The Alberta election has yet again raised the incomprehensible denial of the science of climate change by people who should know better. During the election, Danielle Smith, the Leader of the Alberta Wildrose party said that the science of climate was not settled. Similarly, but in a different forum – the Canadian Senate – these speeches were given recently by Conservative Senators denying the science. I expect this position finds further support in the Conservative caucus.

Deniers of the science repeat a number of common arguments, each without any foundation:

They claim that there is a climate science conspiracy somehow coordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the global organization mandated by the UN to assess the science of climate change.

A conspiracy of this size would involve the efforts of literally thousands of scientists from all over the world and spanning over 150 years. The science of climate change was first articulated in the early 1800s when the link between GHGs and warming was first observed. Those original findings have been corroborated many, many times since and, in fact, predictions based on that original science have been confirmed by actual scientifically measured findings many times since.

Second, it would have to involve the clandestine communication amongst these many thousands of scientists to "get their story straight" and how would that ever be possible?

Thirdly, there would have to be something in it for all these scientists, one would think, for them to risk their reputations, integrity and jobs to do this. What could that possibly be? Scientists gain great renown in their scientific community by debunking accepted scientific wisdoms.  After over 150 years of this science being advanced, questioned, evaluated and scrutinized, no credible sustaining rebuttal of the science of climate change has ever been established.

Deniers claim that the scientists in the IPCC are somehow incompetent or influenced by politicians. Governments appoint their country's representatives to the IPCC. Both Conservative and Liberal Canadian governments have appointed, for example, Dr. Andrew Weaver. He has been instrumental in the work of the IPCC.  He is one of Canada's leading scientists, recognized at the highest levels many times over for his work on climate change. Do conservative climate deniers suggest that their government is appointing representatives to the IPCC who are incompetent or conspirators? Dr. Weaver, in his appearance before the Senate Committee on Energy and the Environment, explained at great length the process by which the IPCC writes its reports. Scientists from all over the world discuss and evaluate practically every entry in their report. Everything reported must be based upon science and cannot be speculative. They are careful to use moderate language. The IPCC itself does no scientific research. It simply reviews and reports that which is done independently all over the world and draws conclusions on the basis of it for policy-makers.

The deniers claim that there is a significant and credible scientific community that rejects or doubts the science of climate change. Not true. Every major academy of science from every major nation in the world accepts the science. Thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles have over and over again reaffirmed the science. Increasingly sophisticated research and measurement techniques continually reaffirm the science. There is literally no peer reviewed scientific literature that establishes any arguable doubt to the conclusion that climate is changing due to human activity. Much of the work done by the deniers has been funded by oil companies.

The deniers claim that while there may be climate change, and even warming, it is not caused by human activity, or it is caused predominantly by things other than human activity. One of their classic arguments is that it is caused by increasing water vapor in the air, not by GHGs generated by human activity. However, they deniers neglect to acknowledge that air can only hold more water once it has warmed. So, greater water vapor in the air is not a cause of warming; it is a consequence of warming.

Another denier favorite is sun spots being the cause of warming. In fact, if sun activity were the cause, then both the atmosphere and the stratosphere would be warming, but that is not the case. The atmosphere is warming because GHGs are trapping heat, heat which is no longer escaping to warm the stratosphere. The stratosphere is actually cooling.

Moreover, while sun activity will affect warming or cooling on earth, the last decade or so has been a period in which sun activity has been in a cooler phase, and we will soon emerge from that. Despite that, in this decade, almost every one of the ten years have registered record warming.

The deniers pull out the Michael Mann "hockey stick" "straw-man" and try to say that it is the seminal and central observation by the climate scientists and then try to debunk it. In fact, there are many studies that confirm the hockey-stick finding, independent of the Mann study.

In the end, there is not even remotely reasonable doubt about the human contribution to climate change. It is happening and it may be happening even more quickly than we imagine. It demands action and leadership.

For anyone who still believes that humans are not causing warming, I say that they should be praying that they are wrong. Because if we are not causing it, we cannot fix it — and are they saying that whatever they think is causing it will stop at some convenient temperature that will not be destructive and will be survivable? How do they know?

As they should, the Conservatives go to great lengths to honour "the men and women in uniform who risk their lives to protect our democratic values." Now, we are seeing that many of these veterans are in desperate need of mental health services to help them deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There is evidence that this is becoming a more intense problem as veterans stand down, the adrenaline evaporates and they are left with their thoughts. Military suicides are on the increase.

Last week, the government cut 15 of 25 mental health related workers who had been there to help the military personnel in Petawawa with post traumatic stress disorder problems. This is a devastating betrayal. This government honours these military women and men with words but says that there is not enough money left to provide the help they need.

Is the government suggesting that Canadians do not want to pay enough in taxes to pay our debt of gratitude to these men and women whose lives have been changed irrevocably, and the lives of their families too, because they did what we asked them to do, to defend our values and way of life?  Are we really that selfish, Mr. Harper?

Here are some of my thoughts about the first Conservative majority budget:

1. It confirms for me that it is very unlikely that they will ever balance the budget, without fudging the figures like they did in their Ontario government in the late 1990s. They are cutting only $5.5 billion while at the same time continuing with a crime agenda that will cost as much as $19 billion over the next 5 to 10 years. And they continue in their commitment to the F35 jets which to this point are literally priceless and are only getting more expensive.

I am convinced that they cannot truly balance the budget because they are driven to spend ideologically. Management is of lesser priority than their ideological impulses and eludes them when the crunch comes.

2. They have literally gutted environmental programs, particularly any directed at climate change. Shockingly, they shut down the National Roundtable on the Economy and the Environment completely. They have laid off upwards of 1000 employees in the Environment Department, many of them scientists. They have shut down pretty much every program designed to help Canadians reduce GHG emissions. They have reneged on Kyoto.

3. And, now they are attacking charities (read environmental groups) for participating in the public policy debate in this country. The Conservatives morph from argument to argument; as one is exposed for the unfounded, biased attack that it is, they move to another. First, it is that charitable groups should not be allowed to take money from foreign sources, implying that somehow this costs taxpayers something because this money is charitable.

But, of course, foreign foundations do not pay taxes in their own countries, let alone in Canada. So, they then morph to the argument that Canadian charities (read environmental groups) should not get the benefit of charitable tax treatment for the money they raise even from Canadian donors and be able to participate in public policy debate (read debate and the environmental review process on oil sands projects).

Now, the budget is calling for charities to be required to give more information about their "political" activities. And, it gives $8.0 million to CRA to review this issue. Let's remember that no charity is allowed to support political parties and maintain their charitable status now.

This will have the effect of creating a chill over environmental groups that have every right to participate in the environmental debate in this country.

Who is to decide which political activity is acceptable and which is not? What about the fundamental groups and churches that have charitable status and certainly engage in "political" debate?

4. They say they are cutting $5.0 billion over 3 years leading people to believe that they are reducing spending. But, in fact spending is going up from $276 billion to $296 billion over that time.

Punishment, pure and simple is the real root of the Conservative crime agenda. It is really not about deterrence or helping victims because there is no evidence that the threat of jail time deters or that it makes offenders less likely to offend in the future. All the evidence is to the contrary. Despite the Conservatives protestations that C-10 is about helping victims, the bill does nothing by way of compensation or programming to help victims. Rather than helping victims, in fact, it will actually create more of them because jailed offenders are more likely to offend upon their release.

George Lakoff writes in his article, "Metaphor, Morality and Politics", that the right wing has a balance sheet vision of morality...if someone commits a crime they "owe" us their punishment. It is not a philosophy that truly embraces the crime reduction/victims support spin that the Conservatives put on their crime agenda.

 This approach as it is embodied in Bill C-10 runs against common sense in so many ways:

 1. Is it not the case that no matter how many drug dealers we take off a given corner, there is always another one to replace them?

2. Does anyone really think that a 15 or 16 year old who is sufficiently needy ("screwed up") that he finds acceptance in a gang and commits a murder would ever be deterred by the threat of a prison sentence?

3. When it comes to addictions that drive so much crime, does anyone really believe that an addict can just will themselves a cure and just turn off the driver that causes them to commit multiple crimes? How many of us have fought an addiction to tobacco and know how difficult it is simply to turn that off, despite the fact that in the back of every smokers' mind, there has to be some level of understanding that they are facing a death penalty for doing it?

4. I believe that an 18 year old can make a stupid mistake, and many have, and that it does not define who they are or who they will become. Bill C-10, however, will define and ruin their lives. What good does it do to imprison a youth for one year for having 6 marijuana plants when they will emerge with a criminal record, have difficulty finding jobs for the rest of their lives, be more inclined to be a criminal in the future, etc.?

5. It also seems clear to me that many offenders have addiction, mental health, or fetal alcohol syndrome problems that are the cause of their behavior. The cost-benefit of programs addressing these issues infinitely outweighs the costs of imprisonment.

Common sense or nonsense?

When it comes to the crime agenda of the Conservatives, Bill C-10, the party that refers to itself as the commonsense party is really becoming the party of common nonsense.  An article in the Edmonton Journal, "Prisons do little to help people with FASD get their lives on track", by Nicki Thomas, January 22, 2012, casts further doubt on the wisdom of the crime agenda in its discussion of  the relationship of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and crime.

In it, the point is made that as many as 50% of the youth and 80% of adult offenders in our jails are suffering from this disorder. It affects the brain's development in the womb with the result that sufferers of the syndrome lose judgment, lose impulse control, have real trouble fitting in, have serious behavior problems and frequently end up committing crimes. The Edmonton Journal reports, "FASD can affect perception of time and ability to plan. People with FASD can lack empathy and remorse". They have trouble learning from the consequences of their actions. Most have no idea that they have the syndrome and some do not exhibit the physical signs (certain facial features, for example) that would make detection easier. It is caused by a mother's consuming alcohol during pregnancy.

Clearly, many people suffering from FASD end up in jail, and imprisonment serves little to no purpose. FASD sufferers are not affected by any possible deterrent effect of imprisonment because they have very limited judgment and impulse control which imprisonment without programming to help them will not fix.  Given their inability to fit in, they are vulnerable to any form of acceptance and the kind they would get in prison will make them more likely to commit crimes on release, not less likely.

This disease is rooted in physical disorders like any other affliction that we consider to be a disease.  We do not expect that someone suffering from diabetes or cancer can simply will their symptoms away or under control. No. We understand that they need medical assistance and other therapies to combat these diseases. Well, in much the same way, someone suffering from FASD cannot simply will away their symptoms. They too need medical assistance and therapies to deal with their affliction. And there are programs that can achieve success in dealing with it.

The trouble is that with the mandatory minimums in Bill C-10, the judicial system will have very little flexibility in dealing with offenders who have FASD. Too many of these people will be forced into jails where they will not find the programs and support that could help them deal with it and reduce the risk of their reoffending. Perhaps, there is some gain to them being kept off the streets for their period of incarceration, but eventually most of them return to the streets, and now they do so probably more inclined to offend and without any help to improve.

It seems to be "common nonsense" that the Conservatives would not provide the judicial system some flexibility for dealing with this issue. A lot can be accomplished for a lot less than the $120,000 per year it costs to incarcerate someone.

I want to congratulate the new batch of 7 Senators and welcome them to this remarkable place. I also want to encourage their reported fervour for reform.

As good as our Parliamentary system is (it is the most successful system of government on the face of the earth today having lasted for literally hundreds of years), it needs to evolve always as it has done successfully over the years.

While electing Senators and limiting them to one term of 9 years duration are alluring politically, they are not without a number of risks which really have not been considered by their advocates:

1. An elected Senate would be inclined to exercise its considerable powers. Every piece of legislation and budget have to be passed by the Senate. If elected, the Senate would be much more inclined to defeat them creating impasses for which there is no mechanism to resolve. We need to create one if we are to avoid grid-lock.

2. An elected Senate flexing it powers will gut the power of the Prime Minister and the House of Commons. Who will be more powerful, for example, 6 Senators in Alberta or the 28 MPs? It will also reduce the power of the Premiers who are now the more significant regional spokespeople. Just look at the stature of the Senate in the US. I am not saying that these shifts in power are good or bad; I am saying that we have not had a debate as Canadians about whether we think they are good or bad.

3. Alberta and other provinces will not gain greater regional power than we have now. In fact, it will be diluted. Alberta has a greater percentage of the seats in the House of Commons than in the Senate now - 9.1% compared to only 5.7%. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have 10 seats each; Alberta has 6. The Atlantic region has 30 seats; the West has only 24. So, before elected Senators being to exercise their considerable powers, this distribution of seats needs to be revisited.

4. Finally, if Senators are to be elected, why should they only get one term? Why should the electorate not decide how many terms their Senators should get, like with every other elected office in Canada?

 And, of course, there is a real constitutional question as to whether these changes can be made without the consent of the provinces. And, Quebec and possibly other provinces will take this question to the Supreme Court.

So, in the absence of clear answers to these questions, why do we not do some reforms in the Senate that we can actually do ourselves and that will enhance openness and accountability in the way that the Conservatives say they want to.

I think the most important change we could make would be to webcast the proceedings of the Senate Chamber. Senate committee meetings are already televised and webcast, so I see no reason why we cannot at least webcast the Chamber proceedings.  I think webcasting is preferable to televising because it is radically cheaper at about $120,000 to set up and $33,000 per year to run. Not much really for greater openness and accountability.

 The Senate truly does great work. It is unacceptable that Canadians do not have open, modern-day access to it.

 

 

It is hard to believe that in this day and age there would be a Canadian government that would contemplate a draconian crime bill like the one currently working its way through Parliament.

 All of us want to see crime reduced. The question is how that can be done most effectively, both in terms of cost and outcomes, and without damaging, unintended consequences.  None of those criteria can be applied successfully to the current crime agenda of the Conservative government.

 Bill C-10 is notable for many reasons, but it is most prominently characterized by the provision of mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of offences. The problem is that there is not a shred of evidence that this approach to crime will reduce it. In fact, all the evidence is that it increases crime.

 When confronted by this evidence, the government invokes the defence of victims’ rights to justify the bill. But, there is very little in here for victims of crime. It is not a bill about compensation or counseling services for victims. In fact, it will create more victims because it will create more angry, bitter, and "competent" criminals because with harsher sentencing more people will be sent to prison or in prison longer, and generally, without access to the kinds of programs they need to address the mental health, or substance abuse, or fetal alcohol syndrome or whatever other problem lies at the root of their criminal impulses.

 Some of the "crimes" that will be addressed by this bill will be victimless in any event, until the system makes a victim of the perpetrator of the "crime". Who is the victim of an 18 year old who grows 6 marijuana plants and goes to jail for a year for it? The 18 year old.

 There are many more effective and much less expensive options than incarceration. Interestingly, authorities in Texas have said over and over again that filling the jails does not reduce crime. It just increases costs and crime. Washington State has developed a remarkable protocol and system for evaluating crime prevention programs. It assesses all the costs and benefits and best practices of various rehab programs, family support, education, intervention, and allows public crime policy to be based upon them, ranked for their actual real money savings and returns.

 Why doesn’t the government use a smart approach like the one in Washington State that could be me much more effective than Bill C-10?

I have received a number of responses to my holiday greeting (it was strictly sent out digitally - I avoid paper whenever possible in the interest of cost and the environment) lamenting the fact that it did not mention Christmas. It only wished people a happy holiday.  I get the point that these respondents were making. It is a common complaint and I understand the concern. Here is my response, in turn:

I send that message to many people who celebrate this time of the year in many different ways for many different reasons. It is not just a Christmas season, if you are Jewish or Muslim or of whatever other number of faiths and all these different peoples are represented by the Senate. One of the great things about Canada is that we respect others' backgrounds, cultures, religions and languages and are considerate of one another. Those are values that are reflected, I hope, in my greeting, and are admired by people all over the world.

 This Saturday my dear friend and colleague Senator Tommy Banks will be retiring from the Senate.  We will miss his intelligence, passion and dedication to public service.  Below is a tribute I gave to Senator Banks in the Senate Chamber.

 Tommy Banks is acknowledged by his Senate colleagues for his integrity, courage, determination to do what is right, intelligence and grasp of the issue. I have marveled at how he could grasp the nuance and complexity of an eclectic range of public policy issues. It has been a thing of beauty to share the table at various committees and to see him get exactly to the heart of a given issue in way that no body else had seen, express it clearly, and ultimately propose a solution.

Amidst all of the "to-ing and fro-ing" in the political arenas, Tommy Banks has remained above the partisan fray, has remained respected by all sides and has engendered a great deal of fondness amongst colleagues.

He is truly irreplacable and he will truly be missed.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I have been dreading the inexorable advance toward the retirement and departure of Senator Banks for a long time. Senator Banks made a remarkable contribution to the work of the Senate, of course, and to the lives of Albertans and Canadians. He has been an absolutely delightful colleague in every way. I became very aware very quickly after arriving here of how much I would miss him — all of us would miss him — when he left.

Being from Edmonton, for most of my life I have had a clear impression of Tommy Banks as a great musician. I certainly respected and admired him as a musician and as an enduring celebrity as I was growing up in Edmonton. I have always believed anyone who is really good at jazz must be very, very smart because this is a complex language that must be expressed intuitively to be at its best, and Tommy Banks knows this language intimately. In fact, he is fluently bilingual.

I met Murray McLauchlan several years ago and proudly told him that I worked with Senator Banks. This launched Mr. McLauchlan, a Canadian icon in his own right, of course, into a wonderful and animated description of his many fond memories of working with Senator Banks on various music projects, his obvious admiration for him and his genuine interest in how he was doing. When I think of that encounter, I can see myself and so many other colleagues, fans and friends launching into exactly the same kind of spontaneous explanation of how much we admire him and of how fond we are of him.

To play music at the level he has played music and to sustain his kind of creativity and energy for it over all these many years truly requires a certain genius, a genius that I believe has been equally apparent in his career as a senator. Senator Banks took so many of those attributes that made him great in his first career — a keen intelligence, a disciplined mind, compassion, passion and, of course, an ability to perform — and he transformed himself seamlessly into a skilled and respected senator, advocate and leader in the public policy arena in Canada.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly he grasps a new issue, sees something in it that no one else has seen, expresses the essence of the matter and proposes a solution. He always inspires me with his profound empathy for people and the human condition, with his courage and integrity and with his passionate advocacy for what he believes to be right for his community of Edmonton, the environment, the military, the arts, the farmers, Canada and Alberta.

I am very sad about having to say goodbye to Tommy Banks. He is irreplaceable, and he will be truly missed.

I remember many years ago being approached by a former Edmonton Eskimo football player (interesting as I wrote this on Grey Cup day) who was selling a personal development program of some kind. I do not remember what the program was but I do remember the technique he used to get my interest.

He gave me a card with a paragraph written on it. He asked me to read it and count the number of "f"s in it. I did so, gave him a number and he said I had missed 3 or 4 "f"s. Would I try it again? I did and still could not find the 3 or 4 "f"s I had missed. He then showed me why. These were "f"s in the word "of" that appeared 3 or 4 times in the text. It is spelt "o" "f", but it sounds "o" "v", "ov". For some reason, the majority of people given this test, miss these "f"s all the time. They see "f", but lose that in hearing "v".

The point it made in that context was that we are often so limited by what are our preconceived or "grooved" perceptions of the world, and the way we process them, that we can miss the obvious.

It has struck me recently that this observation may help explain some of the incomprehensible misconceptions that surround the climate change issue and prohibit action to fix it in spite of the risks and lost opportunities of not doing so:

1. Those opposed to action say it will kill those jobs that come from the fossil fuel industries. But how will investing in alternative energy kill jobs in the fossil fuel industry? How? If the projected demand for energy for India and China, just for starters, is even close to reality, we are going to need pretty much all the sources we can find and certainly Canada will be able to sell all the oil we can produce. Why would we not want to take advantage of new and emerging markets to diversify our economy. Would we somehow not want to produce Blackberrys because they are not of the conventional oil industry? Do we have a government that simply cannot imagine doing things in addition to the traditional oil industry?

2. One pervasive  conventional wisdom (or should we start saying "politically correct" statement) seems to be that government should not be investing in alternative fuels as this will cause taxes to rise, or government intervention is unacceptable,  and/or these fuels are not commercially viable.

Yet, the oil sands were kick-started in the 1970's with direct government involvement through an equity stake in Syncrude and later in the 1990's by government action to give them special tax advantages. They have been supported by massive government funding of technology development.

Moreover, I can remember visiting the oil sands in around 1990 and being told that it was costing about $25 per to produce a barrel of oil sands oil and the selling price at the time was $10 per barrel. They were prepared to lose $15 per barrel because someone had the vision that technology improvements, economies of scale and price rises would mean that the oil sands wouold become the future engine of our economy.

Why is it that alternative fuels development and serious conservation intiatives do not warrant the same patience, government involvement and leadership and vision?

3. The jobs argument is invoked as an endless mantra in defence of all things big oil. But what about all the jobs that will be lost due to climate change and are already being lost? Why can we not work to protect both energy jobs and other jobs hurt by climate change, like forestry, agricultural and fisheries jobs?

4. Economist Jeffrey Rubin made the case that the real catalyst for the 2008 meltdown was the rapid rise of oil prices to $150 per barrel. It makes sense in the context of peak oil analysis. How can an economy, world and other wise, sustain energy costs at that level? It is a given that we have to keep costs down in our economy to remain competitive. Yet, this government cannot see that alternative fuels and conservation intitiatives would provide competition and reduce demad for fossil fuels, keeping prices lower. When do we start to realize that the current strucutre of energy in the world may be unsustainable from an input cost  point of view.

5, The government put almost none of its stimulus money into green, climate change fighting projects. Why is building a brigde seen to be stimulative but develpoing liquid natural gas fuel station infrastrucutre is not?

6. The Conservatives make the implict argument (sometimes explicitly) that with the emerging economies of China and India, there is really little point inCanada trying to fix cliamte change and we would never be able to influence change in their behaviour that would lessen or fix the probelm.  This is just such defeatism. Canada has so often "punched above its weight" in world affairs. From developing peace keeping in the 1950's to winning at Vimy, to creating the G20, etc, we have lead the world. Why not with climate change. Are we not simply saying to future generations "that we did not fix the problem becasue it looked too hard to do?" Since when woould we ever say to our children, it is OK to give up before you even try? What kind of value is that?

It is hard to answer these questions, but there are probably many reasons why what is clear but not obvious cannot be seen:
1. Change is a threat to what appears to be comfortable and in this case, it is taken as a threat by some of the most powerful economic interests in our economy and society.

2. Change means new risk to business.

3. Perhaps, the Conservative mentality really does not have the imagination to see the possibilites, the new opportunities for the future. Wold this Conservative government ever have taken the leadership role that the Liberal governments did in developing the oil sands?

I wish I had the answer to the question of why inthe face of all kinds of evidence to the contrary, this government simply cannot break out of its tired, old and terribly dangerous paradigms and lead Canada to a new and exciting future with untold opportunities, jobs and health and other benefits.