Canadian Politics: The Harper Era

[phil]

Read the writing on the wall

>by Rick Salutin
January 19, 2007

A few weeks ago, I did some junk science — as the Bush/Harper people used to call studies about global warming. I was gazing out the window, avoiding writing, and saw one arm of a V of Canada geese flying north. Alarmed, I went looking for normal migration times, wondering whether this could be due to global warming. The science wasn't conclusive (unlike that on climate change, which the Harper government suddenly decided this week is), but I got scared and global warming is where I went.

In fact, the science on global warming (now called climate change because it sounds vaguer and less scary) is no more conclusive than last month. What is newly conclusive is the polling. The issue frightens people, and there's something to make it do so in almost everyone's life. You go to Collingwood to ski and there's no snow. You see people in shirt sleeves on New Year's Day.

Or I'm on the treadmill this week watching TV, and there are aerial shots of a polar bear swimming from floe to floe as the ice recedes. He looks small and spread-eagled, like a little turtle that arrived here Christmas morning.

We went and got a bigger aquarium for him and the resident fish, but the heater broke during transfer, the new one was hard to operate, the thermometer didn't seem to register as the water got hotter, the sides looked steamy and one started to worry that the little creatures might fry or suffocate and holy mackerel — I'm in trouble regulating a 10-gallon tank and what do you think happens when you mess with the planetary atmosphere?

That's what I mean about everything evoking global warming. Columnist Andrew Coyne says it's too complicated to determine an election (unlike, say, a higher minimum wage having the obvious effect of killing the economy). But most people seem to think it's not impenetrable, it keeps popping up in their lives, and they're drawing conclusions.

For instance, I'm walking an eight-year-old home from school. He asks what global warming is, it came up in class. I try to explain; then, not wanting to overly alarm him, add that lots of people are working to get it under control.

He asks who could be against that. I say some people make a lot of money from it. Like who? Well, oil companies, energy firms.

“Oh, great,” he says, “this is your choice: Make lots of money and die. Or be alive with less money. That's a hard one!”

I repeat this because he, like all his peers, is an environmentalist (their word); but it's different now. Canadian kids have been ecological since David Suzuki's heyday 20 years ago when they all got his books on their birthdays. Now it's verified for the rest of us by direct experience like the geese or turtle. My eyes used to glaze over when I saw the word “environment.” But I'm a Suzukian, too. It's no longer him or Al Gore trying to scare hell out of you. It's events in your own life, multiplied by everyone else's.

That's what hit the polls, turned Conservatives into sudden ecomaniacs (along with the fact that Liberals stumbled into Mr. Green as their leader), and led the government to “scramble to play the green game.” Now they not only want Canada to be an energy superpower, as Stephen Harper intones, but a clean energy superpower, as Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said this week.

In politics, motives usually don't matter. Maybe Stephen Harper will do the right thing for the sake of votes, or more likely because the Bush government sees the writing, too. They move in lockstep. But watch the language. Neither government wants to cap or curb emissions; they'll focus on research and innovation in cleaner energy.

Radio-Canada, meanwhile, reports the U.S. wants us to quintuple the output of the tar sands, our main contribution to Armageddon, because its Mideast policies are going badly and threatening oil supplies. Now there's a link to lose sleep over: failed U.S. foreign policy with greater global warming, by way of Canada.

George Bush keeps repeating that failure is not an option in Iraq. But failure is usually an option in life and only an idiot won't recognize it. Except with global warming. There, as our kids can teach us, failure really isn't an option.

[Dr. Drum]

Canada's dirty little secret... Environmental degradation on an enormous scale, huge GHG emission increases, an obscene overuse of fresh water, use of relatively clean natural gas to produce relatively dirty syncrude, open pit mining and all that entails, an overheated Alberta economy where a well-paying job is no guarantee you'll have basics like adequate housing, increases in cancer rates downstream of the developments, dying communities in Cape Breton and Newfoundland as an entire generation packs up and heads west... But hey, Canada's an "energy superpower" and Alberta has the fastest growing economy in N. America, if not the world. Woo hoo for free enterprise.

[Dr. Drum]

And now for something completely different. Has any other federation ever had this kind of long-running internal boundary dispute? (Countries where it ended in a shootin' war exempted, of course.)

[Kensterberg]

So does Quebec not recognize Labrador, or just doesn't agree where/if the border is?

I've never heard of something like this within one country. Of course I had no idea that the "unification" of Canada into one entity was so recent, either.

Maybe I need to take a course in Canadian history at some point, or something.

[phil]

Ken ~ Québec is also trying to annex the state of Maine
so we can claim Old Orchard and Oqunquit beaches
as our "own and native land" ...

Translation ...

I personaly don't give a damn about Labrador !!


This article in the Canadian Encyclopedia is as good as any
to give you an (very brief) insight into this dispute ...


Labrador Boundary dispute

The territorial limit between Québec and Newfoundland in the LABRADOR peninsula, at over 3500 km long, is the longest interprovincial boundary. It has not yet been surveyed and marked on the ground. A dispute concerning the ownership of Labrador arose in 1902 when the Québec government protested NEWFOUNDLAND's issuing a timber licence on the CHURCHILL River.

Two years later Québec asked Ottawa to submit the controversy to the JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL in London. This reference to an outside impartial body was appropriate, since Canada and Newfoundland were separate members of the British Empire and neither could have settled the issue through its own courts. Only Canada and Newfoundland were admitted as parties to the case, and Québec had no direct representation.

The dispute dragged on, and in 1922 Canada and Newfoundland agreed to ask the Privy Council to decide only "the location and definition of the boundary as between Canada and Newfoundland in the Labrador Peninsula under the statutes, orders-in-council and proclamations." The panel of 5 judges was confined to this question; it could not create a new boundary or suggest a territorial compromise. The main point in the case was the meaning of "coast," for that was how Labrador was legally described.

Newfoundland traced its claim of ownership to the commission issued to Governor Thomas Graves in 1763, which extended his jurisdiction to the "Coasts of Labrador." Canada argued that a royal proclamation later that year merely placed the territory under the governor's "care and inspection" for fishing purposes.

In 1774, it was pointed out, Labrador was transferred by statute to Québec, but in 1809 it was reannexed to Newfoundland; in 1825 the coast of Labrador west of a line extending due north from the bay of Blanc-Sablon to the 52nd parallel of latitude was once again restored to Lower Canada [Québec].

The judicial committee refused to accept Canada's contention that "coast" meant a strip of land one mile (1.6 km) wide along the seashore. It found that the evidence supported Newfoundland's inland claim as far as the watershed line or height of land. The court's decision in March 1927 settled the boundary in its present location.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, its boundary in Labrador was confirmed in the Terms of Union (now the NEWFOUNDLAND ACT), enshrined in the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982. A 1971 Québec royal commission decided that Québec's case against the 1927 boundary was not worth pursuing; by 1987, although the province did not consider the issue to be settled, the dispute appeared to be dormant.

[Dr. Drum]

Phil – yeah, no big deal. I mentioned it only because I find it somewhat amusing that this kind of jousting between Newfoundland and Quebec - with the government maps and all - still goes on over this issue. Big stakes in a sense, if the Lower Churchill ever gets developed, but the Privy Council decision is the law of the land and there's no mechanism for changing it. So moot point, as far as that goes. Just kind of an oddity.

[phil]

If anybody had any doubt the new "Conforms" position
on the environment is a joke better read this ...

Canada won't follow Bush on reducing oil consumption: Harper

Terry Pedwell
Canadian Press

Thursday, January 25, 2007

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada won't follow the Bush administration's lead in setting hard targets for reducing oil consumption, but will instead impose tougher emissions standards on the auto sector and other industries, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

However, any regulations intended to protect the environment won't come at the expense of the economy, Harper said Wednesday. "The government does intend to regulate emissions across all sectors including the automobile sector," Harper said in an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press.

"(But) we have to consult the industry and ultimately come up with targets that make progress on the environment while being achievable for industry in a way that doesn't jeopardize Canadian jobs," Harper added.

"That's our target."

Harper said he is considering imposing targets on industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

"We're looking at that," he said.

"We're in the process of target setting and we hope to do that in the weeks and months to come."

But unlike U.S. President George W. Bush, cutting energy consumption won't be Canada's focus as it aims at becoming a world energy superpower, Harper said .

In his State of the Union Address this week, Bush said he wants to reduce oil consumption by 20 per cent in Middle East oil imports over 10 years. That would reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East by 75 per cent.

Canada is now the leading exporter of energy to the United States when oil and gas are factored into the equation. The Bush administration has sought to increase oil imports from Canada, which is seen as a reliable and secure source of energy, since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Several of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from countries that supply the United States with oil.

"President Bush's speech . . . when he talked about these things was really talking about it in the context primarily of energy security and the United States shortage of energy and their dependence on foreign supplies of energy," Harper said perching forward as he sat in his sun-filled Parliament Hill office.

"That's not a problem here. Canada is an emerging world energy superpower. We have an abundance of all forms of energy. We're an exporter of virtually all forms of energy."

"Our need and our desire to deal with these things and set targets is really in the context of environmental improvement and environmental preservation and less in terms of energy security."

Harper appears to be heeding warnings from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove.

McGuinty has warned the federal government not to solve its greenhouse gas emission problems on the backs of the industry that is the engine of the Ontario economy.

Hargrove has also cautioned Harper not to shackle an industry "already on its knees" with more regulation.

The auto industry has been operating under a voluntary emission reduction plan that will end in 2010.

So far, Canada has either had a written voluntary agreement with the industry to meet emissions goals or an understanding that car manufacturers would follow American standards.

Environmentalists hope the Canadian auto industry will adopt California standards for greenhouse gas emissions that would require vehicles to reduce emissions by 30 per cent between 2009 and 2015.

"California is not an auto producer, so it's kind of theoretical for California to set auto production standards," Harper said.

"We have an actual auto industry."

Conservative insiders have told CP that the ultimate objective is to bring Canada in line with North American-wide standards after 2010.

"They don't want Canada to become a dumping ground (for inefficient cars) in North America," a source familiar with the file recently told CP.

Sources have also said the government is considering a new tax break for consumers who buy hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius. Ontario and British Columbia have a similar program.

[Dr. Drum]

Harper is engaged in a greenwashing exercise, pure and simple.

This is interesting. Poll numbers from the 2nd half of last year are holding firm and the whole process seems to be accelerating. Hopefully the scenario of the Greens splitting everyone's vote but the Cons discussed in the piece does not play out. That really would be perverse.

[phil]

Gotta love this ...

Text of Stephen Harper letter slamming the Kyoto protocol

OTTAWA (CP) - Text of a 2002 letter by Stephen Harper to members of his Canadian Alliance party denouncing the Kyoto accord:

Dear Friend,

We're on a roll, folks!

The Canadian Alliance is once again setting the agenda in the House of Commons. Look at what happened in less than two months since Parliament reopened:

-We bagged another Liberal cabinet minister when we drove the hapless Lawrence MacAulay to resign for violating the ethics guidelines.

-We broke Jean Chretien's chokehold on the House of Commons by getting the election of committee chairs and votes on all private members' bills.

-We finally (!) got the Liberals to agree to set up a national registry for sex offenders.

But we can't just relax and declare victory. We're gearing up for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership. I'm talking about the "battle of Kyoto" - our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord.

It would take more than one letter to explain what's wrong with Kyoto, but here are a few facts about this so-called "Accord":

-It's based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.

-It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants.

-Canada is the only country in the world required to make significant cuts in emissions. Third World countries are exempt, the Europeans get credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet-era industries, and no country in the Western hemisphere except Canada is signing.

-Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

-As the effects trickle through other industries, workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.

-The only winners will be countries such as Russia, India, and China, from which Canada will have to buy "emissions credits." Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.

-On top of all this, Kyoto will not even reduce greenhouse gases. By encouraging transfer of industrial production to Third World countries where emissions standards are more relaxed, it will almost certainly increase emissions on a global scale.

For a long time, the Canadian Alliance stood virtually alone in opposing the Kyoto Accord, as Bob Mills, our senior environment critic, waged a valiant battle against it. Now, however, allies are stepping forward - eight of 10 provincial governments, and a broad coalition of businesses across Canada - to help us fight the "battle of Kyoto."

Jean Chretien says he will introduce a resolution to ratify Kyoto into Parliament and get it passed before Christmas. We will do everything we can to stop him there, but he might get it passed with the help of the socialists in the NDP and the separatists in the BQ.

But the "battle of Kyoto" is just beginning. Ratification is merely symbolic; Kyoto will not take effect unless and until it is implemented by legislation. We will go to the wall to stop that legislation and at that point we will be on much stronger procedural ground than in trying to block a mere resolution.

The Reform Party defeated the Charlottetown Accord in an epic struggle in the fall of 1992. Now the Canadian Alliance is leading the battle against the Kyoto Accord!

But we can't do it alone. It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto, just as it did to beat Charlottetown.

We can't stop Kyoto just in Parliament. We need your help at all levels. We need you to inform yourself about Kyoto, to discuss it with your friends and neighbours, and to write protest letters to newspapers and the government.

And, yes, we need your gifts of money. The "battle of Kyoto" is going to lead directly into the next election. We need your contribution of $500, or $250, or $100, or whatever you can afford, to help us drive the Liberals from power.

Yours truly,

Stephen Harper, MP

Leader of the Opposition

PS: The "battle of Kyoto" shows why the Canadian Alliance is so important to you and to Canada. All the other federal parties are supporting Kyoto (Liberals, NDP, BQ) or speaking out of both sides of their mouth (Tories). Only the Canadian Alliance is strong and fearless enough to block dangerous and destructive schemes like the Charlottetown Accord and the Kyoto Accord.

[Dr. Drum]

Top 10 Canadian provincial premiers

1. Gary Doer – Manitoba
2. Gordon Campbell – British Columbia
3. Danny Williams – Newfoundland and Labrador
4. Dalton McGuinty – Ontario
5. Jean Charest – Québec
6. Lorne Calvert – Saskatchewan
7. Sean Graham – New Brunswick
8. Pat Binns – Prince Edward Island
9. Ed Stelmach – Alberta
10. Rodney MacDonald – Nova Scotia

Judged on overall political performance and effectiveness, regardless of political stripe or whether I like them personally. Sean Graham and Ed Stelmach were both at a disadvantage by virtue of having been very recently elected, of course. Their rankings are almost entirely based on being unknown quantities. Not so Rodney MacDonald, who in slightly less than a year as premier has proven himself singularly ill-equipped for the task, IMHO.

[phil]

As long as you don't have to learn french ... ;D

Plenty of support for bilingualism: poll

Last Updated: Sunday, February 4, 2007 | 3:36 PM ET
CBC News

It has taken four decades and sometimes a lot of argument and bitter feelings, but according to a new poll commissioned by Radio-Canada, official bilingualism is finally a hit in Canada.

The CROP poll shows 81 per cent of those surveyed support the idea that Canada is a bilingual country.

An even larger majority, 91 per cent, said the prime minister should be able to speak both English and French.

However, 56 per cent said if Canadians are not bilingual, it's because it's not really necessary — or easy.

Seventy-six per cent said there's a lack of interest to learn the other language.
Seventy per cent cited the lack of opportunity to speak that language.
Fifty per cent said there weren't enough courses available to learn the other language.

Despite finding reasons not to learn French or English, 80 per cent said they believed that being bilingual could help them find a job. Seventy-eight per cent said it could help with travel and personal development.

Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, said the poll makes it clear Canadians now have definite expectations of the language abilities of their elected officials, even if they don't have those same expectations of themselves.

"They are saying that if you want to participate in the national conversation, you ought to be able to do it in both languages. And we wouldn't have heard that 20 years ago."

Harper an example

Fraser points to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a good example of an elected official who makes a point of speaking French, whether he's in Canada or not.

"He's sending the message to English Canadians that you don't have to grow up in Quebec, you don't have to have gone to [French] immersion. This is something that anybody who applies himself can achieve."

Back in the 1960s, only about seven per cent of Canadians outside Quebec were bilingual. The new poll suggests that figure has risen to 16 per cent. Fifty-six per cent of those surveyed in Quebec described themselves as bilingual.

The polling firm CROP questioned 2,000 Canadians between Oct. 23 and Nov. 19.

Its poll, with a margin of error of three per cent, was commissioned to mark the 40th anniversary of the Royal Commission report that opened the door for official bilingualism in Canada.

The report was released two years before the 1969 Official Languages Act report, which stated that all federal services should be available in both English and French everywhere in the country.

[phil]

Hard facts about "bilingualism" in Canada ...

- Francophones living outside Québec : 95 %
Those we, in Québec, call French Canadians.
The younger generation is barely fonctional in french ...

- Anglophones living in Québec : 74 %
Astonishing to see that a full ¼ can fonction in Québec
without ever learning the language of the majority ...

- "pure-wool" Québécois : 53 %
Not like we got much choice now, do we ...?

- R.O.C. : 14 to 16 %
99% of those probably working for the federal government ... ;D

But ... HÉ! ... If Harper can do it, everybody can !!

[Dr. Drum]

Seems like a pretty healthy situation overall, Phil. 81% in favour of official bilingualism might even be considered remarkable, in the sense that we are fast approaching the point where fully 20% of the Canadian population has a mother tongue other than French or English.

Small case in point – there are a dozen students in my French class. About half the students are of "anglo" ancestry. Mother tongues of the others: Mandarin Chinese, German, Spanish, Arabic and Portuguese.

[phil]

Alors, comment vont les cours de français ... ?

[Dr. Drum]

Assez bien, Phil, mais j'ai beaucoup à apprendre!