Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Canada, Kyoto, and False Accusations

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
type="html">

To the editor,

?I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the allegation, posted by The Mark on Jan. 9 ("Environment and Economics: A False Dichotomy"), that members of the Canadian delegation were trying to “cajole” other countries to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol during the international climate-change talks in Durban, South Africa.

As Canada’s chief negotiator and ambassador for climate change, and a member of the Canadian delegation to the 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), let me emphasize that no members of our delegation made any attempt to convince any country to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Canada has always made it clear that, while we do not agree that the Kyoto Protocol represents the path forward, we would not stand in the way of any country that supports it.

?In Durban, we actively supported the efforts to launch a new round of negotiations to reach a new single, comprehensive, and effective agreement that would include all major emitters. It is our hope that these negotiations will be concluded by 2015.

I would also note that the confirmation by Canada in Durban that we will spend $1.2 billion between 2010 and 2012 to support climate-change mitigation and adaptation efforts by developing countries was very well received.? Canada will continue to work constructively with its international partners to achieve a fair, comprehensive, and effective post-2012 agreement that moves us beyond Kyoto and includes legally binding commitments from all major emitters. Furthermore, we will be fully transparent in reporting on our greenhouse-gas emissions and the efforts made by the federal and provincial governments to meet our 17-per-cent emissions-reduction target by 2020.

?Sincerely,

?Guy Saint-Jacques

Canada’s Chief Negotiator and Ambassador for Climate Change

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Want transparency in elections Canada

Fair elections are a cornerstone of democracy. But here we are, 144 years after Canada became a democratic country, and nobody can tell or elections Canada is enforcement of the law of the federal elections fair and correct.


Democracy Watch recently analyzed elections Canada's enforcement of the electoral law Canada since 2004. Analysis our during this time,  , shows that elections Canada has received complaints about violations of the law 2,284 (during, and between, elections), who did not report on. Details of how it has examined and ruled on these issues has not been released.


In fact, the more than 2,300 complaints that elections Canada has received since 2004, has the only 53resolution details revealed. Besides, it has not received the number of complaints each year between elections, published 1,874 complaints and there are an additional only ever about a vague summary is published.





: Related to think twice about online election?




Last week, Crown prosecutors (acting on behalf of elections Canada) cut a deal with the lawsuit Federal conservatives finally against conservative senators, party officials, and the Conservative Party about the party advertising-spending regime in the 2006election. That case after all public charges were filed. The party pleaded guilty in the deal and paid the maximum fine, while the accusations against the senators and officials were dropped. Officers of Justice the case against the senators and officials would evidence must have pursued: having regard to the Government that officials knew what they were doing, and knew that there were serious questions about whether the legal can be done, there was a likelihood of conviction.


In this case, at least the public his own opinion about the situation, since the actions that elections Canada has taken in the investigation and pursuit of the case has been made public. With the 2,284 other complaints nobody knows what elections Canada has done.


Unfortunately, this lack of transparency is not uncommon. For example, former Federal integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet was able to enforcement to hide her negligently weak from 2007 to 2010, and Karen Shepherd former Federal Commissioner of lobbying did for year 2011same from 2007. (Shepherd's predecessor, Michael Nelson, was no exception). Moreover, Federal conflict of interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson hide enforcementof details about her dangerously weak. All this is made possible by the fact that MPs fail to important questions, and by the failures of the heads of the various federal "good" watchdog public institutions.


Letter In a (from 16 February 2011) sent to the chairs of six House committees and other important Senate, Privy Council, and Cabinet officials, seven officers of the Parliament (including elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, but not including Ethics Commissioner Dawson) urged House and Senate committees to look at the Chief Electoral Commissioner, ethics and Commissioner of lobbying more closely to ensure that they do their job properly. Unfortunately, they can't seem to get the message, such as they are still not important questions House Committee meetings.





Some accountability, please related:




Claims that it has solved Canada elections many of the complaints cited election 2,284. This can be, but the public has a right to know the details of when, how and why each complaint was resolved. These details can reveal that elections Canada investigates and ruling on every complaint fairly and effectively, and in a timely manner-or can reveal that Canada elections occurs on a biased, unfair way that negative impact on the outcome of elections and/or the reputation of certain politicians and officials of the party.


It is important that the public should have access to this information. The same goes with the other major democratic, "good governance" watchdog agencies – if we do not know the details about how they are ruling on every complaint, we cannot know if they are free.


MPs must demand that elections Canada's actual enforcement in the past seven years will be available for public scrutiny, and must begin hold regular hearings to ensure that public authorities watchdog work effectively.


A more ambitious – but no less necessary solution is changing the laws that "good governance" watchdog agencies, so they required for this kind of information – information that the public has the right to know.


Photo courtesy of Reuters.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Canada and the Quest to kill Kyoto

On 28 november, international climate-change negotiations will begin in Durban, South Africa, such as the gang 17th Annual Conference of the parties the (COP17) at the of the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change gets . This is the first of a series of blog posts of Amara Possian, who Canadian youth delegation the Coordinator of the Conference. Amara will write for The Mark in the whole month, keeping us up to date, such as discussions unfold.


These days, even scoffing foreign diplomats on Canada's climate policy. A recent interview In The Globe and Mail, with Mohau Pheko, the South African High Commissioner to Canada, asked, "are you going to follow the United States, you are also going to be a serial non-ratifier of all agreements? ... Why take a moral high ground before, on the question of the environment, and suddenly a u-turn do now? "


Pheko was referring to the Harper Government unwillingness to take a second commitment period for emission reductions to the Kyoto Protocol, and she is not the only one who is stunned by Canada's international and domestic climate policy backwards.


The legally binding Kyoto Protocol, which Canada ratified in 2002, is set to expire in 2012. This means that the discussion around to accept a second commitment period for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) can no longer be postponed if the international community is serious about stopping dangerous climate changes. The Canadian Government, is opposed to committing a second reduction period because many countries, such as large emitters of greenhouse gases such as China and India, need not to make any reductions under the agreement.





Put a price on Carbon related:




In her opposition to the agreement appears to have Canada turned his back on the common but differentiated responsibilityidea. The paths of the carbon-intensive and industrial development of rich countries such as Canada are what led to the current high levels of GHG emissions that have led to such unprecedented warming. "Common but differentiated responsibility," an important principle of the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change, refers to the responsibility of these rich countries to act first and foremost when it comes to addressing climate change.


Sure, India and China should also reduce their emissions if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. But, as a fellow activist once said, "if my grass is overgrown, I should not be yelling at my neighbor mowing his lawn."


Why did Canada's climate policy taken such a dramatic turn away from the proactive and constructive international engagement that we in the past years were known for?


The answer is simple: Canada's priorities are negotiations is influenced by our powerful oil and gas industry.


There is a very thin line separating our oil industry of our Government. For example, in July 2011, Alykhan Velshi, Director of the former Communications Minister for EthicalOil.orgof immigration Jason Kenney, launched, a website to promote Canada's tar sands as "ethical" energy source. A few days ago, Velshi stepped down from his "grassroots" position to a job in the Prime Minister.


The Canadian Government $ 1.4 billion also offers subsidies to the oil and gas industry each year, quadruple production and there are plans to of the tar sands in 2015. If, if the Harper Government hope, the Keystone XL or Northern Gateway pipelines are approved, we will be trapped in expanding our export of the carbon-intensive oil for decades.





Related: the face of climate corruption in Canada




But Canada's actions in support of its oil interests do not stop at home: in the past two years 110 meetings held , the Canadian Government officials abroad with the aim of derailing European fuel legislation that are in danger can bring oil markets.


At the same time, we have already sabotaging our domestic ability to assess and monitor the impact of environmental policies and projects. Strip in July 2011, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency lost 43.1% of its federal funding, its ability to evaluate proposed projects. Less than a month later, the Government cut 11 percent of Environment Canada's workforce – 776 meteorologists, scientists, chemists and engineers at their job if the Department grants, and operational decreased by 31 percentexpenditure capital lost. And, in mid-October, after 34 years of the Canadian Environmental Network inform environmental policy by not away -partisan consultation, the Government of its entire $ 536,000 in funding.


In the not-so-distant past would Canadians proud of our international reputation. In fact, was the first high-level international Summit on climate change held in Toronto in closed 1988, where participants-that the threat of climate change was change "second only to a global nuclear war." These days, on climate negotiations, happiness you that if international members you speak when they find out that you are from Canada.


Photo courtesy of Reuters.