Is Harper's Justice Review Meddling Forfeiting Our Freedoms?

The Globe and Mail piece today by Kirk Makin outlines an example of what can go wrong when the separation of powers between the judiciary, the police and prosecutors get clouded.

The disturbing reality in the Truscott story is captured in this quotation:

"Defence counsel Phil Campbell told the court that the true nature of the evidence in the case was distorted and concealed for decades. "This kind of case -- where evidence starts to conform to the charge, rather than the charge conforming to the evidence -- is the hallmark of so many wrongful convictions."

"Mr. Campbell said that an honest belief held by Mr. Truscott's trial lawyer, Frank Donnelly -- that police and prosecutors would not mislead him about the exculpatory evidence -- was sadly misplaced. He said that Mr. Donnelly was far too diligent to have ignored evidence that would have bolstered his case."

"He was defending a 14-year-old boy he was attempting to keep from the gallows," Mr. Campbell said. "There is no way he would take it on the chin . . . if he knew there was a body of evidence that he could use to rebut the Crown and turn it to his advantage."

"Mr. Campbell said that, almost 50 years later, a combination of sound science, new witnesses and the unearthing of long-buried witness statements point directly toward Mr. Truscott's innocence. "

Here we have examples of suppressed evidence that might have proven the innocence of a citizen at trial. As a result a potentially innocent life is destroyed by the system. We have to await the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on the Truscott case to be conclusive about this.

We have, in the meantime, evidence that in Truscott' s trial prosecutors and police colluded to withhold evidence that did serious harm to a citizen's rights and freedom. That citizen was a 14 year old boy at that. It brings our system of justice into question. Why did they do this in the first place? To win at all costs?

What if the primary success factor of the legal system was measured by how well the police, prosecutors and judges were at "getting hard on crime" as Prime Minister Harper says he wants? Does that mean the system is successful if it gets a "win" by getting a conviction by what ever means it takes? Again at what cost will this be to our legal protections, the rule of law and the professional and independent role of the Bench, the presumption of innocence and due process?

I don’t know if that "win at all costs" attitude was the motivation in the original Truscott trial or the many other wrongful convictions that are now coming to light. But I do know if the test of a “successful” legal system is to get tough on crime and a conviction at all costs, that encourages the suppression of exculpating evidence. Then ask yourself, what kind of a chance will an ordinary citizen have in such a "justice" culture?

Imagine for a moment how vulnerable we all become in the face of such a system. The only real protections we have had so far is a qualified Bar along with independent Bench whose only master is a total dedication to a system based on the rule of law. If there is any equivocation of that dedication because it is fettered in any way by a political agenda of powerful people in the government, then, as Shakespeare said “…the state doth totter.”

Prime Minister Harper's inappropriate meddling in the Judicial Review Committee structure and process is inviting the state to totter. This is not some political posturing prank or a petty minded attack ad silliness. This recent action by the Prime Minister is designed and intended to increase the political influence on judicial recommendations and to disrupt the balance in the judicial review process. By the Harper government's own admission in Question Period on February 13, the existing system was working. (see my post yesterday).

Harper is now able to use his political discretion by accepting or rejecting the judicial appointment recommendations from the current review process. His recent political actions to extend his political influence into the judicial review committee itself are a danger and a threat to the freedoms of every citizen. It must not be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

If the Judicial Review Committe is not Broken Why is Harper "Fixing" It?

This is an excerpt from Question Period February 13, 2007 on the appointment of judges by the Harper Conservatives. It is worth a careful read.

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, within months of taking office, the Conservatives began stacking the bench with their friends: the former president of their party in Quebec, the Conservative co-chair from New Brunswick, a Conservative fundraiser from Alberta, and on it goes. These appointments were made by the former justice minister until we caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.

Will the new, moderate justice minister do what his predecessor refused to do and stop appointing Conservative Party hacks to judicial positions?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there may be some confusion in the hon. member's mind. I should point out to her that all the appointments that have been made by this government have been recommended by the judicial appointments commission that the Liberals set up. Every one of them were recommended by the members that they put on that board. What is their complaint?

HERE IS THE COMPLAINT!
My question is about the answer by the Hon Rob Nicholson on the source of his government’s partisan appointees to the bench. He says:

“I should point out to her that all the appointments that have been
made by this government have been recommended by the judicial appointments commission that the Liberals set up. Every on of them were recommended by the members that they put on that board. What is their complaint?”

Here is the complaint Mr. Minister. If the system was working – and by your own admission in the answer above - then why change it? If you could get your preferred appointees recommended anyway, why change the process and compositoin of the judicial appointments committee?

BECAUSE the changes you made will result in ONLY your preferred candidates getting through the review process. You will not have to deal with ignoring or rejecting any other qualified appointment recommendations that do not fit with your ideological agenda.

You have rigged the system sir to predetermine the answers you want, and to ensure you only to receive recommendations for appointments that meet a partisan ideological political agenda. It is disingenuous to suggest this meddling with judicial appointment reviews is about safe communities sir!

It is simply a reprehensible abuse of political power for its own sake. Nothing more. Nothing less

Judicial Review Process Should Diminish Politics not Facilitate Politics

Here is an example of shallow understanding of the judicial review and appointment process. This columnist stretches facts beyond credulity for effect but adds nothing to understanding the implication of the Harper Cons recent changes to the judicial review committee make up and processes.

Lawyers are often political activists and even partisans because the people who go into politics make the laws. Little wonder they are interested. To think that donations to a single party by a lawyer should disqualify them from judicial appointment, as implied in this column, is folly in the extreme. To imply that an Executive Director of the Quebec Liberal Party who is said to have testified in the Gomery Commission that “about eight lawyers who campaigned for the Liberal Party in Quebec during the 2000 federal election were awarded judicial appointment" is pointless, trite and sophistic. What does that prove?

Judicial appointments are not “awards.” They are earned and not by virtue of political activities or party donations. The review committee process of citizens, siting judges and lawyers representing the profession are all there to ensure that does not happen. The process, to my knowledge, has been stringent and rigorous for applicants to qualify for a recommendation for appointment to the Prime Minister. It is that office along with the Minster of Justice who makes the appointments in the end result, not the review committees.

The problem with the Harper changes is he has altered the mix of membership and relative powers of the parties in the process. That change is clearly to accomplish Harper’s political ends of ensuring that he gets review recommendations that fit his preconceived view of more social conservatives for appointment to the bench.

By the way, when, in fairness to the representations in the column, when Anne McLellan was Justice Minister she also accepted a well known activist Progressive Conservative and a New Democrat lawyer appointed the the Queen's Bench in Alberta. Both were quality lawyers and have proven to be excellent jurists. It is not always partisan and many examples exist to prove that point, regardless of party.

If the review and recommendation process is apolitical the system has a better chance of working to ensure an independent judiciary. If the system is politicized, as in Harpers review process changes, an independent judiciary will be subject to more suspicion. That is something we do not need.

Thanks to freedom of the press so we can have the chance to read and rebut such opinion as in the Calgary Sun. I wonder if how long a socially conservative bench will tolerate such imprudence, even such as this blog posting, even if made in the name of freedom of expression?

Canadians should not have to be asking themselves such a question. Ever since the Mulroney changes to the judicial appointment review process in 1988 we have not had to wonder. Has Harper changed all that? I wonder!

Is Harper's ecoTrust Really a Fiscal Imbalance Fund?

Is Harper taking his western base, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, for granted, yet again? Premiers Stelmach and Calvert are taking the Harper eco-Trust idea to task. They are calling for the funds to be distributed in a way that responds to solving the emission issues by focusing funds where the GHG problems are, like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Instead, the Harper Cons are proposing a per capita distribution and a pre-emptive promise to Quebec that is tied to elections, in Quebec and federally.

Quebec is the place Harper chose to announce a potential (subject to budget approval) funding for reduction of air pollution and GHG emissions. Quebec has to amongst the least offensive place when it comes to GHG emissions. They have Quebec Hydro and are very clean comparatively.

Politics is trumping sound policy and effective programming in this initiative so far. This is more about a back door delivery of “fiscal imbalance funds” and a political message to Quebec. Harper’s speech is tribute to “self” and a menu of the Cons concessions to Quebec in the past year, none of which I begrudge. Think UNESCO voice for Quebec, big cash into the 400 anniversary of Quebec City, and bridges, highways, water systems and airport expansions are the items Harper mentions in his “eco-Trust-me” speech.

The speech pays a nod to the different “energy profile” of each province and the different priorities they have. He notes the “solutions have to be customized” and that GHG “emissions have to be mandatory across the country.”

This all this distinctiveness in these provincial energy profiles, priorities and need for “customized solutions” it is hard to see the logic behind a per capita fund distribution. Unless the logic is to favour Quebec and Ontario because it is about where the votes are in puruste of a majority and as for the environment, well not so much.

All this happens at the expense of Alberta and Saskatchewan – yet again! I am sure Prime Minister Harper has heard the expression "The West Wants In?" Well a new version is emerging under the Harper government. "Why Are You Leaving the West Out?"

Harper is quickly becoming the closest thing we have seen to a centralizing Prime Minister since the reigns of Chrétien and Trudeau. Strange isn't is, what power will do to some people, and what they will do to retain it.

Harper is Now Messing with the Justice System...and He is Starting to Scare Me!

The Harper government changes to the review process for how judges are selected are disturbing. I don’t take too much exception to the fact the government of the day appoints members to the review committees and makes the ultimate selection and appointment of judges. I do get alarmed however about some aspects of the changes in the review and recommendation processes Harper has made.

Mulroney put this judicial appointment process in place years ago to reduce political interference. In fact when I started out as a young lawyer in 1974 the process of appointment to the Bench was entirely political…and pathetically so. That said, the lawyers who were the personal choices of the Prime Minister (or the Minister of Justice on occasion too) invariably became quality judges who fulfilled their roles independently, dispassionately and skillfully.

Even though the system “worked” it was inappropriately political and so these review committees came into being. They were designed to review applicants for judicial appointment, and to make some recommendations to the Prime Minister for appropriate appointment. This system has worked well and has been modified and adapted over the years. The ultimate political discretion in the appointment process has been retained by the Prime Minister, but the politics of the process was fettered significantly .

Not any more however. The Harper changes are most disturbing. The inclusion of police representation in the process is a concern. In fairness, the police ought not to be choosing judges. As one jurist put it, should there also be representation for accused and convicted citizens too? The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has broken a tradition of official quiescence and recently wrote a letter to the Prime Minister expressing reservations over including the police in the judicial appointment review process.

Harper’s next moves were to shift the actual balance of power on the committees towards the political by adding another member from the government, now four instead of three. This puts eight committee members, half political appointees plus the police, to be “balanced” by four other representatives, from the local provincial government, the provincial Bar amd Law Society and the Judiciary.

Finally there is no sense of nuance when considering the complex process of determing capacity and suitability for appointment. The committee recommendation is simply determined to be "qualified or not." The original third category of recommendation, that of highly qualified is now gone. This leaves the Prime Minister more latitude in picking favourites because he would not have to ignore some others with higher qualification recommendations but not the right political slant.

The clear motivation here is to influence the kind of candidates who get recommended for appointment so they will more closely align with the conservative and ultra-conservative values of the Harper Cons and their so-con supporters. The judicial activism they decried while in opposition is now being institutionalized. The judicial activism they seek is the kind that is acceptable to them and reflects the dominant conservative social values of the Conservative Party of Canada.

This is dangerous stuff, especially for citizens. Some times our only protection from abuse by the state, its officials and agents, like the police, is the independent and indifferent judiciary. Just ask Maher Arar, or Steven Truscott, and Donald Marshall and so on, and so on, and so on. Ask yourself where would they be without an independent judiciary? The answer is rotting in a jail, somewhere while innocent.

This stuff may be seen as legal esoterica or just so much justice system mumbo jumbo to some people. It is not. It is fundamental to your freedoms and protections as citizens. The system works well, for the most part. When it breaks down, you only have the protection of an independent Bench and Bar to protect you as a person and as a citizen. If the Bench is biased you are screwed.

I do have a constructive suggestion to make for positive change of the system however. Prime Minister Harper, go back to the original system but make one significant change. The Prime Minister's personal appointees to these review committees ought to be brought before the appropriate Parliamentary Committee to be questioned and it should be televised. This way we can be assured about their values and views. We can have confidence in their capabilities and be satisified that they understand the roles and responsibilities of their undertaking.

Harper's Cons did that for a recent Supreme Court judicial appointee. I think the public has a right to know what kind of people are being appointed by the Prime Minister to review the applicants for the Bench too. It will tell us something about them and a lot more about the Prime Minister's personal judgement and his agenda too.

This move by Harper to re-politicize the system of review and recomendation for judicial appointment is the most dangerous and reckless thing he has done in the whole year he has been in office. I am now wondering if I need to start being more than merely politically skeptical and cynical about Harper and company.

I am wondering if I need to start to being afraid of the Harper Conservative government. They are clearly showing a wanton disregard and disrespect for proven processes that serve to protect my fundamental freedoms as a citizen.

UPDATE: EDMONTON JOURNAL EDITORIAL of Feb 14 express many of the same concners I have. It is worth a read.
Link Byfield gives a very articulate perspective on this issue as well. He obviously does not see this change as a manipulation and politicization of the process as much as I do. The key clarification I would make on Link's Commentary is the committee merely recommends a list of qualified judicial appointees. The PM makes the final decision from the list the committee recommends. Control the process, you control the list, and you control the outcome.

Harper Does a Muroney and Sets Out to Buy a Quebec Election

The Cons announcement of the Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change is coming out of part of the anticipated 2006-07 budget surplus and will be part of the March budget. Truth be told, it is another reinstated, rewrapped Liberal climate change program presented in a blue ribbon. It is based on political opportunism wrought by the standard shallow Con sense of whatever they can adopt from the old Liberal regime they cut, then imagine as their own and call it a new environmental policy of “Canada’s New Government.” (sic).

A total of $1.5B will be distributed on a per capita basis amongst the provinces. I wonder if they will use the old provincial population figures. That means Alberta gets screwed on the per capita formula (again) because the rapid population growth in the province in the past few years will not be accommodated in the old census numbers? That was an old Chrétien Liberal trick designed to short change Alberta.

The census people are even saying the numbers from 2006 are not accurate anyway. Is there any institution left in our society that has not screwed us around one way or another? Please Prime Minister, don’t pick up that policy chicanery of the Chrétien Liberals too. Please don’t let it be said that you are now screwing the west too!

So Harper is now sending $350,000,000 cold cash in Quebec to buy their loyalty but at least without the fraudulent subterfuge of the ad scammers. Harper is doing this cash timing scam straight up. It is a cynical attempt at purchasing Quebec support couched in an Orwellian label of an ecoTrust…soft on the eco and not worthy of the word “Trust.”

The money, we are told, is to come from the surplus of 2006-07, which is not yet known but is already spent. Prudent, Mr. Prime Minister, mighty prudent. Too bad the surplus doesn’t go against the national debt which is a smarter solution. As I recall Harper promised any interest saved as a result of debt pay down would mean lower taxes for all of us taxpayers.

NOPE – let’s not fritter the surplus amongst Canadians by lowering taxes as originally promised. Remember the day when Cons told us a government surplus was simply caused by over taxation? Will that promise of tax reduction simply have to wait? Let’s go buy us some Quebec votes instead. And how do you square that circle? It is the Mulroney years all over again, this time Harper style?

Different issue entirely we will be told…this program is necessary to respond to the top priority of Canadians. Refresh my memory, is that top priority the environment or to pay Quebecers immediately to get Prime Minister Charest re-elected? I am all in favour of re-electing Jean Charest - but do we have to do it this way? Do we have to buy Quebec again? Harper says this way we can avoid another referendum? I think it is a cynical playing of Quebecers for fools and ought to have the same backlash of Quebec sense of insult that Adscam did.

Let’s deal with the real issues of a distinct Quebec society honestly and openly and give them a real reason to feel included in Canada. This scam is just Harper submitting to the classic political extortion patterns of the past – and before it is even threatened this time. How prescient of you Prime Minister Harper.

Quebec was believed to have had a “price” for loyalty to the Confederation in Chrétien’s day. He wantonly and wilfully turned a blind eye and enabled Adscam as a result of that mistaken belief.

Harper is redoing the Mulroney pandering without the intrigue and insult of the CF18s fiasco. NOPE Harper is doing the very thing – pandering to Quebec for the purposes of power. That was the final straw that spawned the Reform party in the first place. Spare me. It is game show politics…the price has to be right?

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Next posting! I feel the need to weigh in on “activitist political appointees” who are being chosen based on their partisan pedigree and being charged with the duty of picking an “independent” judiciary. Will they be activist enough to protect citizens from abuse by the state or intellectually lazy or inept legislators? This new committee to recommend judicial appointments is an exercise of pure political power and is of a scale to make one weep!

This development for me goes over the line, and confirms that the Harper Cons are not only not yet ready to govern with a majority in the next election…they are not fit to govern period in a modern progressive democracy.

Dion or Harper - Who is the Greenest?

Angus Reid released a very interesting poll yesterday. Who is the greenest given “the heightened attention to environmental issues….” They conclude that “neither of the two major party leaders has effectively positioned himself as a champion of green causes.”

Dion (+31%) has a clear lead over Harper (+13%) in the answer to the question of “…who cares the most about the environment and global warming?” the really interesting stat on this question is a whopping 55% say neither (28%) or not sure (27%). The jury is clearly still out on which leader they think really cares enough…and enough is the acid test on this issue.

The fact that women are the most undecided or negative at 64% collectively is a key to future success. Every gender and age group is overall more negative or unsure of who is the leader who cares the most about the environment and global warming. The only exception is the 55+ age group where more are positive in their choice than negative. They favour Dion over Harper in a 34% to 20% difference but 25% say neither and 21% are unsure.

The climate change issue is going to be a ballot question if not the ballot question in the next federal election. It is seen as a serious threat to the world in the opinion of 73% of Canadians with Atlantic Canadians at the highest at 81% and Albertans the lowest but still a dominant 63%. Alberta is essentaily50/50 on if we need to set a domestic example or work on an international influence on changing behaviours of large emitters like China and the Americans. The rest of Canada is 2/3 in favour of cleaning up our own environment act first.

The way public policy forward is both carrots and sticks. Over 80% support government intervention to supply incentives for industry and subsidies to reduce public transit fares. The sticks are punitive measures with surcharges on SUVs and penalties for those who do not recycle.

Some will point out that these poll results show that Alberta appears to be out of line with the rest of the country. While that is true, it is mostly a matter of degree not where Alberta is on the actual positioning on the issues. All parts of the country are generally very similar in their opinions on “greeniness.” (I wanted to coin that word before Stephen Colbert did?)

The environment is the #1 issue with a bullet. Dion is the leader who is the most identified with it but he is far from really owning it. The trust and integrity aspects on who do we believe will do something and stay the course on this issue is a big part of the key to electoral victory.

Harper is hard on the environment redemption trail with his Eco-Trust announcement today. Will that redemption be granted by the voters or will they see reluctant opportunism based on a necessary political reaction to poll results. He was clearly a climate change denier. Now he has to prove he is "true green" and more than just a born again ecologist? Inquiring minds want to know!

Leadership Report Card Poll Shows Harper is Growing into the Job

So some more poll results are out that are adding to the fact that the predominant mood out there is confusion. And these results just add to the confusion so far as I can tell.

The SES Research National Survey poll today based on1002 participants between Feb2-8 on the “Leadership Report Card.” notes that Stephen Harper has “significantly improved” his leadership image in the year plus a bit since he was elected. His trustworthiness is up 14 points to 35%, his competence rating is up 17 points to 41% and the impression of his vision for the country is up 14 points to 39%. Clearly Stephen Harper is showing signs of growing into the job of Prime Minister over the past year. The January 2006 comparative results had only 400 participants so the margin of error was higher.

The Layton numbers have to be sobering with a 7% decline in trustworthiness to 18%, a 4% decline in competence to 13% and a 2% decline to 16% for having an acceptable vision of the country.

The poll numbers on Dion and May are pretty meaningless in terms of personal assessments. This is because of the party leadership changes that happened in November and December. The polls is asking the same questions about a time frame that actually had other people in the party leadership and only having a few weeks to become known, including the Christmas period. When we ask about trustworthiness during a time of transition from a Martin/Dion and a Harris/May change in leadership, what is it people are actually saying in their replies? Who is it that they are really speaking about in terms of trust, competence and vision when they answer?

It appears that Harper is growing into the job and Layton is growing out of one. Not much else can be interpreted from this poll and lots can be speculated. Speculation has like to add to any real meaning and understanding.

The Angus Reid poll out today on “Harper and Dion Who is the Greenest?” has more insight into what is on the minds and what is meaningful to voters. I will do a separate post on this poll shortly.

Harper and Charest Meet the Press Tomorrow!

I see Prime Minister Harper has announced on this Sunday afternoon that he is making an announcement at 10:30 EST tomorrow with Quebec's Prime Minister Jean Charest in Sherbrooke Quebec and then he is off to Trois-Rivieres to "deliver remarks" at 6 pm EST. That is all very elucidating don't you think?

Can’t imagine what all that fuss could possibly be about but it is "open to the media" so it must be of substance. (sic) The unspoken subtext will be the trade off deal has been made to cement an agreement Harper and Charest have come to on election timing in Quebec. Not doubt Harper wants Quebec to go to the polls first. That way he doesn’t have to make promises to Quebec in an earlier federal election that would alienate his base amongst Alberta Reformer/Alliance types and contain promises he would have to deliver on - and be held accountable for in a subsequent Quebec election.

It looks like even the serendipity is fully planned in advance in a Stephen Harper world. I smell a spring election at Harper's behest. He is engineering his defeat...even the Harper rhetoric is that the opposition "will have to account for all the unpassed Bills left on the order paper" if they bring down his government now. That reality sure did not stop him when he defeated Martin and forced a winter election. Lots of Bills of substance have been lost in the swirling winds of time when Harper saw the advantage and forced an election.

It could be the Budget and the debate on it that ticks off the opposition enough to bring down this government. NDP leader Layton is not getting much by way of "atta boys" trying to do to the Harper's budget that he did to Martin's so he is likely ready to pull the pin too. Only the Bloc is likely to be truly hesitant...but then who cares about that.

No inside information on this, I am just reading the entrails of the political rhetoric and the pandering that is going on. I am starting to smell an election.

Watch for Graham Thomson's Reporting from Afghanistan

My friend, Graham Thomson, a political columnist with the Edmonton Journal, is off on an “adventure.” He is on his way to Afghanistan to be embedded with our troops for a couple of months. We had lunch recently and he was really excited in an engaged and focused way. I think his is crazy to be going but he is looking forward to meeting and living with our troops and getting their stories and impressions of what we are accomplishing

He is looking forward to writing is column about the stories of the Canadian soldiers and what it is we are really doing over there that benefits and serves the future needs and aspirations of the Afghan people.

He promises to blog regularly too. His blog is linked to this site and I hope you visit him often. We need to pay more attention to the end goal there – not just an exit strategy. We are likely committed to be in this country for a generation before the needed changes can become realized.

Good luck Graham and send us back a sense of what Canada is contributing.

Harper Human Rights and Organ Harvesting in China

I have serious reservations over lots of what the Harper government is doing in so many areas, from the environment, to mandatory minimum sentences to national child care diverted to a phony positioning of presenting “choice.” I really despaired over their ideological induced demise of social programs like literacy supports. Much of this is caused by an incomplete and shallow sense of our society by the Cons who presumes simple self reliance and pulling up ones “socks" is all anyone need for success.

However, when I agree with Harper, I also have to give him his due. The reversal of a campaign promise on income trusts is one I agreed wholeheartedly with and said so in earlier postings on this Blog. I suspect his adamant campaign period promise in defense of the status quo for income trusts was pure politics. One would expect, however, with his celebrated grasp of economics, he'd of had a better handle on the issue's implications and been more forthright on it in the campaign.

We all "know", that in politics, there is a generaly held "belief" that there are certain things you just have to say to win and they are often very different from what you actually have to do once you get the job. The income trust reversal may be a case in point. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is no more redeeming than doing the political thing purely for reasons of power. Sometimes you just have to forget your principles and do the right thing, even in a campaign. (sic)

Once again, however, I am delighted to find myself agreeing with Harper, this time on China relations. The link between human rights and trade with China (and some others too) has to be made pointedly and held strongly. I disagree with the Harper government more often than I agree with it, but fair is fair.

Prime Minister Harper is right to stand up and be counted on human rights as foundational to Canada's long term trade relations with China. People have to realize respect for human rights is essential to long term mature trade relations, just as much as an independent justice system and a reliable currency system is foundational to effective trade relations.

I like Harper’s stand on this, and in particular, his rebuttal to the Liberal Opposition criticism of his stand. They have tried to frame him as “a bumbling cold warrior” accusing him of having “little influence in Beijing because of (his) blunt public criticism and lack of finesse on international affairs.” Harper counters that “past Liberal governments failed to standup to the Chinese on questions of human rights, with no apparent improvement in trade.” Appeasement and pussy-footing are inconsistent with the qualities necessary and the strength of character needed today, be it in a leader or in a country.

In the wake of Maher Arar, we now have the case of Huseyin Celil, a Chinese born Canadian citizen imprisoned in China on terrorism charges with the Chinese denying his Canadian citizenship, even though our government adamantly acknowledges he is a Canadian. Harper also seems to be on this case now too. Wow! Maybe our government is starting to see there is value and rights attached to being Canadian and they need to be protected and respected.

Good on ya Stephen Harper! Now please take up another important humans rights issue with China. Do something about the human rights violation inherent in their harvesting and trading of human organs from prisoners and members of the Falun Gong. I will be monitoring your progress with great interest and a keen eye.

Harper Attack Ads Didn't Do the Job on Dion

There are a few new poll results out that were in the field after the Cons attack ads were run. they were designed to position Dion as not being a leader and a do nothing guy on the environment.

The polls are all over the place proving voter volatility is the new normal. There is no clear preference of party leader nor do we have any definitive indication of a preferred political direction in the mind of voters.

Nik Nanos’ SES NationState poll surveyed 913 Canadians between Feb 2 and 8th and shows a Dion/Harper “dead heat” at 33% each of committed voters but the trend lines show Harper in decline and Dion ascending. There are fewer uncommitted voters everywhere since the November 2006 results except in Ontario which is constant and the highest of uncommitted voters at 12%. Quebecers are leaving the Bloc in droves (-11) and those supporter seem to be moving to the Conservatives (+8). The Greens are the strongest in the West at 9% (+1) and the Cons are waning a bit in the West (-7).

What Harper gains in Quebec he is losing in the West but will that result in any seat changes in either place? Not likely but it will be interesting to see how much Harper is prepared to risk his western base loyalty to win Quebec in search of a majority government. The west is obviously noticing Harper's priority focus on Quebec's issues.

Leger has a survey of 1500 run from January 30 to February 4th. They redistribute the undecided responders in proportion to the actual poll allocation and get an increased 7% delta between Cons and Libs, in Harper’s favour. What evidence that undecided will vote and if so, that they split like the rest of the population? The Libs and Bloc are tied in Quebec and Harper “owns” Alberta at 59%. Again the Greens are knocking on the NDP door in the west but they are not there yet to surpass them. A full 15% were not committed or didn’t want to participate. The trend lines show no net change in the party support levels since the 2006 election when the margin of error is applied.

Finally we have Angus Reid’s results of 909 Canadians surveyed on line January 30 and 31, 2007. This was an on line survey designed to test the effectiveness of the Cons attack ads. They asked questions before people saw the ads and then asked them again after they viewed the ads on their computer screens. The report results say “the attack ads didn’t work.” The decline in perceptions of Dion post –viewing the ads was negligible dropping 1% from 40 to 39 on the question of who “would be the best Prime Minister.” Harper’s approvals stayed the same at 36%.

So not only did the attack ads not diminish Dion they added nothing to Harper’s positive profile either. Another key figure is the “Don’t Knows.” A quarter of Canadians have yet to make up their minds on which of these two guys are the best to lead the country. Voter volatility is potentially the ruling factor in the next election results. That means the campaigns will matter.

The next set of questions went to the Dion’s character and capability. The ads reduced perceptions of Dion ability to lead – the prime reasons for running the ads in the first place – by 5% - moving 3% away from his pre-ad supporters and 2% from undecided voters. Other perception questions on Dion and the environment, trust to keep promises and manage the public purse saw the ads have more impact. They changing poll results with more people have a diminished perception of Dion but the change came mostly from the undecided ranks and not from the core Dion support. these question tend to remind voters about the old Liberal fiascos under Chretien and Martin. The Liberals are not yet out of the penalty box but Dion does not get blamed for the "penalty" in the first place.

Only in the "will he improve the environment" question did Dion seem to have a glove laid on him. Then his core support went from 53% before seeing the ads to 47% afterwards. Some perspecitve isneeded here. If Dion actually got 47% of the popular vote in an election he would be forming a Liberal majority…so it is not really indicating much of a body blow to Dion’s potential electoral fortunes.

The hoopla over the ads and the big money spent, including the Super Bowl buy has to be very discouraging to the Tory war room given the net results being bugger all. Not much momentum coming out of this "full court press" on Dion by the Cons, especially for the money they spent on those ads. There is a glimmer of hope though; the ads are reported to have had to the most impact, such as it was, in Ontario and female voters, two key targets for Conservatives in the next election. Their money may not have been totally wasted.

Who Should Do What in a Progressive Canada?

Here is a unique opportuity to gather with some other Canadian progressives and get into the issues of the day through the progressive lens. Great speakers and interesting folks wiht a focus on the future.

Here are the details and I encourage all of those so inclined to progressive politics to attend:

(La version française suit le texte anglais)

26-28 March 2007. QUICK: SAVE THOSE DATES!

Join world-leading Canadian and international thought leaders for Canada 2020’s must attend policy conference in the national capital region March 26-28, 2007.

Continuing the discussion that began last year at the inaugural conference, this year, Canada 2020 has teamed up with Crossing Boundaries to deliver a progressive, innovative examination of the challenging theme:

“Who should do what in a progressiveCanada?”

Join the discussion and tackle the tough questions:
What is the role of citizens, government, the volunteer sector and businesses in solving social and economic challenges?
What does this mean for the traditional roles and responsibilities of government when the old top-down approach no longer works?
The conference will apply this new governance model to two major issues – the economic digital divide and the environment.

Participate in a discussion that will shape the future of the country - Save the dates today!

Confirmed keynote speakers for the March 2007 conference include:
Booker and Whitbread winning author Salman Rushdie. With his usual flair, Rushdie will tackle the issue of multiculturalism and what it means for progressives today.
The man who inspired Al Gore (last year’s dinner keynote speaker) and the author of the Weather Makers, Tim Flannery. Flannery will offer his insights on who should be leading whom in the public debate over the environment – the public or the politicians.
Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine and author of the widely acclaimed book on the new niche digital economy, The Long Tail. Anderson will challenge us to make the most of the transformational forces of the internet and new digital technologies. Canada , a country with a small market and a lot of geography, is well placed to benefit from the Long Tail.
New Brunswick Premier Shaun Graham will reflect how New Brunswick will engage the public in achieving its goal of making New Brunswick a have province by 2025.
Share your views and experiences. Test a new model of Progressive Governance. Meet with key leaders and decision-makers from the public, private and third sectors.

Registration will open February 1, 2007 on the Canada 2020 web site (http://www.canada2020.ca/). Early Bird rates will be available for the first 100 registrants.

See you there!
Canada 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stelmach's GHG Reduction Plans for Alberta is in the Works

Alberta’s new Premier Ed Stelmach is reported to say that he will not be reducing GHG emissions and “…stands firm on greenhouse gas plan.” There seems to be as much misunderstanding and confusion on Alberta’s intensions on GHG emissions as there is about how equalization works.

The half truths around GHG levels are sometime factual and sometimes conceptual misunderstandings and at other times they are induced by selected rhetorical references for scoring cheap political points.

Alberta knows that our energy economy is a disproportionately high contributor to GHG. The issue is what we are doing about it. Quite a bit actually and lots more is in the works. Calls for absolute GHG emission caps may work in sectors that are established and mature industries. Power generation, transportation, building standards, agriculture perhaps lend themselves more readily to absolute caps becasue the marginal costs can be calculated. Oil sands on the other hand is an embryonic industry sector. It is also a large user of energy, heat and water and a big time emitter of GHG as a result.

Alberta's big emitter industries have already been working for a few years to reduce GHG levels. The model is based on intensity reduction goals They are voluntarily and on a specific industry sector basis. These deals were worked out between industry with the governments of Alberta and Canada. This all happened by the way on Dion’s watch as Minister of the Environment.

The results of the volunteer program, instituted in 2004 I believe, have already seen a 16% reduction of GHG by Alberta’s energy industry on per unit of output. We are getting more effective at reducing GHG’s but since the oil sands, and Alberta overall, is growing rapidly, the total emissions have obviously gone up. Current oil sands production is just over 1 million barrels per day with projections to reach 3 million per day in less than a decade. The problem is obviously not going to resolve itself.

The USA just released some fiscal costs of the Iraq war, and it is over $470 per year for every man, woman and child in the States. That is not sustainable either so we can expect pressure from them for more energy supply from Canada very shortly. So total GHG emissions from Alberta are going to continue rising. Especially if we want the oil sands to be developed as a safe secure, reliable continental energy source. But even with that reality, we can’t just presume to continue in the old extraction adn mining models either. We need to create, change and adapt to new technology for oils sands extraction. That change is going to happen because it has to, both environmentally and politically.

We have a new deal on GHG emissions in the political works and it seems that Alberta and Canada are again on the same wave length with the Conservatives of today as they were earlier with the Liberals. In the face of rapid growth and the growing demand for energy, and with no reliable data, as yet, on the marginal costs of absolute caps, the intensity model will have to prevail, at least for now. It is not the end game but an interim measure that will become regulated, not voluntary, and likely more rigourous standards and with penalties for lack of compliance. New technologies that emerge to reduce GHG emissions will have to become compulsory for new plants and the older operators will have to adapt and adopt them too. Efficiencies will result and eventually absolute emissions caps will make practical sense.

The really big payoff for reduced GHG emissions in the Alberta energy sector will be when we truly come to see carbon dioxide as an asset instead of a liability. Once we commit and commence to capturing CO2 for use in enhanced conventional oil and gas recovery we will have turned a corner to toward realizing absolute, not just relative reductions of GHG from the Alberta energy sector. That is an idea whose time has come and the way has to be found to make that technology and its practical application a reality right now. That significnat culture change will change the climate in Alberta too - in more ways than one.

UPDATE: See these current and very related links:
Carbon capture...http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/capturing-carbon.html
Edmonton Journal story on oils sands mining option for heat source: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=692459f7-5e3c-48db-b42a-32b730003c40
Edmonton Journal editorial:http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=4b21faea-acd2-41b7-b0d8-bc6b41e17318

Alberta Firewall Guy Clarifies Equalization Payments

There is a very good op-ed in the Globe and Mail today that clarifies many of facts and the questions around equalization payments from the government of Canada to the so-called have-not provinces. The piece is written by Ken Boessenkool, now GM of Hill and Knowlton Alberta and one of the famous Firewall Letter signatories in 2001.

The myth busting article reflects and aligns with the same reality outlined in an early post in this blog. No wonder I like it.

The Firewall letter was signed by other notables including now Prime Minister Harper, but then he headed the National Citizens’ Coalition. Failed PC Leadership candidate, now Alberta Cabinet Minister, Dr. Ted Morton also signed the letter. It was a letter addressed to Premier Klein recommending that Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and set up its own cheaper scheme offering the same benefits. It recommended replacing the RCMP with a provincial police service. Both of these issues were part of the debates in the recent Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign.

Other recommendations included Alberta collecting its own income tax and take complete control of Medicare even if that resulted in breaches of the Canada Health Act and withdraw of federal funds to the province for health care. These two recommendations have proven to be non-starters politically and economically in Alberta.

The motivation for the Firewall letter is captured in this sentence from the document: "It's imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

Another telling part of the letter dated January 2001 noted "As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power."

Albertans overwhelming see themselves as Canadian even with a core group of about 10% separatist sentiment in the province. The mythology of a federal government plundering Alberta’s resources runs deep in certain sectors of Alberta society. It arises in the ghosts of another National Energy Program or the mistaken assumption that equalization payments are from Alberta resource revenues. The belief that equalization payments are made from federally expropriated Alberta resource dollars. There is no evidence for either of these myths but that rarely matters to some people in Alberta.

It really helps to have people like Mr. Boessenkool clarify the terms and scope of equalization as part of the national conversation, particularly around fed-prov relations and the role equalization plays as part of our Constitution.

It's Not About Politics. It's About the Planet

I have been watching, with increasing dismay, the diminishing level of political discourse on the issues surrounding climate change in national Canadian politics. The “debate” is not on the issues, the merits of policy options or the design of the way forward. It is almost entirely concentrated on efforts to define the “other guy” in negative terms for some less than adequate political “advantage.”

The Cons have a big television buy for their Attack Ads, attempting to position Dion as the guy who is totally responsible for all Liberal alleged lack of action on environment policy for the past 13 years. The Liberal rebuttal is Harper is merely a born-again environmentalist of political convenience but not a true believer and therefore not to be trusted.

The facts and evidence in support of each position are thin at best but that is not the issue really. There is plenty of blame to go around but time for action is a-wastin’ and we need some definitive action and serious competent political leadership with a larger vision and a longer view than the pending election.

My sense is Canadians will reward resolute, stringent and responsible regulations on GHG limits. The policy we need must encourage and provide incentives for what is nothing short of a culture change in how we live as part of nature and not as its “masters.” That is what polls are saying will be rewarded by the majority of citizen's at election time.

The people are much farther ahead of the politicians in seeing it is time to act on the issues of climate change. We know this is about “us” as much as it is about “them.” We know “we” as individuals, families, communities, countries and enterprises have to change first. We can’t afford to wait for “them” to move first and we have precious little leverage on others save persuasion and market forces.

We need our biggest brains, our most creative minds and our wisest thinkers to be unleashed and able to focus to help design a different way forward. We don’t need more communications consultants commissioned to produce misleading manufactured political rhetoric.

The policy framework for all of this is simple to see but difficult to deliver. It has to link economic growth to enhanced ecological outcomes and provide for improve social cohesion – on a local, national and international context. No big Whoop! (sic)

The chance to actually rethink our operational definitions of success and progress is upon us. Growth without concern for all the costs involved and the integrated ecological implications is no longer "on." The public policy change parade is forming and is at the tipping point for a new public policy approach.

The new approach must balance economic well being, ensure ecological enhancement and advance our social cohesion. The practical people, be they in business, politics or social activist, who can get in front of that parade with credibility and ability, will be the new leaders and agents of this change.

We need to attract, nurture and reward a different kind of person to come into politics if we want to change the nature of how we are governed in our democracy. I have great respect for the abilities of all the current leaders in our federal political parties. My sense is we have good people in a poor system because the system often rewards the wrong things. It is too much about attaining and exercising power for its own sake and not enough about defining progress and measuring achievements for the sake of us all.

This will only change when citizenship becomes something we all value and return to using its power to make a difference. The political system is only as good as the express expectations and the forceful insistence's of its citizens.

Hancock Meets Clement; Renner Meets Baird and Boutilier Briefs Stelmach

Interesting developments in the offing on the fed-prov front with a raft of new meetings. The Alberta and Federal Ministers of Environment (Renner and Baird) and Health (Hancock and Clement) Ministers are about to meet. These meetings include provincial Ministers who are not the rookies in Cabinet but the issues are serious and they represent the top two priority issues facing the country. No indication yet as to the agendas will be but given the times and the pressures, they will likely be significant…especially with all the elections coming in the near future.

Interesting that Prime Minister Harper is giving a major speech tomorrow to the Canadian Club in Ottawa. This is just before the Council of the Federation First Minister's conference call on Wednesday. Harper's presentation is being billed as "equivalent to a Throne Speech." You can't tell me that is coincidence. Curious as to what he has to say, especially to the Premiers in this speech. My guess is they are his primary intended audience.

The Council of the Federation meeting scheduled for Feb 7 has been reduced to a conference call due to scheduling problems. Too bad because it would have been interesting to see how new Premier Stelmach would make out on his debut First Ministers meetings. I would be anxious, at many levels, to see how Premier Stelmach would be served by his newly minted Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Guy (Alberta as the Bad Boy of Confederation) Boutilier. Stelmach has done this Intergovernmental job, and by all accounts was pretty good at it so his expectations of his new Minister will be very high.

Speaking of Minister Boutilier, we see he is about to be seized with a challenge on the aboriginal aspect of his portfolio. The foster child care for aboriginal children have seen Grand Chief Phil Fontaine make demands for better responses to the needs of aboriginal children at risk. Given that the issue is receiving front page coverage, it would not be a surprise if this was a “walk on” agenda item at the First Ministers meeting on Wednesday.

The usual fed-prov posturing can be expected but it will sure be disappointing if all we see is finger pointing. The turmoil caused by a tragic death of a 3 year old boy in Alberta’s foster care guarantee serious media scrutiny on the foster care concerns for aboriginal children. How will Alberta, namely Minister Boutilier, respond? Will Alberta actually engage and work with their Conservative brethren on this issue? The good news is Jim Prentice, the most competent of all the federal Ministers, is on the Canada side of the issue.

Let’s hope we don’t see a classic case of over promising and under delivering that seems dog the Boutilier political approach. For example, looking at his past musing on the twinning of highway 63 to Fort McMurray one has to wonder if his motivation is always just purely political and power plays.

Media reports recently say he was assuring the Fort McMurray folks the road twinning could be done in 3 years. But that was when he was a Cabinet Minister supporting Lyle Oberg, the then Infrastructure Minister, and PC Party leadership bid. Oberg is the same Minister who was turfed from caucus by his colleagues for accusing them of having political skeletons (which he failed to prove) and for using (abusing?) his portfolio to advance his leadership aspirations last spring. Well the reality sets in now that the need for hype has passed and the twinning looks like it is now stretching out to seven years and counting.

Harsh reality and patience are the defining characteristics of the good folks of Wood Buffalo and the city of Fort McMurray in particular. How much long do the citizens of Fort McMurray have to suffer? And at so may levels and in so many ways and in the face of so much growth pressure?

Alberta's Leadership on Eco Solutions

This column was publish in French in LaPresse on the weekend under the headlines:

"Egoistes, les Albertains?
Non, on manifeste dans l'Ouest une grande Volonte d'etre a l'avant-garde des solutions Pour assurer la perennite de la planete"

which roughly translates as:

The Albertans, self-centred?
No, there's an expression in the West
Of a great desire to be in the avant-garde Of solutions that assure the sustainability of the planet.

Here is the English text:

Alberta’s Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Guy Boutilier played the caricature Albertan when he declared this province to be the “bad boy” of Confederation a few weeks ago.

Boutilier’s posturing made serious people cringe and brought an extraordinary public rebuke from a noted academic who once served as a senior federal bureaucrat. Just like the real climate, the political climate in Alberta is changing. Like other Canadians, Albertans want a meaningful response to global warming, and they will punish politicians who persist in silly confrontation. Far from being the “bad boy,” Alberta demonstrates a strong will to lead the solutions for a sustainable planet.

Last October, our firm sounded Albertans on the subjects that animate them. We used conjoint analysis to get a clear idea of the depth of citizens’ attachment to the matters they considered most important. Environment clearly emerged as the Number One concern in Albertans’ minds – a result we detected three months earlier that the recent national surveys. Clearly then, Albertans are of a mind with other Canadians. Indeed our analysis suggested that environmental sustainability is not merely an issue. It has become a core value – like democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law.

It will be necessary for our compatriots in Quebec to keep this perspective in mind in the coming weeks, as a parade of caricature Albertans clamour for attention in national media. Like you, we know that our economic prosperity goes hand in hand with environmental sustainability. In fact, influential Albertans see climate change as a business opportunity and some interesting business ideas are under development.

Large energy companies are willing to invest in carbon-capture technologies and the clean energy economy -- as long as government takes the lead in setting out the rules. In the absence of government policy leadership, what profit minded market based enterprise would be the first to undertake the risk in developing the means to slash greenhouse gas emissions, if its competitors are not required to follow suit?

Carbon capture is one such technology. We know that in Alberta, it will cost about $7.5 billion to build a capture and distribution network for CO2 sequestration. This would enable the capture of oil sands and other heavy emitter’s CO2 s, and inject it into aging conventional oil fields. As a result, oil that was not accessible by the old technology will be produced and the CO2 will replace the displaced oil. The initial price tag seems large, but it must be put in the perspective of the $100 billion being invested in developing oil sands extraction.

Oil sands should be considered as more than a petroleum source. This is the largest deposit of hydrocarbons on the planet. The oil sands could be the transition between the petroleum economy of today and the hydrogen economy of tomorrow. Bitumen coke a by-product of oil sands production is a low-cost source of hydrogen.

Hydrogen and synthetic natural gas can also be produced from Alberta's vast coal deposits -- a huge plant is being built to do just that. At the end of 2008, Honda is going to introduce a commercially-available hydrogen car. Initial plans are to install home converters that will extract hydrogen from natural gas, and fuel the car for up to a 500-km range. The emission that comes out of hydrogen combustion is water. Almost all Alberta homes are heated by natural gas and that would facilitate a conversion to a hydrogen car.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is on record asking for a clear set of regulated standards for the energy industry so that its members can plan the investment they need to address climate change. The leaders among them know it will take hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development in emerging technologies to succeed in slashing greenhouse gas emissions. With this investment, they can not only meet the Kyoto targets, they can go even farther with successful carbon capture They will invest that money, if everyone has to play by the same rules and achieve the same goals.

Albertans will eagerly embrace the economic opportunities inherent in environmental stewardship, because we know full well the consequences of failure and inaction.

Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Les auteurs dirigent Cambridge Strategies Inc., groupe-conseil albertain en politique publique.

Dion's Doings and a Rebutal of the Cons Attack Ads.

Readers of my blog will know I seem to gravitate to longer posts. Well I have found a kindred spirit in longer form blogging.

This blogger, "politiquevert" provides some serious factual evidence to rebut the Harper Cons rhetoric that Dion has done nothing while in Cabinet.

Quality research and a powerful posting. Give it a read. Here is the link: http://politiquevert.wordpress.com/2007/02/04/dions-environmental-footprint-on-the-government-of-canada-website/

Another update on Dion's environmental doings...check out the video clip on this site: http://whiletheearthburns.blogspot.com/2007/02/dions-environmental-cred-video.html

Props to Nicole Martel for posting it and bringing it to my attention.

Old Time Alberta Cons Still Angst over NEP and Threaten Separation

Lorne Gunter’s tirade in the Edmonton Journal today is so far out of whack with the current realities Alberta is facing. We are working to design ways to balance growth with enhanced environmental protection and provide the social infrastructure needed to ensure a quality of life for our citizens. We have to do this all at the same time with an accelerating sense of urgency on all fronts and in appreciation of the serious consequences if we fail.

The old Reform/Alliance angst of an oppressed Alberta still causes them to trot out the NEP mantra that “Ottawa is out to get us” every time they sense a slight. It is a tired and inaccurate rant. Give it up Lorne. Alberta has grown up, matured politically - and has moved on. The old-time religion types who see an Alberta being oppressed by Ottawa at every turn, have clearly not yet moved on with the rest of the province. There are as many people revisiting the NEP in Alberta today as there are Elvis sightings in the province…and they are usually the same people.

Todd Babiak’s blog posting today, in the same newspaper, has a more realistic take on the sense and sentiment of the challenges Alberta is facing today. They are being addressed and revolve around concerns for balancing sustainable economic growth in the face of mitigating climate change and other serious ecological concerns. The short shrift that the social side of Alberta life has experienced as of late is just now coming on the political radar screen. We have insufficient resources invested in public infrastructure and the resulting decline in capacity that has befallen providers in our social services sector adds to the challenges of Alberta's growth.

There is an emerging alternative Alberta reaction to the “Ottawa is out to get us” mentality. That is the extortion mentality of Alberta separation. There is a latent 10% voter support for Albertans to "hold our breath" until we get our way - or we will taking our energy football “home” and leave Canada…so there!

Neil Waugh in the Edmonton Sun today pays homage to that sentiment in a nod to the fact there is always the Clarity Act after all. Alberta could use it if we don’t like how the world (meaning Ottawa) is bowing to our interests. None of this helping much to sustain Alberta political support for the suddenly Quebec friendly and Green Conversion of Prime Minister Harper. He signed the infamous Alberta Firewall letter, so I guess he deserves some heat from that front too.

In the mean time we have some genuine efforts and initiatives being pursued by the Alberta government and in our industrial sectors trying to catch up and get ahead of the curve on all of this. Our monthly LaPresse column outlines some of the positive efforts being made in that regard in Alberta that need recognition and encouragement.

I will post the LaPresse piece in this Blog on Monday to show what I mean.

Prediction: Al Gore Wins a Nobel and an Oscar in 2007

I have been wondering about the evolution of the greening of our collective consciousness. I am no expert but there are some politically significant signposts that I believe have helped define our collective direction and delineate our sense of the shared consequences. I wonder how we got to where we are and where in the world we are going. What it is we have to be doing now to respond to the issues of climate change?

My personal environmental awareness, such as it is, started in the early ‘60s with Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. I next recall the impact of the report of The Club of Rome on limits to growth. Then we had the mid 70’s oil crisis that showed how vulnerable we were on energy sustainability. The next time frame was a long hiatus of any significant actions, at least in my awareness, until the UN meetings in Rio de Janeiro and the breakthrough Kyoto Accord.

The developed world then went into a period of unprecedented wealth generation, including the “dot com bubble.” That diverted our attention into such an intense narcissism in the developed, mostly western world, not seen since the days when we believed in the “Divine Rights of Kings.” The result, in part, was some monumental corporate breaches of trust, with personal examples of hubris and excess that have filled court rooms, and added to prison populations, all over the world.

The galvanizing event, to my mind, that raised the collective consciousness of the reality of climate change, was Hurricane Katrina and the devastation it wrought on the people of New Orleans. There have been greater weather induced disasters, before and since. None of them have had the kind of 24 hour “carpet bombing” world-wide, news-cycle coverage of Katrina.

Now we have the release of the “Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis.” It accumulates 6 more years of data and analysis from intensive research by hundreds of scientist from all over the planet. It states, as unequivocally as science will allow itself, that global warming is real and has increased markedly from pre-industrial days due mainly to human activity.

The post-industrial “flat-earthers” and climate change “deniers” are officially debunked. We now have the quintessential and incontrovertible wake up call for humanity. We have heard the catch up call too, especialy for all the politicians and corporate “masters of the universe types!”

We cannot afford the luxury of hitting the “snooze button” one more time on these issues. We can no longer afford to fall back to sleep, yet again. We have to wake up and get up to speed. We have come face to face with a day of reckoning on how we are impacting the health of the planet.


The next significant, and still on-going, political event is the phenomenon of Al Gore’s book and film“An Inconvenient Truth.” I have seen it and heard Al Gore’s presentation live last May. It is impressive but what I saw was basically a PowerPoint presentation. That is a good thing because it is making the issues, concerns and the consequences very accessible to everyday people. Gore shows that this stuff can no longer be ignored or dismissed as some complex rocket science that is beyond the grasp of the average citizen.

I would not be surprised in the least, if Al Gore, this “failed” Presidential candidate, actually won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar this year. It is entirely possible. Nobel’s are very prestigious but if Gore wins an Oscar, then that will make a huge difference. It will make climate change populist. It will become a top of mind concern for many more people. It will enable the changes needed in our personal habits and behaviours to reduce and adapt to global warming become reality.

Climate Change 2007

If you see yourself as a citizen of the world and as an independent as well as interdependent free agent with a personal role and a responsibility for the health of the planet, you will want to bookmark this site and return to it often.

It is no longer a question of them and us or them versus us. It is now about all of us!

It is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change site. Heavy reading but worth the slog!

Candidate Obama's Dirty Little Secret...He's a Smoker!

Here is an interesting speculation on the “framing of an issue.” The front page of the Globe and Mail has a piece by Sinclair Stewart an“expose” on Democrat aspirant for Presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Obama official campaign image of the “charismatic, youthful vigour and sex appeal that hasn’t been seen in their party (Democrats) since the days of John F. Kennedy” is threatened by some cognitive dissonance.

Why? Because Barack Obama is a smoker!

The fact that he smokes is front page news in a national Canadian newspaper! This factoid apparently trumps other potential framing characterizations of candidate Obama. For example, that he is serious black contender, experimented with drugs as a kid, the victim of a viral spreading of misinformation in fringe media and the blogosphere that had attended an Islamic madrassa during his childhood in Indonesia. And the misguided musings of “I coulda been a contender,” Senator Joe Biden’s comment about Obama being a “clean” black man.

The open question has now been stated. “Can a cigarette smoker win a presidential election?” The answer appears to be NO! Not in this day and age. “There will be people who are turned off because that’s a sign of addiction” according to American political strategist Jennifer Beylin. She goes on to say the real questions about Obama are “…is he electable (the black question?)…and…is he experienced enough?” (Youthful vigour is perhaps a two-edged sword.)

The article also frames the smoking issue aggressively. “Cigarette addiction, which not so long go was perceived as a mere psychological weakness, has suddenly come to signify a moral lapse, if not reckless endangerment.” A deeper context around smoking is expressed by McGill professor Jarrett Rudy. He frames the social values context of smoking in public places has come to be “…seen as a sign of aggression.” Rudy observes that “Smoking in public space makes them uninhabitable….To start smoking is an aggressive attempt to assert control over space.”

Times have really changed when a major question about a leading candidte for President of the United States of America is “Will America accept a smoker as President?” I wonder if that will be the question that will be the "value driver" for how citizen's actually decide who they choose to support. Will it become more dominant, even covertly, than the more obvious question “Is American ready for a black President?”

Isn't change interesting!

What a Strange Day!

What a strange day inded! The headline in the Edmonton Journal today says “Earth on Road to Disaster.” The world’s leading scientists are about to emerge in Paris telling us they have discovered the source of the problem of climate change…and it is “unequivocally” us. It is the consequence our use of fossil fuels, agriculture practices and deforestation that adds to the problem of transportation and industrialization.

The integrated system that is the environment is found to be massively responsive to small changes in temperature and the scientists confirm that with language like “…almost imperceptible changes have huge consequences.” The scientific community is “saying human society has to change course.” Apparently “…we need 90% emissions reductions globally sooner than later.”

We are being told there is a need for a sense of urgency. One scientist is quoted is saying “We cannot sustain the way we live. We can for a decade or two, but the signs are that it is going to get really bad. There is zero indication that the rate of increase (of GHG emissions) is slowing down.”

We used to be told to think globally and act locally. That is still valid advice. However now we have to add to that affirmation and act immediately and think long term too. The narcissism of the Baby Boomers, especially in the developed countries, must undergo a complete transformation.

The key message from the scientific community on climate change is “It’s time for politicians to step up to the plate.” Sobering stuff for all of us!

Then I reach the Business Section. The headline there is “Imperial (oil) Rakes in Largest Profit in 126 Years. The profit is $39.5 Billion in 2006, up from a mere 36.1 Billion in 2005. I’m thinking, there are big changes coming fast and some serious mind altering “stepping up to the plate” that will have to be done by these folks as well.

We know that has to be done. We know how to do much of it. Much of the technology needed already exists. We cannot only be found admiring the problem and caught in the trap of technology hope. We have to fundamentally change how we live as a species. The real challenge is to figure out how we are going to have to adapt and then to do it. NOW!

Tom Olsen Goes to the Dark Side

It is with a heavy heart I had to remove the Tom Olsen Blog link from this site. But he has either passed on or passed away. In any event he has moved through the veil of post- journalism tears.

He will soon re-emerge (but not ressurect) on the dark side as part of Premier Ed Stelmach's Communications Team. Good for him ...and even better for Ed!

More "aTacky Ads" - But Now They are Funny!

Well it looks like Jason Cherniak is working his way up to a high profile spot in next years Sundance Film Festival. He has done another YouTube "take" on the attack ads. And for those who will get their knickers all knotted, yes he edits and it misleads. But no more than Rick Mercer, the Air Farce or This Hour Has 22 Minutes. We know this is closre to those inspirations than American negative ads. This stuff presented as nothing except pure spoof.

The line between truth and satire is a delightful curiosity. So is the line between farce and satire...but in each case the "truth" or "truthiness" be damned - which is just fine so long as it is obvious. I just wish sarcasm and irony worked well in print too.

Jason is a serious and high quality blogger but he is clearly having fun. Good on him!

Climate Change: Waking Up and Catching Up!

This fellow looks like he is watching the declining quality of political discourse over climate change too and, given the pose and look on his face, he seems to be wondering what his future is going to be too.

We need a credible discussion and a serious conversation on this stuff. Too much of what is happening is cheap political theatre - from everyone except Elizabeth May. Come on gentlemen! If you feel you must "play the game" at least elevate the quality of your play.

We just did our latest column for LaPresse on the issues of climate change and the rapid rise of consciousness in Alberta. I will post it once it is publised in the newspaper.

Lets face it we need the planet more than it needs us.

Albertans Resoundingly Approve Smoking Bans

The Canadian Cancer Society and Smoke-Free Alberta today released the poll results I mentioned in this Blog the other day. As I speculated there is little difference in the support legislation restricting tobacco use in workplaces, public establishments and sales in pharmacies and the use of so-called “power wall” displays of tobacco products in retail establishments.

The support levels are the highest since such surveys have been conducted in Alberta. The new political reality is that the support between the rural and urban Albertans is statistically the same. An impressive 80% of Albertans want a complete ban in the workplace and public establishments and 78% say the products should not be sold in pharmacies, and I understand there is no disagreement by Pharmacists on this. The scientific poll is even stronger than the 74% support in my little blog site survey on the issue.

Premier Stelmach during the PC leadership campaign completed a survey and sent a cover letter to Smoke-Free Alberta saying “Let me be perfectly clear in my disapproval of smoking. It is a tremendous cost to society in terms of health care.” Ed is also a democrat as he went further to say that he “…recognizes the value of all points of view, I will encourage my caucus to debate further measures to reduce smoking and to support and champion their collective decision.”

This kind of initiative has failed before due to Ralph Klein’s opposition. Now we have a leader on side but that still means it will be a caucus decision and my bet will be a free vote this coming session. Hancock and Stelmach will make a great tag team on this initiative and in the process will dispel any myth that there is a rural-urban split in the Stelmach caucus. Champions are handy but they don't guarantee a win in a free vote.

Replying to a pollster is one thing – making your elected representative know your wishes on this issue and to make those wishes the law of the land will take more effort. If citizens sit back and do not press this issue, I can’t see it passing successfully through the political process, regardless of leadership changes. Citizens have to make it happen!

Klein Criticizes Harper - Is There Trouble in Tory Land?

Small story in the Globe and Mail this morning where former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has called on Prime Minister Harper to reverse his reversal and restore the income trusts.

Klein reportedly said "The problem with Stephen has with income trusts is that he didn't keep his word so that doesn't sit well with the Canadian public." He call on Harper to reverse himself again for "redemption." OUCH!

Klein still has a considerable amount of sway with the libertarians of the fiscal conservative variety. Is this an indication of even more erosion of the old Reform/Allinace base from Harper?

Good to see Ralph is not putting himself out to pasture nor going quietly into that political night. Lougheed and Manning have weighed in on the public policy agenda very effectively. I wonder how Ralph will fair in the elder statesman role compared to those gentlemen.

OMIGOD! Even the French Have Banned Smoking!

Here is a piece today from the BBC News Service!

Bidding goodbye to the Gauloises
By Caroline Wyatt BBC News, Paris

What could be more French than sitting in a cafe enjoying a coffee and a cigarette, watching the world go by?
Not any more.
From Thursday, the plumes of smoke that once wreathed the great thoughts of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, as they puffed away at the café Les Deux Magots on the Left Bank, have been banished by the chill winds of change.
France has imposed a ban on smoking in public places, so Les Deux Magots is now strictly "non-fumeur": a smoke-free zone.
That famous French chain-smoker Serge Gainsbourg once sang an anthem to the habit, entitled "God smokes Havana cigars."
Cafe philosophy
Well, if He does, He will no longer be smoking them in this cafe nor in many others - and absolutely not in offices or government buildings.
Perhaps surprisingly, the move is backed by a majority of the French, and even by a majority of smokers.
The French writer Olivier Todd was a friend of the late, great smoker, Jean-Paul Sartre, and remembers breathing in his philosophy along with the fumes of Sartre's ever-present Gauloises in Les Deux Magots and Cafe Flore on the Left Bank.
Yet, though he feels a pang of nostalgia for the old days, Olivier Todd believes it is time for France to change.
"Those who smoke enjoy cigarettes after a meal or after making love can still do so. It's just that you won't necessarily be able to do so in a restaurant or cafe any more," he tells me, as he looks wistfully at his packet of cigarettes.
"So the ban in public places will not change things - we can still smoke in private. There will not be a revolution, a May '68 over cigarettes, that's for sure. And it will help people to give up."
French paradox
Monsieur Todd pats the nicotine chewing gum he now keeps in his top pocket as a substitute while in smoke-free areas.

For this is a typical French paradox - smoking in public places such as airports, railway stations, hospitals, offices and schools is now forbidden.
But restaurants, cafes, casinos and bars have until December to allow their customers to get used to the idea of their morning coffee without their "clop" or fag.
Yet the owner of Les Deux Magots, Catherine Mathivat, the great-grand-daughter of its original "patron", says she was keen to ban smoking as soon as possible, and is glad to be getting rid of the smoke.
"It will be good for the employees," she says, gesturing at the smartly-attired waiters.
"They are always in a smoky environment, and they get bronchitis and other diseases because of it.
"A lot of writers used to come Les Deux Magots and they used to drink a coffee or a glass of wine while they smoked, but I think that things have changed. The writers of today are not so addicted to cigarettes."
French identity
Her customers agree. Some 70% of the French support the ban, and, in these health-conscious times, customers at Les Deux Magots are appropriately philosophical about the change.
"People have started accepting the fact that smoking is not the thing to do. They have lost so many of their friends to lung cancer that they know that it means something," says Yves.
"I think it's a good thing - too many young people smoke. The ban is good for everyone," insists Rene, himself a smoker.
But in a cafe across the river, the Sarah Bernhardt on Place du Chatelet, there is one last Frenchman willing to defy the ban.
Teacher Gregory Bianchi looks around, rolls a cigarette and defiantly lights up.
"I believe in the right to fresh air, but I believe that it's also a right to smoke in a public place," he says.
"This is supposed to be a place of pleasure where you can relax, and smoking is part of that. They should have smoking restaurants and bars, and non-smoking restaurants and bars. That would be fair."
From today, thousands of French police will have the right to stop and fine smokers they catch flouting the ban, with a penalty of 68 euros or just under £50.
Nearly 16 years after his death, Serge Gainsbourg may be turning in his grave, as a little spark of French identity is finally extinguished for the greater good of the Republique's health, as France finally ends its long love affair with the cigarette.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6319133.stmPublished: 2007/02/01 00:46:33 GMT© BBC MMVII

MIGHT ALBERTA BE NEXT?

A New Poll on a Smoking Ban Coming Soon.

The Canadian Cancer Society, Alberta Branch has done a new opinion poll on the issue of banning smoking in public places. I hear it is to be released very soon. Perhaps even as early as tomorrow! I wonder how the support stacks up and the fabled rural – urban split on the issue of banning smoking in public places?

Based on other social values research I have seen for Albertans, the rural-urban divide is very mythological, at least on a values basis. We Albertans are pretty much the same kind of people in terms of what we believe in and what we consider to be important. We may disagree on the ways and means to solve a particular problem. But we Albertans are still very closely aligned as to what the problems are and in what we consider their priority of importance.

This concurrence is pretty independent of what we do for a living or to where we live. Sure there are some occasional differences, between Edmonton and Calgary, or the north and the south opinions. There is really very little difference in our values as Albertans, based on where we live. It seems to make no real significant difference if we are either rural or urban

In the recent PC leadership campaign, “Candidate Stelmach” supported a ban on smoking in public places. But he did say it would be a final decision of Caucus. He is keeping true to that position. It is expected this issue will be dealt with (yet again) in Caucus and likely in this spring session starting February 27.

So if the majority of Albertan wants this smoking ban to happen, at least that is what past polls have said we want. And I am willing to bet the new Cancer Society poll will concur. We better let our elected representatives know how much we value our health and how important this issue is as a policy priority to be dealt with - and as soon as possible.

In any event, this is an idea whose time has come, it will not happen without a concerted political effort by Albertans. This idea has been defeated many times in prior Caucus decisions. But we have a new leader and taht always means a change. Citizens who desire a different result this time have too be mobilized, both personally and within their spheres of influence to make that change happen.

We have to get the message across to the PC Caucus by letting then know that this is an idea whose time has come. As a health wellness and disease prevention issue it is step in the right direction. From that perspective, this is not a very hard political decision for anyone to make. Let your wishes be known to MLAs all over the province. If they tell you it is a hard choice to mae, remind them that is why they are elected - to make hard choices on our behalf.

The new legislative session starts February 27th. It is timely to start writing your MLA. Call their offices. Send an email, or a snail mail is even better, in support of a smoking ban in public places in Alberta. Remember the world is run by those who show up!

Is Buying Political Access Becoming an Epidemic?

I was interested to read this National Post story this morning. It seems this “buying access to politicians” becoming an epidemic? If it is not to pay off campaign debts, it is to fund a think tank, this time the Fraser Institute, a registered charity. Interesting that the political types are backing off, partly I expect due to the $11,000 per delegate price that has been put on the politician’s heads is a sobering influence.

What if the Fraser Institute simply set up an open conference with delegate registration fees and asked these powerful people to speak? That would be buying access too but not likely on an invitation only big ticket “unique excursion” basis.

Buying access happens all the time at charity fundraising events in the form of people bidding on donated fishing trips, golf games and dinners in “auctions.” The attraction of these events are the fact a politician has agreed to “donate their time” to be in attendance. The proceeds do not go to political purposes but to the benefit of the sponsoring charity or institution. Those events are usually very public and easy to see who “bought” the time BUT it is still someone buying access to powerful people.

I wonder if this kind of buying and selling of access via charity donations will become part of the scope of the new Lobbyist and Contractor Registry? That legislation is Premier Stelmach’s flagship legislation as Bill 1 in February? It might not be a bad idea in terms of integrity and transparency.

There are some Clever Remixes on the Tacky Ads

Jason Cherniak has done a clever take on the Cons job on Dion on his January 29th posting. Clever and funny...and thank what ever omnipresent opmnipotent spritual being that you subscribe to for the freedom and fun of the Internet.

Well done Jason.

...and here is another one - author unknown but perspicatious none the less. What did we eer do before the parallel universe of the Internet?

Harper and Layton: Alliance or Dalliance?

Alliances and Dalliances
I love the political backroom gavotte going on between the Cons and the Dippers over their principles and which ones they will trade offs or defer between getting the budget passed and getting serious changed around environment policy.

We will have to wait and see if this is an alliance or a dalliance.

On the other hand can we soon expect another couple take to the political dance floor? Will the Libs and the Greens embrace in a struggle to see which one will actually lead in the environment agenda? I don't expect May to give up the "lead" in their dance or on the issues to Dion. She will no doubt make him work harder and look even better on the issues before the music stops and the election is called.

Citizens have yet to decide who they will actually trust and respect on the environment and climate change issues. Will it be Scowling Steve and/or Smiling Jack? Such an interesting and intense couple. Is the winner going to be Studious Stephane and/or Effervescent Elizabeth? They are earnest and energetic for sure...effective - well that is still an open question

That leaves Jilted Gilles looking for someone - anyone to pay attention to him. He faces the music alone and will come to realize that the environment trumps his aspirations for more equalization money as the dominant political issue - even in Quebec.

More on Manning's Musings:
I see Jeffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail today picked up on the Manning Op-Ed piece I posted on last Monday. He mentions the “attack ads” and the ironic timing of his message that we citizens should be showing our lack of tolerance for extremism and then the Cons launch their attack ads outside of the election cycle.

Simpson calls the ads “crude and rude.” He might soon be adding to the rhyme scheme and include “sued.” Some commentary is around that the Cons “tacky ad” content misused copyright material that is the property of others. That would be an interesting development if the content is challenged over copyright. I can see the blogosphere quips about the Cons misuse of "intellectual" property in the context of the attack ads.

Another One Bites the Dust:
So Johanne Gelinas, the Environment Commissioner has been “replaced” because her report last September criticized the former Lib and the current Cons over in actions on climate change. The reason for her departure is that her report smacked of advocacy instead of auditing. I didn’t know she reported to the Auditor General and apparently the two did not see eye to eye on things. Too bad. She was a breath of fresh air in her frankness.

Perhaps this role needs to be a separate office that reports directly to Parliament. Then it could be independent enough to audit and advocate by making recommendations for performance changes and improvements in how environment policy is being implemented.

We have seen the Chief Electoral Officer leave under a cloud of interference and now the Environment Commissioner is bounced. I hope there was no political interference in either decision. The controlling nature of the PMO is not reassuring in that regard. Two incidents do not make a trend but you have to wonder if there a pattern forming here and how much of a chill this puts on the senior bureaucracy.

Eco-pets:
I see the Cons are making merry in Question Period over the name of Dion’s dog, “Kyoto.” Perhaps Harper should get a pet Polar Bear and name him “Endangered.” That would symbolically show Steve's soft side and just how much he cares about climate change too.