Rediscovering Democracy

Since I became eligible to vote many years ago, I have participated in every federal, provincial and municipal election that has been called. Even though it has become something of a cliché, the assertion that voting is a sacred duty has never been far from my mind.

And yet, for all of that, up to a few months ago, I was seriously considering doing something I had never done before: going to the polling station and officially declining my ballot. In that contemplation, I felt a righteous justification.

Why did I consider that option? First of all, of course, the Progressive Conservatives were never a consideration. Just like those who are gun-shy about the NDP after Bob Rae's Ontario premiership, I have never forgiven nor forgotten the depredations of the Harris years, an era when government sought to pit citizen against citizen, stigmatizing people according to socio-economic status and drastically cutting funding for an array of programs, an experience from which we have never fully recovered. And of course, there was the bone-headed move by these self-proclaimed fiscal masters of selling a 99-year lease on the lucrative highway 407 for a mere pittance.

Kathleen Wynne's Liberals were off my radar, having betrayed all Ontarians by the majority sell-off of Hydro One, the publicly-owned power transmission utility. Her justification? To broaden ownership and raise cash for green infrastructure, all without raising taxes. Of course, the first billion dollars was used to eliminate the government's deficit. Currently the government receives about one-third of the revenue from Hydro One it was receiving before privatization, and estimates are for the loss of billions over the longer-term, billions that government can ill-afford to surrender.

So that left the NDP for me to consider, and for the longest time I discounted offering them my support. The last election was triggered by Andrea Horwath's greed for power, despite the fact that the party held the balance of power over a minority Liberal government. And Horwath ran a campaign where the term small businesses was uttered regularly to the exclusion, if memory serves me, of any reference to the working class or working folks (the latter term seeming to have become part of today's political nomenclature). The closer they thought they were to power, the more to the right they tilted, the same error Thomas Mulcair made in the last federal election.

So prospects for voting seemed dim. What changed my mind? It was this column by the Star's Martin Regg Cohn, a journalist for whom I have a great deal of regard. Written at the end of February, it was a piece lamenting the increasingly low turnout in Ontario elections, a trend he sees as a real threat to democracy:

In the last two elections, barely half of Ontarians bothered to cast a ballot — an embarrassing 48 per cent voted in 2011, and a dispiriting 51 per cent turned out in 2014.

They were the worst showings by civic no-shows in our democratic history. And far worse turnouts than in any other provincial or federal election ever.

With the next election coming in roughly 100 days, Ontario’s democratic deficit is creating a crisis of confidence that no party can solve alone. No matter who wins on June 7, the worsening turnouts will prove a losing proposition for everyone — the politicians and the people.

This downward spiral undermines the very assumptions upon which democracy is based:

More than six in 10 Ontarians (62 per cent) believe that “the legitimacy of the government is called into question” if less than a majority of eligible votes are cast in a general election, according to the polling by Campaign Research.

I hope you will read Cohn's entire piece, plus other articles he has written within the past year on democracy. Simply go to the search function on The Star website and put in his name.

In closing, I cite his final sentence in the above-referenced article:

Democracy is an opportunity. Which is why a vote is a terrible thing to waste.

The "Perils" Of Socialism

If you have a few minutes, check out the following video. Enlightened, witty and amusing, its message will, of course, be lost on many citizens of the Benighted States of America, as well as those most peculiar denizens of that entity known as "Ford Nation."

UPDATED: What The Fossil Fuel Industry (And People Like Justin Trudeau) Want To Keep You In The Dark About

Methinks most of us can all use a bit of good news.



UPDATE: For an interesting answer to those who claim that renewable energy cannot be relied upon in all situations, take a look at this article.

Those Star Letter-Writers

They never disappoint. They can spot a shyster a mile away.

It’s sad that Doug Ford’s solution to the high cost of gas is to reduce the gas tax. A much better solution would be to incent people to not buy the largest, heaviest and most powerful SUV they can afford. When I switched from a turbo Volvo wagon to a Toyota hybrid, my gas bills dropped by 60 per cent. But what else could we expect from someone who bought his brother a Cadillac Escalade. It doesn’t get any less environmentally friendly than that.

Michael Yaffe, Toronto

Doug Ford’s policy on gasoline shows that he doesn’t care about the environment. Reducing the price of gasoline will only make air pollution worse, as people who are buying more gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks will consume more fuel.

Rene Ebacher, Toronto

PC Leader Doug Ford claims to be upset with the excessive compensation being paid to board members and executives at Hydro One. However, he also vows to cut the corporate tax rate by 8.7 per cent. Who does he think will benefit from this corporate windfall? No doubt already highly paid corporate executives will receive a big slice of it. And who does he think will have to pay more to make up for the loss of tax revenue? No doubt many of the taxpayers he pretends to be looking out for. What a hypocrite.

Peter Bird, Toronto

... Contrary to Ms. Horwath’s posturing, the NDP and Liberals could, and should, find many points of agreement on a plan to govern if the opportunity presents itself. It is only being fair to the majority of Ontario voters to have confidence that such an outcome is indeed possible and would be chosen when and if the election results permit it.

Back in 1985, the Liberals and NDP agreed to a legislative accord when the Tories had the most seats but not a majority. Ontario was well served by this arrangement and it may well be needed again. The very notion and real possibility of a Doug Ford government should be sufficient reason for any progressive person to not pre-emptively and arbitrarily rule out this option.

Simon Rosenblum, Toronto

Setting The Record Straight

Robert Reich is one of America's true heroes. He seems indefatigable in his efforts to educate the American public as a counter to the lies and distortions of Donald Trump. Given the prodigious challenges involved in bringing people toward the light, I have no idea where he gets either his resolve or his energy.

The following is but one example of his work:

Trump's vile attacks against immigrants are as dumb as they are racist and xenophobic. The truth is new immigrants strengthen our communities, contribute to the economy and pay billions in taxes. We must not allow Trump's bigotry to go unchallenged. pic.twitter.com/0LzN8UIjXR

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) May 17, 2018

See Doug. See Doug Run.

Bullies, con artists and cowards all have something in common: they live in fear that they will be exposed for what they are - weak, manipulative people who try to mask their massive inadequacies through bluster, empty rhetoric and false bravado. That Doug Ford, leader of the Ontario PCs, seems to epitomize these traits is becoming increasingly evident to those who care to open their eyes rather than respond like the Pavlovian dogs his kind prefer.

How else to explain the muzzle that has apparently been placed on so many PC candidates in the run up to June 7?

More than 20 PC candidates have skipped debates since the beginning of the provincial election campaign, a trend that recalls similar absenteeism among federal Conservative candidates under Stephen Harper. Candidates from other Ontario parties, meanwhile, have been far more likely to show up.

Consider these few examples of candidate muzzling/cowardice:

Meredith Cartwright, the Toronto Centre candidate who hired actors to pose as Ford supporters at a leadership debate, was a no-show at an all-candidates’ meeting in Corktown on Tuesday that was attended by the Liberal, NDP and Green party candidates ... She has not spoken publicly since the crowd-for-hire controversy erupted.

PC candidates skipped four separate debates held this week in Scarborough, including Gary Ellis in Scarborough Southwest, who claimed a long-standing prior commitment; Sarah Mallo in East York; Christine Hogarth in Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Vijay Thanigasalam in Scarborough Rouge-Park, who cancelled the day of the event, according to an organizer.

Four out of five PC candidates did not participate in public debates held by the Brampton Board of Trade on May 11, and three of them cancelled on the same day.

What does party central have to say about these no-shows?

Ford spokesperson Melissa Lantsman declined to confirm or deny.

“We work with candidates to ensure they are effective in their voter outreach, be it phone calls, door knocking or debates,” she said.

If you would like a fuller sense that the PCs are fearful and in hiding, check out PressPrgress, which details 23 MIA PC candidates.

This kind of shielding of candidates from the voters is nothing new, of course. Along with limited access to the leader, it is the same cowardly tactic employed under Stephen Harper, whose contempt for the press was legendary.

It is a contempt that does not sit well with the tenets of democracy:

This is not how our parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, says Duff Conacher, director of Democracy Watch. “Any campaign that tries to control access and control the message is a campaign that is hurting the voters’ right to choose the person they really want to represent them,” he said.

Doug Ford wants you. He is, after all, for the people. Of course he is, as long as they are kept ignorant about anything that might challenge his overblown rhetoric and his increasingly tattered credibility.

Setting The Record Straight

In theory, this primer should cut through climate-change denialism. In practice, of course, it will do no such thing. Conspiracy theories, junk science and muddled thinking, after all, are so much easier to spout.

Your Neo-liberal Government At Work

Included in the Trudeau sellout is the following:

- Prepared to indemnify the project from any financial loss;

-Is willing to offer this financial security to any company who wants to build the pipeline, should Kinder Morgan back out;

-and, the financial backing must be fair, and beneficial to Canadians.

"If Kinder Morgan isn’t interested in building the project we think plenty of investors would be interested in taking on this project, especially knowing that the federal government believes it is in the best interest of Canadians and is willing to provide indemnity to make sure that it gets done," Morneau said, noting that he is “confident” an agreement will be made.

If you aren't outraged yet, I suggest you check your vital signs.

In Case You Were Wondering

Can Anyone Imagine Such A Speech In Our House Of Commons?

There must be an independent investigation of the Gaza massacre, and those responsible must be held to account. My Commons statement today: pic.twitter.com/ig7c3bXg0j

— Emily Thornberry (@EmilyThornberry) May 15, 2018

In a similar vein, this seems an appropriate description of the atrocity:

GENEVA (Reuters) - Israel’s use of force against protesters at the Gaza border fence is akin to “an eye for an eyelash” and may amount to a war crime, Michael Lynk, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory said in a statement on Tuesday.

“This blatant excessive use of force by Israel – an eye for an eyelash – must end, and there must be true accountability for those in military and political command who have ordered or allowed this force to be once again employed at the Gaza fence,” said Lynk, an independent expert who reports to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Trudeau and the gang can whistle all they want past the graveyard that Gaza is quickly becoming, but his cowardly lack of leadership is being duly noted.

How Self-Aware Are We, Really?

My cynicism is never far from the surface, but during election campaigns, it is front and centre. For me, those are times in which my faith and belief in my fellow human beings are sorely tested. And believe me, I do not exclude myself in my darker deliberations about our nature.

For the past few days, I have been reflecting upon self-awareness, which evolutionary pathways defines as the following:

Self awareness basically describes a situation where the light of awareness is turned onto ourselves. While awareness is our ability to take note; self-awareness is our ability to take note of ourselves.

When we turn our awareness to shine on ourselves, we may become conscious of a great deal of internal activity. We may notice specific thoughts or thought patterns. We may notice particular emotions or flows of energy. We may awaken to physiological processes happening in our body such as heartbeat, heat, sweating. We may notice intuitions or gut feelings.

Awareness, on the other hand, is this:

Simply put, awareness is our capacity to notice things. We may be aware of the time or aware of a particular situation - we may notice that we are late or that someone is watching us. Being aware of such things means we have taken note of them.

All of which leads me to think that many of us are merely aware, a condition traditionally attributed to lower animal forms. The inability to reflect means there is no possibility of positive change. Only by being able to rise above ourselves and recognize others as important components of existence can anything substantive be accomplished.

Where is this leading to? How about a screed against that thing called "Ford Nation'? Touted by Doug Ford as 'for the people'or 'for the little guy.' they are people to whom the bromide of new efficiencies, tax cuts and better service appeal. They are people who, apparently caught in a solipsistic feedback loop, seek to impose their view of reality on all. How else to explain their rowdy support for people like PC London West candidate Andrew Lawton?

A longtime radio host and blogger whom Ford chose to be the Progressive Conservative candidate in London West, Lawton used his platforms from 2010 to 2015 in ways opponents say disparaged the disabled, homosexuals, Muslims and the mentally infirm, among others.

He now attributes those denigrations to mental illness.

As someone well-familiar with depression, I can tell you that mental illness is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, just as drunkenness is hardly the genesis for racist screeds.

Here are some of the things Lawton said when "he wasn't in his right mind."

-In 2015, Lawton responded to a poll that found homophobia was a concern for London’s gay community, writing on Facebook, “Number of sexual orientation-motivated hate crimes in Canada per year: 185. Number of HIV/AIDS infections from men (who) have sex with men in Canada per year: 1,450. Who is the real enemy?’

-Accused of mocking the deaf on his show in 2015, he tweeted, “I don’t think anyone impacted heard the segment.”

-In a 2010 podcast, when his guest, flame-throwing conservative Ann Coulter, said of censorship, “It’s sad to see ‘retard’ go, but at least we have ‘negro,’ ” Lawton laughed and said, “Yeah. Exactly.”

-A screen grab of an apparent Lawton tweet from October 2011: “An immigrant, a Muslim and a communist walk into a bar. The bartender says ‘Hello Mr. President’”

-A screen grab from an apparent Lawton tweet in November 2011: “I left the Anglican church when they made the decision to allow gay marriage.”

-A screen grab of a Lawton tweet in July 2011: “The official internet code for gay sex is ‘ENTER : ###’ (sound it out)”

There is yet another dandy of a Ford candidate running in Kanata-Carleton, Dr. Merrilee Fullerton:

According to her website, Fullerton is a doctor who stands for “values of responsibility, compassion, integrity and accountability.”

A look at her past writings provides some guidance regarding these values. A tweet in November 2015 pulled out a quote from a story on Islamic radicalism: “Usually it is not the first generation (of refugees or immigrants) that is the most dangerous, it’s the second.”

Before that was a tweet referencing Breitbart News exhorting people to watch a march by thousands of supporters of the anti-Islam group PEGIDA in Dresden, Germany.

Another tweet reads: “the ghetto.” And it goes on to define that as “home to almost 20,000 immigrants, overwhelmingly Muslim, almost half of them jobless.” This tweet, which appears to refer to the Rosengard housing scheme in Sweden, is taken out of context from a story in the Guardian five years prior about a Swedish backlash against immigration.

In others tweets, she rails against a “wear-a-hijab” day in Ottawa in 2016.

Not surprisingly, those endearing tweets by the good doctor no longer exist.

So, to end where I began, there are questions one can ask about voters who are attracted to such candidates:

Do they believe that by electing a Lawton or a Fullerton, they will be advancing anything other than hatred and racism? Are those the values that define them?

Do they believe that having such people in the legislature will somehow send gays scurrying back into the shadows, and that Muslims will be put on notice that they are under suspicion and surveillance and thus be recognized for the 'threat' they pose to all 'good Christians'?

Do they believe electing such miscreants will lead to a new world order that will reflect their 'values'?

Those are but a few questions one could ask of a benighted group of people who do not even seem to be making an effort to achieve true self-awareness.

Of course, to them, any criticism I or others make simply means we are part of the 'elites.' But then again, why would I care what they think?

Truth In Advertising

I don't know why, but I find something extraordinarily appealing about this campaign. The cynicism it has engendered, however, is sad.

This Should Make Us Cringe

Yes, unfortunately this is the face of Canada too.

The woman identified by Lethbridge News Now as Kelly Pocha from Cranbrook, B.C., told the news site the men “were kind of talking to each other in their own language and then they all started laughing at me.”

“We were speaking in our own language,” Omerzai tells me. “Talking about ... playing video games. And some parts were funny, so we were laughing. This lady looked at us two or three times. My friend was sitting across from me. I did not see him glare at her. She thought we were talking about her and that’s how the whole thing exploded.”

Lethbridge News reports:

On his personal Facebook page, Lethbridge Mayor Chris Spearman writes, “I am embarrassed to learn that this incident happened in Lethbridge. We are working hard to address racism and bigotry but can not prevent ignorance and the hostile behaviour of individuals. Most Lethbridge citizens are proud of our reputation as a city that welcomes immigrants and refugees."

Dodge Chrysler in Cranbrook, B.C. has now posted a message to its site, indicating that Pocha is no longer employed there. Here is the statement in full:

"We have recently become aware of a disturbing video that involves one of our employees. We are deeply concerned about the content of this video and want all of our friends, families, colleagues, and customers to know that this behaviour does not reflect the values of Cranbrook Dodge in any way. We strive to be a welcoming and inclusive company with no room for hate or intolerance.

The employee in question has been terminated and we deeply apologize for her actions.

It is chastening but probably ultimately good to be periodically reminded that we, as Canadians, shouldn't be so smug when we decry racism to the south of us, eh?

Much To Scream About

Edvard Munch had it right:



Toronto Star letter-writers tell us why:

Tues., May 8, 2018
Earth’s carbon dioxide levels reach highest point in 800,000 years, May 5

The front page of the Sunday Star includes a large colour photo of the Raptors game and an article on left-handed hitters in baseball. It’s not until page four that we learn of Earth’s CO2 levels reaching a historic high. Is there really no one at the Star who understands the extent of the impending disaster facing global human civilization caused by the war against the biosphere in general, and climate change in particular? How might the public’s consciousness change if this were front-page news every day of the week, every month and every year?

Raphael Vigod, Toronto

If you are sure climate change has already begun, as I am, then you know how deep the denial of vested interests goes. Their denial is more about money probably than smarts, I bet. But they are playing with fire nonetheless. If Greenland were to melt the oceans would rise 20 feet and even worse if Antarctica were to melt ocean levels would rise another 200 feet. This would be unconscionable and simply cannot be allowed to happen in a logical world. The vested interests will not let go of their entrenched capitalist views. Even the oil companies such as Exxon and BP are currently being sued for rising sea levels. It is too late to change the trend toward CO2-caused climate instability, but that does not mean we cannot turn things around before the big melt.

Greg Prince, Toronto

Surely, An Idea Whose Time Has Come

I wonder what is stopping the wider propagation of this technology:

A Damning Documentary

Active Measures is the name of a new documentary about Donald Trump and his ties to the Russian mob. It is also a term used to describe a series of covert measures (Twitter examples of which you can find here) Russia uses to influence global policies. According to documentary-film maker Jack Bryan, Trump was the perfect vehicle for the latter.

Active Measures shows how foreign investments made by Russian oligarchs bolster the Kremlin's ambitions to exert influence in the west. The key is money laundering — the export of Russian wealth with the knowledge and approval of Putin.

In an interview with Day 6's Brent Bambury, which includes a podcast, Jack Bryan says that Russian money-laundering efforts with Trump go back to at least 1985:

"He sells three condos to a man named David Bogatin, who's a Russian mobster," Bryan says. "This is in Trump Tower. And the reason they did Trump Tower is that it was the second building in New York where a shell company could purchase a condominium. And so it makes it much more easy to launder dirty money."

When the fortunes of the self-described real-estate genius begin to falter, the Russians go for the kill:

"Once he loses out in Atlantic City, once he can't get a loan from a bank, that's when the Russian mafia says: 'We have an opportunity here,'" says Bryan.

That's when Trump becomes less of a partner for Russian mobsters and more of a mark.

Bryan's film alleges that Trump needed Russian mob money to reinvent himself after his disastrous string of bankruptcies. Without it, the film alleges, he would never have won the presidency.

"The Russians saved him. They rescued him. He would not have gotten back in business without them," journalist Craig Unger says in the film.

Essentially, as revealed in the following, the Russian mob is an arm of the Russian government:


Trump's bankruptcies multiplied; the Russians were presented with an unparalleled opportunity, and Bayrock Group moved into Trump Tower:

"Bayrock Group is a Russian real estate firm. The manager was this guy Felix Sater, and he is very connected to the Russian mafia," Bryan says.

Sater, a convicted felon, also has ties to Trump's recently fired attorney, Michael Cohen. Bryan says Cohen entered the Trump organization at the same time as Bayrock.

"Cohen is childhood friends with Felix Sater. They went on their first date together," Bryan says. "They did a lot of business together."

Bayrock operated from offices two floors below Trump's and partnered with him on a wide variety of real estate deals from 2002 to 2011. Bryan says Bayrock likely didn't see Trump as a political player or a potential president. They saw him as a shield.

"I think, at that point, they're seeing him as: he's a really famous guy and it's great cover because nobody's going to question a lot of money going into the Trump organization. And they knew that he needed the money. And also they knew he's really litigious. And so it would be really hard to go after him. And I think that he just became this sort of perfect place to stash money."

Through this period, Sater remained in contact with his old friend Michael Cohen. A series of emails between the two, written during the campaign, appeared last year in the New York Times.

The FBI raided Michael Cohen's office and home on April 9th. Bryan says it could mark turning point in the investigation of the president.

Al Capone was ultimately imprisoned due to tax evasion.The noose around Trump is tightening, and he may well go down, not for campaign collusion with the Russians, but for the more prosaic crime of money laundering.

And given what he knows, Michael Cohen should be very, very careful of what he eats and drinks well into the future.

Will We Ignore The Evidence Until The End?

Yesterday, Southern Ontario saw some pretty wild weather, with winds reaching 110 km per hour. Power outages were widespread, trees were felled at an alarming rate, Pearson Airport had to shut down, and at least two people lost their lives. I have not yet checked my roof for damage.

Meanwhile, in New Brunswick, flooding continues.

I do wonder, as these events become increasingly frequent, and it dawns on even the dimmest among us that we are screwed, how people will react. Will some continue to party like there is no tomorrow? (In that, their predictive capacity will likely be proven right.) Will others fall on their knees, seeking a deus ex machina deliverance from their tribulations? Will some get angry and ask why no one did anything to prevent this? Or will some look in the mirror and see a rueful but knowing image staring back at them?

I fear that far too soon, we will know the answers.

Aerial Porcine Presence Reported

Must be true, since Fox is now criticizing Trump:

Catch Neil's latest Common Sense pic.twitter.com/JdGCX4WmjF

— Neil Cavuto (@TeamCavuto) May 3, 2018

For All Those Who Consume Their News Online (And Free)

Here is the price journalists pay.

Can A Giant Ferris Wheel (Or Something Even More Grand) Be Far Behind?

These must be heady times indeed for those visionaries amongst us who, when they look at hectares upon hectares of greenspace, farmland, etc. see massive value-added opportunities for another kind of green, the kind salivated over by developers. One man, the putative next premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, is leading the charge:



As revealed in the above, Dougie is taking his direction from some of the country's biggest developers, the ones who see little value in preserving farmland, despite its necessity given the wild gyrations climate change is already imposing on food production everywhere. Cash in the hand, it would seem, trumps stewardship of the land.

As reported in The Star, Ford

said the 800,000-hectare swath of environmentally sensitive and agricultural land known as the Greenbelt is “just farmer fields.”

“It’s right beside a community. We need to open that up and create a larger supply,” he said, noting that will lead to “price drops” in housing in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.

Note how the demagogic leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is couching his plan in the usual cant of his ilk: it is for the people and will lower housing costs.

“I support the Greenbelt in a big way. Anything we may look at to reduce housing costs — because everyone knows housing costs (are) through the roof and there’s no more property available to build housing in Toronto or the GTA — it will be replaced,” he said.

“Anything that we will look at on the Greenbelt will be replaced, so there will still be an equal amount of Greenbelt.”

It was unclear how Ford could expand the Greenbelt if the preserved land is paved over for development.

Details, mere details.

Ford's logic doesn't fly upon closer scrutiny:

Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, said “the Greenbelt does not constrain housing supply or cause high house prices.”

“Municipal data shows that there is enough land available to provide for housing development within existing Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area urban boundaries until 2031,” said Gray.

“There are also abundant lands outside of towns and cities that are not within the Greenbelt that could be available for expansion after that date.”

Ontario Housing Minister recalls his time on Toronto city council when Ford had another 'grand idea':

as a city councillor when his late brother Rob Ford was mayor, the Tory leader wanted to redevelop Toronto’s port lands and build a massive Ferris wheel.

Now that he is poised to become the next premier, perhaps Mr. Ford will dare to dream even bigger:



All of which serves to remind me of something else: democracy is a fine system of government, as long as the people are paying attention to something more than the rambling, disingenuous rhetoric of hucksters.

Blood On Our Hands

As Canadians, we like to walk around feeling good about ourselves, convinced both of our good intentions and our innate rectitude. Ours is a generally peaceful society, the rule of law largely respected. We look to the violent domestic madness that is an undeniable part of the U.S., and we cannot help but feel smug. We fancy ourselves exemplars for the world, and nod knowingly when someone like Obama or Bono says that the world needs more Canada.

Sadly, there is a another, much darker truth about Canada that few acknowledge. We are merchants of death.



Our hypocrisy is not escaping notice:

When Global Affairs Canada announced another aid package to war-torn Yemen in January, it boasted that Ottawa had given a total of $65 million to help ease what the United Nations has called “the worst man-made humanitarian crisis of our time.”

What Justin Trudeau’s government did not mention in its news release is that since 2015, Canada has also approved more than $284 million in exports of Canadian weapons and military goods to the countries bombing Yemen.

“It’s a bit like helping pay for somebody’s crutches after you’ve helped break their legs,” said Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, a research and advocacy organization that studies Canada’s arms trade.

To whom is Canada selling these weapons? There is, of course, the much-publicized deal with Saudi Arabia, the leader in the coalition against Yemani insurgents.

The Star calculated Canada’s arms exports since 2015 to all of the countries in the Saudi coalition involved in Yemen’s war, as disclosed in Global Affairs’ annual report on Canadian exports of military goods. The bulk of the trade is with Saudi Arabia, to which Canada sold more than $240 million worth of weapons and other military goods in 2015 and 2016 — mostly combat vehicles, but also guns, training gear, bombs, rockets or missiles, drones and unspecified chemical or biological agents, which could include riot control agents.

The original deal with the Saudis, brokered by the Harper government and endorsed by Justin Trudeau's Liberals, is all about jobs, which the government clearly believes trumps the loss of innocent lives:

A $14.8-billion sale of Canadian-made armoured combat vehicles to Saudi Arabia — negotiated by the Conservative government in 2014 but given final approval by the Liberals — will reportedly provide work for about 3,000 people for 14 years in southern Ontario, where manufacturer General Dynamics Land Systems–Canada is a major employer.

While our government continues to express concerns about weapons misuse, they give no indication of how they are monitoring things, which of course suggests they aren't.

The United States and United Kingdom are also arming Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners, but they, and Canada, are increasingly isolated in their position. The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution in 2016 calling on all member states to enforce an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia for its role in Yemen. The Netherlands was first to take up the call. Finland and Norway have since stopped selling weapons to the United Arab Emirates. Earlier this year, Germany declared an end to arms sales to all parties involved in Yemen’s war.

Trudeau’s government has suggested no such ban, despite expressing “deep concern” over reports of Saudi abuses. Ottawa’s official position is that it will stop the export of military goods if there is a “reasonable risk” of human rights abuses. What that has meant, in practice, is that even when a country has a demonstrably poor record on human rights, unless there is definitive evidence Canadian weapons were used to commit human rights abuses, Canada is open to their business.

There is a great deal more to this story, which I encourage you to read at The Star.

Canada is in the killing business. Unless and until Canadians come to understand that fact, expect much, much more blood to flow.

Full Of Sound And Fury

... signifying nothing.

So says Macbeth about life in Act V Scene 5 of Shakespeare's eponymous tragedy. He might also have been talking about the 'policies' of the Justin Trudeau government.

Watching Global News last night, I was struck by the sheer lack of substance so apparent in the Liberals' almost three years in office. Here is the story that prompted my ruminations:



To listen to Catherine McKenna and the mainstream media, one might infer that the federal government is "acting in the national interest" and with boldness in its carbon-pricing scheme, and that all is well with the world. Of course, if one is refuses to embrace such willful ignorance, one understands how dire climate change has become, and that no piddling carbon tax, which affects no one's fossil-fuel-consumption habits, is going to change the destructive trajectory we are on.

And of the Liberals' contradictory, hypocritical push for pipeline expansion and greater bitumen production, I will not even speak.

Human beings need direction and leadership if we are to mitigate the worst effects of climate change; otherwise, they will allow themselves to continue in the self-indulgent behaviours that are destroying the planet as we know it. Consider the recent decision by Ford Motor Cmpany to concentrate almost exclusively on the production of truck and SUVs:



The two key takeaways from the above are that by 2022, 73% of sales in the U.S. will be utility vehicles. The second is that low fuel prices are a large factor in the purchase of the gas-guzzlers.

So tell me that the world doesn't need strong and decisive leadership. The path of least resistance and the web of illusions spun by governments such as ours are no match for the unforgiving cascade of events currently being meted out by nature.

Resistance Lives

"And this you can know - fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe."

-From The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck

As long as scenes like the following occur, I can never completely lose faith in my fellow human beings:

Not Ready For Prime Time?

Given the current dearth of leadership within both the Trudeau government and the rudderless Conservative Party of Canada, this one really hurts:

Where Is The Walk?

Justin Trudeau's increasing propensity for talking the talk but not walking the walk has been noticed by the anti-poverty organization One Campaign, led by Trudeau's good 'friend,' U2's Bono, in a rather unflattering video:

Stuart Hickox, One’s Canada director, said the decision to “poke” Trudeau wasn’t taken lightly. But One and other organizations are worried that Trudeau’s gender agenda will fail because his government isn’t coming up with a firm plan that he can sell to his fellow G7 leaders in time for their meeting.

“It’s a missed opportunity if we get through the G7 with a just mere declaration or more framing language or more aspiration,” Hickox said in an interview.

Hickox said One is an activist organization that tries to end extreme poverty by providing options for government, and that’s what it is trying to do with Trudeau so he can “own the space that he has claimed for himself.”

“So this is a moment of pushing.”

Dear @JustinTrudeau: #PovertyIsSexist so we need a B I G plan that could unlock the potential of 100M+ women all over the world. Are you in? → https://t.co/X07lNVk9on #myG7 pic.twitter.com/3SrLtSbn0e

— ONE (@ONECampaign) April 26, 2018

Seasoned observers of our peregrinating prime minister will realize that the issue raised by the One Campaign is but one of many in which his rhetorical flourishes and promises have far outpaced his actions. This gross disparity between appearances and reality, one hopes, is something increasing numbers of people will be able to discern as time goes on.

It's Time To Ask The Right Questions

The old myth that tax cuts, especially of the corporate kind, create jobs, continues to be circulated. Indeed, here in Ontario, PC leader Doug Ford is promising to reduce the corporate rate from the already historically-low 11.5% to 10.5% "to bring jobs back to Ontario."

In Australia The Canberra Times' Ben Oquist says it is time to reframe the tax discussion by posing a series of questions aimed at showing the destructive nature of such cutting:

Every proponent and lobbyist for the policy should be asked what social program or infrastructure project should be cut, or what other tax should go up to pay for boosting post-tax profits of large business. Indeed Treasury’s own modelling - often cited to support the tax cut legislation - assumes that either personal income taxes will increase or government services will be cut.

We hear almost exclusively from the "winners" of a company tax cut. But the public cannot be expected to make an informed choice as to whether this is the best way to create ‘jobs and growth’ if we do not know, specifically, where the off-setting cuts will be made. Will it be billions less for schools, or hospitals? Or will it be the infrastructure spend for our fast growing population that misses out?

Only the untutored mind will accept Doug Ford's bromide of tax cuts with no pain:

... while Ford likes the tax cuts, he doesn’t like the carbon tax (or any other tax), leaving a $10-billion hole in his budget.

Not to worry, says the self-proclaimed stopper of gravy trains. Ford insists the better part of the shortfall – about $6 billion – could be covered through the elimination of so-called inefficiencies.

In Australia, by contrast, some of the corporate sector is beginning to understand the folly of such short-sighted tax measures:

This week a survey of Australian company directors found that infrastructure spending, not tax cuts, should be the priority in this year’s federal budget.

Many company directors also know that ultimately business can only flourish if a decent society is maintained and that this requires a strong role for government providing quality services, training, education and modern infrastructure. This of course requires a strong revenue and taxation base to fund it.

Why don't corporate tax cuts work in creating jobs, jobs, jobs?

History shows that corporate tax cuts are largely spent on stock buybacks, increased dividendsand acquisitions, all of which only helps to benefit wealthier shareholders – not workers or the community.

That has been the Australian experience, and the same reality is unfolding in Trump's America:

Figures already released following Trump’s tax cut show that investment is down but there has been a frenzy of share buybacks, increased dividends combined with mergers and acquisitions that increase CEO power and drive inequality even higher.

For more discussion of the above, check out this New York Times article, which observes that

American companies have announced more than $178 billion in planned buybacks — the largest amount unveiled in a single quarter, according to Birinyi Associates, a market research firm.

Informed and serious discussion of taxation is hard to come by these days. Instead, shrill pronouncements from demagogues predicting financial Armageddon if fair taxation is imposed hold sway.

Clearly, it is time for all of us to put on our thinking caps, pierce through the hysterical proclamations and begin behaving like adults, not children who favour sweet lies over bitter truths.

More Information On Yahoo/Rogers Email Accounts

Following up on yesterday's post, a friend of mine sent me the following, one that clearly demonstrates the ultimatum Yahoo and Rogers email account holders are being given. The parts I have bolded are especially noteworthy and may be all you need to read to understand the nefarious intent:

Dear Member,

In June 2017, Yahoo and AOL joined forces to create Oath, a media and technology company with a dynamic house of global brands, and a part of Verizon. It’s an exciting venture that we believe will bring a host of new innovations and digital experiences for our users. With Verizon, Oath can provide you with better experiences and services.

As part of this collaboration, we’re asking all users of Oath owned sites and services to agree to the new unified Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which will help us continue to deliver and build on great digital experiences for you.

Please take some time to review and agree to the new unified Terms of Service and Privacy Policy by clicking on the button below. If you have already agreed, no additional action is needed.

Review and agree now

To help you understand some of the key updates, we’ve provided a summary below as well as a description of what tools are available to you to manage your data and experience within Oath’s house of brands. Please note that this summary is not exhaustive and we encourage you to review the updated versions of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Those terms and not this summary will govern your relationship with Oath. To learn more about our approach to privacy, click here.

Terms of Service Updates Summary

-We’ve specified the legal entity that provides each service to you. For some services, this may be a different entity than the entity that previously provided the service. We’ve also reserved the right to transfer the providing entity for each service in the future.
-General provisions that apply to billing, auto-renewal, and refunds have been added. Unless the additional terms for a service override the - -Terms of Service, these provisions apply to your use of our paid services.
-Applicability of Terms. If you are using our services on behalf of another account owner (e.g., as an administrator, consultant or analyst) or on behalf of a company, business or other entity, the Terms of Service apply to your activities and are binding on the account owner or entity.
-Indemnity for Non-Personal Use. If you are using our Services on behalf of a company, business or other entity, or if you are using our Services for commercial purposes, we’ve added an indemnity provision, which requires you and the entity to protect us against certain legal actions.

Privacy Policy Updates Summary

We’ve made it more readable! We took care to make it easier for you to understand our services and our privacy practices.
We’ve updated how we collect and use data. We’ve updated some of the ways we collect and analyze user data in order to deliver services, content, and relevant advertising to you and protect against abuse. This includes:
-Analyzing content and information (including emails, instant messages, posts, photos, attachments, and other communications) when you use our services. This allows us to deliver, personalize and develop relevant features, content, advertising and services
-Linking your activity on third-party sites and apps with information we have about you
-Providing anonymized and aggregated reports to other parties regarding user trends
-We’ve joined Verizon. By joining Verizon, Oath and its affiliates may share the information we receive among Verizon. Learn more about Verizon’s privacy practices.
-New information regarding personalization. We’ve included new information explaining how we combine data among our services and across your devices and Oath accounts. This allows us to provide more personalized content and services.
-We’ve updated user choices. We’ve provided additional information about your choices when using our services, and given you control in our Privacy Controls section.

What You Need to Do

We have designed these changes to help improve your experience with Oath and its brands. To review and agree to the new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, please click the button below. These changes go into effect as soon as you consent.

Review and agree now
Please note that although our services will continue to be available under the existing terms for now, you will eventually need to agree to the new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy in order to continue to use our services. If you have any questions or need additional help, please refer to this link.

Thank you for your continued loyalty and support.

Sincerely,
Oath

A Little Lighter Fare

For Luddites and nostalgia buffs everywhere:

UPDATED: If You Have A Yahoo Or Rogers E-Mail Account

... you should be very, very concerned about the extortionate play they are making for your data, including your emails, your contact lists, indeed, your very identity.

Over the past week, Rogers and other Yahoo e-mail users have been receiving pop-up messages when they log in, outlining new unified terms of service that will apply to all Oath-owned sites. One of the terms specifies that Oath analyzes “content and information,” including e-mails, photos and attachments “when you use our services.” It explains, “This allows us to deliver, personalize and develop relevant features, content, advertising and services.”

The message concludes by stating that users “will eventually need to agree to the new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy in order to continue to use our services.” [Emphasis added]

If that last part sounds like extortion, that's because it is. Clearly, in attempting an end-run around future crack-downs on digital privacy, the company that administers both services, Oath, thinks it is being clever.

Stephen, a Rogers internet subscriber from Toronto who did not want his last name used because it could jeopardize his employment, said in an interview he has not been able to get satisfactory answers from Rogers on whether he could continue to use his e-mail account without being tracked.

“My concern is more about my data being fodder for behaviour manipulation, as we’ve seen with Cambridge Analytica.”

While Oath claims that account-holders will be able to opt out of this intrusion, there is nothing on its site to suggest it; likely they are hoping for a measure of indifference or forgetfulness as this story fades from the public view.

Globe and Mail letter-writer Jacques Soucie of Newmarket, Ontario, is not likely to be one who simply shrugs her shoulders:

After reading Christine Dobby’s article about Rogers’s invasive e-mail terms-of-service changes, I attempted to “adjust [my] customer preferences and settings” as the Rogers spokesperson you quoted suggested (Rogers E-Mail Users Hit With New Service Terms That Allow Data Monitoring, April 20). No way could I manage to find out how to do this, even after several Internet searches. I did, however, find this appalling item in the terms of service for Oath, the company to which Rogers has outsourced its e-mail service:

“Personal Data of Friends and Contacts. By using the Services, you agree that you have obtained the consent of your friends and contacts to provide their personal information (for example: their email address or telephone number) to Oath or a third party, as applicable, and that Oath or a third party may use your name to send messages on your behalf [emphasis added] to make the Services available to your friends and contacts …”

Daring to send messages on my behalf to my friends and contacts? This is an incredible invasion of privacy that should never be permitted. How can we fight back against this kind of intrusion?

My wife, who has a Yahoo account, is now in the process of migrating to Gmail. I would strongly suggest that others who take their privacy seriously consider similar measures.

UPDATE: Over at the Star, Ellen Roseman has this advice for Rogers Yahoo customers:

Rogers Yahoo email customers need to press for more information. What is the deadline for agreeing to Oath’s updated terms? Will they be cut off without access if they don’t agree? Can they get help moving all their emails to another provider?

A Man Of Courage And Principle

In a world given to self-interest, self-promotion and devastating cruelty, it is heartening to know that there are still giants who remind us of the goodness and principle our species is capable of. Colin Kaepernick, about whom I have written previously, is one such exemplar.

Time magazine reports that Kaepernick has won Amnesty International's highest award:

Amnesty International, the global human rights organization, gave Kaepernick its highest honor — the 2018 Ambassador of Conscience Award — in Amsterdam on Saturday. Past winners of the award, which “celebrates individuals and groups who speak out for justice,” include former South Africa president Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai, the education activist from Pakistan who survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban, and rock group U2.

The organization recognized Kaepernick for his protest against police violence: his action, kneeling during the national anthem before NFL games, sparked a movement replicated across America and the world, starting a debate about free speech and patriotism that was inflamed by the President of the United States, one of Kaepernick’s most relentless critics.

The former footballer's words are stirring and convey a brave truth that no state, however repressive, can ever really suppress:

“This is an award I share with all of the countless people throughout the world combating the human rights violations of police officers, and their uses of oppressive and excessive force,” Kaepernick said in statement released by Amnesty International. “To quote Malcolm X, when he said that he, ‘will join in with anyone — I don’t care what color you are — as long as you want to change this miserable condition that exists on this earth,’ I am here to join with you all in this battle against police violence.

“While taking a knee is a physical display that challenges the merits of who is excluded from the notion of freedom, liberty, and justice for all, the protest is also rooted in a convergence of my moralistic beliefs, and my love for the people,” said Kaepernick. His former teammate Eric Reid, who knelt in solidarity with Kaepernick during the anthem — and remains unsigned as a free agent this NFL offseason — presented Kaepernick with the award.

God forbid we ever forget that resistance in its many forms is something to be admired, embraced and emulated.

UPDATED: Our Self-indulgence Is Coming Home To Roost

Fifty years for a Styrofoam cup to break down. Four-hundred-and-fifty years for a water bottle. Those are but two disturbing facts you will glean from this very disturbing report on the increasing toll plastic pollution is exacting on our water. Now, the problem has entered the Great Lakes system, and thus, our bodies:



UPDATE: Many thanks to the Salamander for providing the link to the following. The footage is graphic and very disturbing, but dare we look away from it?

Words Versus Deeds

Our Prime Minister, always keen to appear as a progressive on the international stage, is decidedly less so at home, as recent events are demonstrating. Another reminder of the gross disparity between his words and deeds came when he met in London with Teresa May, who is planning to ban the sale of plastic straws in Britain.

“Plastic waste is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world, which is why protecting the marine environment is central to our agenda at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting,” May said in a statement ahead of a Commonwealth summit.

Leaders from the Commonwealth — a network of 53 countries, mostly former British colonies — are meeting in London this week. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is also there and on Thursday was asked if he would join Britain in the ban.

What he says is a whole lotta nuthin'


Here is a closer examination of his capacity for platitudes, still apparently believing that empty words will carry the day:



Meanwhile, regular people are treading with the Prime Minister fears to tread:




Mr. Trudeau can talk all he wants about a "plastics charter." Talk is cheap, and clearly he thinks it is the politically safest route to take.

That is not leadership. It is abject capitulation.

UPDATED: An Angry Planet

The future is rapidly arriving, and it isn't pretty, thanks to climate change that is causing rising seas and more volatile storms, of particular threat to low-lying nations of the world right now.

The first video shows what happened when a heavy storm hit Hawaii:



The second video, available with this link, shows the true peril facing people who live only a few feet above sea level.

UPDATE: The following video was originally posted on the Mound's blog but he is encouraging widespread distribution; it is yet another aspect of climate change that clearly relates to rising seas and other such disasters. Everything in this phenomenon is interrelated:

GLACIER EXIT from Raphael Rogers on Vimeo.

An Update To A Marriage Made In Hell

It is good to know that the mainstream media is finally paying attention to the new technology that I outlined in yesterday's post. And it seems that DARPA, a secretive Department of Defense agency, is building new software and artificial intelligence that will scan images to check for alterations in an effort to fight against fabricated news.

A Marriage Made In Hell

Now this is really disturbing.

The Verge reports that Jordan Peele and Buzzfeed combined forces to make a fake Public Service Ad:

Using some of the latest AI techniques, Peele ventriloquizes Barack Obama, having him voice his opinion on Black Panther (“Killmonger was right”) and call President Donald Trump “a total and complete dipshit.”

The video was made by Peele’s production company using a combination of old and new technology: Adobe After Effects and the AI face-swapping tool FakeApp. The latter is the most prominent example of how AI can facilitate the creation of photorealistic fake videos.

Researchers have developed tools that let you perform face swaps like the one above in real time; Adobe is creating a “Photoshop for audio” that lets you edit dialogue as easily as a photo; and a Canadian startup named Lyrebird offers a service that lets you fake someone else’s voice with just a few minutes of audio. Technologist Aviv Ovadya summed up the fears created by this tech, asking BuzzFeed News, “What happens when anyone can make it appear as if anything has happened, regardless of whether or not it did?”

The implications of this technology are frightening. Consider, for example, that propagandists will now have a powerful new tool with which to virally undermine their targets with embarrassing or compromising 'videos'; moreover, those who are caught in all manner of malfeasance will, as the current president of the U.S. regularly does, be able to claim it is all "fake news."

Scientists are currently creating tools that can spot AI fakes, but at the moment, the best shield against this sort of misinformation is instilling everyone with a little more media savvy. If you see a provocative video, you should ask yourself: where does this come from? Have other outlets corroborated it? Does it even look real? In the case of AI-generated videos, you can usually see that they’re fake by telltale signs of distortion and blurring.

As always, critical thinking will be paramount. However, how many, no matter how fair and balanced they consider themselves to be, will be able to resist the natural urge to believe the worst about those whose views and practices are so diametrically opposed to their own?

Artificial Intelligence meets fake news: surely a marriage made in Hell.

The Ball Is In Our Court

I am well past the age when I feel any real hope for the future of our species. Far too many of us are content to define our lives by the ease and conveniences afforded by technology, technology that is leaving us with an increasingly unstable environment and climate. And now, of course, we are beginning to see the effects, worldwide, of our self-indulgence. Hurricanes, tornadoes, unseasonable weather, fire and rain are but a foretaste of what is to come.

Nonetheless, like many others, I believe that we cannot abandon hope completely and must fight the good fight no matter its ultimate outcome. I read an article the other day which suggests a way that we can substantially reduce our collective carbon footprint. Unlike the ignoble lies told by people like Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau and, here in Ontario, Doug Ford, there may be a way to have our environmental cake while we more or less continue to consume as our prodigal lifestyles dictate.

Patrick Brown offers a partial solution to our woes:

Massive savings in carbon emissions are possible worldwide if governments adopt the highest energy efficiency standards for lighting and household appliances such as fridges, freezers and washing machines, researchers say.

Unlike the hot air Mr.Trudeau is happy to regularly release, this could go a long way toward the Paris agreement goal of keeping the global rise in temperatures as close as possible to the 1.5°C maximum world leaders agreed upon.

Many countries have already adopted higher energy efficiency standards, including the entire European Union (EU). But if the best standards were applied globally, more than 1,100 average-sized coal-powered generating plants, each producing about 600 MW, could be closed.

If low carbon electricity production were used to generate the remaining electricity needed, and fossil fuel plants were closed, then a reduction of 60% of all emissions from buildings would be possible by 2030, CAT [Climate Action Tracker]says. This is 5.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, more than the EU’s entire current emissions.

Since we seem inextricably wedded to our convenience and comfort, this approach yields much and demands little. A good example is to be found in India, where efforts to boost the use of LED lights has led to dramatic reductions in energy use:

It meant at peak times that India needed 6,000 megawatts less electricity to satisfy demand than if ordinary bulbs had been used. The government was able to negotiate for better prices for mass orders of LEDs from the manufacturers, lowering prices and increasing jobs at the same time.

The trend to government intervention to cut energy use is catching on:

Other countries are also producing excellent results with different policies. In France lighting installations in non-residential buildings must be switched off at night, to reduce both energy waste and light pollution. The resulting energy savings are comparable to the annual electricity consumption of 750,000 households, lowering CO2 emissions by 250 kilotonnes and saving French businesses €200m in energy costs.

Professor Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute, one of the three members of the CAT consortium, said: “We found examples around the world where people are reaping the benefits by switching off lights in cities at night, switching to LEDs, smart lighting and smart metering, apps provided by energy companies to encourage customers to save energy or to use appliances at off-peak hours.”

As a species, we are very good at playing the victim, embracing a willful ignorance and helplessness, seeming to prefer that to an active participation in dealing with our self-made problems. It doesn't have to be that way.

The ball is now in our court.

Ahem, About That Second Amendment Thing

Clearly, this guy takes his rights very, very seriously, yet another reason to avoid the U.S. like the proverbial plague.

The Lie Deflector

This is a device critical thinkers probably don't need, but many others could benefit from. Simply click on the link within the box below to view the video:

Lie Deflector from MarkFiore on Vimeo.

On the other hand, we could dispense with such technology with this Spoiler Alert: You know Trump is lying when his lips move.

Last Gasps?

Some days, writing this blog is quite easy, as I only have to turn to the letters page of my newspaper to aggregate the well-considered thoughts of my fellow Canadians. Today is such a day.

To believe our Prime Minister, we can have our economic and environmental cake served upon the same plate. His fatuous assertions that pumping out more bitumen by twinning the Trans Mountain pipeline goes hand in hand with his climate change 'policy' is the stuff that will satisfy the untutored and the ideologues, but offers not even thin gruel to those prepared to open their eyes to our increasingly fraught world and engage in some critical thinking.

Today's Star letters are ample testament to the fact that some refuse to don the blinders that the federal government is so keen for the electorate to wear.

While I encourage you to read all of the letters online, here is but a sample:

Tim Harper has it right. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in a cul-de-sac of his own making. The social-permission requirement made sense when campaigning for office. So when Trudeau talked of “consultation,” it made sense.

To alter that promise in order to sell oil makes sense, except that it does not make environmental promises believable. Development doesn’t happen without side effects. So to invoke constitutional authority and say the federal government rules makes a mockery of “consultation.” Trudeau’s government is caught not in a cul-de-sac, but between a rock and a hard place. Or is it a political dead end?

The Liberals will lose seats in B.C. whatever they decide. If they go ahead and put coastal waters at risk, they will lose seats. When there is an almost inevitable oil spill, Liberals could be friendless in B.C. for a long, long time. They don’t have many real friends in Alberta and the phaseout of oilsands extraction is inevitable.

So why not create an environmentally friendly Liberal legacy now and say farewell to Texas pipeline companies?

To invoke the heavy hand of federal authority now will make a lot of enemies. Think of British Columbia and Quebec for starters and Canadians who care about global warming, too.

Bruce Rogers, Lindsay, Ont.

Dear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notely, what about your children? When they’re suffering from the effects of climate change, what will you say? “I’m sorry but, like John Turner, I had no choice?”

Canadians want investors for a sustainable country, not an oil-stained, disfigured landscape. It’s 2018. Isn’t it time for sustainable political leadership?

Barry Healey, Scarborough

In 25 years or so, if people in Canada and around the world are facing unstoppable species extinction, extreme weather events and flooding, widespread ocean acidification, mass displacement of people, epidemics of illness and disease, and an expanding civil war, we may have a hard time explaining to our children and grandchildren why we used taxpayer money to “rescue” an American company’s oilsands pipeline, despite wide opposition from Indigenous leaders, scientists and other citizens, and the fact that its construction undermined Canada’s international commitments to reduce greenhouse gases when it was still possible to avert catastrophe.

Perhaps we’ll just have to tell them that it was in the national interest, and leave it at that.

Michael Polanyi, Toronto

Thomas Walkom explains the Trans Mountain pipeline controversy very clearly. The hysteria around this project proves it is a last gasp of a dying industry. Unfortunately, the last gasp would involve more huge, expensive, damaging infrastructure, causing enormous environmental harm that Canadians would have to pay for, now and into the future. We have many difficult choices ahead as we change to a sustainable economy, but this choice is obvious: no new pipeline.

Martha Gould, North Bay, Ont.

If these engaged citizens are correct, perhaps the gasping you hear is not just those of a dying planet, but also a political party and government going the way of the dinosaurs.

Defining The National Interest

As the video included in yesterday's post shows, Justin Trudeau likes to defend the twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline as in 'the national interest." The term itself is a contentious one, given its nebulous nature. For the Prime Minister, it seems to mean economic growth, moving Alberta's bitumen to port, and bolstering Rachel Notley's climate change initiatives.

As the following letter from a Toronto Star reader indicates, however, there is a more crucial definition that Mr. Trudeau and his fellow bitumen and pipeline enthusiasts are entirely dismissing, one that should take precedence:

PM’s pipeline woes of his own making, Harper, April 11

According to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, B.C. Premier John Horgan should compromise because this pipeline is in the national interest. Why is that? He doesn’t say.

I see the national interest as one where all of us move in a planned and purposeful way toward an economy that does not depend on oil and gas. In that world view, giving oil companies breaks on environmental assessments or emissions rules or buying pipelines so they can move their oil is against the national interest. It is the interest of oil companies not to leave stranded assets. The national interest is to move forward into a low-carbon future in Canada and around the world.

Mr. Trudeau speaks out of both sides of his mouth. “Yes,” he says, “we will meet our Paris targets.” Then he approves drilling in Nova Scotia, refuses to sign on to an Arctic heavy-oil treaty and permits Alberta oil to triple production of a very inefficient, high-greenhouse-gas emissions product, and approves a pipeline without ever reviewing its climate impacts or demonstrating that bitumen can be cleaned up.

Meanwhile we have never reduced our emissions targets as a country and are not projected to meet those targets any time soon.

And how can he say he has consulted with First Nations when the B.C. Federation of Indian Chiefs is standing at the Watch Tower, committing civil disobedience, and getting arrested to make their voices heard? Yes, let’s act in the national interest. Let’s all of us move toward a low-carbon future in right relations with our first peoples.

Rev. Frances Deverell, Nanaimo, B.C.

As The Mask Slips Away

My late father-in-law, a man of deep conviction and integrity, was fond of this saying: "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor."

Although he did not originate the adage, he felt it firmly described the thinking of those who control the levers of power, our governments. And now that his mask is slipping away, it seems an apt description of Justin Trudeau's true sentiments and the policy decisions he is making.

As preliminary evidence, sauce as it were to the great corporate feast, consider his Canadian Infrastructure Bank scheme, about which I wrote last year. While its ostensible purpose is to raise private capital to fund various projects to rebuild our steadily decaying roads, bridges, etc., it can also serve as a neat little package of corporate welfare:

Federal investments doled out through the government’s new infrastructure financing agency may be used to ensure a financial return to private investors if a project fails to generate enough revenues, documents show.

What investors have recently been told — and what the finance minister was told late last year — is that if revenues fall short of estimates, federal investments through the bank would act as a revenue floor to help make a project commercially viable.
Experts say the wording in the documents suggests taxpayers will be asked to take on a bigger slice of the financial risk in a project to help private investors, a charge the government rejects.

All of that perhaps palls, however, now that Kinder Morgan has issued a May 31 ultimatum to the feds, threatening to suspend construction on the Trans Mountain Pipeline twinning project unless the impasse between the B.C. and federal government ends. As a remedy, a strong dose of socialism is now being considered to protect Trans Morgan's nervous shareholders:

Finance Minister Bill Morneau says the federal government will act on the Trans Mountain pipeline project in “short order,” sending the strongest signal yet that it will move to financially backstop the project to reduce the risks for its American-based backer.

[Rachel] Notley has already said her government is open to buying the Trans Mountain pipeline — meant to move Alberta oil to port near Vancouver for shipment overseas — to ensure the expansion goes ahead.

Morneau, who has been in touch with Kinder Morgan officials, said earlier in the day that Ottawa is “considering financial options” to ease those concerns. Speaking later, he wouldn’t provide specifics but said there was a need to “derisk” the project so it can proceed.

Significantly, but not surprisingly, the Finance Minister

framed the issue as an economic one, talking about the need to enhance opportunities and good jobs while saying nothing about the concerns around the environment or rights of Indigenous Peoples raised by the project.

As usual, his boss, Justin Trudeau, continues to speak out of both sides of his mouth, claiming his environmental vision is bound up with an economic one, insisting there is no contradiction between the two.

Mr. Trudeau likes to talk about what Canadians know and understand. I suspect he is speaking of those Canadians who go through life blithely and willfully unaware of the immense peril our world now faces thanks to climate change, not those of us who understand that a drastic reordering of our priorities is crucial if we are to survive what lies ahead.