Israel and Palestine Leaders Agree to Negotiation Talks

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have agreed to start to talk about negotiating everything for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. They are planning on meeting every two weeks starting December 12 until the end of 2008 – when they hope to wrap up an agreement.

A hopeful sign for sure but with a long way to go. The world has been here before so we need to have more details of what makes this time any different. A deep division exist within the two countries and amongst all the members of Arab world, but talking is much better than bullets and bombs.

Climate Change Aspirations Won't Cut It Mr. Harper

The headlines coming out of the weekend meet of the Commonwealth “Defiant Harper Pans Climate Change Critics” tell us only part of the story. The distinctly isolationist stance of the Harper government to the obvious direction of world opinion on climate change is the more important political issue. Quite frankly the political issues fade in comparison to the policy issue of the need to deal with global warming.

Harper has “disputed this characterization” of Canadian policy being isolationist. That said, there are few “leaders” left who continue to effectively deny climate change. The Cabal of climate-change deniers that promote the aspirational model of dealing with global warming are disappearing faster than the polar ice-caps.

Australian’s dramatically dumped John Howard as he recently suffered the worst electoral defeat in the 63 year history of his party. He lost his own seat to boot…the first time that a sitting Prime Minister had been voted out of the Australian parliament since 1929. OUCH! Dubya has moved from lame-duck status to just plain lame in terms of leadership on climate change. He has turned over Republican leadership on the issue to “The Governator” Arnold Schwarzenegger. That irony still sticks in my mind.

Political aspirations to public policy are like water is to soup, necessary but not sufficient. Harper insisting on a 100% consensus on an issue as complex as climate change, is not leadership. It is just more of the Harper trademark of overwhelming tactical posturing inevitably leading to an underwhelming policy position.

It is time to move hard toward a binding commitment on emissions. Going green provides a wonderful opportunity for the developed world for a new form of genuine wealth creation and progress. Moving forward on hard emission standards will be the catalyst to generate new innovations and inventions that will benefit the ecology of the plant, the economy of all nations and the social cohesion of the human species.

In the 60’s JFK, in the face of the space race, challenged the American people to put a man on the moon and return him safely within that decade. They did it. It is time for an inspirational leader from the developed world to articulate and aspire to such a challenge climate change goal for the benefit of all mankind. No such leader is on the political stage at present. Al Gore has made it clear he is not going to run so he is not “in the wings.”

It is time again that we humans had a new and equally as bold aspiration as putting a man on the moon. But now we need a goal that is more profound and pertinent to the future of mankind and the planet than going to the moon will ever be. We have to change our habits and redefine success in terms of a more common wealth. We have to immediately slow down our ecologically destructive activities. We then have to focus on learning to adapt and alter our activities so that we reverse our impacts on climate change. While the urgent always trumps the important, this climate change reality is both important and urgent.

We need an inspirational call to action that is borne of a growing and increasingly urgent necessity due to climate change. The challenge today is more compelling than JFK’s aspiration to put a man on the moon. We need to get moving fast and hard, as individuals, enterprises, communities, governments and nations on reversing the impacts of our species on the planet through climate change.

We need to undertake this with a vigorous commitment and conviction beyond mere aspirations Mr. Harper. Only that way we can ensure that life on earth, including our species, can be safely sustained and even enhanced. This is not as romantic a challenge as sending a man to the moon. But it is much more meaningful to the role of mankind and much more critical to the future of the planet.

Review of the Chandler Candidacy is Not a Special Case - in the PC Party of Alberta All Candidates Are Reviewed.

I think it is important to point out some other relevant facts around the nomination process for determining candidates in the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, especially for the vast majority of readers who are citizens and voters but not involved in political parties.

The Progressive Conservative Party Executive Committee and Party Leader’s review of Mr. Chandler’s nomination and determination of his suitability for candidacy is not unique to him. In the PC Party Constitution, all nominees for candidacy for the PC Party will go through the same review process that Mr. Chandler is going through.

The PC Party of Alberta is a membership driven organization, just like all other political parties and the various other non-profit voluntary sector organizations that exist in the province. The objectives of the PC Party are firstly “To promote and assist the interests and principles of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta.” Also “To promote and assist in nominating and supporting in an Provincial Election, official Progressive Conservative candidates, consistent always with the autonomy of the Constituency Associations.”

Clause 14(b) (vi) of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta says:
“A candidate who has been duly nominated shall be approved by the Leader and the Executive Committee and officially endorsed as a candidate of the Association if such approval is in the best interests of the Association.”

There is a dispute resolution process for resolving a range of issues surrounding candidate nominations, including a candidate’s qualification or disqualification before or after nomination.

In terms of fairness, Mr. Chandler is not a special case. The process for a nominee to be reviewed is clear and and I am sure the provisions of the Constitution will be followed for him and all other potential and aspiring candidates for the PC Party.

Stelmach Is Reviewing the Chandler Nomination...YES!!!

I am delighted to hear Premier Stelmach is reviewing the Craig Chandler nomination as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta – and that the criteria he is using is the Statement of Principles of the party. Media reports say Premier Stelmach will meet with the PC Party executive committee to discuss this matter very soon.

Good move Mr. Premier. Being leader of a political party and Premier of a province has overlapping elements but they are fundamentally two different things. Mr. Chandler's nomination is a constituency and party matter but it is up to the leader to accept him as a candidate.

The leader’s final decision on candidates reflects to citizens/voters what the PC party will accept as "tolerable" and that should not include intolerance. This decision by Ed Stelmach is sending a message to voters about the character of our political party and our fitness to govern.

I believe Mr. Chandler is inappropriate as a PC candidate and as an elected representative from the PC party given our pluralistic, secular, inclusive and diverse province. He has often expressed views that are very inconsistent with those Alberta values as well as the Statement of Principles of the PC Party of Alberta.

He seems to be more closely aligned with the new Wild Rose Party. They look like they could use his organizational talents as they chase enough signatures to qualify as a new provincial political party before the next election.

Mr. Chandler will undoubtedly respond and make arguments about respect for democracy and freedom of speech. But many of his past actions have been anything but respectful of those values. He has even been forced to publicly apologize for Human Rights abuses in the past.

Premier Stelmach is right. We Progressive Conservatives can’t tolerate intolerance – especially in our political representation. While the democratic process duly nominated Mr. Chandler in Calgary Egmont. A nomination decision is only a recommendation from a constituency to the party. It is not a final decision.

That final decision on the acceptability of a candidate is, and ought to be, with the leader who, after all, has to work with a group that becomes his team at the end of the day. The PC Party selects it leader on a one person one vote basis so we are assured the winner is the real choice of the party membership. Those votes are very personal and individual decisions – not based on some phoney delegated authority of special interests. Given that leadership selection process, Ed Stelmach, as our party leader, should be able to exercise his discretion in accepting or rejecting candidate nomination recommendations from constituency organizations.

By personally consulting with the party executive, Premier Stelmach has shown once again that he brings ability and wisdom to his position as party leader. Legally speaking, seeking advice from the party executive need not be done at all. There is a legislation that gives him a right, a party leader, to override the local nomination process. He can, by law, refuse to sign the papers that turns a nominee into a candidate.

I hope and expect the PC party executive will conclude that Mr. Chandler is not an acceptable candidate and they will support a move to reject his nomination in Calgary Egmont. Do not expect Mr. Chandler and his followers to go away quietly. It is not their style. I would not be surprised if legal actions were at least threatened by Mr. Chandler and his acolytes. But adherence to values of respect, inclusiveness and diversity should not be diminished by any such threats or intimidation tactics.

Did Alberta Try to Get Quebec to Change Policy on Kyoto by Offering "Billions of Industry" Money?

I have bought but not yet read William Marsden’s book “Stupid to the Last Drop” about the Alberta oil sands. I don’t expect to get to it until after Christmas but I may have to fast track my plans.

This CanWest news piece suggesting Guy Boutilier, when he was Alberta’s Minister of the Environment, may be enough to convince me to get into the book sooner. Apparently Mr. Boutiller tried in 2005 to influence the Quebec government to change its support for the Kyoto Accord in exchange for “billions of Alberta industry” dollars to help finance the Montreal Stock Exchange.

This is an interesting allegation given that Mr. Boutilier admits to writing the note and circumstances of the event. He berates Mr. Marsden for “sensationalizing something that is totally imaginative.” What was so imaginative about this ploy? Trying to buy Quebec loyalty and failing to do so is hardly imaginative.

Many past federal Liberal governments were masters at it and Chrétien was perhaps the biggest failure at it. Just look at Adscam for proof of that statement. Even the current Con government under Mr. Harper is playing the lets buy Quebec's loyalty card. He is into the “Quebec Nation” notion and has done some pretty serious federal spending in Quebec with the strategic advice of former Prime Minister Mulroney. Remember it was Mr. Mulroney who managed to get an impressive string of majority governments out of his application of this “imaginative” lets buy the Quebec loyalty tactic.

This is hardly an imaginative approach to nation building or cooperative federalism. It is nothing even close to the effective tag teaming Lougheed and Lévesque used to employ against Ottawa from time to time. Those events were marked by Alberta and Quebec sharing a mutual respect for the division of powers in the Canadian Constitution at a time when Ottawa was buying influence from all other provinces.

Hard to judge from what we know for sure about this event as to what Mr. Boutilier was really up to in offering billions of Alberta industry money to Quebec. On what basis Mr. Boutilier thinks he can offer billions of private industry money to Quebec in the first place is confusing enough. What was he thinking?

Claiming it was about being "imaginative" is not likely to pass any sniff test as to what his motivations really were.