Category Archives: conservative party

Stephen Harper Thinks You’re Stupid

conservative party, democracy and good government, foreign affairs, green party, , , , , , , ,

For years, Stephen Harper has, through his words and actions, displayed what could charitably be described as a lack of confidence in anyone other than himself. This extends not only to his MPs and members of the civil service, but also the Canadian public at large. In his memoirs, Preston Manning wrote of the Harper he knew from the Reform party as someone who “had difficulty accepting that there might be a few other people (not many, perhaps, but a few) who were as smart as he was with respect to policy and strategy.” In a June 1997 speech to an American think tank Stephen Harper said, “I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it’s legendary that if you’re like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.”

In short, he doesn’t trust us. He doesn’t think we’re smart enough or knowledgeable enough to make good decisions about the direction of our country.

One of the ways he displays this disrespect is by making completely ridiculous statements that us idiotic citizens couldn’t possibly see through. For example, right after the most recent meeting to advance the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Harper attempted to diminish the importance of the multilateral talks, describing the SPP as an effort to “standardize the jelly bean.” As if such a thing would require a meeting of three world leaders, massive security (including US Army interference with Canadian rights and disturbing police tactics), and a top secret agenda.

Today, Conservatives turned their guns against the Green Party (again) in an equally insulting attempt at spin. This time, it had to do with our position regarding Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, and specifically our response to the Manley report. The Green Party believes (quite rightly) that the nature of our military presence in Afghanistan must change. One of the major reasons for this is that we are currently perceived by many people in the region (and not without reason) as being aligned with George Bush’s War On Terror, which in turn is seen by many as a quasi-religious war of West vs. East, or Christianity vs. Islam. As long as that perception exists, danger to our soldiers is increased while our chances for success are decreased.

The Conservative party responded with the following:

Green Party Leader and Stéphane Dion ally Elizabeth May criticized the presence of Canadian and other ISAF forces in Afghanistan as representing a “Christian/Crusader heritage,” that would actually “fuel” the “jihad.”

Elizabeth May’s comparison of the Afghan protection and reconstruction effort as a Christian Crusade is evidence of her shocking ignorance of foreign policy, Afghanistan and the current mission.

The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are serving at the invitation and with the active encouragement of the Afghan Government. Every day the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces are risking their safety and security to help the people of Afghanistan live peaceful and secure lives. Considering that Canadian soldiers have lost their lives protecting the people of Afghanistan, it is outrageous that a Canadian politician would make such an insult of this sacrifice.

Ms. May’s comments also betrayed a shocking lack of knowledge about Afghanistan’s people and its history. None of the Crusades ever came anywhere close to Afghanistan.

Even people who think the Green press release should have been more clear recognize that the above statement is ridiculous and lowers the level of discourse. Fortunately, Canadians are smart enough to understand the difference between saying that we need to “counter the Islamic militants’ portrayal of the war as a ‘clash of civilizations'” to prevent the Taliban from being able to continue to “frame the Afghanistan conflict as a ‘Jihad'” and saying that Canadian soldiers are actually engaged in a Christian Crusade. Canadians are also smart enough to realize that the real negative perceptions of our involvement have very little to do with the physical locations of the Crusades. (To not grasp that last fact could almost be characterized as, say, a “shocking ignorance of foreign policy, Afghanistan and the current mission.”)

And Canadians are smart enough to realize that if anything is “risking the safety and security” of the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces, it’s overly partisan rhetoric that’s designed to shut down real democratic debate. (It’s also worth noting that this government also continues to place our soldiers at risk of being accused of involvement with war crimes, and has demonstrated through their actions that “supporting the troops” is sometimes little more than a soundbite.)

Details aside, the second most discouraging thing about this is that our prime minister has such little respect for foundational democratic principals that he frequently tries to trick the public into believing partisan distortions of reality. The most discouraging thing (at least for the moment) is that this kind of nonsense moves people like Rick Mercer to write what he did today: “[Liberals and Conservatives] both say they support our troops, but what they really love is using them.”

Dangerous Governance

conservative party, democracy and good government, energy, green party, health, , ,

I spent the evening with Elizabeth May as she addressed an event at Upper Canada College. On the way over, we chatted about (among other things) the unbelievably disturbing situation unfolding with regards to the CNSC and our government. Namely, not only do we no longer have an independent nuclear safety watchdog in Canada, but the independence of all arms-length governmental organizations has been undermined. What’s even more unbelievable for me is that every single party in the House of Commons rolled over and let this happen. Just another example of why we need Green MPs now.

I asked Elizabeth if I could share the following email with you, which I received from her just an hour before she arrived at Union Station. (So from what I can tell, she wrote this off the top of her head on the train.) It represents what is possibly the most comprehensive and damning overview of what’s going largely unreported and why it’s so disastrous not only for our safety, but for our democracy.

We have taken very clear positions on this issue. First, you need to know we have done our homework. Here’s a crash course in the fiasco.

1) The NRU reactor at Chalk River is over 50 years old. It is operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, a Crown Corporation. Closing for even routine maintenance should not have occurred without a contingency plan, alerting the other manufacturers of medical radio-isotopes that they should be prepared to boost production.

2) The reactor closed on November 18 for routine maintenance without any contingency plan. Then the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, discovered that the reactor was operating illegally, having ignored license requirements for emergency back-ups for additional pumps. CNSC told AECL they could not re-open until they met license requirements. AECL still did not alert the government that it needed to make contingency plans. Why not? I speculate here, but MDS-Nordion is the “for profit” operation that was once part of AECL. I think that Nordion and AECL did not want to have reduced profits and a loss of market share. No one informed the Minister of Health of a looming crisis until December 5. For reasons of profit and market they gambled on holding Canadian patients hostage to avoid meeting the regulatory requirements. They won. The President of the CNSC lost.

3) Chalk River’s NRU reactor makes Molybdenum 99. It makes about 40% of the world’s supply. The other 60% comes from facilities in Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, France and Germany. The isotope used in diagnosis is technetium-99m (t-99m), which is derived from the Molybdenum 99. While the t99-m has a very very short half life, 66 hours 6 hours, the Moly 99 lasts much longer and could have been stockpiled. A few ounces of M 99 provides enough t 99m for thousands of treatments and diagnostic tests.

4) AECL mismanagement: Everyone has known the NRU reactor will have to close eventually. It is way past its “best-before” date. AECL promised to have two reactors up and running dedicated exclusively to making radio-isotopes. That was more than ten years ago. Maple 1 and 2 are pretty much finished at Chalk River. We know they were budgeted at $140 million. They are way over budget and they cannot be opened. AECL cannot figure out what is wrong, They were supposed to have a “negative power coefficient of reactivity (PCR)” — meaning that the nuclear reaction in the core was supposed to slow down as power increased. This is a safety feature. Instead of slowing down, the reaction speeds up. The handling of this project is one of the items the Auditor General reported as a deficiency in her fall report to government, released this week.

5) How safe is safe enough? The NRU reactor, like all nuclear installations, has a very small risk of a very catastrophic accident. That is why they have back up systems. There is a current dispute between AECL, CNSC and Lunn — and it is much larger than the NRU issue. The former President of CNSC is chairing some international nuclear safety committees. The CNSC communicated to AECL that if it plans to build any new reactors, they must meet international safety standards. AECL has protested that is unnecessary. Lunn takes AECL’s side. (After all Harper and company want nuclear reactors to speed up exploitation of the tar sands….)

The Green Party does not accept that the regulator should have been over-ridden. This, plus removing Keen as President, has set a very dangerous precedent. Now the nuclear industry knows that if it is operating illegally and cutting corners, the Harper government will rush to their defence and shoot the messenger. The emergency legislation passed did NOT have any independent expert advice. I am not referring to the fact one expert was chair of a Conservative riding association. The lack of independence is that both witnesses to Parliament had long-standing ties to AECL. We believe the other political parties were too scared of angry cancer patients to be capable of thinking clearly.

Bottom line: WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE IF WE’D BEEN IN THE HOUSE? WHAT ARE WE DEMANDING NOW?

1) WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE IF WE’D BEEN IN THE HOUSE? The Opposition Parties should have contacted every manufacturer of Moly 99 around the world to ascertain whether they could meet demand, and over what time frame. ONLY if it was clear (which it is still not clear to us) there was no way to keep supplies of Moly 99 at acceptable levels, should the bill to re-open the NRU have gone ahead. We would have insisted on re-writing Lunn’s emergency Bill to instruct CNSC to allow the reactor to open on a temporary license, with all safety issues over-seen by CNSC. The bill, as passed, puts AECL in charge of its own operation. An impossible and dangerous precedent of nuclear fox watching over radioactive chicken coop.

2) WHAT ARE WE DEMANDING NOW?

We are demanding a full public inquiry. There has never been a public review of AECL. One was promised by the Joe Clark government, but the government fell before it could take place. Billions of dollars in subsidies have gone to AECL with nearly zero accountability.

We are demanding Lunn’s resignation. His interference with a quasi-judicial regulator is a firing offence. The Harper government does not understand the rule of law.

We are exploring whether the conflict of interest between AECL being within Natural Resources would be reduced by placing nuke issues in Environment Canada… this is a position being taken by some prominent NGOs…

Elizabeth

As we discussed the contents of this email, we listened to an interview with Dr. Tom Perry, a Professor at the University of British Columbia and a physician at the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, who struggled to understand how any lives could have been threatened as the Conservative government has claimed. During the whole time Chalk River was down, he and his colleagues failed to notice any health crisis.

In other words, there’s much more going on here than we’re aware of. We need an inquiry. Thank goodness we have in Elizabeth May the only party leader with the courage and credibility to press for the truth.

Bali Verdict Roundup

climate crisis, conservative party, , , ,

When I woke up Saturday morning, the radio was reporting failure in Bali. The first agreement didn’t specify any level of emissions reductions at all, an unbelievably disappointing result. Then later in the day the news came that a second agreement had succeeded in laying the groundwork for mandatory reductions. The way the Globe and Mail tells it, it was a dramatic day, with John Baird being dragged along kicking and screaming the whole way:

Isolated Canada grudgingly accepts Bali deal

GEOFFREY YORK
December 15, 2007 at 11:45 AM EST

NUSA DUA, Indonesia — After a failed attempt to block an agreement, Canada found itself isolated at the Bali conference Saturday and grudgingly accepted a new accord to set a target of 25 to 40 per cent for cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by wealthy countries by the end of the next decade.

Environment Minister John Baird spoke against the ambitious target, but found himself virtually alone. Only Russia supported him – so he withdrew his objection, sparking a lengthy burst of applause from other countries.

A CP story has an amusing description of how, after attempting to sabotage the whole conference, John Baird then had the audacity to complain that the agreement didn’t go far enough. From the article: “Canada helped gut some of the substance from Saturday’s deal and then expressed regret when the final agreement was ultimately watered down even more than it had hoped.”

How positive this all is, and where we should go from here, depends on your perspective. Here are three different takes, the first from Elizabeth May:

The world community has launched the negotiations originally set out in Montreal in 2005 against a specific deadline. Agreement must be reached by the COP in Copenhagen in 2009. The so-called Bali roadmap covers agreements reached within the two binding legal mechanisms: The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (signed and ratified by Canada in 1992) and the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated within the UNFCCC.

Until the 11th Hour (or actually the 11th Hour into over-time), the U.S. blocked progress on the UN FCCC side, while Canada blocked progress on the Kyoto Protocol side. (Since the US has not ratified Kyoto, with the change in Canadian government we are now able to do the U.S.’s dirty work for them.)

…We have a long way to go to get a solid, legally binding treaty ready by 2009 to avoid going past the point of no return in climate impacts. We now have a hope of getting there. By 2009 Bush will be gone. We must all re-double efforts to ensure that Mr. Harper joins his anti-Kyoto buddies, Australia’s John Howard and U.S. President George Bush in happy retirement well before Copenhagen!

George Monbiot is concerned that we’re actually moving backwards:

The destructive power of the US delegation is not the only thing that hasn’t changed. After the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, the British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced that “this is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions.”(4) Ten years later the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that “this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever all the world’s nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change.”(5) Do these people have a chip inserted?

And David Reevely is ready to throw up his hands:

I say screw it. We should stop going. Stop sending words to do the work of deeds. Instead, let’s recognize that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions makes sense not only on its own account, but because it means economic improvements (in the name of efficiency) and more tangible environmental improvements at the same time. Less spewing means less wasting means more money in our pockets. We can even find ways to support investments in efficiencies abroad without having to necessarily play by the Kyoto Accord’s Clean Development Mechanism.

Do not take this as an endorsement of the Harper government’s foolishness, by the way. Canada’s Environment Minister John Baird obviously went to Bali to be a spoiler and he mostly failed and was embarrassed and that’s good. I do believe he didn’t even want to send words, let alone deeds; in the case of Canada’s current government, having to cough up some words was progress.

But for serious people, attending meetings is not a substitute for getting on with the job. That’s all.

I disagree with David that we can afford to give up on working within an international framework, since climate change is an international problem. However, I think he’s completely right in his sense of urgency and his desire for Canada to start taking a leadership role in the world. And that we need fewer words, and more deeds.

Of course, Elizabeth’s also right about the importance of getting rid of the Harper government as quickly as possible, and that Bali can and should be used as a springboard to move forward with positive action. The Conservatives are now in the ridiculous position of having agreed to emissions reduction targets that they claim are impossible to achieve, which means they have no credibility from any angle. We need MPs with a solid plan to reduce emissions while strengthening the economy and safeguarding our quality of life. And soon.

Video: Bali Ballyhoo

climate crisis, conservative party, green party, , ,

Here’s the video of my appearance on CH News last Tuesday evening with Lorrie Goldstein from the Toronto Sun, debating the role Canada is playing in Bali. (As in, we don’t even seem to agree on the reality of what Canada is doing and saying, let alone if their actions are positive or not.)

You’ll note that Lorrie repeatedly claims that “no one” is saying that all countries should reduce their emissions by the same percentage on the same timeline. I guess he hadn’t seen this news story before we went to air (which is convenient, since otherwise he would have had to admit he disagrees with the government):

A Canadian environmental group says leaked federal document shows Canadian negotiators in Bali are under explicit instruction to undermine a fundamental principle of the Kyoto Protocol.

Climate Action Network Canada, an alliance of environmental groups, says the move is guaranteed to derail momentum as the Bali negotiations enter their critical final week.

“The leaked instructions direct Canadian negotiators to demand that poorer nations accept the same binding absolute emission reduction targets as developed nations,” the alliance said in an e-mail to The Canadian Press.

You’ll also note that Lorrie agrees with me at the end of the video when I say that the test of success in Bali will be whether or not countries agree to the level of reductions that the science tells us is necessary. Again, it turns out that Lorrie disagrees with the Conservative government on this point. Yesterday, John Baird reiterated that his government will not support a reduction in emissions greater than 20% from today, which doesn’t even come close to our modest Kyoto commitment, let alone the levels the IPCC and others say are necessary to avert massive climate destabilization.

Of course I agree that “every country must be part of the solution.” No one’s arguing against that. But soundbites notwithstanding, that’s very different from the strategy being pursued by the Conservatives. I remain convinced that the prime minister and the minister of the environment have no understanding of the science of climate change or its grave implications (and, conversely, its opportunities). If they did, their actions would be monstrous. And I’d much rather think of my prime minister as an ignoramus than a monster.