For Catholics, are the laity really boss of the environment?

Image: https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2016/01/paris-whats-status-environmental-refugees/

Pope Francis has written an amazing encyclical on The Care of Our Common Home - Laudato 'Si. In it he points out that care for the environment, and care for the people most vulnerable to the ravages of climate change, are two sides of the same coin. Although it is the Pope who has taken the lead in melding the best of theology and science to produce this social encyclical, the laity have the principal role in putting that care into practice - this according to the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 36...

"36... The faithful, therefore, must learn the deepest meaning and the value of all creation, as well as its role in the harmonious praise of God. They must assist each other to live holier lives even in their daily occupations. In this way the world may be permeated by the spirit of Christ and it may more effectively fulfill its purpose in justice, charity and peace. THE LAITY HAVE THE PRINCIPAL ROLE IN THE OVERALL FULFILLMENT OF THIS DUTY. Therefore, by their competence in secular training and by their activity, elevated from within by the grace of Christ, let them vigorously contribute their effort, so that created goods may be perfected by human labor, technical skill and civic culture for the benefit of all men according to the design of the Creator and the light of His Word. MAY THE GOODS OF THIS WORLD BE MORE EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG ALL MEN, and may they in their own way be conducive to universal progress in human and Christian freedom. In this manner, through the members of the Church, will Christ progressively illumine the whole of human society with His saving light."

So, that all sounds wonderful, but it begs a few questions: How do we do this caring - for the environment and the environmentally vulnerable, especially environmental refugees? How important is this in the grand scheme of our daily lives and other responsibilities? How do we generate enthusiasm for the cause? In short, how do we make a difference? AND... How does accountability work?

Raw Sewage in Canadian Rivers

So, here is my question: Are there or are there not provincial or federal laws or regulations prohibiting the release of  commercial and industrial waste and, especially, raw sewage into the rivers of Canada or, at least, the rivers and aquifers of Ontario?

If not, why not? If yes, how are they enforced?

I ask after being shocked to read the following article in Global News:

From https://globalnews.ca/news/6215303/oneida-london-safe-water/

Oneida Nation of the Thames tap water different than neighbouring non-Indigenous communities

Particularly disturbing are the following three paragraphs:

"18 years of water quality testing across Oneida First Nation sometimes shows striking levels of dangerous pathogens such as E. coli flowing from residential taps. Upstream, the nearby city of London dumps millions of litres of raw sewage into the Thames River that serves as the community’s water source…"

"The Thames River, which replenishes Oneida’s aquifer, is a dumping ground for waste, raw sewage and pollution. To avoid basement flooding during heavy rains, London’s wastewater system dumps rainwater and raw sewage into the river. In 2018, 266 million litres of raw sewage was released and flowed downstream through several First Nations communities, including Oneida.

"So far this year, more than 5.7 million litres of London’s raw, untreated sewage — including commercial and industrial waste — has been dumped into the river, according to city data.

London didn’t start notifying Oneida of sewage dumps until mid-2018, say Oneida leaders, including Chief Hill. Even then, Oneida is only notified after the dump has occurred, sometimes hours or days later."

Here, again, is my question: Are there or are there not provincial or federal laws or regulations prohibiting the release of  commercial and industrial waste and, especially, raw sewage into the rivers of Canada or, at least, the rivers and aquifers of Ontario?

If not, why not? If yes, how are they enforced?

I realise that the question is rhetorical. Doing just 2 minutes of searching on the Internet I found that:

• raw sewage overflowed into southern Ontario waterways 1,327 times in the 12 months ending March, 2018;
• the city of Toronto releases more than 1-billion litres of raw sewage into Lake Ontario in a single day;
• when excessive stormwater has nowhere to escape, it funnels into sewers causing them to overflow and spill untreated contents into lakes or rivers;
• there are provincial regulations but they are full of loopholes circumventing enforcement.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-enviro-report-1.4903327

I have been following a Facebook group focusing on drinking water and other water availability issues in South Africa. They regularly bemoan the fact that, due to aging infrastructure, neglect and poor accountability, raw sewage is spilling into some of the dams sourced for drinking water. I have been feeling lucky to be living in Canada - a First World country after all. How presumptuous and arrogant of me.

A View on the Climate Crisis

A friend who knows I'm a climate change nut challenged me, asking my thoughts on a rather scathing newspaper op-ed. My response follows.

We have a climate crisis of global warming that requires urgent attention. I say this with confidence because it is not merely my opinion, or anyone else's opinion, but a fact established with evidence from science and attested to by climate scientists worldwide. This according to NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the USA.  (See https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

The economic impact of global warming is pretty-well incalculable, estimated in terms of a percentage of every country's GDP - certainly, therefore, in the billions of dollars - if not trillions. See https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Global-warming-and-public-policy

Along with the global warming issue we have serious problems with air pollution that are having devastating effects upon vulnerable people whose lungs and breathing ability are already compromised, as well as people with cardio-vascular illnesses. We can only guess how much impact this is also having on childhood development, or life expectancy in the elderly. See, for instance: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/air-quality/health-effects-indoor-air-pollution.html

This too will have massive economic consequences. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), healthcare costs related to air pollution are expected to increase 8-fold in the fifty years from 2010 to 2060. See https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/the-economic-consequences-of-outdoor-air-pollution/executive-summary_9789264257474-3-en#page2

Thirdly, there is the contribution that environmental issues make to the "refugee crisis" that we hear so much about and feel the need to 'control' without thinking about controlling the causes of environmental degradation which is very much a root cause of migration for environmental refugees. According to Pope Francis: “Climate change is also contributing to the heart-rending refugee crisis. The world’s poor, though least responsible for climate change, are most vulnerable and already suffering its impact.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pope-francis-climate-change-environment-refugee-crisis-destroy-sin-a7221476.html

What to do?

First of all, what NOT to do! I honestly do not think it is at all helpful when people look at their neighbours in countries that are oceans and continents away, or just a province or two away, or "on the reserve", and point out that, since THEY are contributing so significantly to the problem, what is the point of politicians trying to force ME to make sacrifices - as with a carbon 'tax'? As I see it, that line of reasoning lets us all off the hook of sacrifice. Not only can we just leave the problem, then, for our grandchildren to solve but we can feel free to continue exacerbating the problem by pushing out limitless pollutants seeing as our contribution is so small - relatively speaking.

The other thing NOT to do is give greater credibility to politicians and economists and their populist journalist followers (left, right and centre) than the credibility we afford climate scientists. It is inexcusable that government bureaucrats implement environmental policy changes without consulting scientists. More inexcusable is when governments then gag their own publicly funded scientists and not allow them to publish their peer-reviewed research.

I use gasoline to drive my car. I would love to be driven in a clean-energy taxi. I use liquid natural gas to warm my house. (As I write, the temperature today has warmed up to a high of +2C - the highest it has been in the last 5 days.) I would love to warm my house with power from the sun or wind, but our local government cancelled, at great expense in penalties, the renewable energy program initiated by the previous  local government. My point is that there are some initiatives that cannot be undertaken by individuals without incurring prohibitive personal expense. Such initiatives require changes to infrastructure that can only be achieved by local and national governments. But the will has to be there. As I see it, partisan political loyalties, fueled by the things NOT to do that I describe above, are the major obstacles to people even seeing the need, let alone developing the socio-political will.

Let's get off the darkness band-wagon and switch on an LED candle, and try to influence the people around us to do the same. "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace... "

History will judge us

In 2019 Canadians voted overwhelmingly for profits and economic growth over the sustainability of the environment, in defiance of the evidence of science and climate change, and the marching of our children. History and our grandchildren will judge us.

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. This requires countries to cut emissions by 45% by 2030, end fossil fuel subsidies and ban new coal plants after 2020. Most of our parties talk about "reducing" carbon emissions but do not set goals to cut emissions by 45% by 2030.

The Conservative Party climate plan has been almost universally panned by experts for failing to have any reasonable chance of achieving the weak 2030 emissions targets the Harper government set. It is as good as no plan, which is a plan to fail.

Although better than the Cons, the Liberal climate plan is to reduce our emissions by 30% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. This falls way short and is a plan to fail.

The NDP talk about achieving targets in line with scientific consensus. This definitely sounds better than the Liberals but they support new fossil fuel projects which will make achieving the goal impossible.

The Green Party has the most aggressive plan which clearly heeds the UN’s call for rapid and transformative changes to Canadian society. The plan has faced criticisms for being unrealistic in scope and speed, but there is broad consensus that it would exceed emissions targets if implemented.

If you still don't understand, ask 16 year old Greta Thurman to explain. She gets it.

Elections and the Spirit of Egotism or the Spirit of Sacrifice

Originally posted on the blog for St. Vincent de Paul Newmarket


Jesus told the pharisees: “You know the saying, ‘Red sky at night means fair weather tomorrow, red sky in the morning means bad weather today.’ You are good at reading the signs of the weather in the sky, but you can’t read the obvious signs of the times!” (Matthew 16:2-3)

Bl. Frederick Ozanam beautifully illustrated what it means to  read the signs of the times in this following extract from a letter  that he wrote to a friend in 1838. Listen to these words bearing in mind that the 2nd French Revolution occurred in 1830 and the 3rd revolt happened in 1848, the same year that the Communist Manifesto was published.

Barricades at Rue Soufflot on 24 June 1848 - Vernet

The question which divides people in our day is no longer a question of political forms, it is a social question—that of deciding whether the spirit of egotism or the spirit of sacrifice is to carry the day; whether society is to be a huge traffic for the benefit of the strongest, or the consecration of each for the benefit of all, and above all for the protection of the weak. There are many who already have too much, and who wish to possess still more; there are a greater number who have not enough, and who want to seize it if it is not given to them. Between these two classes of people a struggle is imminent, and it threatens to be terrible—on one side the power of gold, on the other the power of despair. It is between these two opposing armies that we must precipitate ourselves.

Talking to us about this quotation at our recent "Recharge the Batteries" event, Fr Roy commented that this letter was prophetic. Indeed it was, coming ten years before the "third" revolution and the publication of the Communist Manifesto.

Blessed Ozanam saw Christ in the poor and the weak, but he did not see them through rose-tinted eye glasses. He saw very clearly that the same spirit of egotism that was evident in the rich and powerful aristocracy as well as the middle class bourgeoisie, was also powerfully at work in the desperation of the impoverished working classes. As he saw it, the only thing that could possibly make a difference would be if Catholics and other Christians of France in his time could set aside their own spirit of egotism and replace it with a spirit of sacrifice in faithfulness to the teachings and call of Jesus Christ, "Come, follow me."

We are at a time when overwhelming and increasing numbers of environmental scientists are telling us that our planet is fast approaching a tipping point. In his encyclical, Laudato Si', Pope Francis tells us, "There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognized by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded." (LS #25)

Blessed Ozanam's words are no less prophetic and applicable to our times today where political parties in campaigns for the coming election are appealing to our spirit of egotism to persuade us to vote for them - some more so than others, and most offering no more than lip service to the environmental crisis as merely one issue among many others. Between the opposing powers of gold and despair, Ozanam says we have to 'precipitate' ourselves. I do not know the original French word and do not even speak French, but this use of 'precipitate' in the English translation suggests urgently throwing oneself headlong into a situation without taking sufficient time to consider the consequences, much like a parent might rush into a burning house to rescue a child.

As Vincentians, which spirit do we want to drive us? The spirit of egotism or that of sacrifice? I must confess that I feel nervous and ambivalent about 'precipitating' myself into the gap between the rich and powerful on the one hand, and the poor and desperate on the other. Perhaps that is the difference between saints and the rest of us, but let us take inspiration from our founder and model, nevertheless. The very existence of our Society of St. Vincent de Paul is a direct consequence of precipitous action that Frederick Ozanam took in 1833. The same question posed by Blessed Ozanam in 1838 faces us as Christians and Vincentians going into voting booths in 2019: that of deciding whether the spirit of egotism or the spirit of sacrifice is to carry the day, for the benefit of the strongest, or for the benefit of all, and above all for the protection of the weak?

Keeping perspective during elections

Maintaining a historical perspective can help us sift through the noise.

Is climate change the most important life issue today?

"Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope. We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis." - Greta Thunberg

At election time, which issues should we focus on when marking an 'X' on our ballot? Eons ago Bill Clinton's presidential campaign famously said, "It's about the economy, Stupid." In 2016 Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, said that abortion is not “just another political issue" but "is in reality a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths. What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation?" As a result a large number of Roman Catholics voted for Donald Trump who had declared himself against abortion. Again, there are many people today who have voiced the opinion that immigration and migrants make up the issue of the day.

Daniel P. Horan, a Franciscan friar and assistant professor of systematic theology and spirituality at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago writes:

What good is it to prevent abortions or save the elderly from euthanasia or ensure the elimination of capital punishment if there is no air to breathe, water to drink, land to farm, plants or animals to eat, or habitats free from flooding, hurricanes, wildfires, tornados, earthquakes or some of the other devastating weather phenomena? I'm not suggesting that we ignore those discrete life issues; they demand prayer and action, too. However, there is a uniquely dire valence to what is happening to our planet and a very limited window to do anything to save the very possibility of life on this planet at all.

I highly recommend that you read the full piece here: Climate change is the most important life issue today

Does God take care of climate change?

Right-wing Social-Conservative Christian Extremist: If there really is such a thing as global warming, God will take care of it.

God: I sent you floods; I sent you drought; I sent you scientists and now I send you Pope Francis.

What Pope Francis (himself a chemical scientist) wants to tell us regarding climate change:

1. Climate change is real, and it's getting worse.
2. Human beings are a major contributor to climate change.
3. Climate change disproportionately affects the poor.
4. We can and must make things better.
5. Individuals can help, but politicians must lead the charge.

This is a Time article from two years ago. It is more timely than ever with the Trump Administration pulling out of the Paris Accord.

The 5 Most Important Points of Pope Francis's Climate Change Encyclical

Pope Francis on June 13, 2015 in Vatican City. Franco Origlia—Getty Images

Indonesia is burning. Who cares?

Fires in Indonesia are currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. And in three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany.

Photo: Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images via www.theguardian.com.

Starbucks, PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Unilever are complicit in both cause and inaction.

The cost in human lives and misery is colossal as is the destruction of species. ‘Children are being prepared for evacuation in warships; already some have choked to death. Species are going up in smoke at an untold rate.’

This article was written October 30 and revised November 16. The fires continue unabated.

Indonesia is burning. So why is the world looking away?

by George Monbiot in The Guardian.

Call for an independent, public review of the costs of nuclear stations in Ontario

No nuclear project has delivered on time or on budget in Ontario’s history. Ontario still does not have a plan for storing radioactive nuclear waste, nor does it have an public emergency plan to deal with a Fukushima-scale nuclear accident. And taxpayers are on the hook for the costs of a nuclear disaster because no private company will fully insure high risk nuclear stations.

Darlington on Lake Ontario

Ontario’s residential electricity rates rose by 3.4% on November 1, 2015. According to an Ontario Energy Board report, 45% of the rise in Ontario’s electricity generation costs is due to subsidies for Ontario’s aging nuclear reactors. The 2012 restart of the Bruce A Units 1 and 2 reactors came in $2 billion over budget and over 2 years behind schedule. Rebuilding the Bruce B Nuclear Station will cost Ontario’s consumers between $60 and $111 billion over 30 years. Rebuilding the Darlington Nuclear Station will cost Ontarians between $8 and $32 billion.

Studies show that Ontario could reduce its debt by $12.9 billion, save ratepayers over $750 million per year ($15 billion over 20 years) and secure a higher return on equity for publicly owned Ontario Power Generation if Ontario replaces high cost electricity from Darlington with lower cost water power from Quebec.

Yet, Ontario has never conducted an independent public review of nuclear costs or alternatives.

It’s irresponsible for the Liberals to spend billions on rebuilding nuclear plants without conducting an independent public review of costs and alternatives.

I therefore join the call on the Government of Ontario to conduct an independent public review of the costs of and alternatives to rebuilding the Bruce B Nuclear Station and the Darlington Nuclear Station.

SIGN THE PETITION

(Picture credit http://www.powermag.com/opg-proposes-new-nuclear-construction-at-darlington/)

Can Pope Francis' visit to the US influence Canadian election?

For many 'traditional' Catholics, abortion and the right to life have been far and away the largest and most important moral issue for consideration when voting for a candidate in an election - whether Federal, Provincial or, even, municipal. For some, it is the only issue. (Disclaimer: I am pro-life and believe in the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception.)

I have had Catholic friends urging me to vote for a particular candidate because he or she is the only 'pro-lifer' in the field of candidates, never mind that the political party leader has made it abundantly clear that  "We are not going to reopen the abortion debate."

Pope Francis calls for help for refugees

Now, along comes Pope Francis to visit the United States primarily to  attend the World Meeting of Families, though he did not shy away from speaking to American and World politicians when the opportunity arose. While in the States he reiterates repeatedly (tautology intended) the moral imperatives regarding the environment, refugees, the poor, the lowest in society. He hardly ever mentions abortion and when he does, from what I have read, compassion or a synonym is never more than a breath away.

It seems clear to me that any Catholic who is in tune with the Pope and who wants to know where a political party stands on abortion needs also to be asking where that political party stands on the environment, refugees and the poor. An answer in platitudes will just not cut it. What are the numbers, the  dates and the dollars? Dates after 2015 also do not cut it. The need is now, in the next weeks and months.

Go. I urge you. Ask your political parties what they think about Pope Francis' ideas on the environment and refugees. Compare their answers.

Photo credit: Express

How does Stephen Harper's response to the Syrian refugee crisis stack up?

In words that could apply equally to Canadian outgoing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, newspaper columnist, Paddy Ashdown, has ridiculed British Prime Minister David Cameron’s offer for Britain to take 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years saying, "Nothing shows the prime minister’s tone deafness to the urgency of this situation better than this pathetic plan." In The Guardian of Monday, September 7th, Ashdown writes:

"Not only is this response calibrated more by political expediency than compassion, he has also indicated he believes the answer to the problem is more bombing. If the best part of two years of bombing with more than enough high explosive hasn't solved this problem, how would Britain’s widow’s mite of a few extra bombs help? Military strikes against Isis are failing, not because we do not have enough high explosive, but because we do not have a diplomatic strategy on Syria that would make sense of the military action."

I should point out that most of these refugees are not fleeing from ISIS but from the Assad regime! They were in refugee camps before ISIS hit the world news.

To date, the Harper Conservative government has accepted 2,300 Syrian refugees, and Stephen Harper, assuring us that the government is 'seized' with this issue,  has pledged to bring 10,000 more from the Middle East over the next four years if re-elected - just half the number promised by Cameron. The shortfall is in orders of magnitude even for the more 'generous' proposals of Mulcair and Trudeau. Compare against the 1.5 million in Turkey, or the 800,000 who will be accepted by Germany, or the 68,500 who settled in France last year.

Not In My Back Yard

Now here's a thought: The numbers we see fleeing the Syrian conflict will be tiny compared with the population movements we will soon be seeing as global warming compels more and more family crop farmers and cattle and goat herding farmers and nomads to leave their traditional lands and become migrant refugees. These people will not fit the current definition of refugees, let alone have paperwork to help them qualify for immigration anywhere; but Pope Francis is already saying that they are, indeed, environmental refugees.

What we are seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. Clinging to miserly NIMBY-ism will carry a huge cost. Are there any white, 3rd or 4th generation Canadians who are not here because their forefathers (and mothers) immigrated here in search of a better life? Do we not justifiably hold them in grateful awe for the hardships they endured so that their descendants could have a better life?

Poverty in Canada

Just in time for the election campaign, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has published a new resource document titled,  A Church Seeking Justice: The Challenge of Pope Francis to the Church in Canada.

Here is an excerpt from paragraph 25.

Canada is a wealthy country, yet has an ever widening gap between rich and poor. 4.8 million Canadians live in poverty, including 1 million children. In 1989, all parliamentarians committed to ending child poverty in Canada. Today, 1 in 7 children lives this reality, with 4 in 10 Indigenous children living in poverty. Current levels of poverty cost us billions of dollars in terms of increased health and social services costs and severely damage the fabric of our society as a whole. Why does a wealthy country like Canada not dedicate more of its resources to reducing poverty? Provinces like Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador have adopted poverty reduction plans; should we not have a national poverty reduction strategy?

 An important point here is that there is a cost to poverty. You pay to eliminate it or you pay not to!

A Church Seeking Justice: The Challenge of Pope Francis to the Church in Canada. The Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2015. Para. 25.

Sssh! Single Issue Voting Not Encouraged By Canadian Catholic Bishops

One of the problems bedevilling many elections is the phenomenon of 'single issue' voters. The issue is usually a very worthy one such as 'healthcare' or 'care for seniors' or 'right to life for the unborn' or 'education' or 'immigration' or 'jobs' or 'the environment' or 'higher/lower taxes' or 'crime and punishment' or 'national security' or (your pet issue here). The trouble is that real life is never about one single issue even if that appears to be front and centre at a point in time for you and me.

It seems to me that voting on the basis of a single issue is very much like choosing a particular expensive gourmet restaurant over other candidate restaurants based purely on the fact that the restaurant of your choice is the only one that offers Pacific Blue Fin Tuna in its third course, and without regard to what is in the other courses at that or any other competing restaurant. Don't you care that your Valentine partner will have ethical issues with Confit Foie Gras? It seems silly, doesn't it? But isn't that what single issue voters do? I've had emails from well-meaning friends urging me to join this or that political party and then vote for this or that person to be leader of that party because he/she is the 'only one' taking a stand on a pet, controversial issue.

Contrary to what many people might presume, the Canadian Catholic bishops are not single issue voters. I know this because I have read their Guide for the 2015 Federal Election. As with previous federal elections the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued an 'Election Guide' for Catholics. I get the impression that it is meant to be kept a secret as I never hear anybody talk about it and no priest of my experience has ever mentioned it, privately or publicly, in my hearing. If it was not for the fact that I have an email subscription for new publications from the bishops' conference I myself would have no idea of its existence.


The email begins: (CCCB – Ottawa)... With the federal election campaign underway, the Commission for Justice and Peace of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has issued a guide inviting Catholics to vote with discernment. In its "2015 Federal Election Guide", the Commission lists some basic principles from Catholic moral and social teaching to help voters analyze and evaluate public policies and programs.

It then provides this link to their web page titled Guide for the 2015 Federal Election.
http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/media-room/4243-guide-for-2015-federal-election

How incredibly circumspect, inviting Catholics to vote with discernment, Obviously the bishops do not want to alienate anybody by being forceful in any kind of way about Catholic moral and social teaching! The web page in turn provides three more links which I reproduce below for your convenience and invite my family and friends to read with discernment - and anybody else who cares to. I expect you will find, like me, that none of our political parties measures up. Sometimes the way to find the best is find the least worst.
Link to the Guide of the CCCB (PDF)
Link to the Guide of Development and Peace
Link to the Guide of The Canadian Council of Churches

Please, information about Jobs in Toronto for Quality Engineers

Somebody on one of the professional forums (fora?) that I subscribe to asked this question. Here is my slightly edited version of the question:

I am thinking seriously about moving to Canada in order to find a job as a quality engineer or quality manager or supervisor. I have broad experience in the automotive and railway industries for both positions.

A few days ago I read an article which said Toronto is a primary centre of industry and that the city and its surrounding area produces more than half of Canada's manufactured goods. On the other hand, someone told me that there were no jobs over there and that the unemployment rate is very high.

What is the real truth?. 
Are there real possibilities for me to find a job in that city and country?

My response is as follows:

I don't know what family ties and responsibilities you have but as an immigrant Canadian myself I would say, Don't come to Canada in order to find a job. 

Certainly, come to Canada because you like Canada, you like it's cosmopolitan make-up, you like its people, life-style, standard of living, geography, cold winters and hot summers, vacation opportunities, having the USA as your back yard, but don't come just in order to find a job. The immigration process is very arduous and you will not be allowed to work without a work permit (difficult to get) or landed immigrant status (even more difficult). 

Winter in Toronto

Come for a look-see. Do your Internet research on the immigration process. The Ontario unemployment rate is just under 7%. A LinkedIn job search will show that there are QA/QE jobs available in the greater Toronto area but there are typically a few dozen applicants for any one job so you will face competition. 

However, your basic question should be: do you really want to come to Canada or do you just want to find a job? There have to be easier ways to find a job.

Photo credit: CBC.ca

Xenophobia in South Africa. Does 'Mississippi Burning' Help Us Understand?

Earlier this week Daily Maverick published an op-ed by Stephen Grootes covering the horrific xenophobic violence currently hitting South Africa under the title, When the economy suffers, xenophobia thrives. I agree with everything Stephen Grootes has written there, most especially what he says about impunity, poverty and feelings of hopelessness in bad economic times. I strongly recommend that you link to and read that op-ed before reading this blog any further.

Insightful and enlightening as the piece is, I can't help getting the feeling that Grootes is holding back, perhaps understandably. It's as if he has set the stage for an explanation; all the props and actors are there and even some historical context, but the dialogue is missing.

Perhaps the missing dialogue can be found in the following dialogue from the movie Mississippi Burning.

Ward: Where does it come from, all this hatred?

Anderson: You know, when I was a little boy, there was an old Negro farmer lived down the road from us, name of Monroe. And he was, uh, - well, I guess he was just a little luckier than my Daddy was. He bought himself a mule. That was a big deal around that town. Now, my Daddy hated that mule, 'cause his friends were always kiddin' him about oh, they saw Monroe out plowin' with his new mule, and Monroe was gonna rent another field now they had a mule. And one morning that mule just showed up dead. They poisoned the water. And after that there was never any mention about that mule around my Daddy. It just never came up. So one time, we were drivin' down the road and we passed Monroe's place and we saw it was empty. He'd just packed up and left, I guess. Gone up North, or somethin'. I looked over at my Daddy's face - and I knew he'd done it. And he saw that I knew. He was ashamed. I guess he was ashamed. He looked at me and he said: 'If you ain't better than a n****r, son, who are you better than?'...He was an old man just so full of hate that he didn't know that bein' poor was what was killin' him.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Climate Change

Climate change is a moral, human rights issue as was apartheid! Climate change deniers are not merely on the same, wrong side of history as flat earth proponents, they are also morally culpable and must be held to account for the damage and suffering they are causing.

This culpability and need for accountability is even greater for those who acknowledge climate change but continue to invest for profit in industry that is exacerbating the problem.

 We desperately need research to find more economical ways to store wind and solar energy. If one-fifth of the money spent on oil exploration had gone into this research imagine where we could be today!

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Eh?

For any tl;dr readers, just look at the yellow highlight.

This is the record of submission by Elizabeth May on Friday, 31 August, 2012 to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel. You can click on the above link or just read it below. I did not see any notice of copyright and I doubt that there is one; it is a public submission.

This should be considered required reading for anyone who has any interest in the pipeline but, more especially, for Canadians with no interest in it or who do not care one way or another.

I have taken the liberty of adding yellow highlight to salient points for the sake of people who do not want to read every last word of Elizabeth's submission but want to know the gist.

Submission to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel

On Friday, August 31st, 2012

As leader of the Green Party of Canada and as the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, I appreciate this opportunity to place on the written record my comments on the Enbridge proposal for a 1177 kilometre long, twinned pipeline across northern British Columbia and a port at Kitimat to receive diluents and pipe it to Alberta, while piping back to Kitimat the mixture of diluents and bitumen.  The proposal further involves the shipping of this mixture by super-tankers to be operated by persons unknown to, as yet undisclosed, ports.

Having observed the hearings and the evidence over the nearly eight months since the hearings began, I wish to make the following observations: 

1. The proponent, Enbridge, has failed to provide any specific information about the impact of spills, on land or at sea, of the mixture it proposes to move by pipeline and sell to other carriers for shipment by sea.  Bitumen and diluents were shown in the Kalamazoo Michigan spill to be considerably more difficult to remediate than conventional crude.  The proponent has now admitted all its evidence was based on a substance it is not proposing to ship.  Meanwhile, it should be noted that few improvements or technological advances on handling spills of conventional crude have been made since the Exxon Valdez spill.

2.  The proponent has violated its social licence to operate through a culture of negligence. This failing is well-documented in the report of the United States National Transportation Safety Board  (Enbridge Incorporated, Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Rupture and Release, Marshall Michigan, July 25, 2010, Accident Report NTSB/PAR-12/01, PB2012-916501, July 10, 2012).  The spills and pipeline leaks in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 2010 and additional spill in the summer of 2012 in Wisconsin are ample evidence of the corporate culture of Enbridge being negligent. The panel is commended for accepting the report of the US. NTSB into evidence.  As evidence before this panel, the litany of failures in preventing the Kalamazoo spill and subsequent negligence in ignoring alarms and pumping more bitumen-diluent mix into a broken pipeline must lead to a rejection of this proposal at this time.

3.  The July 2012 report of the US NTSB is also relevant as it is clear that the Enbridge proposal was developed without any consideration of the experience of the serious spill in 2010 in Michigan.  As such, the current proposal should be rejected and the proponent instructed to revise any proposal to take into account lessons learned in the 2010 failure.

4. The proponent has offered to this panel a mathematical risk estimate for spills in which the proponent deliberately chose to exclude local spill and accident events in the waters in which the proponent proposes to operate. This evidence of dramatically under-estimated risk of accident should be entirely discounted as fanciful and absurd.  The review of this mathematical alchemy by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation should be accepted instead.

5. The need for the additional pipeline capacity has not been established.  On this point, the evidence of J. David Hughes should be accepted that unless and until bitumen production increases by 150% from current levels, the existing pipeline infrastructure is adequate. (“The Northern Gateway Pipeline: An Affront to the Public Interest and Long Term Energy Security of Canadians,” November 22, 2011).
6. Transport Canada’s submission to this panel was reported in the media as establishing that there was no serious risk in super-tanker traffic. In fact, it did not say that at all.  It merely said there were no “regulatory gaps.”  In other words, it said, if there is a spill, we know which department will be in charge. In the entire Transport Canada review, there is no specific assessment of the particularly turbulent and navigationally challenging passages any super-tanker would encounter. The words “Hecate Strait” do not appear in the Transport Canada review, even though, Environment Canada’s Marine Weather Hazards Manual states that the Hecate Strait is “the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world.” The Transport Canada submission should not be used in evidence as relevant to the specific risks of the British Columbia coast. 
7. No federal body nor the proponent have come forward with any credible analysis to lift the 1972 moratorium, honoured by every federal and British Columbia government since that time. It banned super-tanker traffic along the BC coastline, with the Port of Vancouver grandfathered.  The federal government and the proponent would like to “pretend” the moratorium away.  Admittedly, the moratorium was not enshrined in law, but its observance for four decades is a significant statement about its existence and importance. This panel has an obligation to consider Enbridge’s proposal as one that has the burden of proof to lift an existing moratorium.    
8. The increased tanker traffic has been found to be a source of significantly increased risk to the endangered whales in the area. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) review of threats to humpback whales in 2005 named the proposed tanker traffic to Kitimat as a threat to whale recovery.  Humpback whales are listed as a species at risk in the threatened category.  Scientists actually think the fin whales may be even more at risk of tanker collisions. Proposed mitigation measures of whale spotters on board tankers are mere “window dressing.” The notion that whale spotters can avoid collisions with endangered whales would only be plausible if super-tankers were prohibited from travelling at night, in dense fogs (typical in the area) or in storms and gales (also typical in the area).

9. First Nations constitutionally protected rights have not been honoured by the proponent.  The proponent made false claims about the extent of its relationship with the Haida Nation, according to a letter sent to this panel by the President of the Council of the Haida Nation last year.  The timelines and deadlines for this panel’s work will be unlikely to survive a court challenge under many precedents of the requirement for consultation and for the federal government’s fiduciary obligations to First Nations.

10. Dr. Jeffrey Hutchins of Dalhousie University has drawn attention to the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was unable to provide the detailed scientific information this panel requires to make any judgement about the extent of damage to ecosystems and fisheries in the hundreds of stream and water crossings the pipeline will entail.  It is outrageous that a government agency would conclude all damage can be mitigated when, by its own admission, it lacks the capacity, due to a loss of scientists and budget, to be capable of assessing the situation on the ground.
11. Recent budgetary cuts make this project even more risky due to a loss of capacity to respond to a spill. Environment Canada’s Environmental Emergency Programme has been shrunk from regional offices, including one in Vancouver, to one office in Quebec.  Ten Coast Guard operations are being shut down.  In BC alone, we are losing the search and rescue operation in Vancouver plus marine communication operations in Kitsilano, Comox and Tofino.  The cuts affect the ability of the Coast Guard to monitor and deal with marine pollution offences. As well, the safety of mariners could be affected.
12. Further loss of capacity is found in the decision to reduce staff and budget to DFO’s Centre for Off-shore Oil, Gas, and Energy Research (COOGER), ending work in progress in many areas, including a “Baseline Hydrocarbon Study in Hecate Strait.” It was studying impacts of oil and gas leaks, counter-measures for an oil spill, restoration of environment after any spill, among other key areas.
13. Meanwhile, the entire marine mammal contaminants programme within DFO has been shut down.  Nearly all of the DFO scientists studying marine toxicology across Canada are being laid off.   Dr. Peter Ross, a globally respected scientist working at the Institute for Ocean Sciences in my riding, lamented, “The entire pollution file for the government of Canada, and marine environment in Canada’s three oceans, will be overseen by five junior biologists scattered across Canada – one of which will be in BC.”  (quoted in Times Colonist, “Ottawa sinks pollution checks,” May 20, 2012)
14. The Joint Review Panel should take note of the fact that even when the programmes listed in points 10, 11, 12 and 13 were in operation, the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, within the Office of the Auditor General, concluded that Canada lacked the capacity to respond to an oil spill or other marine emergency.

These comments are not exhaustive, but represent substantial evidentiary hurdles on which the current proposal must fail.

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth E. May, O.C.

Member of Parliament

Saanich-Gulf Islands

Toronto Mayor's Solution to Guns and Gangs - Lower Taxes

You can't make up this stuff. An important plank in Mayor Rob Ford's solution to the city's gun violence is to lower taxes for businesses so companies can create jobs so that gang members can "get a job."

I naively thought that Ford could not surpise me any more. I was wrong. Click the link and read on.

Toronto Mayor RobFord’s blunder in labelling immigrants criminals hurts the city.

The Toronto Star, 22July 2012

Stephen Harper: selling our (children's) birthright for a mess of pottage

This is scary. I never realised that the list was so long, or so serious, and I consider myself an informed person. The phrase, to sell your birthright for a mess of pottage, comes from a Bible story, Genesis 27:1–40

Dear Terence,

Harper's assaults on the environment.

There is no shortage of compelling issues to discuss in a Hill Times Environmental Policy briefing.  Even listing, without describing, the catalogue of assaults on environmental law and policy by the prime minister in the last 12 months is enough to occupy the whole issue.

Canada undermined global climate negotiations in Durban in December, negotiated in bad faith, and immediately announced intent to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol when the Environment Minister touched down on Canadian soil. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver kicked off the New Year with an assault on environmentalists and First Nations as “radicals.”  The Prime Minister attacked environmental groups for accepting foreign funding, even as he courted Communist Party controlled state operations from China as investors in the oil sands.  One Parliamentary Secretary said anyone opposed to pipelines and tankers was “against Canada.”  When asked to withdraw the remark as un-parliamentary, she refused.

The legislative juggernaut, C-38, repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, replacing a coherent piece of legislation with a discretionary formula for confusion, conflict and court cases.  The gutting of the Fisheries Act raised the ire of four former federal Ministers of Fisheries.  Environment Minister Peter Kent insulted the four former ministers, suggesting they had not read the Act.  Mulroney era Minister Tom Siddon showed up to testify before the sub-committee on Finance and in short order made it clear he may be the only Minister who has read the act.  While Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield tried to claim the new Fisheries Act will improve habitat protection, the assault to habitat is real, underscored by the subsequent lay-off notices to all DFO habitat officers in British Columbia. The National Round Table on the Environment and Economy is scrapped.  The Species at Risk Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act amended to allow the National Energy Board to assume jurisdiction of endangered species or navigable waters are in the way of any pipeline.

Basic science and monitoring is being savaged with the end of funding to the Canadian Foundation of Climate and Atmospheric Science, elimination of the Adaptation research group within Environment Canada, the cuts to ozone monitoring, the closure of the Polar Arctic and Environmental Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, the sale of the 58 lakes in the globally unique Experimental Lakes Area near Kenora, Ontario, the elimination of the marine contaminants programme within DFO, the loss of scientists in Natural Resources Canada to study ice cores data (and the hope to find a university with a large fridge willing to take the 80,000 year ice core record Canada’s government no longer wants), the end of monitoring smoke stack emissions, cut backs in the Canada Oil and Gas research group in Halifax, and cuts at NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) resulting in the closing of the Yukon Research Lab at Yukon College in Whitehorse.

The thin end of the wedge of privatization has hit National Parks – first Jasper and then the hot springs at Banff, while cuts to ecological staff in the parks compelled former Deputy Minister Jacques Gerin to call on Harper to stop gutting National Parks.

It is a blitzkrieg of bad news as cut-backs and programme cancellation hit the core areas of federal responsibility to protect nature.  The multi-faceted assault has the effect of blinding media and the public to the largest threat.  In 2012, Canada still has no plan to address the threat of climate change.

While Stephen Harper has succeeded in dramatically reducing the Canadian media coverage of climate science through the muzzling of government scientists, the atmosphere does not seem to have gotten the memo.  Around the world, the force and frequency of severe weather events has woken up even the mainstream US media.  Fires, floods, tornadoes, heat waves are wreaking havoc on agriculture and running up the bills to the insurance industry.  The culprit for much of this year’s strange weather phenomenon is the rapidly warming Arctic.  As the Arctic warms the differential in temperature between the Arctic and the Equator becomes less pronounced. That causes the jet stream to lose its straight and fast course. (Francis, Vavrus study, Rutgers/Univ of Wisconsin). Slowing down, it has allowed large low pressure systems and high pressure systems to sit for far longer periods than normal in one place --  causing flooding in the low pressure zones and heat waves and fires in the high zones.

Loss of agriculture, losses to floods and fires also cost the economy, as well as human lives. Despite the Prime Minister’s attempts to destroy the collection of data, the evidence of the climate crisis is all around us.  We are sabotaging our children’s future – but what does it matter as long as the bitumen flows?

Elizabeth May
M.P. for Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada