Pembina comments on the federal environment commissioner's report

I intended to comment on the October Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, offering as it did yet another disappointing, if not depressing, account of the federal government's climate change efforts. However, a press release by the Pembina Institute said it better and with more expertise than I could, so I decided to offer that instead.

Matt Horne, director of the Institute's climate change program, commented as follows on Chapter 1 of the report which dealt with the government's plans under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act:

The federal government has repeatedly exaggerated the effectiveness of its policies to limit greenhouse gas pollution, and now admits its plan will be 90 per cent less effective than it first claimed. Further, the government has ignored the legal requirement to explain how it will make up for this gap.

Despite years of debate and discussion about federal action on climate change, the Commissioner found that the federal government still does not have a solid management structure in place to achieve its objectives, or properly measure the effectiveness of its policies or spending. This is a recipe for continued failure.

The Commissioner's findings are especially relevant when looking forward to Canada's 2020 commitments. Canada will fail to live up to those commitments unless it addresses the serious gaps in the ambition, implementation and monitoring of its climate change plans.

Nathan Lemphers, a senior Pembina policy analyst, commented on Chapter 2 which concerned the cumulative environmental effects of tar sands projects:

Today, Canada's environment commissioner concluded that the federal government is not able to adequately assess the cumulative environmental impacts of oil sands development due to gaps in monitoring data and baseline information. The implication of this is simple: the government can't claim to be effectively managing environmental impacts when it is not adequately assessing what those impacts are.

Doing a thorough job of assessing and understanding the environmental impacts is fundamental to making informed decisions about whether and how development should proceed. The government is failing on both counts.

This report is the latest in a series of reports that contradict the government's claims about protecting the environment in the oil sands region. Canadians have learned that their government does not have sufficient information to make informed decisions, and as a result is unable to properly assess the cumulative environmental impacts of oil sands development. The only thing diminishing faster than Canada's international credibility on these matters is the environmental assessment agency's budget, which will be cut in half over the next two years.

This report tells a different story than what the federal government has been saying in the U.S. and the EU, where it has downplayed environmental concerns in its effort to lobby for new pipeline approvals and shield the industry from environmental measures elsewhere.

Not an encouraging picture.

Loss of party subsidy is loss for democracy

Democracy is about political equality. To be democratic, a political system must in essence belong to all the people equally, and if it is to belong to all the people equally, all the people must fund it equally. One person/one dollar may not be as important as one person/one vote, but it is very important nonetheless—money does translate into votes.

The federal government's termination of the public subsidy to political parties will shift political power away from equality toward those with bigger purses, i.e. away from democracy toward plutocracy. This may be of little consequence to Conservatives because after all Conservatives believe in privilege, but it should be of considerable consequence to democrats.

The Conservatives are right in that we practice other ways of leveling the political playing field—banning of corporate contributions, tax breaks for contributions, limits on election spending, etc,—nonetheless the subsidy is an important tool in achieving greater political equality. Its loss will be a loss for democracy.

Cities—the provincial option

The possibility of Toronto becoming a province has popped up in the news again. The idea has floated around for years, supported by a variety of civic thinkers including the urban guru Jane Jacobs.

The idea has considerable merit and not only for Toronto. Under our Constitution, cities are creatures of the provinces, to be dealt with as provincial politicians see fit. This may have been reasonable when we were a rural country, but we have become an urban country, and it's time to reverse the relationship. A good start would be transforming our major cities into provinces. They are, after all, the centres of cultural and economic activity and should therefore be the centres of power.

Acquiring provincial status might require a constitutional amendment ... or it might not. If the federal and provincial government agreed to split a province, a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

Calgary's mayor, Naheed Nenshi, a vocal advocate for Canadian cities, has been talking a lot about the need for more sources of revenue for cities, emphasizing that their growing costs drastically outpace their property tax revenues. “I’m the mayor of a city that has more people in it than five provinces," he points out, "yet I have the exact same legislative authority as any village of 30 or 40 people. And that has to change.”

Indeed it does. And if he starts promoting the provincial option as the agent of that change, he will get my support.

At least read the bloody book

We in Christendom have a history of "Christians" using religion to justify violence of all kinds, from war to burning people at the stake. Indeed, exploiting one of history's gentlest prophets to justify violence is one of the more intriguing themes of the Christian story.

The prophet's Testament describes as non-violent a man as one could imagine. In Luke 6:29, he advises, "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other," and in Mathew 5:43-4, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

Of course, this is New Testament stuff. Old Testament stuff, on the other hand, can get pretty nasty—an eye for an eye and so on—but that after all is not the Testament of Christ, so it should have nothing to do with Christian behaviour. Unfortunately, many who insist on calling themselves Christians seem to prefer it, even when it's not so much Christ as Antichrist.

We should not be surprised therefore when the more devout among the Muslim faith also use religion to justify waging war and persecuting those who do not share their beliefs. A recent article about Pakistan in the September issue of the New Internationalist relates how religious fundamentalists in that country have brought in a number of blasphemy laws including one that specifies "death or imprisonment for life" for defiling the "sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad."

The joker in this pack is that the law would seem to violate the Koran, which says in verse 2.256, "There is no compulsion in religion," and in verse 73.10, "And bear patiently what they say and avoid them with a becoming avoidance."

But of course the disciples of violence will pick and choose from their good books, whether it be the Bible or the Koran, seeking words to justify imposing their brutish, self-righteous dogma. Asking them to read a little more carefully to find something that might at least modify their barbarous tendencies is, I suspect, asking too much.

CIA undermines aid agencies

That the CIA does sleazy stuff is hardly new. Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised then that they exploited children to help track Osama bin Laden.

In order to confirm his presence in Abbottabad, they sought DNA samples from the residents of what they believed to be his compound. To this end, they recruited a Pakistani doctor to organize a vaccine program. The doctor claimed he had obtained funds for free hepatitis B vaccinations for children. Bypassing the management of the Abbottabad health services, he paid generous sums to low-ranking local government health workers to carry out the "project." The idea was to get workers inside the target compound to obtain the DNA samples.

Aid workers say the CIA's reckless behaviour has threatened the safety of genuine aid workers and endangered programs to help Pakistan's poor. Médecins Sans Frontières president Unni Karunakara said, "The risk is that vulnerable communities—anywhere—needing access to essential health services will understandably question the true motivation of medical workers and humanitarian aid." The president of InterAction, an alliance of 190 U.S.-based NGOs, commented, "Such unethical behaviour endangers not only local populations but also the lives of legitimate humanitarian workers."

These concerns have proven valid. Save the Children moved aid workers out of Pakistan after a warning from U.S. consulate officials that staff could be picked up by Pakistani Intelligence over alleged links to the doctor involved in the CIA scheme. Save the Children has 2,000 employees in Pakistan and assisted seven million people in 2010, many during the massive floods. After the security threat, its activities slowed or ground to a halt.

Other aid workers have also been forced to leave the country, and charities have experienced long delays in obtaining visas and shipments of relief goods.

Pakistan has the biggest polio problem in the world, and there is a particular concern that polio vaccination campaigns could be at risk. In northern Nigeria in 2003, local leaders suspended polio vaccination, claiming the vaccine was a plot by the West to sterilize Islamic children in order to reduce Muslim populations. As a result, annual cases more than doubled and Nigeria exported polio to nearly two dozen countries. Those suspicious of the West, and that includes a large portion of the Pakistani population, now have a powerful new weapon in their arsenal of propaganda against Western aid agencies and programs such as vaccination. One wonders how many children will die as a result of the CIA's most recent mischief.

Palestine and the churlish U.S. veto

It seems so little to ask. A people, already recognized as a nation by most other nations, requests full membership in the UN. It should be a shoo-in. Palestine is recognized by 65 per cent of the world's states representing 75 per cent of the world's people, including most of the major nations such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. And yet, ever unconditionally faithful to Israel which opposes Palestinian membership, the United States intends to veto the request.

"Peace is hard," says U.S. President Obama. And a president who is fighting wars in six countries ought to know. But peace in Palestine is hard because the most powerful nation in the world unconditionally supports one side. Until the United States leans on Israel to settle fairly with the Palestinians, peace will continue to be hard.

The president insists that peace can only come through negotiations between the two parties, but relying solely on that approach has failed for over 60 years and is currently going nowhere. Every day the Palestinians see more of their land stolen and see themselves more segregated. And every day the Israelis gain more land and further isolate their victims.

There is simply no reason for the Israelis to seriously negotiate a settlement when, on the one hand, they profit every day by the lack of one and, on the other hand, can do whatever they want by virtue of having the strongest army in the region, complete with nuclear arms, and the political and military support of the United States.

The Palestinians have no recourse but to seek other avenues that will lead to their liberation, such as seeking full membership in the United Nations. Maybe it will help, maybe not, but they have nothing to lose.

The Jews have their state. It is churlish of the Americans to deny the same to the Palestinians. A writer in The Seattle Times sums it up nicely, "It angers me that the people who run this country (Democrats and Republicans alike) have become so blinded as to forget who they are: a country that once fought for freedom and representation. If the U.S. decides to veto Palestine’s request, it will be one of the least patriotic and most hypocritical actions this country has taken. At a time of world struggle, Americans need to remember who we are and stick up for the little guy."

British cooking a hit in Berlin

Black is white, down is up, and British cooking is popular in Berlin. It's true! Berlin has seen the opening of a spate of cafes and bars featuring British food.

East London, a cafe recently established in the trendy Kreuzberg district, serves scotch eggs, bacon and egg butties and steak and ale pies. Das Gift, run by Glaswegian musician Barry Burns, offers snacks such as salt'n'vinegar crisps and Tunnock's Caramel Wafers, along with a large range of Scottish ales. Hudson's, a corner cafe specializing in British baking, is so popular that weekends require reservations. There is even a chain, Broken English, which recently opened its third branch.

Prices can be a bit on the high side. At East London, a cup of tea will cost you $3.90 and a full English breakfast $13.00. People paying these prices for British cooking? Or must we now refer to it as British cuisine?

Barack Obama, the world's leading assassin, and his private army

Within the U.S. military is another military, a secret military. Not secret in its existence—although even that can be shadowy—but secret in its operations. Except when it scores a public relations coup, such as the mafia-style execution of Osama bin Laden, the American people don't know what it's up to. And it's up to a lot. According to stories in the Washington Post and Al Jazeera, U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries last year, up from 60 at the end of the Bush presidency, and possibly 120 by the end of this year. In other words, in most countries on the planet, where they train the special forces of other countries, engage in operations with them or engage in operations of their own.

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) now numbers over 60,000 personnel and includes the Army's "Green Berets" and Rangers, Navy SEALs, Air Force Air Commandos and Marine Corps Special Operations teams, as well as specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, civil affairs personnel, para-rescuemen, and air-traffic controllers and weathermen. In other words, essentially a complete military within the military.

And even deeper in the shadows is yet another army, composed of elements of the above, that reports directly to the president and acts under his authority. This is the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), a clandestine group whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. JSOC has made Obama the world's leading assassin. John Nagl, past counterinsurgency adviser to newly-appointed CIA Director David Petraeus, calls its extralegal kill/capture campaign "an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine."

And President Obama is using his killing machine with even more enthusiasm than his predecessor. A senior legal advisor in both Bush administrations, John B. Bellinger III, commented, "While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based." Obama bases his lethal operations not on constitutional executive authority as Bush did, but on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks. However, as Bellinger has pointed out, most of Obama's current targets had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The United Nations has, not surprisingly, questioned the legality of such operations under international law, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. And no doubt there are many instances where innocents are killed. An example is a JSOC attack in Takhar Province, Afghanistan, in September of last year which killed ten people and injured seven. It turns out they had targeted the wrong man and attacked an innocent election convoy.

As citizens of a democracy, Americans should be concerned about their president having this secret army of assassins at his beck and call. He is, after all, a president not a Caesar. These forces not only operate clandestinely in most countries around the world doing God knows what but they are even deployed in the homeland itself. JSOC has provided support to domestic law enforcement agencies during high profile events such as the Olympics, the World Cup, political party conventions and presidential inaugurations.
 
And the rest of us should be concerned as well. After all, SOCOM is engaged in its shadowy activities in most countries in the world. The Obama administration justifies this by claiming they obtain the permission of the countries their special forces operate in. Or at least the permission of the governments. That, as we know from the case of Pakistan, does not necessarily translate into the permission of the people.

Media organs such as the Washington Post and Al Jazeera do us a necessary service when they track the growth and behaviour of this ominous force. A light needs to be shone into this dark corner of U.S. government policy.

The best voting system for Canada

We have seen four provincial referendums recently offering alternatives to the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system and all failed to bring about change. A major reason for the failures may very well be the systems offered.

In B.C., a citizens’ assembly recommended the Single Transferable Vote (SVT) system and a citizens’ assembly in Ontario and a commission in Prince Edward Island both recommended the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system.

In order to see why these may have been poor choices, we need to keep two things in mind. First, the merit of the system proposed, and second, the marketability of that system to the electorate. There is, in other words, no point in recommending an excellent system, or at least excellent in theory, if the voters won’t accept it.

Let us ask first what Canadians would want in a new voting system. I suggest it should satisfy at least the following criteria:

1. Be fair to all voters (and political parties).
2. Be sensitive to the regions.
3. Provide equal opportunity to all potential candidates.
4. Provide local representation.
5. Enhance the power of voters over parties.
6. Be easy to understand.

Some of these have little to do with the theoretical merit of the system but are of vital importance in selling the system to the citizenry. Local representation, for example, is of limited value because most people vote for the party, not the candidate, yet the idea remains dear to the hearts of many voters. Not being easy to understand may not be a handicap to a good system, but it is a major handicap in selling it.

The citizens’ assemblies and the commission did a good job of choosing systems of merit, as we would expect from people who considered voting systems thoroughly, but failed when it came to marketability. It would seem the two choices appealed more to students of electoral systems than to the average voter.

The choice in B.C., Single Transferable Vote, maximizes the power of the voter but, unfortunately, presents about the most complicated ballot one can imagine. I may be underestimating the average voter, but I think he or she just wants to go into the booth and make an X (it’s getting increasingly difficult to get them to do even that), not engage in a convoluted analysis comparing candidates.

I was once a fan of Mixed Member Proportional, the choice offered in Ontario and PEI, but have increasingly come to dislike it, largely for its two classes of candidate, one elected by FPTP, the other from party lists. Many people are suspicious of the list candidates because they are chosen by the parties rather than the voters, a criticism that doesn’t stand up to analysis but seems tenacious, nonetheless.

I have come to believe that a simple PR system may not only be a very good system, but may be the easiest to sell. The only change from the current system would be multi-candidate constituencies.

To see how a simple system would work, consider my home city, Calgary. Calgary currently has eight constituencies, all of which elect Conservative MPs. Under simple PR, Calgary could be one constituency with each party presenting up to eight candidates on their list. Calgarians would still elect eight MPs but, if the popular vote were distributed as it was in the last election, elected would be five Conservative MPs, one NDP, one Liberal and one Green. Not only would the four parties—and Calgary voters—be represented fairly, but all six of the above criteria could be met.

As a PR system it would satisfy Criteria 1. PR systems also tend to provide better opportunities for women, thus helping to meet the biggest challenge of providing equal opportunity for potential candidates, i.e satisfying Criteria 3. The candidates would be local, therefore satisfying Criteria 2 and 4. Indeed this system would substantially improve local representation. Currently, NDP, Liberal and Green supporters have no meaningful local representation in Calgary. Under simple PR, they would.

Regarding Criteria 5, many voters are uncomfortable with PR because it presents lists of candidates and that makes them feel they are losing power to the parties. In fact, PR can increase the voter's power over FPTP. The simple PR ballot can be set up in two ways: the voter chooses a party or the voter chooses a particular party candidate. Under the first setup, the five Conservatives elected in Calgary would be the first five on the Conservative party list, i.e. they would be elected according to the party's ranking. Under the second setup, however, the five Conservatives elected would be the five who got the most votes—in other words, the party offers the voter a short list from which to make the final choice. This gives the voter more power than he or she has under FPTP where the Conservative voter’s only choice is the candidate offered by that party (of course, he or she can abandon his or her philosophy and vote for another party).

And finally, simple PR satisfies Criteria 6—it is easy to understand. The only significant change from FPTP is multi-candidate constituencies rather than single-member constituencies, and the voter is required to do no more than mark an X. If we want to sell PR to Canadians, this may be the way to do it.

Democracy week Sept 12-18

The United Nations has declared September 15th the International Day of Democracy. Fair Vote Canada is expanding the day to Democracy Week, September 12th to the 18th. The week, according to Fair Vote's website, is all about "participating, celebrating, understanding, and improving our Canadian democracy."

As I contemplate those four words "participating, celebrating, understanding, and improving," I can't help but feel this country need a great deal more of all of them and not just during Democracy Week. Participation has not been impressive recently with some very low voter turnouts at all levels of government. As for celebrating our democracy, well, that we hardly do that at all. With the rampant apathy toward the weaknesses in our democracy, such as our lamentable first-past-the-post voting system, we obviously need both more understanding and more improving of democracy.

The voting system is by no means the only area where we need improvement. We have precious little democracy in one of our most important places—the workplace. Our mass media is seriously flawed in serving its function as the chief public forum of democracy, vested as it is in corporate interests who shamelessly use it to promote their own agenda. Indeed, we allow corporations to intrude excessively on the citizens' democratic prerogative in a variety of ways: contributing to political parties, funding front organizations such as the Fraser Institute, and of course dominating the economy to the point they can bend any political party to their will. We are as much a plutocracy as a democracy.

So yes, we need a lot more "participating, celebrating, understanding, and improving," with the emphasis on improving, 52 weeks a year. The International Day of Democracy and Democracy Week will hopefully serve as reminders of this.

As my blogging participation in Democracy Week, I plan to write a short essay discussing what I believe would be the best voting system for Canada and post it this coming Thursday, the International Day of Democracy.

Barbie dolls are killing Chinese workers

Harmless, Barbie dolls are not. They are, in fact, responsible for exploitation, misery, and even death for thousands of innocents. According to the human rights group Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM), a Sturdy Products factory in Shenzhen, China, that makes Barbie dolls uses child labour and forces its staff to do three times the amount of overtime allowed by law. One worker reportedly killed herself after being repeatedly shouted at by bosses while others expressed concern about poisonous chemicals.

SACOM, which helped expose abuses in Apple's Foxconn plant in China earlier this year, recently assisted in an undercover investigation of the Sturdy Products factory. Barbie dolls are one of the products made for the giant Mattel company which last month announced quarterly profits of $76 million. The factory also makes toys for Disney and Walmart.

Disney, Walmart and Mattel all said they had carried out investigations. Mattel declined to comment directly on any of the allegations other than to say it was "deeply saddened" by the suicide. We must hope the investigations bring some relief to the workers, but a spokeswoman for SACOM is not optimistic. She observed, "Mattel, Walmart and Disney ... always claim they strictly comply with local laws and adhere to their respective code of conduct. The rampant violations at Sturdy Products, including excessive overtime, arbitrary wages, unfair punitive fines, child labour and negligence of occupational health, prove that the pledges are empty statements. There is no effective enforcement mechanism and remedies for workers at all."

Her words were underlined by Sturdy Products record. An investigation in 2007 uncovered similar problems. It found that employees were working up to 288 hours a month with a compulsory seven-day week during peak periods, and the company was failing to pay the minimum wage. Nothing, it seems, has changed.

This exploitation of Chinese workers is the essence of globalization as our governments have created it—providing cheap labour for corporations at almost any cost. It is upon this altar that the welfare of Western workers, too, is being sacrificed.

Sweden: hIgh taxes and highly competitive

The daily press, diligently promoting the interests of its corporate owners, continually insists that taxes must be kept low to ensure Canada's economy is competitive. This refrain is dutifully chorused by conservative politicians. It is not, however, true. It has, in fact, been utterly disproved—beyond a reasonable doubt as they say in the legal community—by various European countries.

For example, in the Global Competitiveness Report for 2011-12, produced by the World Economic Forum, Sweden ranks third, ahead of the United States (fifth) and Canada (twelfth), as the world's most competitive economy. And yet Sweden is the highest taxed country in the world with 54.2 per cent of its GDP going to taxes, compared to only 29.6 for the U.S. and 35.8 for Canada.
The World Economic Forum is an institution composed of various corporate communities so we can dismiss any suggestions of left-wing bias in the report.

The Forum ranks competitiveness on the quality of a nation's institutions; its infrastructure such as roads, ports and electricity supplies; macroeconomic factors such as government budget balances and gross national savings; health and education; goods and labour market efficiencies; technological readiness; market size; business sophistication; and innovation.

Northern and Western European nations, i.e. relatively high tax nations, dominated the top 10 rankings. This makes sense. Countries with good social and physical infrastructure, i.e. countries with well-educated, healthy workforces and good roads, ports and other facilities should be highly competitive economically. And good infrastructure does not come cheap. We might expect, therefore, that to maximize its prosperity, a country must have high taxes—just the opposite of what the corporate message tirelessly tells us.

Americans pissed at politicians, particularly at the GOP

This has been a summer of discontent in American politics. According to The Pew Research Center, 79 per cent of the U.S. public are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country and even more are frustrated or angry with their federal government.

The Republicans are particularly out of favour. Since February, the approval rating of their leaders has dropped from a low 36 per cent to an abysmal 22 per cent. Democratic leaders aren't faring much better at 29 per cent. Approval of Republican leaders had jumped ahead of the Democrats by last November's election, but has plunged back below the Democrats since, rather as if Americans regret their decision to elect more Republicans.

The Republican Party's favourable rating has similarly declined, from 43 per cent in February to 34 per cent today. Again the Democrats did better, only dropping from 47 per cent favourable to 43, but still on the wrong side of 50.

President Obama has also seen his approval decline despite ridding the Americans of their nemesis, Osama bin Laden. Since the assassination in May, his approval rating has "declined markedly," and for the first time since he was elected, significantly more Americans disapprove than approve of the way he is doing his job.

This disenchantment with politicians is hardly surprising after the acrimonious budget debate, but it should, nonetheless, alert the two political parties, particularly the Republicans, that their constituents are fed up with politics as usual. Will the upcoming election year see a more civil, constructive political climate? Judging by the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, I doubt it.

Fukushima—radiation damage that just won't quit

I admit to a love-hate relationship with nuclear power. One day I am all for it because of the large amounts of relatively green power it can provide. I wonder if we can seriously reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without it. And then an incident like the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan reminds me of what a nasty little friend nuclear power can be.

Fukushima has now claimed another casualty. On Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced his resignation, thought to be largely due to his handling of the tsunami and Fukushima disasters. Kan's resignation follows by days the announcement that residents who lived close to the damaged plant are to be told their homes may be uninhabitable for decades, even if the operation to stabilize the reactors by January succeeds.

The government had planned to allow the 80,000 people evacuated from the 12-mile exclusion zone back into their homes once the reactors had been brought under control. However, the science ministry now estimates that radiation accumulated over one year at 22 of 50 tested sites inside the exclusion zone would easily exceed 100 millisieverts, five times higher than the safe level advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. "We can't rule out the possibility that there will be some areas where it will be hard for residents to return to their homes for a long time," said Yukio Edano, chief cabinet secretary, "We are very sorry." Entire towns may remain unfit for habitation for decades.

As for nuclear power, the prime minister had won widespread public support for his plan to phase it out, but most of his potential successors oppose the plan. Naoto Kan may be far from the last casualty.

Busting the union-busting bills

Anti-union legislation has been all the rage in the U.S. following last November's election of a number of right-wing governors. Most notorious is Wisconsin's Scott Walker, infamous for his polarizing union law that strips most public employees of their collective bargaining rights. Ohio governor John Kasich hasn't received similar attention, but his Bill 5 (SB5) has been an equally savage an attack on workers' rights.

Kasich is not, however, having as much success in putting his bill into action. Ohio activists, led by the coalition group We Are Ohio, took advantage of the state's Citizen Veto law that gave them 90 days to collect enough signatures to stop the bill going into effect until voters had a chance to vote on it themselves. They needed 231,149 signatures; they collected 1.3 million, the greatest signature collection drive in the history of the state. The bill will be put on the ballot in the November election. The governor now wants to compromise and called for a meeting with union leaders and others opposed to the bill. They formally rejected any deal with the governor until the bill is repealed.

Public Policy Polling now has Kasich with only 36 per cent approval, lowest in the country except for Florida's Rick Scott. Scott, another right-wing union-basher, is currently besieged with lawsuits attacking his often bizarre legislation. Three unions representing state workers are suing the state, claiming it violated its contractual obligations and broke the law. Scott has already had his wrists slapped by the Florida Supreme Court who ruled he had “overstepped his constitutional authority” and “violated the separation of powers” on another matter.

And as for Wisconsin and Governor Walker, there too the anti-union legislation is facing legal challenges. This summer, two Republican senators were bounced out of office in recall elections because of Walker's bill, the first time in American history more than one state legislator has been recalled at the same time over the same issue.

This vigorous opposition to anti-union legislation is encouraging. A proper democratic society includes democracy in the workplace and unions are the major source of that democracy.

Goldman Sachs boss lawyers up

Will justice ever be done? This is a question U.S Investors have been asking about the recent financial crisis. Specifically, they have queried why no criminal charges have been laid against Goldman Sachs or any other investment bank whose greed and recklessness led to the crisis. They may finally be getting an answer with the news that Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, has hired one of the country's top criminal defence lawyers to help him address claims his bank misled clients in the run-up to the financial crisis and subsequently misled Congress.

Jake "Jaws" Zamansky, the hotshot U.S. attorney who spearheaded the successful pursuit of investment banks after the dotcom crash, predicts this may indicate the beginning of a series of cases against Wall Street firms. Goldman has admitted executives at the firm are expected to be interviewed by the Justice Department.

The Obama administration cannot be overly enthusiastic about pursuing Goldman Sachs, especially with an election year approaching. The company was a major contributor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, CEO Blankfein is a frequent visitor to the White House, and a number of former Goldman executives have held senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Nonetheless, the Justice Department has a lot to work with, including the support of many ordinary Americans who wonder how a bunch of amoral bankers can crash the financial system, doing serious harm to millions of people, and not wind up in jail. Justice may yet triumph in this sordid story.

Britain's class struggle and the proclivity to riot

The British lower classes, like those elsewhere, have for a very long time expressed their grievances with riot against the established order, going back to the Poor riot of 1196, and including the Spitalfield and Gordon riots of the 18th century, the Luddite and Bristol riots of the 19th century, and the Luton Peace Day riot of the 20th. Other Western countries have similar histories but, with the exception of the United States, seem to have in recent times achieved greater success at relieving tensions in the social order.

One reason, perhaps the major reason, why social distrust smolders in Great Britain is the persistence of inequality, of class, in that country. Despite considerable progress, Britain remains one of the most inequitable nations in the West.

Inequality can be measured in various ways, but the results are much the same. Consider, for instance, the ratio of the average income of the richest 10 per cent of the population to the poorest 10 per cent. In the more equitable Western countries, that ratio runs at around six (Norway 6.1, Sweden 6.2, Germany 6.9, etc.). For France and Canada, it is higher at 9.1 and 9.4 respectively. Britain's ratio is 13.8, exactly twice that of Germany and almost as bad as the United States at 15.9. The class struggle persists in that green and pleasant land.

We know that inequality in a society equates to dysfunction. The higher the inequality, the less healthy a society is—the higher the rates of crime, drug abuse, mental illness, etc., and presumably the more susceptible it is to rioting. Prime Minister David Cameron can preach moral values until he's blue in the face but until Britain deals seriously with its inequality problem, i.e. its class problem, it will suffer a relatively high rate of social tension, the next riot just around the corner.

Peter MacKay, "royal" privilege, and the unelected Senate

Canadians can hardly escape the "royal" connection. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Royal Ontario Museum ... the list is endless. To say nothing of the royal visage staring out at us from our currency. All appropriate I suppose as the royal family provides our head of state.

I am bemused, nonetheless, at Defence Minister Peter MacKay's enthusiasm for returning to the "royal" air force and navy. After all, aren't the Conservatives the strongest critics of our unelected Senate? And yet here is a Conservative government applauding our allegiance to not only an unelected head of state but a foreign one at that. At least the Senate is appointed by our elected representatives thus achieving a modicum of democratic respectability. The Queen, imposed on us by an accident of birth, doesn't even have that to her credit. Indeed, democracy is triply insulted—a foreign, unelected head of state chosen by aristocratic privilege.

I suppose I should not be surprised that conservatives support this arrangement. They are, after all, firm believers in privilege. And as to this country cleaving to an archaic institution ... well, that's very conservative, too. So, I am left wondering, why are they fussing about the Senate?

David Cameron, former Bullingdon bully, criticizes rioters

It is always such a challenge to divorce the class angle from British affairs. Two of the most vociferous critics of the recent rioters in London and other cities have been Prime Minister David Cameron and London mayor Boris Johnson. As it turns out, these two old Etonians know a little about vandalism themselves. Back in the '80s, during their Oxford days, they were members of the infamous Bullingdon Club.

The club is famous for its misbehaviour, a favourite form of which is trashing restaurants. Their notorious dinners typically involve members booking a private dining room (usually under an assumed name) and drinking themselves stupid before wrecking the place.

On the night the attached photo was taken, the group was strolling through Oxford after dinner when one threw a plant pot through the window of a restaurant. Six of them were arrested and spent the night in a lockup before being released without charge the next morning. Cameron escaped.

We might expect the Prime Minister's personal experience with gangs and vandalism to provide him with some empathy for the wild oat sowing youth of Tottenham, but I wouldn't be too optimistic.

In any case, one thing can be said for the Bullingdons. After trashing a restaurant they characteristically pay for the damages by peeling off high-denomination bills from their fat wallets. A bit of noblesse oblige, if you like. But then the Bullingdons are rich men's sons, they can afford it. The rioters of recent days are hardly equipped to do likewise. The rich are indeed different from the rest of us.

A lesson in hypocrisy from King Abdullah

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has condemned Syria's Assad regime for its suppression of pro-democracy dissenters and withdrawn his ambassador. This is a very civilized thing to do in the face of the brutality taking place in that country.

Coming from Abdullah however, it is thoroughly unconvincing. The Saudis recently supported a similarly brutal suppression of a pro-democracy movement by the kleptocratic Al Khalifa family, rulers of neighbouring Bahrain, complete with the usual beatings, torture and murder. Comically, Bahrain has also withdrawn its ambassador from Syria.

The king probably had a variety of reasons for condemning Assad: Syria is a secular republic and is friendly toward Iran. He may also have had encouragement from the United States. But the suppression of democracy was certainly not one of the reasons. With the Saud family imposing a harsh, theocratic, misogynistic regime on their own citizens, any criticism of fellow dictators cannot but ring hollow. They could best speak out for democracy by practicing a little themselves.

Coca Cola sponsors the Pope

What would Jesus do? Would he take a trip to Spain that cost the Spanish taxpayers, in the midst of a severe economic crisis, $80 million while accepting sponsorship from over 100 corporations, including Coca Cola?

Apparently 100 Spanish priests don't think so. That's what Pope Benedict is doing and they are protesting it. The priests represent Madrid's poorest parishes and don't believe that the expense can be justified at a time of massive public sector cuts and 20 per cent unemployment. One member of the group, Evaristo Villar, explained, "We are not against the pope's visit, we are against the way it is being staged." A sore point for many Spaniards is that pilgrims to the event will receive free transport while locals in Madrid are facing a 50 per cent increase in transit fares.

Meanwhile the Church is hoping—or perhaps the appropriate word is praying—that the response this time will be better than the poorly received visit to Barcelona last November when, according to the Guardian, the popemobile was "forced to drive at top speed past small groups of the faithful along mainly deserted streets."

But not to worry. With Coca Cola on side, things will no doubt go better.

Stability in South Asia?

Suspended because of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008, peace talks between India and Pakistan are back on. Foreign ministers of the two countries have held a formal meeting in New Delhi that brought effusive comments from both parties.

The Indian foreign minister, SM Krishna, said his country wanted to see a "a stable, smooth and prosperous Pakistan." while his counterpart, Pakistan foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, said their relationship "should not be held hostage to the past," but that the two countries should move forward as "friendly neighbours, who have a stake in each other's future and who understand the responsibility that both the countries have to the region."

Both India and Pakistan are joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization this year, a mutual-security organization which currently includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. With the addition of India and Pakistan, it will represent over half of humanity. Membership will not only create a bond between the two nations, it will offer another forum for dialogue.

Any easing of tensions between these nuclear-armed neighbours is good news for all of us. It is, of course, particularly good news for two poor populations who see far too much of their countries' wealth consumed by their militaries.

Wealth gap in the U.S.—100 years of progress lost

A lost century—inequality in the U.S. is more extreme than it has been in almost 100 years. The gap between the ultra-rich and the poor and middle class has widened dramatically over the last 30 years. The richest one per cent of Americans now earn almost a quarter of the country's income and control over 40 per cent of its wealth.

The wealth gap between the races is also worsening. According to the Pew Research Center, the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households, the most lopsided ratios since the U.S. government began publishing the data a quarter of a century ago.

Everyone's living standards have improved in the last hundred years, of course, but Americans should nonetheless be worried about this relapse into inequality. Quite aside from the lack of decency and fair play, these inequities carry a heavy price. Demographic analysis increasingly shows a powerful link between inequality and social problems. More inequality means more crime, more drug abuse, more mental illness, more obesity, etc. An equitable society is a healthy society. And a healthy society is a more prosperous society.

American politicians have been intensely involved in debate about their federal government's financial situation as the country attempts to recover from the Great Recession. If they want to maximize that recovery, they should be looking at reducing the country's wealth gap. In the long term, this may be the most important component of not only a healthy society but of a healthy economy.

Former Iranian Guard commander to become OPEC boss

Now this is interesting. Brigadier General Rostam Ghasemi, a senior commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has been approved by Iran's parliament as the country's next oil minister. This automatically makes him head of OPEC as Iran assumed the presidency of OPEC last October.

The general presents certain problems. He is subject to sanctions by both the U.S. and the European Union. The sanctions bar him from traveling in the EU, making it awkward for him to attend OPEC's quarterly summits in Vienna.

Not that Ghasemi is without qualifications. He has an engineering degree and was head of the Khatam Anbia Troops, the Guard's engineering and construction company that had a major role in the re-construction of the country after the war with Iraq. He has considerable experience in oil and gas production. 

Despite his credentials and his approval by parliament, not all Iranians agree on the wisdom of the appointment. Ali Motahari, a prominent conservative MP who has in the past threatened to impeach Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, opposes involvement of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran's politics, telling parliament, "The integration of the Guard, as a military force, in political and economic power is not in the interests of the system. In neighboring countries, military officials are distancing themselves from politics and power, while it's the opposite in Iran." Motahari is recognizing the simple fact that allowing the military to become a vested economic and political interest is a recipe for military dictatorship and Iran is following that recipe.

In any case, there he is. How the Europeans and the Americans will react to having one of Ahmadinejad's hard line cabinet ministers as head of OPEC, an organization that plays a critical role in determining world oil prices, will be interesting. Take a good look at that handsome face. You may be seeing a lot more of it in the future.

The "most Catholic country" slips away

Pope Paul VI once referred to Ireland as "the most Catholic country in the world." Now it seems the Irish are slipping the Vatican's leash. Abortion on demand remains illegal and most citizens describe themselves as Catholic, but the Irish people are becoming increasingly secular. The legality of divorce, the widespread availability of contraception and the decline in church attendance all manifest the drift from Catholic doctrine.

And now the unimaginable has happened—the Church has been denounced in the Irish parliament. Taoiseach (prime minister) Enda Kenny unleashed what the Guardian called "an unprecedented and blistering attack" on the Vatican's role in the cover-up of abuse. A report released earlier this month accused the Catholic hierarchy of undermining the Irish church's own policy of reporting child abuse to the authorities. Kenny told the Dáil that "the rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold instead the primacy of the institution, in power, standing and reputation." Strong words, to say the least. The Vatican has responded by recalling its ambassador to Dublin.

Kenny is himself a Catholic with a political base in the country's conservative, rural west and whose party, Fine Gael, has traditionally been the stoutest champion of the church's power and privilege.

One of the most interesting aspects of this spat is that the Irish people are siding with their prime minister. Michael Kelly, deputy editor of the influential newspaper the Irish Catholic, claimed that most Catholics in the Republic would back Kenny rather than the Vatican, referring to "the widespread and positive public reaction to the speech." The lead story in a recent edition, entitled "Time for Penitence," included the words, "Instead of fond memories of a nurturing Church, most remember an arrogant authoritarian Irish Church and a privileged clerical caste that obsessed over sexuality and hell fire and neglected the tender compassion of Christ." "The Taoiseach's speech," it continued, "while unfair in some of the detail, was an emotional roar from much of Catholic Ireland to the Vatican for action now."

Will the action come? Will the Church seriously reform? Or will it continue to hide behind hollow apologies? It seems the Irish are getting tired of waiting.

Crime—the declining problem

Down, down, down it goes. According to Stats Can's latest report, our crime rate has dropped again, down five per cent from 2009 to 2010, now in decline for 20 years. Particularly impressive was the 10 per cent drop in the murder rate, and perhaps even more telling about the dwindling urge to violence is the 13 per cent drop in the attempted murder rate. We are, it seems, increasingly becoming a peaceable kingdom.

This does not mean our Conservative government will back off on its law and order fixation. A major influence on crime rates is the age of the population. Our population became younger for a generation after the baby boom, and crime rates increased accordingly, now we are aging and crime rates decline accordingly. But older people worry more about crime, so it isn't surprising for concern about crime to increase as crime itself declines. The Conservatives may act on that concern and, in any case, they are conservatives and conservatives tend to cling instinctively to outdated ideas.

We may therefore be paying for law and order measures that will do nothing to make us safer but may at least make some among us feel safer. Somehow I don't think I'll find much consolation in that as I watch my tax dollars go down the drain.

The energy ministers' Orwellian statement

The news release and action plan issued by the provincial energy ministers following their recent conference in Kananaskis stepped rather lightly over environmental concerns. Perhaps this is not unexpected at a meeting paid for in part by oil companies. One statement went beyond treating environmental concerns lightly to the point of trashing them. I refer to the comment in the news release that reads, “As global energy demand is expected to grow over the coming decades, Alberta’s oil sands are a responsible and sustainable major supplier of energy to the world.”

The statement is patently false. The oil sands may be a vast resource, but they are nonetheless finite and therefore, by definition, unsustainable. Furthermore, considering they represent the dirtiest form of oil produced, to refer to them as responsible is Orwellian.

If this reflects the energy ministers attitude toward, to say nothing of their understanding of, dirty oil then we, and the environment, are in serious trouble. The fact that the energy ministers of Manitoba and Nova Scotia signed on to this communiqué particularly disturbs me as I had thought the NDP had a more enlightened approach to dealing with climate change.

All is not dark, however. Ontario Energy Minister Brad Duguid, who did not attend the conference, said his province wasn't "comfortable with the wording that the oil sands are sustainable and responsible.” One province at least is on the side of the angels. As for the others, one despairs.

Canada's growing income gap: It isn't the size of the pie, it's the size of the pieces

According to the Conference Board of Canada's report How Canada Performs, we are becoming a more unequal society. Although, in the period 1976 to 2009, all Canadians were better off in real dollars, the poor and the middle class have gained only marginally. The rich, on the other hand, are getting a lot richer. This is largely due to the "super rich"—the richest one per cent of Canadians. From 1998 to 2007—the decade of greatest economic expansion in this generation—they took home almost a third of all income growth. In the 1950s and 60s, the last time the economy grew so fast, they received only eight per cent of income growth. The graph below shows the Gini index for Canada (the share of total income that would need to be redistributed to achieve exact income equality) for 1976 to 2009.

As to what effect income inequality has on the well-being of a country, the report states, "High inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions. Second, high inequality raises a moral question about fairness and social justice."

How should our government react to this trend? The "fairness and social justice" bit may have little influence on the present office-holders—conservatives, after all, believe in privilege—but they should pay close attention to the "economic growth" and "social cohesion" bits. There is a growing body of evidence, summarized nicely in Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, that more equitable societies are healthier societies. The evidence shows that more equal societies have lower rates of heart disease, crime, drug abuse, obesity, mental illness and other social ills than less equal societies, and the rates are lower not only for the poor but for the rich as well, i.e. everyone benefits from equality. The determining factor is the relative levels of incomes within a society, not the absolute levels. The reason, as the report states, is that less equality results in less social cohesion. This in turn results in increased insecurity, more stress and a greater obsession with status.

The Conservatives claim to want a stronger economy and less crime. An excellent step toward achieving both these goals would be to act forcefully to end this disturbing trend toward greater inequality.

It all began with Maggie and Ron

The modern march to free market supremacy is often thought to have begun with the ascendancy of the conservative regimes of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. and the Ronald Reagan in the U.S. One of its ultimate—and inevitable—outcomes was the recent collapse of the world financial system and wrecking of the economies of those nations most seduced by it.

And now another chicken has come home to roost. The British media has been exposed as massively corrupt, a corruption that has crept also into the United States. Much of this has resulted directly from the policies of the twin conservative ideologues.

Murdoch was in no small degree a creature of Thatcher. Prior to the arrival of the Iron Lady on the political scene, Murdoch owned two tabloids, the Sun and the News of the World, fun reads whose exuberance, sports coverage and girly pics appealed to a male, blue-collar readership. Neither were politically influential. In return for Murdoch's support in her political endeavours, Thatcher set aside the competition law, allowing him to buy the Times and the Sunday Times and thus become the major player in the British press. Her support was also critical to Murdoch acquiring exclusive football rights, central to the success of his Sky TV. In return for this largesse, he turned his media muscle loose on Thatcher's enemies. The rise of Murdoch's empire and Thatcher's political reign in the 1980s was not coincidental.

Meanwhile in the United States, President Ronald Reagan's henchmen were busily dismantling the Fairness Doctrine, one of American democracy's strengths. The doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance and to present them in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. Under Reagan-appointed commissioners, the FCC stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine and repealed it entirely in 1987. Thus was the door opened for vested interests to dominate the air waves without the inconvenience of offering counter opinions.

Dominated by an unethical oligarch, the British media has degenerated into a cesspool of sleazy, bullying journalism and political influence peddling. The latter is the greatest threat, corrupting not only journalistic standards but democracy itself. Murdoch, triumphant in Britain, carried his corruption into the U.S. After turning his Sun newspaper in the U.K. into an instrument of crude news manipulation and distortion, now free of the need for fairness in the US. he was able to apply the model there with his Fox News network. Fox has brought journalism not down into the gutter, but into the sewer.

At best, Thatcher and Reagan were naive ideologues, believing the invisible hand would guide greedy, ruthless men to act responsibly even as they were released from reasonable rules. At worst, they were simply political opportunists, willing to trample the public good for their own ideological and political ends. Either way, we continue to pay a high price for their misguided ambitions.

China leads spending on green energy

"Global investment in renewable energy jumped 32 per cent in 2010, to a record $211 billion," reads the Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011 report. The report, commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), revealed that for the first time financial new investment (money invested in renewable energy companies, utility-scale generation and bio fuel projects) by developing countries surpassed that of developed countries. China led the way, now the world leader with investment of $49 billion. Significant increases were also seen in South and Central America, the Middle East and Africa.

Europe saw a decline in financial new investment to $35 billion; however, this was more than made up for by a surge in small-scale project installation, predominantly rooftop solar. Germany alone saw an increase of $34 billion, up 132 per cent. "Europe’s small-scale solar energy boom owed much to feed-in tariffs, particularly in Germany, combined with a sharp fall in the cost of photovoltaic modules," said the report. The cost of PV modules has fallen by 60 per cent since mid-2008. As costs decrease, feed-in tariffs—higher prices for green power—are being reduced accordingly. In 2010, investment in solar came close to catching up to that in wind.

The overall increase in renewable energy investment from $160 billion in 2009 to $211 billion in 2010 is encouraging. UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner commented: "The continuing growth in this core segment of the Green Economy is not happening by chance. The combination of government target-setting, policy support and stimulus funds is underpinning the renewable industry’s rise and bringing the much needed transformation of our global energy system within reach." Yes, well ... keep your fingers crossed.

UK media mess—once again self-regulation fails

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted it. He recently declared that press self-regulation in Britain had failed and a new body, independent of the media and the government, is needed to properly enforce standards. Quite an admission for a conservative, although having his one-time communications chief, former editor of News of the World Andy Coulson, arrested Friday, may have finally concentrated his mind on Britain's corrupt press.

"Party leaders were so keen to win the support of newspapers that we turned a blind eye to the need to sort this issue," said Cameron, "The people in power knew things weren't right but they didn't do enough quickly enough."

That's putting it mildly. Britain's premier press lord, Rupert Murdoch, has been described as the most powerful man in the UK, a man whose blessing is essential to winning a general election. When Tony Blair first ran for prime minister, one of the first things he did was fly half way around the world to genuflect before Murdoch in his native Australia. And when David Cameron became prime minister, one of the first visitors to Number 10 was of course Rupert Murdoch. The Great Corrupter has almost singlehandedly turned the country's democracy into an oligarchy.

This corruption of the democratic system is the greatest threat oligarchs such as Murdoch pose, not the sordid practices of paying police for information and hacking into the phone messages of celebrities, young murder victims and the grieving families of dead soldiers.

Now, in a grand gesture, Murdoch has shut down his scandal-plagued News of the World, but not, I suspect, because he has recently discovered ethics. Rather more because the paper's advertisers are deserting it by the dozen in order to avoid the taint of sleaze, and that means it could quickly become a money-loser. Murdoch may not understand journalistic standards, but he certainly understands money. And then, of course, there is his need for government approval to buy the 61 per cent of British Sky Broadcasting he doesn't own.

Cameron has indicated Murdoch's apparent act of penitence won't get him off the hook. "I want everyone to be clear," He has said, "Everything that has happened is going to be investigated." He intends to appoint a judge to lead a thorough investigation of what went wrong at the News of the World, including alleged bribery of police officers, and establish a second inquiry to find a new way to regulate the press.

The latter is something we should be paying close attention to. Our daily press, even the Sun chain, isn't hacking people's phones or paying off police officers, but it is nonetheless owned and controlled by a handful of oligarchs and even if none have the power of Rupert Murdoch their concentrated ownership undermines democracy. We, too, need an independent regulator. The daily press is our most important public forum and is, therefore, much to valuable to leave to self-regulation by corporate interests.

Why we should not hold a referendum on proportional representation

It seems that every time the subject of changing the voting system comes up, we automatically assume that a change must be sanctioned by a referendum. I increasingly feel this is a mistake.

We have experienced four referendums on the voting system in this country recently, one in Prince Edward Island, two in B.C., one in Ontario, and all lost even though the systems proposed were thoroughly considered and two were recommended by citizens' assemblies. While it is true that in the first B.C. referendum the proposed system received 57 per cent of the vote, it nonetheless lost because the government set an unreasonable requirement of 60 per cent. In the next referendum the system was roundly defeated, obtaining only 39 per cent of the vote. It is time to think about whether the referendum approach is a sound one.

Referendums have major drawbacks as a democratic instrument, one of which is the ignorance factor. Some citizens will research the issue, think it through calmly and thoroughly, and discuss and debate it with others. Some won’t. The more complex the issue the greater the ignorance, and voting systems are, unfortunately, a complex issue.

Healthy democracy requires a great deal more than the people’s voice and the people’s will. It requires fully-informed, thoughtful voices and wills, and these are often absent, to a greater or lesser degree, from referendums.

One of the advantages of representative democracy is having decisions made by people whose job is to study issues thoroughly before deciding. Referendums short-circuit this advantage. If we insist that legislatures read bills three times (in the case of Parliament, three times in both the House and the Senate), are we being sensible when we decide an issue in one go in a referendum? A decision made by elected representatives after thorough consideration may well be closer to what the people would decide if they deliberated rather than if they simply voted in a referendum.

However, if we do want the people to decide directly, we could use a citizens' assembly, rather like the first step in the B.C. and Ontario processes. With a citizens' assembly, the participants can be thoroughly immersed in voting systems such that when they decide on a system, it is a knowledgeable, carefully considered decision. Unfortunately, in the B.C. and Ontario cases the decisions of the assemblies were subverted by forwarding them to referendums. Ironically, a citizens' assembly, if chosen by random selection, will almost certainly be more representative of the population at large than a referendum. An assembly is “the people” in microcosm.

I suggest, therefore, that the preferred approach to change would be delegating the choice of a system to a citizens' assembly and then referring that decision directly to the legislature.

Electoral change does not require constitutional change. What one government legislates, the next can undo. If the people dislike a system introduced by an incumbent government, they can respond accordingly and vote that government out in the next election. A vigorous debate generated by an unpopular voting system may be just the catalyst needed to fully develop a popular sense of what voting systems mean to democracy. This sense is now seriously undeveloped in this country. Relying on referendums for change may mean it will remain that way.

Canada's not entirely harmless romance with "Will & Kate"

Calgarians, indeed Albertans, will often tell you that this is a place where you are judged by what you do, not by who you are. I doubt this was ever true. I've lived across Canada and I've never found Calgarians any less susceptible to the prestige of a name or the seduction of celebrity than other Canadians. If there was any doubt about that, the current gushing over William Windsor and Katherine Middleton, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Earl and Countess of Strathearn, Baron and Baroness of Carrickfergus, should leave no doubt.

If it's what you do that counts, these two haven't done much more than any other prominent young couple of wealth might do—get born into the right family, dabble a little in this, dabble a little in that, have an opulent wedding, wave to the groupies and otherwise endure the trials of celebrity. And yet this country is honouring them as if they have accomplished something of importance.

I don't want to be a party pooper. Lavishing attention on the royal couple is generally harmless fun, but let's not forget this guy is next in line after his dad to become king of England and therefore our head of state. Choosing our head of state in this manner ... whoops, actually we don't choose, do we. Accepting a head of state in this manner is not only undemocratic, it is sexist and bigoted. Sexist because sons inherit the Crown ahead of daughters and bigoted because the heir must be a Protestant not married to a Catholic.

And one wonders why our federal government is so indifferent to the fact William won't be elected when he becomes our grand poobah. This, after all, is the party that refuses to accept an unelected Senate.

So ... let's not end the fun. They are a lovely couple and any excuse for a party, eh wot? But let's give some thought to the fact that this harmless-appearing fellow may one day be imposed upon us as our head of state in accordance with an archaic and prejudiced tradition, a tradition deeply insulting to the democratic process.

British Columbians love their carbon tax ... so far

As British Columbia's carbon tax celebrates its third birthday, the province's residents seem to have grown rather fond of it. According to a Pembina Institute report, 69 percent of British Columbians are concerned about global warming and 70 per cent support their province being a leader in dealing with it. Furthermore, they would like the tax applied to all sources of pollution that cause global warming, not just fossil fuel combustion as is the case now. In fact, as a way of raising government revenue it was their second choice after corporate taxes, more popular than sales taxes, property taxes and personal income taxes.

British Columbians, unlike our federal government, are not prepared to wait for others to lead the way in dealing with climate change. Seventy per cent strongly agree or somewhat agree with the statement: “B.C. should be a leader in reducing pollution that causes global warming, even if our neighbors and competitors lag behind.” Over half feel current actions are “not tough enough” while only 36 per cent feel they are “about right.”

Indications are the tax is reducing the use of fossil fuels. Research by Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa economist and professor of law, found that B.C.’s per capita fuel usage had fallen more than four per cent compared with the rest of Canada while its economy, measured by GDP, has kept up with the rest of Canada's.

Nonetheless, this isn't good enough. According to the Pembina Institute, a carbon tax approaching 50 cents a litre for gasoline will be required to meet emission reduction goals for 2020, but the current tax, which has escalated each year, will work out to only 6.7 cents a litre in 2012 after which no increases are scheduled. About half of British Columbians are currently opposed to an increase after 2012, so more winning of hearts and minds is obviously required.

All of us are contributing to global warming, the biggest threat our civilization faces. All of us should therefore be held accountable for the damage we are doing. The fairest and most effective way to do this is through a carbon tax—the more you pollute the more you pay. It is encouraging to see British Columbians at least getting a start on accepting their responsibilities, but discouraging that the start is so small and that no other Canadians have accepted a comparable tax.

The Arab spring—seeking a deeper democracy than ours?

Catherine Ashton, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, recently stated that the EU called for "deep democracy" in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt as they liberated themselves from dictators. She emphasized that deep democracy is about more than votes and elections. It includes the rule of law, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, impartial administration, enforceable property rights and free trade unions. "It is," she said, "not just about changing government but about building the right institutions and attitudes."

She is right about all that of course but she might have added that, most importantly, it is about ensuring that decisions of governments derive from citizens and not from vested interests. On this critical point, the governments arising out of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have the potential to be deeper than ours.

We have experienced in recent years the shallowing of our democracy. Government decisions seem increasingly abandoned to an ideology of free market supremacy within which the influence of corporations and their neo-classical economic gurus all to frequently trump the influence of citizens. An example is U.S. President Barack Obama's medicare program, the most important piece of legislation passed in that country in recent years. Without major concessions to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, it is doubtful he would have seen it passed. But much more importantly, the economic liberalization and globalization driven by free market zealotry has resulted in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Now the U.S. and the EU are encouraging the Tunisians and Egyptians to adopt this same philosophy just as they encouraged Eastern European nations to adopt it after the collapse of Communism, ignoring the fact that many of those countries then either stagnated or endured a monster credit bubble followed by a fiscal crisis and a collapse into the arms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Fortunately, there is evidence the Arabs are not falling for it. For example, Egypt recently rejected a $3 billion loan from the IMF as Arab activists warned that conditions attached to western aid threaten to undercut the goals of economic and social justice at the heart of the Arab spring.

The Arab NGO Network for Development is concerned that transitional governments meant to be in power for the short term until elections can be held could be signing up their successors to long-term commitments to neoliberal reforms—privatization, deregulation and liberalization of trade—in exchange for the urgent financial help they need. They point out that these reforms were largely responsible for the inequality and concentration of power that created the need for revolution in the first place.

A joint statement from 65 Arab civil society groups included the following, "The path to development of each country should be decided by its own people, via constitutional processes and national dialogue." If the revolutionaries remain true to these words, they may not only create deep democracy for themselves, they may refresh democracy for all of us.