Nature and the city

As soon as I start to think about parks and conservation, I start to get all tangled up in guilt. Just about everything I’ve read this year that has discussed parks has raised this problem.

I suspect – or at least, I hope – that most of the people advocating for greater conservation in Canada are also wrestling with guilt, because setting aside land is not as simple as it sounds on paper.

Economic impact is an important problem, of course, especially in Canada, where there are still many towns based around a single industry, usually an extractive one. However, the questions about who can access designated parks, and what kinds of activity can be permitted in designated parks (leaving aside logging and mining, both of which are permitted in parks across this country), strikes me as more pernicious, because they are more forgettable. Nonetheless, the way we as a society answer those questions can have a major impact on how much land is protected, and where that land is, and how effective the protection is.

For example, I currently have access to a car, and the financial means to go camping a few times a year; it’s easy for me to visit Ontario’s parks (assuming my designated driver feels like roughing it for a bit, at least). I’m all for designating more lands strictly as parks, with restricted access for camping and hiking and no extractive industry. But I’m lucky, and it’s easy for me to forget that it’s a luxury to be able to agitate for more land to be set aside for me to pursue an activity I enjoy. If I didn’t have the financial means to consider leaving town for a weekend, and easy access to transportation, well, I doubt that it would be important to me whether or not there were public parks available.

Part of the answer to this is that we need to encourage people to think about the ecosystems that are around where they live. In this view, the David Dunlop Observatory lands should be understood to be as important as a place like High Park. Spaces that are in the middle of cities are always going to be more significantly impacted by human activity, but they can still serve as habitats and as nodes in a network of wildlife corridors; they can still be places where indigenous ecosystems can be preserved. The only difference between these two parks is that one is an official park and is not under threat, and one is owned by a developer, and the deer and birds do not pay rent.

It’s still important to agitate for strong protection of undeveloped wilderness, but I think that part of the answer to the problem of who is able to enjoy nature is to remember that nature is all around us, if we permit it to be. We need to petition for a policy to encourage large city parks with a range of natural habitats, linked wherever possible by greenbelts.

Filed under canada, environmental politics, policy | Comment (0)

The Pembina on carbon capture & sequestration

Yesterday, I spent quite a bit of time laying out my objections to Jeffrey Sachs’ views on the use of technical solutions to our ever-growing need for energy. His support for carbon capture and sequestration, in order to allow us to exploit energy sources like coal, is especially irritating. There are two main reasons for this. First, the technology is unproven and has some significant barriers (for example, where will we put all of those megatons of carbon?). Second, focusing on a technical solution that may or may not work can siphon resources away from actions that will be effective, such as reducing our energy needs by improving home heating efficiency.

However, it’s nice not to be alone in one’s opinions. Not surprisingly, the Pembina Institute has a section of their website devoted to CCS:

Canadian federal and provincial governments have high expectations for carbon capture and storage technology as a tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, key questions about carbon capture and storage have yet to be resolved.

The Pembina isn’t out and out against CCS, but they do acknowledge the problem of ensuring that we allocate adequate resources to other emissions reduction strategies.

The page is not new, but contains a wealth of material on the subject, with a focus on the Canadian context. Worth following for updates.

Filed under climate change, policy | Comment (0)

Let's all stop worrying and learn to love the Bloc.

Now that I’ve more or less stopped fuming over the proroguement of Parliament, I want to get down my thoughts about the Bloc Quebecois and the perception of their place in the coalition.

I don’t agree with the Bloc’s goal of sovreignty for Quebec, and I think the Bloc is incorrect in their argument that sovreignty will improve the situation of the the Quebecois both on the world stage and in North America. I think that despite the intense regionalism across Canada, most of our individual regions are stronger together than they are separately.

This is illustrated particularly strongly in some of the Bloc’s campaign material. In this pamphlet (PDF), for example, although every section ends with a declaration that things would be better in a sovereign Quebec, the platform consists almost entirely of asking for federal funding from Ottawa while demanding that Ottawa allow Quebec greater freedom to chart its own path.

Demanding a raise of federal transfers for post-secondary education (college and university) and social programs of 2.75 billion $ over three years for Quebec.

…

Continuing to demand the abolition of loopholes in the income tax system allowing Canadian businesses to pay less than they should by settling in Barbados, a tax haven.

…

Becoming the relay to the federal government of the initiatives coming from within that are common ground in Quebec’s regions.

Despite their advocacy of Quebec sovreignty, it’s pretty clear that the Bloc Quebecois is now essentially a regional party, dedicated to promoting their province at the federal level. This can be grating for the rest of Canada when it seems as though the Bloc is arguing that Quebec is special and the rest of us are not, but it is hardly treasonous, particularly when the requirements for separation from the country are now written into law.

But by insisting that any government which is supported by the Bloc officially is of necessity illegitimate, the Conservatives are not just reopening a painful debate about whether or not Quebec should separate. They are arguing that a party with a great deal of support within Quebec, and strong representation in the House of Commons, essentially does not count because of their sovreignist platform. It cannot be repeated enough that support for sovreignty is not illegal, and is not illegitimate. I may not like that platform, but I don’t think that calling the Bloc the devil is going to lure its supporters to me. I think that it’s quite likely that the Bloc will actually be strengthened in the next election by the not unjustified feeling that the rest of Canada is ganging up on Quebec and discounting the status of their elected representatives. This will make it hard for any party to gain a majority in Parliament, and makes it all the more important for politicians to take the long view and remember that they will be working together for the foreseeable future.

As a group, we Canadians need to work harder on reaching across our regional and linguistic divides. I dislike the Bloc’s intense regionalism because it works to strengthen those divides. I would argue that the solution is for our members of Parliament to acknowledge the importance of regional advocacy and to recognize that we have many common fears and hopes across regions as well.

I’ll end by saying that, as an anglophone, my knowledge of Quebec is obviously limited; I’ve visited the province but do not live there. I speak French more or less fluently, and attended French immersion schools, but my analysis of the situation vis-a-vis the Bloc and their position in the House of Commons is coming from the outside. For a position quite different from mine, one could check out this post by AngryFrenchGuy, which argues that Gilles Duceppe is going to be hurt by his willingness to sign on with the NDP and the Liberals. I’m not convinced, particularly after the way Quebec voters perceived the arts funding cuts in the previous election, but his post raises a valid point.

Filed under canada, politics, quebec | Comment (0)

Bad, bad, bad decision.

I have some thoughts concerning the Bloc Quebecois and their position in the House of Commons, and I began a post about them. However, five minutes after I started to write, I discovered that Governor General Michaelle Jean had concluded her meeting with Stephen Harper.

Unfortunately, she made the wrong decision, and allowed Harper to prorogue Parliament until January.

This is not a good precedent.

Harper and the Conservatives will proceed to use the next two months to vilify the Opposition, to launch ad after ad arguing that the coalition cannot lead Canada, and almost certainly pour gasoline on the national unity issue by emphasizing the fact that the Liberals and NDP made a deal with the Bloc. Meanwhile, Harper can pretend that he has not, as is obviously the case, lost the confidence of the House. Once Parliament reconvenes, it will be clear that Harper can avoid any confidence votes he believes his government will lose by appealing to the GG for a prorogue. Jean has given Harper carte blanche to govern as if he has a majority and she has gutted the ability of the Opposition to hold the government accountable by defeating confidence motions.

I think that the Opposition’s chances for an effective government were slim. I had little confidence in Dion’s ability to lead it. Furthermore, I’m fairly sure that even if, as it appears, they will not be allowed to form a government, the Liberals and NDP will suffer in the next election (though I suspect the Bloc will be strengthened). I wouldn’t like to see a Conservative majority, and I think that will be the likely result of the next election. Another election would still have been a better decision than a prorogue. Our system should not allow a do-over in the face of impending defeat.

Filed under canada, politics | Comment (0)

Canada: Living in interesting times

Seems like the Liberals, along with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, have really and truly agreed on a deal to form a coalition government in the event that Harper’s Conservative government falls, and right now that looks astonishingly likely. (Though Andrew Steele of the Globe & Mail outlines some other possibilities.) I’d about resigned myself to at least another year or so of this government, and then a nasty fight that might well have led to a Conservative majority, so this is a very interesting surprise.

I’m not convinced that the end result won’t eventually be a Conservative majority anyway – although perhaps not with Stephen Harper as leader – but a shake-up in our Parliament is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially as many Canadians (e.g., those who are commenting on this CBC story) seem to need a reminder that we live in a Parliamentary democracy, and that our electoral system does not match that of the US (see, oddly, a Making Light post for an excellent and logical explanation of how elections are called in Canada; see also this rundown of the options of the Governor General). The people who are loudly declaiming that the request to form a coalition represents an attempt to seize power in a coup d’etat by the opposition parties in particular need this reminder.

I like the idea of a coalition government far, far more than I like the idea of having the Liberals and NDP form a united party, because I think that having a broad array of political positions represented in government and in Parliament is preferable to gradually narrowing the options for voters. However, unless the coalition does a truly phenomenal job of governing, and keeps the BQ onside without making major concessions to Quebec, both the Liberals and the NDP may be in trouble when the next election rolls around. If things have not improved, and particularly if there has been a worsening in the economic situation, they’re going to take the blame and I think it’s going to be greatly exacerbated by the way they took power. The formation of a viable alternative government given a loss of confidence in the existing government is entirely permissible in our system, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the alternative government will enjoy public legitimacy. The fact that under a coalition government, the Prime Minister would essentially be a caretaker until May, and that the new PM would almost certainly be either Ignatieff or Rae, both of whom would be problematic, would increase the perception of illegitimacy.

At this point, I believe that things have gone too far for there to be any option except the formation of a new government, an election, or Harper’s resignation as leader of the Conservatives. The opposition would destroy itself if it backed down now without any changes in the current government, regardless of whether or not it gets public funding. And I don’t believe that anyone wants another election, particularly if the results would be essentially the same. I could live with Harper’s resignation if there were somebody reasonable to replace him; the problem is that I’m not sure that there is. I certainly do not want to see Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement, or Chuck Strahl (though I doubt he’s a serious contender, I’ve seen his name suggested) as Prime Minister. In any case, this would be contingent on Harper stepping down; so far, he has not indicated that he will.

A coalition seems like it’s the best option right now, and barring major changes, the most likely outcome, but the long term prospects for a Liberal-NDP coalition are unsettling.

Filed under canada, politics | Comment (0)

Thinking about Detroit

I just discovered the blog Sweet Juniper, and a powerful photo essay about Detroit, via Obsidian Wings.

Perhaps the foremost thought I had in reading this article was about what will happen next to this neighbourhood, and others like it.

Many people (at least on the Toronto Star’s somewhat regrettable comments pages) have responded to the request of the big North American auto makers for government help to get through the current recession (depression? slowdown?) with variants of “let them fail, they’re not producing what people want”, “it’s all the fault of the unions and their greed”, and so on. I like to think that I’ve avoided the union-bashing response, but I know I’ve had the occasional Schadenfreude moment at the thought that big, gas-guzzling, noisy cars might someday stop running.

I certainly don’t think that an open-ended handout to the auto industry is an appropriate response, but at the same time, I don’t want to see Oshawa or London or Windsor look like Detroit, as depicted in the photos of an abandoned school. These cities may need to change – they do need to change – but as a society, Ontario and Canada as a whole need to ensure that change happens in a controlled way. Continue reading »

Filed under economy and environment, politics | Comment (0)

Liberals, please reconsider your leadership candidates.

The election on 14 October 2008 was probably the most devastating for the Liberal Party of Canada in my lifetime. This has necessarily prompted a great deal of thought within the party about what to do next and how to revitalize the party base, starting with electing a new leader. Unfortunately, the Liberals are starting wrong. (Disclaimer: I’m a member of the Green Party of Canada, and the Liberals are, of course, a rival party. However, since the GPC is not going to be forming a government any time soon, and I for one am not looking forward to a Conservative majority under Stephen Harper, I would appreciate it if the Liberals could form a credible opposition.)

I don’t think that either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae are bad guys at all. (I don’t imagine Dominic LeBlanc is, either, but I don’t anticipate another surprise leader.) That said, neither one is a good choice for leader. Both of them come prepared with baggage for the Conservatives to attack, and neither really offers much to the Canadian electorate to offset that handicap.

Rae, although his profile in the media suggests that he’s recovered somewhat from his period as Ontario’s NDP premier, is still strongly associated with the recession of the early 90s. All the Conservatives will have to do is say “Remember Rae days?” and watch their numbers soar in the polls, especially with the current economic climate. This isn’t necessarily fair; Rae certainly didn’t cause that recession, and he clearly tried to deal with it without making things harder for people. But that isn’t going to matter. In terms of what he offers, Rae has a long career in public service, and has been the foreign affairs critic since the 2006 elections. However, his work on an education commission and dispute-resolution hasn’t caught much attention, and he doesn’t seem to have sponsored any legislation of his own since becoming an MP. Where does Rae think the country should go? Why should he be running for leader of one of the major parties if he hasn’t already articulated this vision? If he wins, why should Canadians favour his party? It has been obvious for some time now that the Liberal party needs to redirect itself; electing a leader who hasn’t yet expressed what that direction should be, and who is widely disliked in one of the most populous provinces, seems like a bad idea.

Ignatieff, unlike Rae, has very little Parliamentary baggage; he was elected to office for the first time in 2006. He also does not appear to have sponsored any legislation in that time, although he does have a stated position on the economy, the environment, Canada’s role in the world, immigration, and aboriginal issues. However, most of those positions are a statement of what is currently wrong and how things should be, without any statements about how we get there. Say what you will about Stephane Dion‘s carbon tax policy (I note, no longer available from the Liberal website), and his inability to convince Canadians that it is a good idea, at least he stood up and offered a clear solution (even if it isn’t an original idea!) to a major problem. Ignatieff has not done so any more than Rae has, and that is what the Liberals need to shift direction. Besides having relatively little political experience, though Ignatieff is obviously very intelligent, he is also going to be held up as an example of Liberal elitism if he wins. After being out of the country for two decades, he returns and is parachuted into his Etobicoke riding, and a mere two years later he expects to lead the party. The Conservatives will ask, what has he done in his public life in Canada? Why should you vote for a man who didn’t even fight to win his nomination on the ground in his riding, but was offered it by the party leadership?

Stephen Harper has more than enough advantages, given the fact that the Liberals cannot credibly threaten to topple the government until their new leader is elected in May. Rae and Ignatieff do have five months to prove me wrong about them, but I don’t expect that the Conservatives will sit still and wait for one of them to win before they start mounting the attacks. What the Liberal base really needs to do right now is sit down and talk about policy. Rae and Ignatieff both need to start putting out clear proposals for what they want to do and how, and they need to start doing it now. They need to start pushing for the laws that they want in the Commons, and they need to start the dialogue with the party rank-and-file on what kind of party the Liberals should be.

Filed under politics | Tags: canada, politics | Comment (0)