Keystone protestors to surround White House, Nov. 6th

This Sunday, protestors opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline are planning to surround the White House, in Washington D.C.

If built, the Keystone pipeline would run from the oil sands in Alberta down to the Gulf Coast in the United States. People are rightly worried about the danger of spills over the long pipeline route. Far more worrisome, however, are the climatic consequences of digging up and burning all that oil. Given what we know about climate change, exploiting the oil sands is unethical. As such, efforts to block the oil in by preventing the construction of pipelines are to be welcomed.

This protest is a follow-up to the two-week protest I attended this summer. I wish I could attend again, but I am too busy with GRE prep to make the bus journey to Washington. Lots of others will be there, however, including Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Elaine from Seinfeld).

I really encourage those who are near Washington and concerned about climate change to attend. It may be needlessly divisive to say this, but I would argue that attending this protest would be far more productive and meaningful than attending one of the various ‘Occupy’ protests happening around North America. The demands of this action are focused and important. Blocking this pipeline would make a real difference for the future of the world, and it is plausible that a sufficient level of public pressure will drive President Obama to make that choice.

Please consider contributing to that pressure.

Supreme Court supportive of InSite

The Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision to support Vancouver’s safe injection site is very encouraging, particularly in the present political context. Overall, the direction of Canada’s policy toward illegal drugs is depressing and frustrating. We are choosing the emulate the country with the worst drug policy in the developed world – the United States. We are pursuing a hopeless policy of prohibition, while trying to shut down options with a better chance of success, such as those that seek to reduce the harm associated with addiction.

Politicians often choose to cater to the irrational fears and biases of the general population. Judges are a bit freer to consider the ethics and evidence that bear upon a situation. That seems to be what the Supreme Court has done in this case:

During its eight years of operation, Insite has been proven to save lives with no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada. The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

Hopefully, this ruling will prompt a broader rethink of how Canada deals with drugs that are currently prohibited.

Related:

‘Living with very accommodating family members’ not a recognized option

Voting in a provincial election seems to be a tricky thing, if you have no fixed address.

In a federal election, someone can vouch for you as a being a resident in a particular riding. In a provincial election in Ontario, you need paperwork showing an address – something I do not have yet, as my apartment search continues.

The election authority suggested trying to get a letter from the human resources people at work, but I doubt that will be possible before Thursday’s election.

Pedaler’s Wager photos

Thanks to the generosity of a fellow photographer, I had access to a MacBook Pro for a few hours tonight and I was able to process and upload my photos from the Clay and Paper Theatre Company’s 2011 summer show: The Pedaler’s Wager.

The show was very colourfully and professionally put on, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. At the same time, I think it may have glossed over some of the hardships of pre-industrial life and some of the benefits of the current global economy. While there are certainly many critical problems with it, and much that needs to be done to make it sustainable, I do think it serves important human needs and that those who are most critical of it are often those who benefit from constant access to its nicest features. That includes things like modern medicine, communication technology, and transport. It seems a misrepresentation to say that the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath have transported the average person from a blissful pastoral state into a situation of agonizing bondage.

Of course, the purpose of art is not to carefully express both sides of every argument. By provoking us to think in new ways, art can give us a better overall sense of context and an appreciation for important facts that were previously concealed.

Dewar letter regarding asbestos

Around Canada Day, I wrote a letter to Paul Dewar, my Member of Parliament, about Canada’s export of crysotile asbestos. It seemed classier than holding up a giant “Shame on Canada, Asbestos = Cancer” sign during the Royal Visit.

Today, I got a response setting out his position on the issue:

Any pro-asbestos residents of Ottawa Centre should start bombarding him with strongly worded letters immediately. I am curious what sort of response they would get; hopefully, the same statement of policy with an explanation of why Dewar disagrees with those who favour Canada’s current policy of asbestos support.

It’s good that he has staked his colours to the mast on the issue. Constituents who are concerned about the issue of asbestos should make sure he has voted along these lines the next time the issue arises in the House of Commons. By then, I expect, I will have a new MP (due to me moving).

Asbestos export is an issue I first raised here some time ago.

Harperland: The Politics of Control

Lawrence Martin’s 275-page account of the political life of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is useful reading for those who want to more fully understand how Canadian politics reached the arrangement it is now in, as well as those who wish to speculate more effectively about what the years ahead will involve. While Martin’s account is fairly hostile to Harper, the claims included within it are generally quite focused and backed by evidence. It is definitely written in the style of a journalist: opinionated, but with an awareness that everything will be fact checked. The book is packed with illuminating little details, from the way former Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion first arrived to work in Ottawa by bus to how the election-prompting decision to cut per-vote funding to political parties arrived was conveyed by unexpected BlackBerry message.

At times, Martin is sharply critical of Harper and the decisions of the Harper government. For instance, he objects strongly to the treatment of underage terrorist suspect Omar Khadr, the suppression of information on the torture of detainees in Afghanistan, as well as the fiscal record of the Conservative government. Martin argues that on many different policy files, the Harper government is driven by ideology and actively hostile to evidence. These include minimum sentences, drug policy, the long-form census, and others. The Harper government is also portrayed as obsessed with power for its own sake, rather than for the advancement of a well-articulated philosophy, as well as irrationally hostile to their political adversaries and those who disagree on policy grounds. In addition, the Harper government is portrayed as ignoring Canada’s constitutional conventions on matters like the supremacy of parliament, weakening government overall while strengthening the executive.

At many points, the book touches upon climate change and environmental topics. It probably won’t be too illuminating for people who have been following the file, but the details included strengthen the argument that the Harper government has largely seen climate change as a public relations problem to be managed, rather than a real-world issue of any importance to Canadians.

Written by someone who obviously has a great deal of personal experience with the various recent eras of Canadian politics, Harperland may be an especially worthwhile read for younger citizens who dimly remember the Chretien era that took place when they were children and who do not have any personal basis for comparing the recent Conservative governments to those earlier in Canadian history. The book also provides some personal details and character insights on Harper himself and those closely associated with him. It is interesting to read about how despair often precedes the re-emergence of resolution for him after a setback, or to have some examples of his documented vindictive streak provided. Matin quotes Charlie Angus in describing Harper’s “fundamental flaw” as “a mean streak, a level of viciousness that comes out”.

The book contains many references to the interactions between the political and bureaucratic sides of government, particularly on issues like access to information. There are also detailed accounts of the fates of various ministers and high-level advisors.

At times, Martin’s account is rather passionate – particularly concerning the near-emergence of a Liberal-NDP coalition. Particularly when describing this time period, the author seems to be shouting after-the-fact advice to journalists and the opposition. I haven’t been keeping track of his journalistic contributions elsewhere, so it is possible that he is simply re-asserting claims of his own that he feels have been vindicated by future events.

One thing that annoyed me a bit about the book is Martin’s habit of using ‘the West’ as a synonym for ‘Alberta’. It may look that way to someone who sees Ontario and Quebec as the centre of the political universe, but it looks awfully different from British Columbia.

Harperland does praise some successes of the Conservative government. In the ‘achievement log’ he places “the granting of nation status to the Quebecois, the apology to the Native peoples on residential schools, corporate tax reductions, the softwood lumber accord, and the Haitian earthquake rescue effort”. In the end, however, Martin’s verdict is fairly strongly negative:

As a strongman prime minister, [Harper] was beyond compare. He made previous alleged dictators like Jean Chretien look like welterweights. It was no small wonder that Canadians feared what he might do with a majority government. With that kind of power he could establish a hegemony the likes of which Canadians could not imagine.

Martin will have to provide an update in four years or so.

Ottawa’s Canada Day 2011

I am very skeptical of patriotism, generally. Very often in the past, people have done terrible things with that motivation and justification. All human beings are our kin,  national boundaries are arbitrary, and most wars start for bad reasons.

That said, there is something nice about being with people from all over Canada in the capital today. Whichever part of the landmass we are from, we have something in common that does have value. I think a lot of that value lies in the ethical traditions of Canada – traditions like fair elections, the responsible use of power, and the protection of the powerless. They also lie in institutions like the Charter and the Supreme Court. It is those substantive things that we ought to celebrate about Canada, while also recognizing our substantive faults. Aspects of our international reputation are badly tarnished, and there are groups domestically that deserve more protection than they are getting, not to mention those in future generations.

Our imperfections acknowledged, it seems OK to celebrate our commonalities. For instance, the ways in which the lives of Vancouverites are similar to those of Ottawans or Haligonians much more than you might guess, based on the distances between the places.

James Ron on loyalty in the civil service

James Ron, a former professor at Carleton University, has written an interesting piece on the situation faced by bureaucrats who personally object to the policies of the government of the day. It is an interesting read.

One major justification he leaves out is the view that while a particular policy might seem objectionable to the person thinking about it, they simultaneously see that policy as the product of a democratic system of decision-making that they endorse overall. I have written before on why this view is problematic, but it is nonetheless another way of squaring the circle Ron describes.

The end of the mail lockout

In the case of Canada Post, the use of back-to-work legislation to end the labour dispute seems inappropriate. Quite likely, it is a violation of the right to collective bargaining that the members of the union possess.

Losing postal service has not been a catastrophe. It definitely wasn’t too problematic before the management-initiated lockout. As such, the only serious disruption to service that has taken place has been the result of a management decision. Canada Post’s workers don’t deserve to be forced back to work through legislation because of that.

Blowout 2100

The overall aim of governments and political parties in North America an Europe at the moment seems to be serving the interests of people who are about 50 and at least fairly well off. Keep stock prices and house prices up, prop up failing banks and car companies, keep pumping fossil fuels, don’t worry about climate change or what future generations will use for energy. After all, the core supporters of the politicians (especially when it comes to all-important campaign cash) will probably be dead by the time the most serious effects of climate change are felt. The same goes for the people in high-level decision-making positions in government and industry today.

It seems that future generations will have good cause to hate us. We have had climate change endlessly explained to us, with multiple convincing lines of evidence to back up the theory. We have been told what we need to do to stop it, but we have chosen to do nothing because we care about our short-term economic welfare more than anything else.

If that is the implicit attitude of the politics of today, it would be helpful if it was made explicit. “Vote for Party X for 30 or 40 more years of relative prosperity. After that, no promises.”