Star Readers Write

These days, my faith in the future is quite limited. The proliferation of war and the ongoing reluctance of governments to do anything substantive about climate change, despite its increasingly obvious effects, both speak to the refusal of our species to rise above our base animal impulses and use the consciousness that supposedly separates us from other animals for the common good. A few letters from today's Star on carbon pricing help illustrate our shortcomings.

I'll begin with two reasonable missives, followed by what I take to be the majority view:

Provinces have till 2018 to price carbon pollution, Oct. 4

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall predicts that the national rising minimum carbon price the federal government announced will damage his province’s economy and send businesses fleeing to the U.S. Happily, his prediction will not happen for two reasons. First, B.C.’s carbon tax rose annually for five years and its economy remained one of the strongest in the country. The revenue neutral tax also proved to be stimulative. Sales of the province’s clean-tech companies increased by 48 per cent in the two years following the tax’s introduction.

Second, the federal government can impose border tax adjustments, which is why it is essential for the Canadian government to get involved in carbon pricing. Only our national government can impose the tax on products from carbon-intense and trade-exposed industries without similar carbon pricing measures to ensure Canadian companies are protected from unfair competition. Border carbon tax adjustments are sanctioned by the World Trade Organization.

Contrary to Mr. Wall’s unfounded fears, I predict the rising carbon price will help diversify Saskatchewan’s economy as it will all provinces and territories, so long as the price keeps rising and the revenue is returned to the people.

Cheryl McNamara, Toronto

Conservative MP Denis Lebel thinks the federal government should “get out of the way and let the provinces do their job” dealing with climate change. Does he really expect action from Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall, whose government has described climate change as “a misguided dogma that has no basis in reality”?

Wall isn’t the only Canadian premier putting off effective action to fight climate change. Apparently the heat waves, droughts, forest fires and storms haven’t got bad enough yet. Are they planning to wait until our coastal cities are flooded?

It’s impossible to negotiate a climate change action plan with a climate change denier. Wall and other apologists for Big Oil have stalled and obfuscated far too long, selling out our children’s future. The scientific debate is over and climate experts agree we must act now. Our country needs strong federal leadership on an effective national carbon tax strategy.

Norm Beach, Toronto

Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s imposition of his National Energy Program in 1980 was aimed squarely at Alberta. I know. I was there.

Today, Justin Trudeau’s threatened unilateral imposition of a national carbon tax, his “national environmental program,” is also aimed squarely at Alberta where its results will be equally inequitable and devastating.

Ill-thought out, PET soon had to back off from some of the more onerous fiscal terms of his National Energy Program. I expect the same to happen with Justin Trudeau’s version of putting his boot on Alberta’s throat.

“Like father, like son,” and “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” Trite but true!

Mike Priaro, Calgary

Why not simply call Trudeau’s carbon pricing plan for what it is? Another Liberal inspired tax to bolster government (in this case, provincial government) coffers. Perhaps the federal government will also benefit? Trudeau will probably do what Chrétien did — reduce transfer payments.

I recall another Liberal, Dalton McGuinty, who also introduced something called the Ontario Health Premium. The province’s health-care system promptly declined and many previously OHIP-covered services were de-listed.

What we can ascertain by all this is that, ultimately, the taxpaying public is going to suffer — again.

J. Brunins, Britt, Ont.

While We Were Sleeping

... the world changed, but not in a good way.

Ignorance Is Strength

That seems to be what Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, seems to be arguing in yet another interview in which he makes Dondald Trump, by contrast, look like Mensa material:

...the former New Mexico governor appears to have stumbled into yet another gaffe by suggesting that somehow his ignorance of foreign policy is actually an advantage. After all, Johnson argued, you can't engage in war with a country you can't accurately locate. He also claimed that the geographical knowledge of our leaders puts "our military in harm's way."

Some Symptoms Can't Be Ignored

As temperatures continue their worldwide inexorable climb, Think Progress has published some graphics showing the effects of climate change on health. You can read the details and see more readable versions of the graphics here.

What Comes Out Of Our Tap

In the age we live in, many things are taken for granted: the power that lights up our house, the Internet that facilitates our communications and satiates our curiosity, and the water that comes from our taps, to name but three. The fragility of these resources is only appreciated when they fail us through storms, cable problems, and boil-water alerts. Suddenly, the things that we take for granted aren't as secure as we like to think.

Much public attention, at least in Ontario, has recently and rightly been focused on water-taking permits that allow companies like Nestlé to take millions of litres of water daily for a mere pittance. Indeed, few would argue with opposition parties calling for public input into the whole issue of the commercialization of our groundwater. However, the problems confronting our most precious resource go well beyond a single issue, and they pose grave challenges for the entire world.

A new study offers some troubling news. One of the main impediments to clean drinking water comes from agriculture:

Agriculture is a huge contributor to water pollution, from fertilizers used for row crops to the manure created by large-scale animal agriculture. In Washington state, a 2015 lawsuit found that a huge dairy operation had been polluting groundwater in a nearby community, causing the level of nitrates in residents’ drinking water to spike to unsafe levels. Nitrates, when found in high levels, can cause serious health problems for both infants and adults with compromised immune systems.

Elsewhere, industrial production of crops like corn and soy, which rely heavily on fertilizers to increase yields, can lead to dangerous algal blooms which, when toxic, can shut down drinking water for entire cities.

Fossil fuel production is another source of pollution:

With fracking — also known as hydraulic fracturing, when high pressure water, sand, and chemicals are used to break open subsurface shale in order to liberate the natural gas trapped therein — water is a massive component of the entire process. Each fracked well requires somewhere between 1 million and 6 million gallons of water per well, which can place strain on surface water resources.

But in addition to massive water wastage,

fracking can also impact water quality well after the actual fracking itself has finished, when waste fluids are injected back underground for disposal. In some cases, that cocktail of wastewater and chemicals can leach into aquifers, polluting the groundwater near fracking operations. That’s what happened in Dimock, Pennsylvania in 2009, when two families sued Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. for polluting their wells with methane. That’s also what happened in 2008, in Pavillion, Wyoming.

Development is another villain in this story:

Development is a massive driver of that pollution — when urbanization or agriculture comes into a watershed, land that was previously covered with native vegetation is cleared. That means that the soil that was once bound by root systems is free to run into waterways when a storm comes along, choking waterways with sediments and damaging both drinking water quality and ecosystems that depend on clean water.

Deforestation — which often occurs to make way for agriculture or development — is also a huge contributor to sediment pollution. Wildfires can also increase sediment pollution, by burning away vegetation that kept soil intact.

A myriad of other contributing factors also pose grave threats to our water, including climate change, pharmaceuticals and sewage, all of which you can read about in detail in the source article.

The conclusion drawn is that although bleak, the situation does not have to be dire. A rapid switching to more green energy would

not only ... keep ... fracking wastewater out of groundwater, but it would slow the impacts of climate change on other parts of the water system, as well.

The ball is now squarely in our collective court.

The Canadian Judicial Council Responds To My Complaint

Regular readers of this blog may recall a post I wrote this past June about an unsettling experience I had at a local grocery story. It was there that my wife and I witnessed the shocking and distasteful behaviour of Ontario Superior Court of Justice Antonio (Toni) Skarica, who was proudly sportng a pro-Trump t-shirt that read, Donald Trump - Make America Great Again - 2016.

Given the rules of impartiality that govern justices in this country, I wrote a letter of complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council describing the experience in full. Since some of the content of that letter is included in the Council's decision, I will not reproduce it here, but what follows is the Council's response to my complaint, which was delayed because they also required that my wife write a letter attesting to the fact that it was indeed Skarica before they deigned to investigate.

In converting this letter from the PDF original, some of the formatting was lost; I have done my best to restore it here:

Personal and Confidential

CJC File: 16-0160

2 September 2016

Dear Mr Warwick:

I am responding to your correspondence dated 12 June 2016 in which you make a complaint against the Honourable Antonio Skarica of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario.

In accordance with the Review Procedures of the Canadian Judicial Council (Council) I referred your letter to the Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia and Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee. Chief Justice MacDonald requested comments from Justice Skarica and from the Honourable Heather J. Smith, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. After carefully reviewing your complaint, Chief Justice MacDonald has directed me to provide you with this response.

The mandate of the Council in matters of judicial conduct is to determine whether a recommendation should be made to the Minister of Justice, after a formal investigation, that a judge be removed from office by Parliament. The reasons for removal are set out in the Judges Act and address situations where a judge has become incapacitated or disabled from performing the duties of a judge. This can be as a result of age or infirmity, misconduct, a failure to execute the duties of the position, or being in a position incompatible with the functions of a judge.

It is important to note that the Councll is not a court and cannot intervene in the court process.

In your correspondence, you indicate that you saw Justice Skarica wearing a t-shirt promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy and that you were both shocked and appalled. You
allege that Justice Skarica is clearly advocating for a man who is a serial liar, racist and demagogue, which raises a number of concerns. You ask how can a man who embraces a politician opposed to Muslims and Mexicans, a man who believes in dividing society into 'winners and losers,' be seen as an impartial arbiter of human lives as he renders judgment on them from the bench.

In commenting the complaint, Justice Skarica indicates that he has not endorsed Mr Trump either publicly or privately in any way and does not know him. Justice Skarica has not contributed any monies to his campaign either directly or indirectly. He has not been involved in the Trump campaign in any manner whatsoever. He writes that he is, however, a student of history and on occasion, have collected memorabilia items over the years that he considers to be turning points in history. It is in that context that Justice Skarica received the t-shirt from his brother who had visited Washington. It was never Justice Skarica’s intention to make the shirt a standard part of his wardrobe but rather to keep it as an item of memorabilia. At one point, Justice Skarica put the shirt on earlier in the day to show a friend and later that day went shopping without thinking too much about it. He does not intend to wear the t-shirt in public in any meaningful way. Moreover, Justice Skarica vehemently denies any suggestion that he is racist.

Chief Justice MacDonald notes that Council’s publication Ethical Principles for Judges provides that judges should refrain from conduct such as membership in groups or organizations or participation in public discussion which, in the mind of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person, would undermine confidence in a judge’s impartiality with respect to issues that could come before the courts. The issue is therefore the extent of the involvement of Justice Skarica in Donald Trump’s campaign to the US presidency, if any, and whether it could reasonably “put in question the judge’s impartiality on an issue that could come before the court.”

First, Chief Justice MacDonald advises that impartiality is key to the judicial process and is presumed. As pointed out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre case, this presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, and the law does not easily evoke the possibility of bias in a judge, whose authority depends upon that presumption. Second, Chief Justice MacDonald is satisfied with the response of Justice Skarica indicating that he has no involvement whatsoever with Mr Trump or the Republican, that he has not contributed any monies to his campaign either directly or indirectly, and that he is not involved in any way, shape or form in Donald Trump’s campaign for the US presidency. Chief Justice MacDonald also accepts that Justice Skarica has no intention of wearing this or similar shirts in public again. Chief Justice MacDonald is therefore satisfied that there is nothing that could put in question Justice Skarica's impartiality on an issue that could come before his court. Chief Justice MacDonald concludes that your complaint is unfounded. Chief Justice MacDonald is of the view that the issues you raise do not warrant further consideration by the Canadian Judicial Council pursuant to its mandate under the Judges Act. Accordingly, he has directed me to close your file with this reply.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Sabourin
Executive Director and Senior General Council

While I did not really expect a result different from the decision rendered by the Canadian Judicial Council, I am gratified that at least justice Skarica had to account for his strange behaviour, and I think it is safe to say he has learned a valuable lesson from my complaint. I think it likely that henceforth, the Trump t-shirt will be brought out only for gatherings of close family and ultra-conservative friends.

A Short Programming Note

I'll be offline for the next few days as I go off on a small adventure with a couple of my retired buddies. If the weather cooperates, we will be viewing the night sky up north. If it doesn't, well, I don't know what mischief we'll get up to.

See you soon.