More Totalitarianism From The Harper

Just as Harper has been tearing down the apparatus of scientific research that would ordinarily be used by governing parties to make informed policy decisions, the next prong of his attack on reasoned governance in Canada has begun.  

It really began in 2012, when the government rolled out a program with specific funding for the CRA to go after charitable organizations that the government suspects of overspending on "political activity".

Disappointing ... But Unsurprising

In light of the Harper Government(tm)'s ongoing assault on science in this country - especially anything resembling the environment - it comes as little surprise that the government is currently not meeting its own legislated obligations with respect to endangered species.

In a case covering four species that Justice Anne Mactavish calls "the tip of the iceberg," the court found there's a major systemic problem in the two ministries charged with protecting endangered and threatened wildlife. 

The 47-page ruling released Friday states that "public officials are not above the law. If an official acts contrary to a statute, the courts are entitled to so declare." 

At issue was a challenge brought by five environmental organizations, who asked the court to enforce provisions under the Species at Risk Act. 

The groups cited four particular species: the nechako white sturgeon, the pacific humpback whale, the marbled murrelet and the southern mountain woodland caribou.

Frankly this comes as no great surprise.  The Harper Government(tm) has demonstrated repeatedly its disdain for any science which is inconvenient to the dogma of "free markets".  In their view, anyone who advocates for the environment is a "terrorist" of some kind.  

In her judgment, Mactavish pointedly noted that lack of resources for the government departments came up time and again in testimony. 

Yet the Conservative government counsel, she wrote, "advised the court that he had been specifically instructed not to raise a lack of resources as a justification for the delay in posting proposed recovery strategies for the four species." 

Mactavish ruled "there is clearly an enormous systemic problem within the relevant ministries." 

It is this last part of the article that is equally significant when evaluating this situation.  It is not just that the Harper Government(tm) has objectively written a great deal of legislation which has effectively gutted not only Canada's laws to protect the environment, but it has also systematically eviscerated the ability of the responsible departments to do their jobs by mangling their mandates and choking off the funds needed to actually do the job.

By no means am I some "bleeding heart" that believes that all development is evil, or that no pipeline should ever be built.  However, I do believe that the government has obligations to ensure that Canada is a good steward of the lands, resources and lives which reside within its domains.  It is not acceptable that our governing party has spent much of the past several years dismantling the laws and infrastructure solely because they find it inconvenient to their political ideology.

Canada is a land rich in resources and wildlife.  We owe it to ourselves and our descendants to safeguard that wealth.

... It Gets Darker

A break from analyzing Bill C-23 today, but not a break from covering the darkness that is Harper's shadow.

Today's instalment comes in the form of the obviously politically motivated witch-hunt that the CRA is engaging in with environmental organizations in this country.  This isn't particularly new, the Conservatives have been trying to paint the environmental lobby in this country as "terrorists" for years.

Finance Minister Flaherty announced today that the upcoming budget would contain more of the same:

"There are some terrorist organizations, there are some organized crime organizations that launder money through charities, and make donations to charities," he said during a media conference in Toronto on Friday. 

"That's not the purpose of charitable donations in Canada, so we're becoming increasingly strict on the subject. You'll see some more on Tuesday." 

What this does is create a double jeopardy problem for  charitable organizations.  Suddenly, they could find themselves in a position of having to background check donors - in theory to avoid being smeared with the supposition that the charity is necessarily involved in money laundering.  

The finance minister did not offer specifics on what measures would be taken, but said he's not concerned about suggestions that changing rules for charities would be perceived as a way to silence critics of the government. 

"If the critics of the government are terrorist organizations, and organized crime, I don't care," he said.

Then there is the next part of the story - namely the fact that in essence, Flaherty's own comments suggest that there could be a connection between criticizing the government and being a "terrorist" (at least according to this government).

This is the only government I have ever known which has used the language of "othering" to suggesting that their critics are somehow part of a greater conspiracy, or that they are engaged in "illegal" activities somehow.  This kind of propaganda and the implicit lies and aspersions are straight out of the playbook of totalitarian regimes throughout the world in the last couple of centuries.

If nothing else, Canadians must treat this government and its utterances with even more skepticism.  If there isn't corroborating evidence from multiple sources, then it must be assumed that the government is lying.  There are few other choices available to us.

Eek! It's A Cap And Trade System!

Cap and Trade

So, the Liberals are proposing a Cap and Trade system for greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

Predictably, we find the fearmongers in Alberta playing Chicken Little and calling it NEP 2.0.

Of course, one has to take this kind of hysteria with a grain of salt (or an entire salt flat, perhaps).

I'm not going to bother trying to defend the NEP - that was thirty years ago and the political and economic landscape in Alberta were dramatically different then than they are today.

I find it ironic that the "free market" types are all about "opportunity" without accountability - in spite of the disastrous results of such situations in the past (anybody else remember Enron, WorldCom and Lehman Bros?). As soon as it might affect the oh-so-precious oilsands industry in Alberta, their hackles go up - in spite of the fact that a cap-and-trade system will actually create a very interesting open market opportunity in the economy - while requiring a certain level of accountability on the part of all industry in Canada.

Considering that one of the big things I hear todays "conservatives" rattling on about is individual accountability, I find it amazing that they get all up in arms over that accountability when it applies to the megacorporations that are profiting from our resources.

In terms of the actual impact of this kind of policy, I'm going to have to agree with Andrew Leach, and say that we need to know much more about the details before we can make any kind of concrete assessment of impact.

Would I like more details? Yes. But I'm also realistic - a cap-and-trade system is a complex beast to design and implement - I doubt that level of detail exists with any of the party platform topics that have been put forward in the last 2 weeks from any party.

Inconvenient Truths

Like Global Warming skeptics, the Alberta Government and the Oilsands industry have long been telling us "not to worry", there's no problem with pollution in the Athabasca River system for years now.

When researchers set out to question these claims, it comes as no surprise that there are serious problems.

Mercury, thallium and other pollutants accumulated in higher concentrations in snowpacks and waterways near and downstream from oilsands development than in more remote areas, said a study to be published Monday afternoon in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Upstream and undeveloped sites exposed directly to the McMurray Geologic Formation, the natural source of the oilsands, did not show high levels of pollutants.

So much for the 'it's all naturally occurring' argument that the Alberta Government has been trying to convince us of through their "joint monitoring program" with industry:

However, the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program, or RAMP, a joint industry-government environmental body that monitors water in the Athabasca River and its tributaries, said in its 2009 report that generally, "water quality was similar between [test] stations located within and outside oil sands development and when compared to conditions prior to development."

The program has reported the pollutant levels occur naturally because of erosion of the natural geologic formation that contains the oilsands and are not caused by human activity.

I find it particularly interesting that the RAMP program's findings have never been published in a peer reviewed journal. I'm guessing that's because the peer review process is biased against propaganda.

Defeatism - Harper Style

Not so long ago, Harper opened his trap and accused people who live in Maritime Canada of a culture of defeatism.

Then we have Harper's Subterranean Profile in Copenhagen - which bespeaks an attitude of his own defeatist attitude towards the climate portfolio.

Mr. Harper has staked out a difficult position at Copenhagen – arguing there is little room for Canada to toughen its commitments to reduce emissions, insisting that China and other emerging economies agree to binding targets; rejecting the 1990 base year against which emission reductions would be measures, and refusing to make a specific pledge of financial aide for the developing world.

In short, Harper has talked Canada into a position where Canada is now fundamentally an isolated nation on the world stage - all because our Prime Minister is neither able or willing to actually consider positions beyond whatever he has decided.

On The Oilsand

BigCity Lib has found a very interesting report on the Oil Sands and the trade offs involved from the Rand Corporation.

Go Read ... Now ...

H/T: BigCityLib

Harper Has No Plan

So he returns to his role as leader of the opposition.

The HarperCon$ have avoided any substantive policy on the subject of the environment, preferring to blow smoke instead. When the government has something resembling an actual policy, then they will be in a position to comment on the positions of other political parties.

I Suspected As Much

I've been waiting for this to ooze out.

Initially saying she was not getting support from Conservatives, Wright added: "Well, there's a bunch of them emailing saying they want to give us money."

Green Shift has retained former Progressive Conservative communications guru from the days of Brian Mulroney, Michael Krauss, to orchestrate her media strategy.

Krauss says he is not affiliated with the Conservatives.

Uh huh. So, in short, the HarperCon$ are bankrolling this lawsuit. Part of me suspects that Ms. Wright has been egged on in filing this suit by the Conservative Party from day one. (I can't prove it, but it would be fairly consistent with their general approach to politics)

Harper: Do Nothing Environmental Policy Part 2008

What is it with Harper and 2050?

Every time that man opens his mouth on the topic of environmental policy, what plops out but goals that are so far in the future that not only will his mendacious government will be a footnote in Canada's history, most of the politicians currently sitting in Ottawa will have died of old age!

Newsflash for Mr. Harper - long range goals are all fine and dandy - when they are backed up with more immediate objectives that are meaningful. Things that are 42 years in the future are completely unrealistic and meaningless - a bit of political theatrics so that you can make a blithe claim about your "concern" over the environment - while you continue to follow the idiot military spending model of your political soulmate currently residing in Washington.

Canadians cannot afford you, Mr. Harper; and the world cannot afford your environmentally blind economics.

Nanos On Dion's Green Shift

Nik Nanos has an interesting take on Dion's 'Green Shift' strategy here:

In regards to the political rewards, the Dion proposal will likely have appeal among Green Party and NDP voters who are environmentally conscious and who are looking to block another Harper mandate. With the Conservatives and the Liberals neck-and-neck, this may incrementally tip the balance in favour of the Liberals, if they can remain united behind this policy and their leader.

Likewise, the policy will likely shed a new spotlight on the Conservative approach to the environment. After the Conservative attacks subside, expect Canadians to shift their focus on the Harper government’s track record and approach to the environment. If that transpires, the short term Conservative advantage may turn to a disadvantage.

I'm cautious about the political success of Dion's plan, in part because the Liberals have not made me very happy on other fronts this past session, and in part because I'm not so sure about the timing.

Nanos' evaluation of the situation is possibly the most reasonable I've seen put forward. Whether it is what actually unfolds over the summer months remains to be seen.

Green Shift: Policy versus Non-Policy

I've been somewhat reluctant to comment on the Liberal Green Shift Plan this week because I simply haven't had the time available for me to sit down and think past the rhetoric and look at the policy platform as it is presented.

After reading through the plan itself, and thinking a bit about some of the statements by the HarperCon$, and Dion's response.

Stepping aside from the partisan politics whirling through Ottawa these days and looking at the policy itself, it is an interesting model that Dion's team has put forward.

For years, critics of environmental protocols like Kyoto have sat on the sidelines and heckled - whining that cutting environmental emissions is going to be too hard on the country's economy. The 'Green Shift' policy attacks that criticism head-on, and through the most directly visible ways that most people experience government's hand - taxation.

Essentially, what the Liberals are proposing is a shifting of the tax burden - away from individual earnings, and placing it firmly in the hands of those whose actions impose high, long-term public expenditures to remediate. Whether we are talking about abandoned mines, or oil and gas wells that have been abandoned, often the "owners" of these properties either no longer exist, or the shifting sands of mergers and acquisitions has left the property in a no-man's land. The reality is that the cleanup of these properties lands squarely in the taxpayer's lap - after the fact.

While one might argue that my example is unrelated to going after a Carbon Emissions tax, the fact is that we face serious consequences if we do not work actively to make our collective carbon footprint smaller, and one of the most direct ways that government can intervene is by moving the economic burden towards those who produce the carbon load.

It's clear to me that this is one facet of a far reaching view of government policy as a means to influence the broad spectrum of public activity. The Green Shift is not a comprehensive environmental policy, but instead is a piece of policy intended to address the very real issue that simply slapping another tax into place is not going to have much effect other than being a damper on the economy. (and it would - if steps to counter-balance the impact of the new tax didn't exist in the framework)

In a policy designed to address the economic issues of changing Canada's GHG footprint, I have no reason to expect that specific targets are part of that policy.

I find it somewhat amusing that Harper and his ideological "clones" are trying to portray Dion's strategy as a "tax grab", and as a "NEP II" policy. For a party that is supposedly governing Canada, it seems to me that Harper is once again playing the role of Leader of the Opposition instead of governing.

Where is the Conservative environmental policy? Where is the government's legislation to implement that policy? Oh right - it DOESN'T EXIST!

All we've seen out of the HarperCon$ in matters of environmental policy and legislation are "do nothings" that postpone doing anything material until long after most of the current generation is dead, or policies that kowtow entirely to the interests of large corporations.

I'll give Dion this much - in the face of the HarperCon$ whose sole goal seems to be to ape the BushCo Rethuglicans at every turn, he is at least putting forward actual policy to address real issues. As opposed to the self-inflating, ego stroking that the HarperCon$ are engaging in.

Since Harper seems so willing to oppose the concept Dion's putting forward, and so unwilling to suggest alternatives, I suggest that voters return Mr. Harper to the opposition benches at the first opportunity. His role in parliament should reflect his behaviour - and his behaviour is entirely that of the oppositon, not the government.

Conservative Environmental Policy

After putting the oh-so-lovable John Baird in charge of the Environment portfolio after a "do nothing" policy on the environment imploded, about all the Con$ have done is spray more hot air into the environment and sidestep doing anything.

Well...almost nothing. Via Allison over at Creekside, we get a particularly nasty little bit of destructiveness being done to Canada's lakes - simply by the fiat of declaring them "tailings containment areas".

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those "tailings containment areas" are in fact toxic waste zones - and because these are existing lakes, those same tailings will inevitably escape beyond the so-called containment zone.

Conservative government - when you are absolutely clear that public policy is all about kneeling before big business interests.

Apparently Being Christian Means Living in Denial

You almost have to read this to believe it.

While it may seem like everyone believes in global warming and the impending catastrophe it will bring, a group of conservative Christians countered that message Thursday by launching a national campaign to gather one million signatures for a statement that says Christians must not believe in all the hype about global warming.

The “We Get It!” declaration, which currently has nearly 100 signers, is backed by prominent Christians including Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, award-winning radio host Janet Parshall, and U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

In short, if you are a follower of these loons, you are supposed to bury your head in the sand because the leaders of the bible-beating crowd decide that the science is too uncertain:

“How can you create policies on uncertain science?” asked Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

“How can you say what it is that needs to be done when you don’t really know and you don’t really have real consensus on the state of the problem or what is causing the problem?”

Wow - suddenly everything's about "concensus" - of course, it is virtually impossible to reconcile rational, evidence-based reasoning with someone who is arguing based on their "article of faith" position. By the time that the "absolute" proof that these loons want from science exists, it will be far, far too late to act upon it at all.

Of course, there is also a huge amount of irony in their whining about setting policy based on "uncertain science". Not only do these same people keep demanding that public policy be set on the basis of biblical scripture, they do so assuming their particular intepretation of scripture ... and as anybody with their eyes open will recognize, there is little or no real concensus in interpreting scripture, much less whether the truth value of any particular interpretation is absolute... talk about uncertainty!

So, Mr. Harper, How is doing NOTHING realistic?

If there is one thing that infuriates me about PMSH and his glib pronouncements on the world stage, it is how utterly devoid of meaning they are.

This week, we find "Dear Leader" prancing about Europe, further damaging Canada's reputation as a player on the world stage, and reinforcing the idea that Canada is being run from Washington these days.

But Harper this week is going on the offensive, trying to explain to leaders and others that, in his view, climate change policies or programs that protect endangered plant and wildlife species must be based on targets that are affordable, realistic and try to balance any economic costs against environmental gains. It is a pitch he and his environment minister, John Baird, have often made to a domestic audience.

"We have vowed to get past the empty rhetoric and to take real action to require Canadian industry to make real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," Harper said in a speech in Bonn, Germany, at the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity, a meeting attended by delegates from 119 countries.

Meanwhile, at home, Harper has done exactly nothing to rein in some of Canada's worst emissions producing industries. Oh wait, he's putting money into "carbon sequestration" technology - more or less filling salt caverns with CO2...technology which barely exists today, and requires decades of active work to become meaningful. Meanwhile, his government is doing little or nothing to set meaningful standards against which we can measure progress, nor have they set any kind of targets that are even remotely meaningful.

We cannot assess whether something is meaningful, affordable or realistic when it is primarily the CO2 filled air being expelled from Harper's lungs as he speaks. I wasn't impressed much with either Chretien or Martin on their handling (fumbling) of taking steps with regards to Kyoto - Harper's worse on the subject because he speaks out of both sides of his face, and does even less.

Getting rid of Bernier might have been a good start, but replacing him with the ever present face of PMSH the Micromanager is NOT an improvement.

Dear Mr. Baird:

You are an embarrassment to Canada and all that this country represents. Your behaviour at the Bali talks this past week has been two-faced and disgraceful.

On the one hand, after the talks finish, you claim:

But Environment Minister John Baird hailed the talks as a positive first step toward an effective global climate treaty.


"We were naturally disappointed in the language that weakened and watered down the agreement," Baird said.

"But it's better than no agreement."

He said he was disappointed that the deal was almost completely stripped of any reference to numbers and targets that could have been the starting point for the discussion.

However, this doesn't square with your actions throughout the negotiations where it was so damnably obvious that you and Harper were taking your orders from the White House instead of standing for what is right and honorable.

Senior federal officials have confirmed that Mr. Baird did not attend a lengthy negotiating session on Thursday night of the 34 countries that were chosen to resolve the thorniest issues at the Bali conference. Instead, he sent a bureaucrat to speak for Canada.

The officials said Mr. Baird gave instructions to the bureaucrat and was available just a few minutes away if the bureaucrat needed to consult him. Instead of attending the negotiating session, Mr. Baird attended a meeting of a bloc of several industrialized countries that have acted together at the talks, the officials said.

...
Canadian officials have bragged that Mr. Baird is playing an important role in "bridging" the differences between the United States and the European Union at the Bali negotiations. "Minister Baird is directly involved in trying to achieve consensus for a post-2012 agreement," one official said.

"His No. 1 priority from the beginning of this conference has been to achieve a successful outcome. … He is focused on playing a bridge-building role to try and get all parties to agree to start negotiations and put in place the building blocks for a future agreement."

What a disgusting show of sycophancy to the Bush administration. Canada's minister responsible can't be bothered to show up at negotiation sessions so that he can "bridge" with the US? What a complete crock!

Traditionally, Canada is the country at the forefront of creating compromise, not isolating itself to satisfy Washington. What Mr. Baird and Mr. Harper have done this past week is vile in the extreme, and demonstrates still further that what Canada has right now is not a government for Canadians, but a government that is acting as a vassal state to George Bush's henchmen.

More From Canada's "GNU Government"

A few weeks ago, I noted that Harper was explicitly excluding opposition MPs from the delegation to Bali - a rather significant breach of parliamentary tradition, and a crass attempt to prevent the opposition from having any ammunition to throw at him. (Besides being the most secretive PM since Brian Mulroney - hardly a stellar recommendation).

Today, we find out that some of Harper's Business buddies have joined the Bali delegation:

Two companies from Ottawa, where Environment Minister John Baird is an MP, have been allowed to join Canada's official delegation to the climate-change conference, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

A major oil and gas producer, EnCana Corp. of Calgary, was also permitted to join the delegation.

By joining the Canadian delegation, the corporations could influence Canada's position at the Bali conference, where about 190 countries are trying to hammer out a new agreement to replace the Kyoto accord to solve the global-warming crisis.

I'm outraged at the two-faced nature of this sequence. Essentially, Harper lied through his teeth about there not being room for opposition politicians, and instead chose to pull in a group of his allies.

Clearly Mr. Harper fails to comprehend that the Opposition is as much a part of the government as he is. As the recent marathon debates in the Alberta legislature have demonstrated, the opposition parties often serve to ensure that the government acts in the best interests of the people. Further, the opposition is styled "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" for good reason - the governing party does not govern by divine right or any other mystical privilege. The opposition should be an active participant in the government.

Unfortunately for Canada, Mr. Harper seems to either be unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, his own weaknesses. Instead, he continues to play the games of petty partisanship to fulfil his own lust for power.

Harper The Denialist

The behaviour of the Harper government on the world stage is appalling in so many ways. While Harper struts about Canada's base of operations in Afghanistan, his policy position on other equally vital topics such as climate change seeks not only to undermine the Bali talks, but guarantees a stalemate on the world stage.

Harper is taking Canada from a position of leading the world by example to being a lap dog to Rethuglican American politics.

The argument coming out of Baird and Harper is that Canada should not sign on to any kind of targets on climate change issues unless "the other major polluters" are similarly committed has only a limited amount of traction. It sounds almost reasonable, until you step back from it and realize how horrendously childish it is.

It's like siblings squabbling over chores in the house and one child arguing that they won't clean up their room because their big brother isn't cleaning up his.

Harper's stance on this matter is utterly brain damaged. Canada can lead by example - and historically has done this on the world stage. As a "middle power", Canada will never succeed by playing hardline games. We are, and always will be, a country that fosters consensus and compromise - often by demonstrating that what we are advocating is the right path, morally and ethically. Imitating the "six-shooter diplomacy" of George W. Bush is a short-sighted, mean-spirited strategy that Canada will never benefit from.

Well, It's a Start...

Dion is at least beginning to seriously call Harper out on bad policy and inept governance.

“We came from leader to laggard. Canada is not any more leading the way. Canada is standing in the way,” Mr. Dion said.

It's a start - now, given the number of policy turdlettes that Harper's dropped around lately, there's lots of fodder for Dion to go after.

In a question-and-answer session with the riding presidents, Mr. Dion suggested that Canada might now be too late to meet the emissions-reductions targets set for the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, from 2008 to 2012. He said if he took power, he would establish a plan to come close so that Canada will be able to catch up when a second phase begins in 2012.

Okay, that sounds good, but the problem for Dion is to put forward what that plan might be. There is a legitimate degree of caution that must be exercised. As the US economy softens, it will affect Canada's economy. This becomes another variable in a complex dance where pollution and CO2 emission limits have to be balanced against other aspects of the economy. Dion will need to show the public that he understands the balance and has coherent ideas that go beyond the current Conservative policy of deferring any action until our children are in mid-life.

Harper: Leading From The Rear

Canadians should be outraged with Harper's handling of himself at the Uganda Commonwealth Summit this week.

The Conservatives have often ranted about taking individual responsibility - whether that is talking about health or financial success. Yet, when it comes to climate issues, Harper comes along and whines that because "hard targets" on climate change won't be "uniform" and global, that they shouldn't be part of any multi-national policy.

While I accept the criticism that hard targets are of limited effectiveness if countries like China, India or the United States aren't participating, the Harper position is based on blame shifting. Essentially, Harper says that he wants hard targets, but only if the United States and others do too. This is like saying that you are all in favour of exercise, but because the obese guy next door isn't exercising, you won't either.

Canada's strength on the world stage has traditionally come from leading by example. Harper is destroying that, creating the image of Canada as nothing more than a poodle to whatever Bush decides in the United States.

Where climate change is concerned, I recognize that Canada cannot change the world by itself. However, we can, and should, be taking actions of leadership on our own. The "environmental movement" was ringing the bells about the impact of human activities on the planet back in the 1970s. It took at least two decades for that message to be heard in the mainstream. The same applies to climate change on the political stage. Canada can, and should, be leading that endeavor.

Instead, Harper makes vapid statements about "wanting hard targets" and doing everything he can to make sure it doesn't happen. What passes for environment policy among the conservatives is framed in terms of doing nothing until the current generation is either dead or living in nursing homes - far too late.