When a Blue Sign Is a Golden Ticket

A former PC candidate once said that the most difficult thing to get from the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta was a nomination.  Nominations were coveted golden tickets to employment if one was lucky enough to be able to put their name on a blue sign.   The shade of blue may have changed but in certain circles, the golden ticket has not.


National Post Alex Tetrault 2008

Nomination contests are being held across the province for all parties.  Most have gone unnoticed but some managed to make headlines for all the wrong reasons.  The first incident was in Innisfail-Sylvan Lake when UCP candidate Joel Loh discovered his name was not on the nomination ballot May 2nd. Loh had announced his candidacy on April 17th.   Loh stated he accepted the Party's explanation that there was not enough time to process his application.   Sylvan Lake's Victor Sloboda, who also announced April 17th, was on the ballot.

The Airdrie East UCP nomination race saw Roger Millions, former sport broadcaster, challenge sitting MLA Angela Pitt.   During that race, constituency association president Rick Northey resigned over allegations of "outright intimidation" around a $16,000 donation of constituency association funds.  Pitt dismissed those claims as Northey was acting as Millions' campaign manager.   A couple of  individuals received messages from an unnamed sender with a purported recording of Pitt's phone calls but did not release the recordings.

Over to Chestermere-Strathmore, the nomination race that burned brightly before fading away to nothing.  The founding meeting for the new constituency was a very well-attended event for being both regional, and rural. Sitting UCP MLA Leela Aheer was joined by five of her fellow MLAs, Ric McIver, Jason Nixon, Prasad Panda, Dave Schneider and Angela Pitt, along with some staffers in tow to demonstrate their support.  The show was only just beginning though as nomination candidate Dave Campbell was expelled from the meeting.

That incident purportedly led to Aheer filing a restraining order that she withdrew a day before it was to be heard in court.  Campbell did not turn in his payment for the nomination, and neither did the other potential nominees. Aheer was acclaimed.

Independent MLA Derek Fildebrandt saw it as further proof "insider party elites refuse to allow the people of Chestermere-Strathmore an open, free and fair nomination of their UCP candidate".
Then a video surfaced on social media from a UCP founding meeting in Calgary Northeast alleging misconduct with the voting process to elect board members.  In most board elections, this is not a major issue but talking with a resident in the area, I was informed that having one "slate", a preferred group of people, elected offers the person who chose them an advantage in the general election.  Prab Gill, MLA for Calgary-Greenway, stepped down from his role as Deputy Whip of the UCP caucus on July 12 for his alleged role in the "voting irregularities".

A complaint was filed and Janice Harrington, Executive Director of the UCP and former PC constituency association president for Airdrie - Chestermere, announced an independent review would be undertaken by former PC Party President and patron, Ted Carruthers.  Some questioned how "independent" the review would be but the Party has the ability to appoint anyone they wish and they did at least promise to look into the complaint.  We can either expect to be a little shocked at the findings or hear nothing at all.

In Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville, another nomination contestant, Darryl Kropielnicki, was approved as a candidate at the constituency association level and had his application and criminal record checks completed prior to the vote.  He discovered after the location for the nomination vote was secured that his candidacy was not approved by the party.  Jason Kenney released a statement congratulating Jackie Armstrong Homeniuk.

Gender quotas are a great thing, but not at the expense of democracy.
One issue could be chance.  Two could be coincidence. Three or more suggests that the myth of the "golden ticket" is still alive and well in the old PC party.

There is a saying that rose by any other name is still a rose; the same can be said of excrement.

NOTICE: This article contains both fact and opinion.  Links to supporting documentation within article.  If you have additional information you would like to see included in this ever-growing list, contact me at dmaclean@countersign.ca Information sources will be kept confidential.

Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean  Content Director - Writer

Info: dmaclean@countersign.ca Social Media @ThisWeekInAB
I have moved to a website: https://www.countersigncanada.ca

We Shouldn't have to Fact Check Everything Our Representatives Say; Yet We Do

As adults, in a democratic society, we have rights and freedoms.  Something that we are beginning to hear more about is responsibility.  Last week, a number of people took to twitter to give some specialized attention Calgary Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel's tweet thread defending her right to cater to an audience.   What she apparently found upsetting was an article regarding the introduction of independent "fact checkers" to verify information being shared on Facebook Canada.

"Freedom of speech" has been a topic that is receiving increasing speculation.  In Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms it states: 
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association."

The caveat is detailed within the first paragraph; "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".   Rempel's argument is based on the assumption that the media is biased against conservative thought/speech/beliefs.  "Bias" though, suggests a reluctance to take into account another's point of view rather than refusing to regurgitate actual lies.

Take, for instance, the federal Conservative Party's claim that "Justin Trudeau is charging Canadians over $90,000 to upgrade his summer home".  That sounds a lot different than "$90,000 worth of upgrades to be completed on 60 year-old parliamentary residence".   The latter is true.  The former is sort of true, it's just missing valuable information such as; the alternate residence, or "summer home" is an official residence, and is currently the main residence used to host official business as 24 Sussex, also an official residence, is under renovation.  The latter, however, wouldn't make people as angry.



A recent Pew Research project asked over 5,000 Americans to classify 10 statements as either fact or opinion.  The results revealed that Americans who self-identified as having "high political awareness" correctly identified factual statements 36% of the time.  The same group was able to identify opinion statements 44% of the time.  People who self-identified as having "low political awareness" were able to correctly identify factual statements 17% of the time and opinion statements 29%.  If you think back to exams, what does it mean to receive "44%" (or less)?  Fail.

There is something very wrong if the class average is a fail.  The problem is that if people cannot distinguish between personal opinion and fact, there needs to be more accountability upon those who are sending out the information.    For those who want an everyday example, look to the Calgary and Edmonton SUN; directly under the names of columnists Rick Bell and Lorne Gunter you can see, written in bold, the word OPINION.  This is accountability.   Readers who have followed this blog will note that I began to include a similar disclaimer in recent posts.

Research is a skill.  When my son was ignoring assignments in grade 7, the teacher and I had a conversation.  As it turned out, the only assignments he was behind on were those that required internet research.  I asked if they had taught the kids how to perform research on the internet.  If the average inquiry in Google provides 649,000 results, how is he supposed to determine what information he should be using and including?  I received this education in university because I graduated in 2013 when internet research was expected.  Had I completed my degree the first time, in 2002, I might not have learned that.

People have been sounding the alarm since Trump showed up in American politics.  A man who has zero regard for the truth, and even bragged about lying to Trudeau in their first meeting about trade, has one of the largest platforms in the world.  Some journalists, and others, have taken to blaming Trump's "fake news" rhetoric for the recent mass shooting in a newspaper office.   Alexandre Bissonette, the young man who killed six people in a Quebec Mosque, said he had to do something after Trudeau tweeted a welcoming message to potential immigrants and refugees because he didn't want immigrants to "kill (his) parents".  Why would he think newcomers to Canada would do that? 

Because opinion media like infowars and rebel media push a particular narrative to make money.
While people have the right to believe whatever they want and express opinions regarding those beliefs, certain individuals, groups and businesses, especially those who are purported to be "trustworthy" based on their position of authority or platform need to have accountability.  And we, as consumers of information, should be able to demand the truth.  We deserve it.

Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean
Content Director/Writer
countersigncanada.ca

NOTICE: This article contains both fact and opinion.  Links to supporting documentation within article.

As of June 30, I have moved to a website http://countersigncanada.ca/blog/
I should have mentioned that earlier. My apologies.

Conservatives Are Taking Alberta's Votes for Granted

On Thursday we learned an extension of the current equalization formula was passed on June 6, 2018.  Why were we surprised to learn this?  Because none of the Conservatives who voted against the amendment mentioned it even though they (mostly) showed up to vote on it.   No, we learned this from the media three weeks after the fact.

Since the final vote on June 6, the silence has been deafening. There are 53 CPC "defenders of the West", including its leader, Andrew Scheer (SK).  There is also a guy in Alberta whose heart and mind is hardly a moment away from the House of Commons, the Leader of Alberta's Official Opposition, Jason Kenney.  And none of these representatives, not one of these "unfair equalization" proponents was passing around the gasoline for the West to light its hair on fire?  Get real.

Part of that would of course be due to the fact that there was a federal by-election going on in Quebec that saw the Conservative Party of Canada win a seat on June 18.  While campaigning in Quebec, a political party does not need half of its caucus making waves against the province.

La Presse Canadienne / Jacques Boissinot

The only hiccup for the Conservatives was back in May when Manitoba MP Ted Falk let his social conservatism fly in the House of Commons when he yelled out "abortion is not a right!" in response to the Prime Minister.  Quebecers are, apparently, more liberal-minded than the Western CPC MPs and Conservative MPs from Quebec were forced to distance themselves from the comment. Ain't unity grand?

And speaking of unity, the only CPC MP who appears to be maintaining the purported conservative values is Maxime Bernier, who was removed from the front bench by Andrew Scheer earlier this month.  The CPC is on a mission: Elect a provincial Conservative Party in Quebec in October.  All MPs must toe the party line.

To do that, Andrew Scheer must continue to be the champion of all things Quebec; from supply management to equalization (no link available because; silence).  Jason Kenney, who likely wanted to be on as many stages as possible in Quebec during the summer, will have to stand up for Alberta as the lone voice for Alberta Conservative values of "it's mine, damn you, all mine!"

Andrew Scheer will have to continue to be the voice for Quebec, at least until October 2, 2018, but they won't worry too much about the Conservative support out West; Kenney has plenty of gasoline for all of those who can be set off by incomplete and misleading remarks about equalization. And while your hair is on fire, don't forget to donate to the CPC; they need your support to campaign for Quebec's interests.

Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean
Content Director/Writer

NOTICE: This article is a mixture of both opinion and fact. Links within the article.

Religious Freedom v Alberta Minister of Education

An injunction was requested in the case of Parents, Independent and Religious Schools v. Alberta Minister of Education heard by The Court of Queen's Bench in Medicine Hat today.  There was a lone supporter outside of the courthouse with a sign that read "GSAs Save Lives".  Inside, the courtroom with 50 seats was full and there were more than 60 people milling in the lobby outside of Courtroom 3.  Many of them were wearing "Include Parents" buttons.

"There are protesters outside" one gentleman said "and the media is here.  We should go out there so they can see there's support for this."  No one mentioned there was only one person pacing on the steps.  "We should have a spokesperson if the media asks to talk to us" a woman said.  "They can talk to me" the gentleman responded "my name's Jeremy Williamson."  And then they held a short prayer.  

Another gentleman asked Mr. Williamson what his role was. He started "Concerned Parents of School District 76" but, "it's bigger than that" he said.  The Facebook group has almost 500 members. One woman, in conversation with another, explained why the case was being heard in Medicine Hat; "people wouldn't pay $25 to park in downtown Calgary and then sit in a courtroom all day.  Rural people show up" she said. 

According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) website, the challenge claims that:

"Bill 24 threatens faith-based schools by attacking the freedom of these schools to create safe and welcoming learning environments while also respecting their unique religious characters, and by preventing schools from being open and transparent with parents."

John Carpay, President of JCCF, religious freedom advocate, and "ally" of Jason Kenney has been the loudest voice for the challenge.  The JCCF maintains the application was made "on behalf of a coalition of parents and independent schools" (read more about  JCCF's cases and advocacy).

The Application provides great detail on which affronts exist to parental authority and the rights being infringed upon by the changes made to the Alberta School Act.  Specifically, sections 16.1 (1)(a), 16.1 (3.1), 16.1 (6), 28 (8) and (9), 45.1 (3)-(10) inclusive, 45.3 and 50.1 (4) of the Alberta School Act infringes upon the "fundamental freedoms" in Section 2 of the Constitution Act (1982), including:

2.(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication and;
(d) freedom of association.

The lone picketer was having a difficult discussion with one of the proponents of the challenge.  "It's not a choice!" He said in an exasperated, and raised, voice.  "When did you decide you were heterosexual?!" She walked away saying he didn't answer her question.   As I passed him after he resumed his route, I thanked him for being there.  He wasn't alone. 

More supporters showed up near lunch.  One spoke first with the picketer and asked if he would mind if she stood with him.  He accepted her offer before he was called away to do an interview.  She identified herself as a Christian and said she had difficulty with the support for the challenge.  "Some kids really need this kind of support" she said.  

When the courtroom broke for lunch there was an opportunity to line up for re-entry.  It's strange standing within a group of people who would disagree with everything you believe as a parent.  They have normal conversations; they joke, they laugh.  They refuse to believe there are gay children in their schools because the bible says it's against God's will.  They believe their will is stronger than the fear and self-doubt children feel when they think they aren't "normal". 

The respondents on behalf of the Government spoke first in the afternoon.  Their focus was on the children who would benefit from GSAs.  Their representative was soft-spoken and the room was intensely quiet.  

He took an hour to present the Government's case.  "The premise of the School Act" he said, was "enabling legislation. It is up to the community to set the parameters."  This means the community of the school, including parents, are the ones responsible for building the program, should one be requested.  The parent's rights advocates could be the ones creating the entire program; setting the parameters, choosing the material and the facilitator.  It could be up to them if they would take the initiative. 

The focus of the applicants is parents and the schools themselves, and there is no relief for students, regardless of age, to ask for, let alone have access to, a Gay-Straight Alliance. The applicant is not arguing for (and seemed loathe to mention) children's rights.  This case is about the parents and their freedom of religion. The schools, according to claim 37 maintain the following beliefs:  

a. That people are created as male and female, and that God intends for people to accept their gender;
b. That individuals cannot truly or actually change their gender or sex;
c. That marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others, and so instituted by God;
d. That sexual relations are intended only for within marriage;
e. That departure from the above principles of God’s expressed will is morally wrong (collectively, the “Beliefs”). 

The respondent brought up the recent case of Trinity Western where the Supreme Court of Canada decided it was reasonable to limit freedom of religious expression to ensure LGBTQ rights.  The Calgary Sexual Health Centre had intervener status.  "Children don't generally get a choice in which school they attend" their representative said. "The school a child attends is based on three things; geography, finances and parent's choice." When the Judge asked the applicant if the Trinity Western decision was relevant to the application, the representative said it was not because adults attend Trinity and this case is about "five year-old kids" and the government attempting to "compel compliance". 

An observer had left the courtroom before lunch and told the crowd waiting in the lobby that there would not be a judgement today.  A woman seated behind me asked someone else if we would know today.  A gentleman responded that it would go through review and be back in the courts; "this is just the beginning" he said.  

The applicant finished his response saying the proposed legislation "stripped the parents of the ability to educate, care, comfort and guide" their children.  As a religiously questioning parent of four children in the Catholic school system, that statement indicates the entire issue.  They are unreasonably extending the legislation to affect parents.  No amount of Catholic education strips me of my ability to educate, care, comfort or guide my children.  But I know where I stand.  I stand with LGBTQ and questioning youth. One. Hundred. Percent. 

"You don't have to change a thing; the world could change it's heart" Scars to Beautiful, Alessia Cara

Update June 27, 2018: the injunction sought has been denied.

Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean
Content Director/Writer

NOTICE: This article is a mixture of both opinion and fact. Links within the article to supporting evidence.  

Coming of Age: Trinity Western and Canadian Law

Trinity Western University is a private institution in Langley, B.C. that provides a "whole person, Christ-centred approach to education".   Their mission statement clearly defines their goals as both a learning institution and the role they expect their students to fulfill in society:

"As an arm of the Church, to develop godly Christian leaders: positive, goal-oriented university graduates with thoroughly Christian minds; growing disciples of Jesus Christ who glorify God through fulfilling the Great Commission, serving God and people in the various marketplaces of life." 

 A prospective student to Trinity Western must be willing to sign a "Community Covenant" through which the student agrees to adhere to a code of conduct befitting the University's Christian standards.  This covenant includes a specific item that students will voluntarily abstain from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman".

The Civil Marriage Act (Bill C-38) received Royal Assent in Canada on July 20, 2005.  The Act formally acknowledged the rights of same-sex couples to marry in Canada.  This has been the law of the country for almost 13 years.

The issue with the Covenant is not the first of the aforementioned statement; one is specifically targeted at a group of individuals and the other would apply to all students equally.  The first item, regarding sexual intimacy, can be equally applied to both same sex and heterosexual intimacy outside of a marriage bond.  As this applies equally to all students, it is non-discriminatory and well within the rights of the school to request it of its students.

The second part defines "marriage (as) between a man and woman" which contradicts the Civil Marriage Act (2005) under Canadian law.  The expectation is that if a prospective gay, but legally married, student wishes to attend the University, they will abstain from marital relations.   It was the discriminatory factor regarding marriage which first raised an issue for Canadian law societies.

Two law societies initially denied accreditation; the Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario, and the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society. The Law Society of B.C. eventually joined them after first agreeing to grant accreditation.  Trinity Western took the cases to court in all three provinces.

The Provincial Court of Nova Scotia ruled in favour of Trinity Western and the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society did not appeal the decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario). The Court of Appeal in B.C. ruled in Trinity Western's favour.  Trinity appealed the ruling in Ontario and the LSBC appealed the ruling in B.C. which brought the case to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

Photo: schuettlaw.com

On Friday, the SCC delivered their ruling on the case, 7-2 in favour of the law societies.

I was lucky (?) enough to be involved in a discussion spanning three days (and counting) with three people who disagree with the SCC's decision.  To me, the entire issue boiled down to legal ethics.  Signing the Community Covenant, which makes a claim that is incompatible with the law (the current one in Canada, not the biblical one) showed either a disdain for the laws in Canada or a complete willingness to disregard them.  Neither option is a promising beginning for a future lawyer.

Another argument, and one that was brought forward by legal experts as well, is that religious freedom was under attack (I searched and have yet to find a code of conduct in any Canadian school which forbids students from practicing the religion of their choice, in private, on their own time).  In the case of Trinity Western though, it would appear they have a particular vendetta against gay people.

Back in 2001, Trinity Western applied for an education program to train teachers.  The British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) denied it based upon their Covenant of the time which specifically stated a list of "Practices that are biblically condemned" such as "sexual sins including... homosexual behaviour".  The SCC ruled, 8-1, that Trinity Western, as a private school, was within its rights to have this covenant but if these views were brought to a teaching environment, the BCCT would then have the authority to act.  That was before the Civil Marriage Act (2005) however.

In response to the issues facing students of Trinity Western, a petition has been created by a group called ONE TWO asking the University to "make our community a more loving, accepting and safe place for all students".  The University said that it "may consider the wording" within its covenant but has, for now, placed its plans for a law program on hold.  Some religious institutions are discovering that they must change with the times in order to remain relevant with a dwindling membership. For the three people who I've been arguing with for days, only one thing comes to mind:

"Adapt or perish; now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative". ~H.G. Wells

Canadian Christians, as a majority, no longer support stoning, polygamy, or taxes, so I think it may be time to give up the homophobia as well.

Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean
Content Director/Writer

Pride and Prejudice, Alberta Edition

After a protest held up the 2018 Edmonton Pride Parade for a half hour last weekend, the Edmonton Pride Festival Society released a statement announcing it would not invite members of the Edmonton Police Service and Canadian Military to march in next year's parade "until the community feels that they have taken the necessary measures for all community members to feel safe with(in) their presence".  I am not a member of the affected communities.

When the issues regarding a police presence were first brought up at the Toronto Pride Parade in 2016, I was not affected.  I am not a member of the LGBTQ2S+ community nor am I a Person of Colour.  I have never felt unsafe in the presence of police, so I know I don't understand where they are coming from.  Because of this, I don't judge those who have had a differing experience. 

Mike Morrison, an LGBTQ2S+ community member, creator of Mike's Bloggity Blog and more, gave an interview on X92.9 in Calgary in 2017 and I happened to catch it.  He described stories he had heard from those who had felt threatened by the police in the past.  I don't know what that's like.  I've never felt that fear or intimidation.  That doesn't mean I get to say it has neither existed in the past nor present.  

The Edmonton Pride Festival Committee also said it would commit to consulting with members of the affected communities and work with them to try to bring a reconciliation of sorts.  While it means a great deal to have representatives from all communities present, in the face of these very real, to some, concerns, it makes sense to me, as an outsider, to take the time to review them.

But there's an unfortunate side effect, politically speaking, of Edmonton Pride Festival Society agreeing to disallow members from the Edmonton Police Service and the Canadian Military to march in Pride, which some have capitalized upon in spectacular fashion.  

To many (white, middle and upper income earning men and women, religious and non, specifically those aged 30-85) in Alberta, the police and military represent protection, order, fairness and justice.  Additionally, the military represents not just themselves but every fallen soldier who fought for this country, for the rights of its citizens and protected those who could not protect themselves.  

To many (white, middle and upper income earning men and women, religious and non, specifically those aged 30-85), both of these groups represent what our society should aspire to be and their positions in all communities should be revered, not feared. 

In the minds of some (white, middle and upper income earning men and women, religious and non, specifically those aged 30-85), the decision to disallow such upstanding individuals from marching in the Pride Parade is confusing and, probably, disappointing.

It was disappointing to the leader of the Official Opposition who was, himself, along with the United Conservative Party, disallowed from marching in the Edmonton Pride Parade.  And he wants to make sure Albertans understand the company he and the United Conservative Party are in when it comes to Pride.  The new story is this: the problem isn't his party, or their policies, or their lack of support for LGBTQ2S+ communities; Pride won't even let the police and military march!

The game is politics, the strategy is to create winning narratives and has been especially crafted for Alberta voters.  Side effects may include headache, upset stomach, and growing support for the United Conservative Party.  If symptoms persist or worsen, see your single payer healthcare provider before 2019 while you still have one. 

Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean
Content Director/Writer

Environment and the Economy; Majority Rules or Working Together?

I attended the Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and Environment in Canada panel discussions last week.  The program was a collaboration between Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy and the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy.  While there were no shortage of economists present, oil and gas industry representatives, First Nations, environmentalists, and a few former politicians rounded out the guest panelists.

David Dodge, an economist and former Governor of the Bank of Canada, was the first to speak.  The environment and the economy, he said, is "an issue that concerns city, province and country.  It's an emotional issue" he added, referencing the "complexity" of these discussions Chris Ragan, Chair of the Ecofiscal Commission, had mentioned.  "Science tells us we must reduce emissions in the future.  Activists believe it needs to be done without regard for the economy.  The other extreme denies any need to reduce emissions; the bulk of Canadians are in the middle".   Jean Charest, former Premier of Quebec, said it was about "aligning good policy with public opinion.  How do you bring people to the table in a polarized debate?  Too many people aren't listening".

"We don't want a tragedy of the commons but it must be dealt with today" Dodge continued "it is undefined but certain. How do we reduce the cost of reduction or increase the perceived benefit of reduction?"  While a sustainable environment in 200 years will be of little benefit to those of us alive today, reducing energy use isn't without its perks.  Steve Williams, CEO of Suncor, talked about how the company has reduced its production energy use by over 50% from what it was 15 years ago and their "plan is to reduce it by another 30% by 2030" because it saves them money.

L-R; Jen Winter, Ed Whittingham, Chris Ragan,
Steve Williams, Jean Charest

Williams stood beside Premier Notley as she introduced the carbon tax legislation back in 2015.  He was also a member of the Climate Change Advisory Panel.  While the public had not seen direct carbon taxes, the oil industry, as a large emitter, has been priced since 2007.  "Production," Williams said "accounts for 20% of the carbon footprint.  The other 80% is consumption".  Stephen Cornish, in a conversation afterwards, said that was equivalent to passing the buck.

Dodge introduced what he sees as the two most important questions in the debate.  What is the incentive and how do we pay for it?  "The cost is not zero" he said, "it costs to change".  "Carbon tax, cap and trade, greater efficiency equals lower costs and it's better than regulations".  Jen Winter of the Calgary School of Public Policy agreed, "there's a reduced administrative burden on government" to use pricing instead of regulation.  However, Dodge, Winter, Charest and Ed Whittingham admitted regulations may need to accompany pricing.

Whittingham noted "carbon pricing isn't the be-all-end-all".  Poor communication in the rolling out of carbon tax policy allowed the policy to open proponents "up to 'it's just a cost, it's not going to do anything'".  Charest agreed adding the public has "experience with perversion of (government spending). The government says money will be used for this but then put it into general revenues.  And that's good for government, to give them flexibility "but it erodes the public's trust.  "We are the biggest consumers of energy, produce the most garbage" he said, but putting a price on that behaviour "is a challenge".

Complementary policy, said Whittingham, is something like a clean fuel policy which ignites innovation.  Even environmental stewards don't want to shut down an economy.  Winter mentioned the reluctance of some people to make the change because the cost was too low.  This is in line with what many have said as well about meeting our targets from the Paris Accord; the cost would have to be almost $200/tonne.  "Start low" said Winter, to provide the incentive for people to make a gradual change.

Williams also examined the effect Canada can have on the rest of the world.  "China is starting to reinvest in coal" he said "because (they) can't trust Canada to deliver the oil.  That doesn't help anyone if one of the world's largest populations goes back to coal".  Even though Canada does not have the whole solution he said, people see Canada trying.  "It's about leadership," offered Charest, "the world expects it of us".

L-R: Carissima Mathen, Preston Manning,
Pierre-Gerlier Forest, Carol Anne Hilton, Stephen Cornish

"I find it scary" said Williams "and I find the current politics of it (being a believer or non-believer) is complete nonsense and (voters) shouldn't allow that framing of the debate".  He also said he hopes some politicians "get brave enough" to have the conversations and take different positions.

Preston Manning added that in a polarized debate the solution should lie in "the reconciliation of conflicting interests by non-coercive means".  He felt all major interests needed to be identified and invited to the table.  Stephen Cornish, CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation also said that not only should everyone be present but the goal needed to be identified.  "Politics are driving people away from the table.  We haven't even agreed where we need to go" but the continued division is making it seem less likely we will be able to get there.

There are differing interests however as we've seen with the carbon tax implementation.  While the easiest thing for the federal government would have been to implement a 'one-size fits all' approach, they really wanted the provinces to find what would work for them said Winters.  This isn't always easier though, as Williams pointed out.  A company that operates across provincial borders now has to ensure it is adhering to a number of different policies when it could have been just one. 

Pierre-Gerlier Forest, Director and Palmer Chair at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, asked how it was possible to find a cohesive policy nationally.  "There is an anti-pipeline party running for government in Quebec" he said with slight exasperation, "how do we have a national discussion when everyone has a different point of view?"  Dodge had addressed this somewhat as well noting that people are no longer willing to allow someone to make decisions for them; they want to be involved in decision-making after the election as well.

Admittedly, it is a small number of people who engage in the entire political sphere.  There are special interest groups for everything today.  Are you particularly impressed by the need for social housing?  There's an advocacy group for that.  Do you feel the environment is the greatest priority today?  There's an advocacy group for that.  Do you support Canadian oil development?  There's an advocacy group for that.

"The federation is even more diverse" added Carissima Mathan, Vice Dean and Associate Professor of Law from the University of Ottawa. "It's more about geography; a reconciliation of interests away from a fundamental moral question versus immediate economic survival".  Carol Anne Hilton, CEO and Founder of the Indigenomics Institute, said there was "an alarming tendency to rely on 'national interest'" as a way to reduce collaboration.  Cornish stated there was "dissonance in policy; a fundamental disagreement on what we're trying to achieve".  It's hard to disagree with him.

At the end of the panel discussions, we were no closer to finding a solution to the current problem of how the environment and economy can, and must, work together.  However, both compromise and communication are necessary to move forward.  As Preston Manning said "the majority should respect the minority because one day, you might be the minority".

Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean
Content Director/Writer