Pressure for Climate Change Resolution

At the Commonwealth summit in Uganda, an issue of extreme importance is that of climate change. This is an issue where Canada and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are "facing heavy political pressure to agree to binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions" (As reported in the CBC News article Harper alone on climate change at Commonwealth summit).

According to this article, "other than Australia, whose leader is not at the summit, Canada is the only member of the 53-nation grouping that has not fallen in line with the wording in a climate change resolution calling for binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming."

Many hope that Canada will shift their opinion and finally agree to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. However, Canada may have to be influenced by other nations in order to agree to it. One person who could help to influence this change is Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain: "Diplomats have reportedly suggested Brown will attempt to persuade Harper to sign on to the agreement."

The topic of climate change has been of growing importance for a long time and it imperative that countries such as Canada agree to it. Even though it is believed that Canada is not a top producer of greenhouse emissions, their agreement would still be beneficial to the cost. It could also influence other nations who are not currently involved in the Kyoto Protocol to change there mind.

The news report of this can be viewed here.



This is a video for the song "Ready to Fall" from the band Rise Against. It deals with the problem of climate change and especially the effects of the actions of humans on the deterioration of the environment and the quality of life for animals.

Combating Identity Theft

The federal government of Canada took a huge step forward in the fight against identity theft by introducing new legislation that would make it "it illegal to collect personal documents belonging to others in order to commit fraud" (As reported by CanWest in the article Government bill attacks identity theft).

This bill states that it will "become a crime in Canada to obtain, possess or traffic another person's passport, credit cards, drivers licences or other identity documents for the purpose of committing fraud."

This is a benefit to the officials who investigate cases of fraud and identity theft because they will be able to "take action against identity thieves in the process of collecting or hoarding personal information belonging to others, before fraud has been committed." Prior to legislation like this, these officials were only able to act when act of fraud or identity theft was actually being committed; they could not take pre-emptive measures.

This new legislation will also lead to harsher punishment for those convicted of identity theft. Along with the possibility of jail time, "identity thieves will face the possibility of reimbursing each and every one of their victims for the costs they faced as a result of the fraud."

It is about time a bill combating identity theft came into existence. The current federal conservative government should be commended for introducing legislation that has been long needed.

With the constant technological advances of our society, some forms of identity theft may become easier to track and prevent. However, these technological advances can lead to more sophisticated forms of identity theft that are nearly impossible to combat. A bill of this magnitude will finally punish those who commit identity theft to the extend they so desperately deserve.

Necessity for Senate Reform?

The question of Senate Reform has been a controversial issue for a long time and is still being debated today. Recently, NDP leader Jack Layton voiced his desire for a referendum regarding the abolition of the Senate (as reported in the CBC news article NDP wants referendum on Senate).

This article states that Jack Layton and the NDP have "called for a referendum so Canadians can vote on whether the Senate should be abolished." While Layton believes that the Senate should be abolished, "the NDP still wants Canadians to have a say on its future."

While the topic of Senate reform has been brought up on multiple occasions, the topic of abolishing the Senate is not as common. While the Senate may lack authority, due to it not being an elected body, and it may not receive much respect, the Senate still has a role to play.

Instead of abolishing the Senate completely, I believe that there would be more benefit to having some form of Senate reform. The main areas that need to be considered in a Senate reform are the appointment process for new Senators; the guidelines surrounding the attendance of Senators; the proper use of the Senate's power; and the distribution of seats among the provinces.

While I do believe it is commendable for Layton to call for a change to the current Senate, I believe he goes to far in asking for it to be abolished. If the proper steps are taken in order to reform the Senate, I believe it could become a respectable body of government and once again fill the role it was initially meant to, being a body of "sober-second-thought."

Liberal Fear of Backlash

After the Throne Speech made by Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion eventually made clear his intentions as far as dealing with it. "Dion pledged to stop any anti-environmental Conservative legislation," which would result in a vote of non-confidence and a subsequent election (As reported in the CanWest News Service article Won't support anti-environmental legislation: Dion).

While it is good to see Dion finally take some initiative in this criticism of the Conservative government, he seems to be taking his time in actually revealing his true opinion. While the NDP and Bloc Quebecois made their intentions to vote against the Throne Speech public from the beginning, Dion kept his parties intentions to himself.

While it Dion's intentions pertaining to the actions of the Conservative government may be seen as some as commendable, I believe that they took the cowards way out by not actually casting a vote in regard to the Throne Speech. Instead of forcing an election, the Liberals instead choose to stay home and let the Throne Speech pass.

Dion is now saying that his party will vote against the Conservatives if they see them acting incorrectly in their running of the country. But if they did not agree with the Throne Speech in the first place, why did they not vote it down? They simply did not want to force an election because they feared that the voters would blame them for it and therefore not give them their vote.

If the Liberals actually cared about the state of Canada, they should have called the Conservatives on their proposed policies that do not seem to benefit Canada, and especially the environment.

In my opinion this is a clear example of cowardice on the part of the Liberals, who fear the backlash of forcing an election so much that they risk the passing of policies that do not benefit Canada, its citizens, or the environment.

Harper's Lobbying Regulations Going to Far?

Should secret lobbying be allowed in the federal government or not? This is one topic which Harper's government is clearly against, but may be overreacting to. Harper's attempts to put regulations in place related to limiting secret lobbying have upset many lobbyists (As reported in the Ottawa Citizen article Accountability Act draws ire of lobbyists).

While Harper's government is trying to achieve one of their main campaign promises, which came about because of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, they could be taking this too far. Harper's government laid out "five options to define the type of communication needing to be reported," ranging from very liberal to very strict.

However, these options do not seem to coincide with Harper's campaign promises which "require ministers and senior government officials to report their contacts with lobbyists."

Harper's desire to apply strict regulations on secret lobbying has greatly upset many lobbyists. When contacted about Harper's intentions, many of the lobbyists responded negatively. The general response by those who opposed the proposed regulations was that they only wasted time and money, and that they would "hinder the free-flow of information between stake holders and the government."

While I do believe that there should be stricter regulations put in place to limit the amount of secret lobbying, Harper's government does seem to be going to far. The main question to ask when dealing with this topic is whether or not the benefits of these regulations are greater than the time and money they could waste.

Arctic Adventure Worthy or Not

The current Conservative government seems to be trying to make a positive difference in the Arctic and surrounding area, but is this cause worth it? They have recently promised to commit there support to having a bigger role in the North (As reported in the CanWest News Service article Harper stresses 'use it or lose it' as he earmarks more funds for North).

In attempting to raise Canada's presence in the North, Harper's government has promised a "$150-million commitment to International Polar Year." While I am not a fan of many of Harper's policies, I do somewhat admire his initiative on this program. The Arctic seems to have been ignored by many previous federal governments, so it is great to see the current government get involved in it.

But this program does not guarantee any significant advancement in the North. Their is no real commitment to making Canada's ties with the North stronger, only that they with commit money to do research in the North.

one concern that I have with this program is the amount of money Harper's government is putting towards it and where this money is coming from. While this may be a worthwhile cause, if it means taking money from other important programs which are already underfunded, such as environmental programs, this does not seem right.

I am also weary of the events surrounding the governments decision to invest in the North. Since it took an international initiative to commit to the North before Harper would, this really makes me question where his true beliefs lie, and if he would have even invested in the North had there not been pressure from other nations.

While performing research on the North does seem like an important cause, I am just not convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Liberals Going Against Green

For a political party that seems to pride itself on being very environmentally conscious, the Liberals have recently made certain decisions that go against there key principles. The Liberals recent decision regarding the future of the energy supply in Ontario is very reflective of this (According to the Ottawa Citizen article Hampton rails against 'irresponsible' plans for more nuclear reactors).

This article displays the NDP's displeasure with the Liberals promise to "build two nuclear reactors as part of a multi-billion dollar investment to increase electrical capacity" in Ontario. The NDP has a right to feel this way due to these projects taking away from possible environmentally friendly ways in which they could increase the electrical capacity in Ontario. The NDP is also upset with these decisions because they believe them to be "show-and-tell projects rather than significant contributions to the provincial electricity supply."

This case of poor decision making should cause people to question the Liberals commitment to making Canada a more environmentally friendly nation. For a party which at one point seemed extremely committed to the green cause, and with a leader, in Stephane Dion, who is known for his beliefs in making Canada more environmentally conscious nation, this seems to be a decision that contradicts the basis on which their new platform rests upon.

I am personally a fan of Stephane Dion and his views on the environment, but this decision makes me question whether he is going back on the commitments he seemed to have once had, or if he and his party just made an ill advised decision.

Knowledge Day

The presentation I decided to attend was Marc Spooner's "The purpose of university experience: What are you doing here anyways?!" This was a very interesting presentation due to the fact that it was not a presentation at all. It was more of a discussion between Mr. Spooner and the audience. Instead of standing on the stage talking at the audience, he choose to sit near the group and engage us in the topic of why we attended university.

When asked why we attended university, typical answers emerged: to further our education and to get a better job. But Mr. Spooner pointed out to us that it is most important to further our literacy skills. We should use our literary skills to change the world. He also explained a change that had occurred in the view towards a university education; this was a change from going to university to develop and further a philosophy of life towards having a more financially comfortable life.

Mr. Spooner furthered the discussion by advising us to get involved with campus organizations. He believes that good citizens are active citizens; citizens involves in causes. He ended this discussion by stating that we should get involved with as many clubs as possible, do not just learn in the classroom.

I am extremely pleased by the discussion put forth by Mr. Spooner. It has actually affected the way I view my university experience. I was initially one of those who viewed university as a means for achieving a degree in order to get a good job. Now, while I still view university somewhat like this, I realize that I should also see university for the experience I am receiving from it.

Harper's Misplaced Faith

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government may soon be facing a great embarrassment. The trust that Harper's government placed in the country of Belgium could be proven misplaced (reported by the Leader-Post in the article Harper's federalism model on the brink of breaking up).

Harper's plan to model his idea of federalism after that which is utilized by Belgium is a clear display of his poor decision making skills. Even though Belgium had yet to prove its version of federalism as capable and proper, Harper was still content with making public his intentions to base his model after it.

It is clear that Harper does desire to give each province greater rights, or at least that was what he stated as one of his campaign promises, but to model this after the platform used in Belgium could be seen as a huge mistake. The article states that Harper's promotion of this platform was "ironic since Belgium was more prone to splitting into smaller countries than ever before." This tension was caused by the "rivalries between its Dutch- and French-speaking communities."

The Canadian provinces face a similar tension as that which plagues Belgium. With the constant threats of seperation coming out of Quebec, combined with growing tensions between other provinces, it would not be surprising if Canada were to face a similar confrontation. While it is unlikely that Canada would face something as severe as that in Belgium, that does not mean it could not happen on a smaller scale.

Stephen Harper's blind faith in Belgium's unproven model of federalism is a move that should make many question his skills as the Prime Minister of Canada.