our nuclear industry are not left out of any of the international opportunities that other countries may take advantage of," he told reporters.

"And, at the same time, we would obviously want to make sure that any kind of international agreement or any kind of international co-operation on nuclear energy fully respects the non-proliferation agreements and the non-proliferation objectives that Canada and other major countries have long subscribed to."

That's right: priority one is the almighty dollar, priority two is...basically an excuse for implicit posturing toward Iran, since nothing in the GNEP looks to actually change the non-proliferation regime already in place. And if you're looking for any mention of the risk associated with nuclear waste...well, that's just not a priority as far as the Cons are concerned.

We'll see whether the current public pressure is enough to make the Cons take a second look at their plan. But it seems all too clear that any change would be purely for political reasons rather than because of any recognition that there's some serious risk involved in the GNEP. And that complete disinterest in the obvious downside of a dangerous agreement offers just one more reason why Canadians shouldn't trust the Cons' judgment.