Summer 2016 JUSTnews 1

Volume 20, No. 1. SUMMER 2016

Democracy, Economics & Poverty Issue

Why Minority Governments?—A Little HistoryAnd why British Columbia [and Canada] should shift to proportional representation.

by Rafe Mair

CUSJ news ……………….. page 3Democracy…. ….….………. ” 6Economics …..….…………. ” 8Poverty ….…………………. ” 12Environment: Climate Change and Energy …………… ” 14

Inside this Issue:

“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “to speakof many things: Of shoes, and ships, and

sealing-wax” and what the hell we’re going to do inB.C. [and Canada] to bring about the critical changesto our system where about a quarter of the electorateis electing a sizeable majority.

The numbers are simple. About 50 per cent voteand 40 per cent of that voteelects a majority. That ma-jority has an iron grip on thetools of power for fouryears, leaving the rest of usrelying on the Opposition tomake noises that show upthe government’s failings—although there is nothingthey can do about them.

This system is calledfirst past the post (FPTP).Canada is one of the lastso-called democracies to op-erate under this system

It’s interesting that as Iwrite this [Oct. 2013] Ger-man Chancellor AngelaMerkel has been returned tooffice with 41 per cent of thevote, but because her nationoperates under a partial pro-portional representation(PR) system Ms. Merkelmust form a coalition. TheGerman system is much like that of New Zealand’smixed member proportionate (MMP) which I’ll getto in a bit.

In a pure PR system, voters are offered platformsfrom several parties and they select whom they wishwith seats in the legislature being in proportion to thevotes the parties receive. Each party selects a list ofproposed members and for a party to gain any seatsthey must meet a threshold of five per cent (or what-ever per cent is the law) before they can take a seat.Under this system there are no constituencies—theformula is a simple matter of Grade 1 arithmetic.

Making every vote countBefore I go further, let’s talk about constituencies.These came into existence because of the long

distances between voters from the capital. If FPTP isin place, people in remoter areas feel comforted inknowing that they have someone in Victoria [Ottawa]especially mandated to look after their affairs.

Those who have beenMLAs, if they speak honestly,will acknowledge this is rubbish.The government is run by thepremier and his or her, forgivethe lack of manners, henchmenin cabinet. In B.C. there is, effec-tively, one super leader with therest of the government MLAsdoing what they’re told. The dis-tance is of little consequencenow that email gives voters in-stant contact with their MLA.With a proportional representa-tion system, however, there isthis to consider: parties will beforced by circumstance to dem-onstrate concern for all voters,since all votes count. No area canbe ignored just because it doesn’t“vote right.”

Mix it upIn 1999, Gordon Gibson,

Nick Loenen, Gary Lauk andI—all former MLAs from different parties, studiedvarious systems. The four of us met several times andcame up with a report containing, amongst other

Rafe Mair

Continued on page 2

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 2

Wendy Bergerud 1954-2016“Wendy’s passing is a great loss to the Fair Vote community, where she worked tirelessly topromote proportional representation at all levels of government. She was a wonderful teacher,a passionate advocate for civil rights, and a loving wife and mother. From her classmates ingraduate school at Waterloo, to colleagues in provincial ministries, she was widely regardedas an amazing statistician and biometrician. Wendy died of cancer on March 8th, 2016.”(Excerpted from her obituary in the Victoria Times Colonist, April 9th, 2016).

The editor of JUSTnews is grateful to Wendy for her friendship, and for having sharedwith him and others her deep knowledge of electoral systems, obtained during her member-ship on the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly. Many past articles in JUSTnews have benefited fromher comments and expertise. Her sense of fun and her laughter were infectious.

longer chained to the party whip, has the power to actupon his constituent’s wishes.

Minority reportMinority government doesn’t mean a rudderless

government. In many places where PR or MMP are inplace, governments have been very stable indeed, theshining example being Germany. The overarchingfact is that parties are never in a hurry for an election.The system in fact creates a mutual assured destruc-tion element meaning that parties will cooperate. Mostminority governments last the full term, but only bytrashing the arrogance that is the hallmark of FPTPand listening to all.

The main problem with the PR part of MMP is theparty list. Will nominees be selected because they’relarge donors to the party or someone the party seeks toreward? It seems to me that a province of two majorparties which stacks leadership meetings and candi-dates for the legislature would be loath to worry aboutsuch things. Remember that each party has to put upits best, lest the other have better lists. In any event,this is easy to overcome—by a system of “primaries”as in the US.

If we are not content to continue a system wherea quarter of the voters gets 100 per cent of the powerwe should do something.

I throw my modest proposals on the table.

Rafe Mair’s political career began in 1975, when hewas elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly(MLA) of the British Columbia Social Credit Partyrepresenting the riding of Kamloops. In 1981, he leftgovernment and has since served as a radio talk showhost in Vancouver. In the early 1990s, he gainednational notoriety and support alike for his role as anoutspoken opponent of both the Meech Lake andCharlottetown constitutional accords.

This article was excerpted from TheTyee.ca, 1st

Oct. 2013.________________

things, a recommendation for a constituent as-sembly to recommend how we should governourselves.

I took this report to a radio interview I didwith then opposition leader Gordon Campbelland he vowed to take it to his caucus, and whenhe became premier he brought the recommenda-tion to fruition. The constituent assembly, 50men and women from all corners of the province,recommended something called STV which, tomy way of thinking, was the best recommenda-tion I had seen. Unfortunately it was complicatedand easy to throw nasty one-liners at. Insiderslike Bud Smith for the [B.C.] Liberals and the[B.C.] NDP’s Bill Tieleman fought it tooth andnail. Insiders always like the status quo and manywould rather spend ten years in the wilderness,able to achieve nothing, in the hope of a chancethemselves to have a four year absolute dictator-ship.

The main arguments marshaled against theSTV proposal were that multi-membered constit-uencies would be too clumsy and the systemwould lead to minority governments.

To take up the first complaint, let’s turn tothe New Zealand system. In that country, constit-uencies are made larger because half the seats areoff party lists. In these times of emails and liveface-to-face telephones (Skype), servicing suchridings is easy enough.

I believe that minority governments makegood sense. They drastically rein in the premier’spowers as he [or she] can easily be broughtdown. The minister of finance no longer is ableto cram his budget through the legislature butmust face serious debate by MLAs with power.The sham debates that now take place will belong gone as all MLAs now have a say. Voterswill be able to insist that the MLA pay attentionto their opinions because the MLA, now no

Continued from page 1.

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 3

CUSJ AGM Vancouver 2016by Christine Johnston

The CUSJ AGM events were some of thehighlights of the CUC May weekend in

Vancouver this year, in particular the dinner onthe Saturday night followed by a “moving mov-ie” on Haida Gwaii, and the AGM itself on thefollowing Monday morning. Both the dinnerand the AGM were well attended with about 50people present at the AGM plus up to 18 on-lineat one time or another.

The AGM began with table discussions ofthe pros and cons of forming local Chapters.Greater Torontoand Vancouver Is-land are contem-plating formingchapters to add tothose already es-tablished.

Margaret Raowill continue asour dedicatedPresident, and af-ter 10 years in thefinancial saddle,Bob Staveley willbe replaced thisautumn by DavidMason. Two newfaces were addedto the CUSJ Board, Marlene Koehler (secre-tary) and Erol Court (Member at large, Ontario).

Members were reminded that congregationsdo not make donations to CUSJ, but rather payfor “expenses for services rendered” (such asJUSTnews). Congregations need to request aninvoice to keep church treasurers and the CRA(Canadian Revenue Agency) happy.

Our Board is involved in many diverse areasas detailed in the CUSJ Annual Report. Oneorganization  that several people felt deservedgreater support from CUSJ was the Internation-al Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG).Steps for reaching out to the younger generationvia social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) wereraised by three young adults present.

The new covenant between the CUC andCUSJ concerning their different responsibilitiesand roles (at the end of the Annual Report)caught my eye as an important clarifying docu-ment. As a past CUC and CUSJ Board person(as is Leslie Kemp) I found this simple contractkey.

Keynote speaker Guy Dauncy of Lady-smith, Vancouver Island, gave a dynamic pres-entation based on his new book/novel, “Journeyto the Future” (the year 2032). He illustratedhis talk with colourful and cleverillustrations on screen. His power-ful optimism and humour captivat-ed the audience. May his optimismprove justified!

Christine Johnston is a member ofFirst Unitarian Church of Victoria.

______________

CUSJ NEWS

JUSTnews Proof-Reader Retires

If JUSTnews has few typographical, spelling orpunctuation errors, it’s in great part because of

the dedicated work of the two proof readers whocarefully peruse every issue.

Bert Macbain hasbeen on the “productionteam” of JUSTnews,probably as a proof-read-er, since the Winter 2000issue, when we began re-cording the names ofthose helping produceour newsletter. She re-tired with the productionof the last Discussion Pa-per, Winter 2015-16, andhas been replaced byAlastaire Henderson.

I want to thank Bert for her 16 years, at least,of proof-reading JUSTnews. Not only has shefound and corrected many small items that didn’tcatch my eye, but she also questioned grammarand other matters not strictly within a proof-read-er’s purview. I deeply appreciate Bert’s longservice and her dedicated eagle-eyed work.Editor

__________________

Bert MacBain,photo Mary Cramer

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 4

CUSJ Board Passes Motionin Support of Dr. Hassan Diab

CUSJ’s  mission is to defend and promoteUnitarian principles, such as the inherent

worth and dignity of every person, justice andequity in human relations, democracy, peace,and liberty for all. These principles call upon usto be a witness for justice on behalf of those whohave not had access to fair treatment by the lawin Canada.

Given that:· Hassan Diab was born in Lebanon. He studied

sociology in Beirut, received a PhD from SyracuseUniversity, New York, and moved to Canadawhere he became a Canadian citizen in 1993. Hetaught Sociology at Carleton University and theUniveristy of Ottawa prior to his arrest. He holdsdual citizenship.

· Dr. Diab was arrested in 2008 by the RCMP afterbeing accused by France ofinvolvement in a 1980bombing in Paris thatkilled four people and in-jured dozens. France re-quested his extraditionfrom Canada based on in-telligence France receivedin 1999. Literally no oneknows its reliability.France does not extraditeits citizens.

· Hassan steadfastly main-tains his innocence. Heclaims this is a case of mis-taken identity and that hewas not in Paris in 1980.

· Diab was held in prison until he was able to nego-tiate bail with strict conditions including curfews,confinement to the Hull-Ottawa area, and havingto pay for his own security ankle-bracelet at a costof about $2000/month. He endured constant un-scheduled visits to his private living quarters bythe RCMP. He was never charged and was de-tained under similar conditions to those detainedunder security certificates.

· The evidence that France submitted has been thor-oughly examined and discredited in several Courtsin Canada. The intelligence information offeredwas found to be unreliable. The Crown Attorneys(representing France) withdrew the intelligenceinformation from the case against Hassan. Theyalso withdrew two handwriting analysis reportsafter the defence showed that documents being

used for comparison were not written by Hassanbut by his ex-wife. In spite of this embarrass-ment, the French submitted a new handwritingreport making the same claims. Five world-re-nowned handwriting experts testified that thisreport is fatally flawed, and that an objectiveanalysis would point to Hassan’s innocence.

· Canadian Justice Robert Maranger found theFrench handwriting analysis report against Has-san “very problematic,” “convoluted,” “confus-ing,” and “with conclusions that are suspect.”The judge dismissed virtually all of the otherevidence as insufficient to meet the very lowthreshold for extradition. However, he declinedto exclude the discredited handwriting analysisreport despite his numerous misgivings about it.He added that “the prospects of conviction inthe context of a fair trial, seem unlikely” but thatCanada’s extradition law left him no choice.

· The Court of Appeal for Ontario refused tooverturn Justice Maranger’s ruling. In a deci-sion that surprised many Canadian extraditionexperts, the Supreme Court of Canada refused

to hear Hassan’s appeal inNovember 2014, despite itspointing to conflicts be-tween B.C. and OntarioCourt interpretations of theExtraditions Act. He wasextradited to France the nextday without being allowedto say goodbye to his familya day before his daughter’sbirthday.· Hassan has been in pretri-al detention in a prison out-side Paris for 426 days now[March 23, 2016]. He couldwait several years more be-fore the investigating mag-

istrate decides whether to bring him to trial. Hisapplications for bail with house arrest and elec-tronic monitoring have been repeatedly denied.He spends 20 hours of 24 in his cell and has 4hours a day when he can either exercise or study.

· This makes seven years Dr. Diab has been heldin detention or on repressive and expensive bailconditions in either Canada or France withoutcharge or trial.

· Canadian law assumes that Canada has extradi-tion agreements with countries that have fairjustice systems. However, France was criti-cized in a well documented 2008 HumanRights Watch report for accepting unsourcedintelligence and for running unfair trials.

· In Hassan’s case, the intelligence and hand-writing reports that the French withdrew in

Hassan Diab

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 5

Letter: response to Dale PerkinsIn JUSTnews (Winter 2015-2016), Dale Perkins pep-pers his letter “Why be a Unitarian-Universalist?” withquestions (I counted 9) and you, dear editor, wrote thatyou would publish short responses. So I will pick onlythis question: “Are there significant features about theUU faith community that warrant serious considerationin contrast to other faith or secular groups?”

My experience with three faith communities overthe years (Anglican, Quaker, Unitarian) is that eachmay be principled in its own (often similar) words, butall such communities wax and wane, substantially butnot only because of leadership, both professional andlay. Like life, everything is always in motion, some-times rising, sometimes falling. So if one is looking fora spiritual home, timing counts. The Unitarian churchDale visited (mine), is waxing. There is energy andintent to act on a variety of social justice fronts, andthat matters most to me. For more years than I care toadd, I have heard torrents of words. Spiritual cheer-leading. That said, the messages I hear Sundays I findeloquent, thoughtful and relevant. This, or maybe thischurch, is a demanding place (sometimes too much forme) because it holds me to account. This I need be-cause, sadly, I am old and lazy.

I remain close to a local meeting of the ReligiousSociety of Friends because from time to time I badlyneed the silence they generously share. I have neverheard any community as noisy as ours before and afterservice. It is a barnyard of gabbling. Friendly gabbling,or is it gossiping? One of the great unattributedachievements of church communities generally is thefertile setting they provide for gossiping.

But I am also drawn to where I am by my curiosity.We treasure diversity. We embrace theists and atheists,people who lean towards Buddhism or Islam and peo-ple who are recovering from their last church or justlooking hard and listening with care, trying to findtheir niche. My experience with Christian churchesincludes being puzzled by and then offended by theirexclusivity, at least at the institutional level. In mattersof faith, no one has all the answers. At my place,especially in the small groups, I get a chance to hearlife stories from people who have ranged the world,sought the insights I am also seeking, had experiencesthey are willing to share. I love that part.

“Are there significant features about the UU faithcommunity that warrant serious consideration in con-trast to other faith or secular groups?” For me, yes,there are. If anyone is curious, I can only suggest, inthe words of the man from Nazareth, come and see.

Don Vipond, First Unitarian Church of Victoria_________________

Canada remain in the dossier in France andhave been used to deny Hassan bail. If a trial isheld, Hassan would not be able to challengethe unsourced intelligence or cross-examinehis accusers because no one knows who theyare. Hassan Diab was never actually chargedwith anything prior to his extradition, althoughCanadian extradition law only allows extradi-tion to face charge. He has been in detention orout on bail without charge for seven years.According to current Canadian law his deten-tion should be illegal, and is certainly not in thespirit of Canadian values.

Hassan Diab has not had the due process of lawthat should be the right of any Canadian citizen.

The Resolution:Be it resolved that the board of the Canadian Unitar-ians For Social Justice (CUSJ) supports the right ofevery person living in Canada, whether legally orillegally, to know the nature of charges and evidenceagainst them, to have a right to review the evidenceagainst them and to have a right to a fair trial accord-ing to the standards of the Canadian legal system,including the right to cross examine witnesses as tothe validity of their evidence in a Canadian court oflaw;

Be it resolved that the CUSJ Board call on theCanadian Ambassador to France to visit Dr. Diabregularly and ensure he receives fair treatment whileincarcerated in France;

Further be it resolved that the CUSJ Board call onthe Government of Canada to request the Govern-ment of France to stop delaying and either chargeDr. Diab and give him a fair trial, based on reliable,untainted evidence; (the faulty handwriting analysesshould be discarded, as they were in Canada, as wellas the unsourced intelligence against him); or releasehim and send him back home to Canada based on alack of evidence against him.

This CUSJ press release dated March 23rd, 2016

Update May 24, 2016. Former Ottawa academicHassan Diab is back in a Paris jail barely a week afterhe was released on bail.

French prosecutors filed an appeal on Saturday[May 21st], after terrorist suspect Diab was releasedon May 17, alleging he was a flight risk and a threatto civil order.

Diab’s Canadian lawyer Don Bayne called thedecision “tragic.”http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/05/24/french-appeal-court-orders-diab-back-to-jail-pending-trial

________________

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 6

· all candidates and parties must be required todisclose publicly all donations, gifts, and the sta-tus of any loans, during the week before electionday, so voters know who is bankrolling cam-paigns;

· disclosure of the identity of each individual do-nor’s employer must be required (as in the US)and disclosure of each donor’s direct organiza-tional affiliations must also be required (to helpensure that corporations, unions and other organ-

izations are not funnelling donationsthrough their employees or boardmembers);

· secret, unlimited donations of mon-ey, property and services to candi-dates in nomination races andpolitical party leadership campaignsmust be banned (Bill C-2 (the FAA)bans secret donations to election can-didates, but not to candidates in nom-ination races nor to party leadershipcandidates);

· secret donations may still effectively occur iffederal governments do not comply with the UNConvention Against Corruption or other interna-tional standards that require the monitoring of thebank accounts of all public officials who havedecision-making power;

· riding associations and political parties are stillallowed to have a secret trust fund and sendsecret, unlimited donations to the fund (as long asthey don’t use the donations for campaigns);

· the penalty for accepting a secret donation ofmoney, property or services, or having a secrettrust fund, must be increased from ridiculouslylow penalties of $500 to $2,000 to $100,000 anda jail term;

· given that federal election dates are now fixedevery 4 years, spending by candidates, ridingassociations and political parties must be limitedfor at least 6 months before each election day;

· donations by political parties to riding associa-tions and candidates must be limited to decreasethe possibility of party headquarters influencingthe selection of candidates, and to make associa-tions and candidates more independent from partyheadquarters; and

· spending limits must be established for politicalparty leadership campaigns to ensure a level play-ing field for all candidates (spending by nomina-

“Institutionalized Bribery”Survives in Canada

Democracy Watch

In December 2006, Parliament passed Bill C-2 (theso-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA))

which made historic changes to Canada’s 33-year-oldpolitical fundraising rules in the Canada ElectionsAct. Among other progressive changes, as of January1, 2007:

· there is a $1,200 annual limiton donations by each Canadianto each federal political party,and a combined total limit of$1,100 annually to each par-ties’ riding associations (and,during an election campaign,the same combined total limitapplies to donations to eachparty’s election candidates);

· corporations, unions and otherorganizations are banned frommaking donations;

· disclosure of political donations is more compre-hensive and timely, although disclosure of aparty or candidate’s donors is still not requiredbefore an election vote takes place;

· secret, unlimited donations of money, propertyand services to election candidates are prohibit-ed, and;

· federal politicians are prohibited from having atrust fund.

Loopholes in Federal Canadian LawWhile the new law limits the influence of money

in politics, the following loopholes that allow for se-cret, unlimited donations need closing:

· donation limits and disclosure requirements areneeded for “volunteer labour” donated to partiesand candidates during nomination races, or elec-tion and party leadership campaigns; this this willclose a loophole that allows corporations, unionsand other organizations to give employees paidtime off to work on campaigns;

· loans to parties, riding associations, nominationrace candidates, election candidates and partyleadership candidates from corporations, unionsand all other types of organizations must bebanned, or at least strictly limited, and loans fromindividuals must be limited so that they cannot beused to influence the government or politicians;

Democracy

Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 7

tion race candidates, election candidates, andpolitical parties is already limited during cam-paigns).

Loopholes in Provincial and Territorial LawsAll Canadian provincial and territorial laws have

the same loopholes as the Canadian federal lawabove, and in addition they have the following loop-holes:

· other than in Manitoba and Québec, donationlimits are much higher than a few thousanddollars, allowing wealthy interests to buy in-fluence with the government;

· several provinces, including British Columbia,Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan,the Yukon, and PEI do not have donation limits;

· other than in Manitoba and Québec, corpora-tions, unions and other organizations are al-lowed to make donations;

· all jurisdictions allow fundraisers to act as“bundlers” of donations from other individu-als, without any disclosure of the identity ofbundlers;

· other than in Ontario, donations to parties aredisclosed only once each year; donations toriding associations everywhere are disclosedonly once each year; and disclosure of a partyor candidate’s donors everywhere is not re-quired before an election vote takes place;

· secret, unlimited donations of money, propertyand services to all types of political candidatesare allowed, and;

· candidates, elected officials, riding associa-tions, and political parties are allowed to havea secret trust fund and accept secret, unlimiteddonations to the fund (as long as they don’t usethe donations for campaigns)

Excerpted from Democracy Watch,http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/money-in-politics-campaign/

________________

Media Centralizationby Elizabeth May, MP

I am the only federal party leader to raise the issueof corporate control of media. It is a clear threat to

a healthy democracy to have the bulk of the mediaowned by a handful of large vertically integratedcorporations. Postmedia (a successor to the empirebuilt by Conrad Black) contains 42 daily newspapersacross Canada—including both Vancouver’s majordailies.

CTV once had an ownership interest in the Globeand Mail, but divested its remaining interest thissummer [2015]. Meanwhile, Global is owned byShaw. Sun Media controls all the Sun chain of papersas well as TVA, the French commercial network inQuebec—itself owned by PQ leader P.K. Peladeau.A handful of owners control most English andFrench media.

Counteracting centralized mediaIt is not a healthy situation. So the challenge in a

democracy is to counteract the corporate media mes-sage. One could argue that is why we have a publicbroadcaster—CBC/Radio Canada. However, [in Oc-tober 2015] it is abundantly clear that the publicbroadcaster is pulling punches to avoid angering theConservative administration.

While it is clear the strategy of giving the Con-servatives an easy ride has not worked in the interestof CBC, it re-mains, sadly,the case thatour nationalpublic broad-caster is notthe solution tothe threat ofcorporate me-dia centralization.

Social mediaCan we democratize media through social me-

dia? Can we tweet and Facebook our way to digitaldemocracy? I have certainly tried in this [2015]election. When corporate media (and the Conserva-tive party) kept me out of their small private de-bates—Globe and Mail, Munk Debate and TVA, Itweeted my way into the space. It is never as effec-tive as actually being there, but is a way of reachingmillions. It is a particularly important way to try toreach young people. If youth decide to vote in thiselection, it will change everything.

I have also communicated using twitter and Fa-cebook, replying to questions from any interestedCanadian. The challenge of expressing any idea in140 characters forces an economy of words. Tweetsare to newsletters as haiku is to epic poetry. It can bedone!

One of the homes of “institutionalized bribery.”

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 8

Town hall meetingsI try between elections to stay in touch with

constituents through townhall meetings—reportingto my bosses, the citizens of Saanich-Gulf Islands, allthe key issues and bills on which I have been work-ing. Regular townhall meetings give me the bestform of communication—an honest exchange ofideas in person in a respectful space. With ninetownhalls twice a year I have kept in regular contact.In January the total number of attendees exceeded1,500.

NewslettersNewsletters also help. I have innovated with

what other MPs use as a promotional flyer mailed atpublic expense to every home. In my case, I havetreated my mailing on the public dime as a form ofindy media—covering one issue in depth four timesa year.

Those newsletters helped me a great deal as eachone included a questionnaire with a space for com-ments. Citizens in Saanich-Gulf Islands have a lot tosay and we usually received hundreds of commentsin response to each mailing.

Reform corporate media rulesEven though we have a voice in the face of

corporate media, that does not mean we should ig-nore the problem. It’s time to take up the recommen-dations of 35-years-ago from Tom Kent’s RoyalCommission on the Fifth Estate. We need to applyanti-trust rules to corporate media monopolisticpractices.

We need to diversify the voices of newspapers,radio and TV. And we need to fully fund the nationalpublic broadcaster and remove political interferencefrom its governance.

We must name and address the problem beforethe next election.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament forSaanich and the Gulf Islands. This column was pub-lished in Island Tides, October 12, 2015.

__________________

It’s Time to Restore Fairness inCanada’s Tax System

by Lindsay Tedds

Canada’s tax system is a mish-mash of deduc-tions, exemptions, credits, transfers, and rates

that has no unifying objective or premise and dispro-portionately benefits the wealthy. A simple way totax the rich and restore fairness in our tax system isto reduce the numerous and sometimes overlappingtax expenditures that do not have clear public policybenefits that benefit high income individuals at theexpense of low income households. Doing so wouldfree up much needed funds for targeted tax andincome relief to those households that need it most.

End taxbreaksAccording to the Conference Board of Canada,

there are now nearly 200 tax expenditures, alsoknown as tax breaks, related to personal income atthe federal level alone. These federal tax breaksresult in an estimated $100-billion of foregone taxrevenue annually. It might surprise most Canadiansto learn that these tax breaks amount to nearly 80 percent of total personal income taxes collected. With-out these tax breaks and assuming no behaviouralchanges, we could collect $225-billion.

Tax expenditures include both tax credits anddeductions. In essence, tax expenditures representrevenues that the government has elected not tocollect from tax payers for one reason or another.

Child fitness tax-credit popularity misplacedSome of these tax expenditures may be popular

with tax payers, but their popularity is misplaced.For example, research has found that the ChildFitness Tax Credit and the Public Transit Amount,directed $107 million (70 per cent of the value ofthese tax credits) in tax relief to the top 25 per centof tax filers. Because these tax credits are non-re-fundable not all households that claim them actuallyderive any benefit at all, demonstrating the com-plexity these credits add to our tax system.

Investors’ tax deductionsOther tax expenditures are not well known at

all. For example, there’s a deduction and a tax creditfor investors who purchase qualifying flow-throughshares (FTS), common shares in oil and gas compa-nies that pass on tax deductions to the investor.While industry lobby groups claim this tax treat-ment greatly benefits exploration in Canada, in real-ity FTS mean that tax payers are shouldering theburden associated with high-risk investments by

Economics

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 9

high-income individuals. In fact, investments inFTSs are predominately done for tax planning rea-sons and are actively marketed to investors who arelooking for last-minute tax deductions and credits.An unintended cost of the FTS regime is that it islikely shifting investment dollars away from other,less risky, and unsubsidized investments.

Stock optionsAnother example is the special deduction on

stock options. It has been estimated that limiting thisdeduction would increase taxes paid by wealthyCanadians by approximately $300-million a year.

Lindsay Tedds is an Associate Pro-fessor in the School of Public Ad-ministration at the University ofVictoria, B.C. The Globe and Mailpublished this on Friday, Nov. 082013, 5:45 PM EST. This columnwas part of The Globe's  WealthParadox series—a 10-day in-depthexamination of our growing income inequality andthe best ideas available for improving upward mo-bility for all.

__________________

generous enough to have a major impact: it providesa maximum of $970 a year for someone making atleast $5,800, but less for each dollar earned above$10,000 or so, amounting to nothing at all for thosewith incomes above about $17,500. The rates forfamilies are higher, but in the end do little to give theworking poor a significant boost.

What is holding the government back?This is an expensive program, and costs are

surely part of the story, as is the fear those alreadyworking will slack off. But proposals to enhance theWITB have to be judged by taking into account allof the costs, and all the benefits. For example, kidsraised on the bottom rungs of the income ladderhave a disproportionately large chance of growingup to be low-income adults. Being raised in a familywith more money improves the odds of breaking outof an inter-generational cycle of disadvantage, buthow the parents get the money also matters.

Working is much better than passively receivinga government cheque, since welfare and unemploy-ment insurance also have a way of being transmittedfrom parent to child. The inter-generational benefitsof having working parents, and of lowering the timeand financial stress they face, even if they workfewer hours, is also an unintended consequence ofthe program and one that speaks to a real benefit. Infact, the often-overlooked, perverse incentive fromexpanding the generosity of this program is that itmay succeed too well in increasing work effort.

Would a substantial rise in benefits flood themarket with low-wage workers, create more compe-tition for jobs, shift bargaining power to employersand induce them to lower wage rates even further?

Although the law of unintended consequenceswill always be in force, it need not be a showstop-per. If we think hard about all of the costs and all ofthe benefits, proceed steadily and incrementallywhile learning along the way, there is no reason whythe WITB can’t reduce some of the most damagingconsequences of greater inequality by lifting thoseat the bottom of the ladder.

Miles Corak is a professor of eco-nomics at the University of Otta-wa. He blogs at milescorak.comand you can follow him on Twit-ter @MilesCorak

Special to The Globe andMail. Published Friday, Nov. 082013, 5:51 PM EST. Last updated Monday, Nov. 112013, 4:56 PM EST. This column is part of TheGlobe's Wealth Paradox  series—a 10-day in-depth examination of our growing income ine-quality and the best ideas available for improv-ing upward mobility for all.

________________

Refundable Tax Credit CouldReduce Income Inequality

by Miles Corak

A reasonable goal for public policy would be toeliminate inequality in the lower half of the

income distribution, to have everyone standing atleast one-quarter of the way up the income ladder.

For a single person this would require an annualincome of $20,000, and for a two-parent family withtwo children about $40,000. At last count about 3million Canadians, including 570,000 children,don’t have that much money. The way to changethis is simple: Just give them more money!

If only it were so.The law of unintended consequences can undo

the best of intentions: Give people money, and itshould be no surprise that they will work less. [How-ever, see next article by Muriel Wiens.] This is whysocial policy now comes with strings attached.

The Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB),which the government describes as an earnings sup-plement for low-wage workers, pays no benefitsunless someone is making more than $3,000 a year,and pays more as a claimant earns more. This cre-ates a strong incentive for those not working, andpossibly collecting welfare, to jump into the jobmarket rather than withdraw from it.

But the program, which has the potential to playa big role in the fight against low income, is not

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 10

Guaranteed Annual IncomeTested

by Muriel E. Wiens

It was forgotten for years,until by chance, in 2005,

professor Dr Evelyn Forgetstumbled across 1,800 dustyboxes of research results, andwent to the Manitoba town ofDauphin to see whether any-one would talk to her aboutthe time when everyone inthe area lived above the pov-erty line.

What happened in DauphinA typical story she heard was that of a single

mom with teen-aged daughters, who used her incometo get an education and, with a part-time job, taughther daughters that a far different life was possible forthem than they had expected before the income as-sistance. That story was mirrored by others.

From the disorganized reams of evidence, DrForget winnowed out results that showed that wheneveryone was free of poverty, therewere fewer accidents, kids stayed inschool longer, hospital trips were de-creased, and local businesses thrived.The more ephemeral effects of theexperiment in “Minicome,” of im-proved self esteem and sense of be-longing to a community, cannot bemeasured, except perhaps in fewerteen pregnancies and decreased crime,other effects of the Dauphin experi-ment. Opponents—who thought that it would resultin larger families and an unwillingness to work—were proved wrong. There was a slight effect ofrefusing to work but this was corrected by only de-ducting fifty cents on the dollar from earned incomefor a time after an unemployed person found a job.

How it workedHere’s how it worked: the experiment was sup-

ported financially by the Pierre Trudeau governmentproviding 75% of the cost, and by the provincialgovernment providing 15%. Every household wasallocated the same basic amount: 60% of the Stats-Can low income cut-off, depending on family sizeand location.

Actually, Canada has a partial income supportprogram in the form of a Guaranteed Income Supple-ment for Seniors, and a national child care benefit.But the gap in the system is the lack of support for theworking poor.

Those who balk at the price might not know thatevidence from the Dauphin experiment indicates that

a Guaranteed Annual Income would save millions insocial assistance and health care, and in reduced childcare and elder care programs, let alone the cost ofpolicing. The Dauphin experiment suggests that poorpeople use crime to gain income, and once financiallysupported, find a less risky way to live.

Eligibility could be assessed by income taxrecords. In fact, Milton Friedman, that staunch de-fender of corporate profit, supported the idea of whathe called a “negative income tax” to top up theincomes of those below the poverty line.

Not a socialist plotIt isn’t really a right-left issue. It has more to do

with niggardliness. Harper’s negative attitude to in-come support differed from that of the Conservativesunder Robert Stanfield, in 1969, who favoured anincome assistance plan. Hugh Segal, a long-timeConservative Senator, has commented on Harper’sattitude: “It’s an abomination that he wouldn’t dis-cuss it when we have close to ten percent of thepopulation living below the poverty line.” The Harp-er government couldn’t see that ‘it was not charity tothe unworthy and lazy.’

Furthermore, it might surprise Donald Trump andhis yelling supporters that Thomas Paine, one of the

American Founding Fathers, wanted citi-zens to be paid a bonus to equalize proper-ty and eliminate ‘the invidious distinctionsbetween rich and poor.’ He suggested itmight be paid to all citizens at the age of21. That would get rid of post-secondaryeducation debt, a modern scourge on theyoung that shames us all.

Guaranteed income being tried nowIncome support is an idea whose time

is coming, and is supported by the Green party.Although the Swiss turned it down, fearing that peo-ple wouldn’t work if they weren’t bribed, other coun-tries are conducting pilot projects similar to theCanadian Dauphin experiment. Holland and Franceboth initiated pilot projects in the last months of2015. Finland has initiated a program to pay everycitizen $1,100 per month and scrap all other benefitsin an effort to reduce the ‘unemployment’ rate. Per-haps this is ‘code’ for poverty.

Closer to home, Alberta is considering it. Themayors of Edmonton and Calgary enthusiasticallysupport the measure as a way to eliminate the povertytrap. It would end child poverty, a problem our poli-ticians wring their hands over but do nothing to solve.

Federally, this is something of his father’s herit-age that Justin might wish to honour.

Muriel E. Wiens lives on Gabriola Is., B.C., and“likes to think about the world.” This article is re-printed from Island Tides, January 28, 2016.

_________________

Dr Evelyn Forget, University ofManitoba

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 11

Wealth, and How the Rich AreRegaining Power in Brazil

by Gwynne Dyer

The Brazilian Senate voted 55 to 22 in May 2016to impeach President Dilma Rousseff. She will

be suspended for the next 180 days while the samebody tries her on the charge of understat-ing the size of the budget deficit beforethe last election.

Official justifications for impeachmentTwo justifications have been offered

for this unseating of an elected president,but both are pretty flimsy. The first is thelegal justification, which is that Rouss-eff’s government tweaked the accounts abit to make Brazil’s financial situationlook less bad before the last election in2014.

She did, but which elected govern-ment anywhere does not try to put the bestface on its figures? Anyway, nobody be-lieves that this is the real reason for her removalfrom power.

The broader political justification is that she hasmade a mess of the economy. The economy certain-ly is in a terrible mess—in each of the last two yearsit has shrunk by four percent, one-tenth of thepopulation is unemployed, and inflation is explod-ing—but every big commodity-exporting countryhas been in the same mess since the global financialcrash of 2008. The demand for their exports simplycollapsed.

Rousseff didn’t create this crisis, but inevitablyshe gets the blame for it. That, rather than someobscure legal issue, is why nearly two-thirds ofBrazilians think she should be impeached. Butwhile she might have done better at managing thecrisis, in a democracy political questions like thisare normally settled by elections, not by impeach-ment.

The 55 senators who voted to impeach her allknow that, but they couldn’t resist the temptation totake her down. Which brings us to the real motivebehind all this, and the worrisome comparison withThailand, where the generals took over in 2014.

The real motive for impeachmentThe Thais, like the Brazilians, evicted their

military rulers from power in the 1980s by non-violent political action. As is bound to happen in ademocracy, both countries then developed powerfulpolitical movements that demanded a redistributionof wealth in favour of the impoverished half of thepopulation. And in both countries the prosperousurban middle classes mobilised against this threat.

The hopes of the Thai poor were focussed onThaksin Shinawatra (prime minister 2001-2006)and later, after the military forced him into exile, hissister Yingluck Shinawatra (prime minister 2011-2014). In Brazil the left-wing leader was Luiz Iná-cio “Lula” da Silva of the Workers’ Party (president2002-2010), and subsequently his close ally DilmaRousseff (president 2010-2016).

In Thailand the struggle between therural and urban poor (the ‘yellow shirts’)and the defenders of the economic statusquo (the ‘red shirts’) descended into thestreets early, and had got quite bloody bythe time the generals seized power in 2014.They intervened in favour of the ‘red shirts’,of course, but they seem determined to holdon to power themselves for the foreseeablefuture.

So the wealthy can welcome the militaryBrazil’s politics have been less violent

and the military have not intervened (yet),but it is just as much a class struggle—made

more intractable by the fact that in Brazil socialclass is colour-coded. The white half of the popula-tion is mostly prosperous, the “pardo”(mixed-race)and black half mostly poor.

The most important single measure of theWorkers’ Party government is the famous BolsaFamilial, a straight cash payment to those whoseincome is below the poverty line. To qualify, theymust only ensure that their children attend school85 percent of the time and are fully vaccinated. Ithas lifted 45 million people, a quarter of the popu-lation. out of poverty.

Nobody will admit that this crisis is about end-ing government subsidies for the poor, but thecrowds demonstrating against Rousseff’s govern-ment have been almost entirely white. So is thecabinet sworn in by the new interim president,Michel Temer. But Temer is going to have a veryhard time running the country.

Outraged Workers’ Party supporters are al-ready being radicalised by the “coup” that has driv-en Dilma Rousseff from power and the struggle ismoving into the streets. Mass demonstrations andbarricades are now a common sight, and the protest-ers will find it hard to resist disrupting the OlympicGames that start in Rio de Janeiro in early August.

Which may provide the excusefor the Brazilian right to welcomethe military back into power.

Gwynne Dyer is an independentjournalist whose articles are pub-lished in 45 countries. 13 May 2016. ________________

President Dilma Rousseff

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 12

Poor, White, Angry—andDying Youngerby Trevor Hancock

Donald Trumps’ supporters are often describedas poor, white, poorly educated and angry.

This is partly true (others also vote for Trump), butthere is a related factor that hasbeen less remarked upon, and thatI believe is important. The deathrate among poor, white middle-aged Americans is increasing.

I suspect this poor health isboth a symptom of and a contrib-utor to the anger and despair thatis being felt in the American mid-dle class, and that is translatinginto a political movement thatmany are warning is reminiscentof the birth of fascism in the 1930s.

Importance of educationWriting in The Atlantic this month [March

2016], Derek Thompson suggested there are fourcharacteristics of Trump’s voters: they didn’t go tocollege, don’t think they have a political voice,want to wage an interior war against outsiders, andlive in parts of the country with racial resentment.

Thompson cites data showing that for thosewithout a high-school diploma, real earnings fell20% for men and 12% for women aged 30 to 45between 1990 and 2013. Those with a high-schooldiploma or some college also did poorly, althoughnot quite as badly, but the proportion of men in thisgroup working fulltime, full-year fell from 76% to68% in that same period.

On the other hand, employment and real earn-ings increased for women with a bachelor’s degree(men stayed the same), and even more for men andwomen with an advanced degree. Thompson notes,“Non-college men have been trampled by globali-zation, the dissolution of manufacturing employ-ment, and other factors, for the last few decades.”

Voiceless and powerlessThompson’s second characteristic is that

Trump voters feel voiceless. He cites a RANDstudy that found “voters who agreed with the state-ment ‘people like me don’t have any say aboutwhat the government does’ were 86.5% more likelyto prefer Trump.”

In a recent CBC Radio interview, Americanjournalist Thomas Frank pointed out that Trumptalks a lot about trade deals that have led to unem-ployment, reduced wages and other harmful im-

pacts. Unsurprisingly, these trade deals are veryunpopular with those most affected—the peoplewho are core Trump supporters. Yet Frank notesthat both the Democrats and the Republicans havesupported free-trade agreements and continue to doso, so they cannot speak for those who have been“trampled” by globalization.

In a September 2015 article, AnneCase and Angus Deaton (the latter wonthe 2015 Nobel Memorial Prize in Eco-nomics for his work on health, well-be-ing and economic development)described an increase in the death rate ofwhite non-Hispanic men and womenaged 45 to 54 between 1999 and 2013.They noted that this is unique to whites,is largely driven by increased deathsfrom alcohol, drug use and suicide, andis accompanied by declines in self-re-

ported physical and mental health, and increases inpain and disability.

The role of inequalityMoreover, they noted that this increase in death

rates was not seen in any other rich country, andthat “it was driven primarily by increasing deathrates for those with a high-school degree or less.”In fact, death rates did not change for those withcollege education less than a bachelor’s degree, anddeclined for those with a bachelor’s degree or high-er degree. The parallels with the population said tobe core supporters of Trump are striking.

In discussing the factors underlying this “epi-demic of pain, suicide and drug overdose,” Caseand Deaton noted that “ties to economic securityare possible.” They cited “widening income ine-quality,” slow growth in earnings in this group andconcerns over future pensions. A less comprehen-sive social safety net than is found in Europe andCanada is probably not helping.

The lesson here is simple, and should be awarning to Canadian governments that do little toaddress poverty. Drive people into poverty anddespair and you will sow the seeds for prematuredeath rooted in alcohol and drug abuse, leading tosocial breakdown, anger and ex-tremist politics [and radical reli-gious views].

Dr Trevor Hancock is a professor andsenior scholar at the University of Vic-toria’s school of public health and so-cial policy. This article was publishedin the Victoria Times Colonist onWednesday March 23, 2016. __________________

Donald Trump

Poverty

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 13

Homeless Need a National PlanVictoria Times Colonist Editorial

Fierce criticism erupted when the government ofSaskatchewan sent two homeless men to B.C.

They were given one-waybus tickets to Vancouverand Victoria by the prov-ince’s social services min-istry, and basically shownthe door. One of the menreportedly has epilepsy.

Officials in Regina areclearly embarrassed by theblow-back, and a reviewof procedures is under-way. But callous, and in-deed disgraceful, as thisincident was, it is merelythe tip of an iceberg.

Last year in B.C. almost one in seven newincome-assistance recipients came from elsewherein Canada. More than half—1,561 out of 3,100—arrived from Alberta. Saskatchewan was also highon the list, although every province in the countrycontributed.

Migrating homeless can cause unmanage-able pressures

Both B.C. Premier Christy Clark and HousingMinister Rich Coleman took the high road whenquestioned.

“Wherever they are inCanada…if they decide to come toBritish Columbia, we’re going tosupport them,” Clark said. AndColeman noted that Canadians havethe right to live in any province theychoose.

Yet staff who run homelessshelters in Victoria and Vancouver report unman-ageable demands for accommodation. There is astrong sense, in both cities, that resources arestretched to the breaking point.

The migration from the prairies is due no doubtto hard times in the oil patch. But every region ofthe country is confronted with economic difficultiesthat could get worse before they get better.

The question is, what should be done? Whilehumanely speaking it is our duty to help anyone inneed, there is a practical issue to be faced.

The solution must be nationalIt is unreasonable to fix on B.C., or any other

province, the responsibility for dealing with thechallenge that is national in scope.

In other fields, health care for example, the needto break down regional barriers has been recog-nized. A Victoria resident who falls ill in Ottawawill be treated there, no questions asked. And whenthe bill is sent to B.C., it is promptly paid.

A similar approach islong overdue in support-ing the homeless and thosewho can’t find work. Ifunemployed Albertansmove to B.C. and requireassistance, it seems rea-sonable to ask our neigh-bours to bear some of thecost.

There are two ways ofapproaching this. Healthbills are paid through re-ciprocal agreementsworked out between the

provinces. That might offer a solution.More likely, though, a national overlay will be

needed. The provinces share health costs, in part,because the Canada Health Act gives every citizena portable right to medical care. It is the moral andlegal fabric of this statute, particularly the portabili-ty aspect, that creates the framework for cooperation.

Along the same lines, we need a nationallyauthorized benefit that the unemployed or homelesscan take with them, funded by their home jurisdic-tion. Yes, this is a departure from tradition. And no

doubt it will be resisted initially inpoorer regions, whose governmentmight be happy to see out-of-workresidents get up and leave.

But while no doubt there will beobstacles, this shouldn’t be missionimpossible. Every part of the countryhas an equal interest in ensuring citi-zens are properly treated. This can

only be done if all provinces play a part.

An ethical dutyConsider it nation-building—part of the unfin-

ished business of bringing our country together. ForCanadians are fair-minded, and expedience at thecost of what’s right offends us.

As well, there is a new administration in Otta-wa, pledged to a kinder and more inclusive style ofgoverning.

So let the premier and her ministers appeal tothis larger audience. They have an unanswerablecase to make.

Reprinted from the Victoria Times Colonist, SundayMarch 20, 2016.

_______________

“In-tent City” across the street from Christ ChurchAnglican Cathedral, Victoria, B.C.

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 14

Environment: Climate Change and EnergyClimate: Time to do what is

necessaryby Elizabeth May, MP

I write this from the train heading back from NewYork to Canada. The last time I made this trip

was September 2014, coming home from the Peo-ples’ Climate March. My daughter and I marchedwith over 400,000 people through the streets ofNew York, with the explicit goal of encouraging theclimate talks to succeed. My favourite placard thatday read “It is time to stop debating what is possibleand start doing what is necessary.”

That one sentence encapsulatesour current debate: some want to keeparguing about what is possible, whilethe rest of us understand we are run-ning out of time to do what is neces-sary.

In September 2014 the pressurewas for the Lima talks at COP20 to gowell enough to create a positive out-come for Paris in 2015 at COP21. Butas has been clear from commentary,reasonable people can disagree onhow much the Paris Agreement hasmet the demands in the streets. Andcomplicating this assessment hasbeen a lot of confused and confusingreporting.

Erroneous reporting is dangerousIn nearly every media story about the Paris

Agreement, new climate targets and how we getthere, there are frequent errors.  The constant repe-tition of these errors is not just frustrating; it isdangerous.

The difficulty is in sorting out what the ParisAgreement requires of nations, from what Canadahas so far committed to do, and what it costs to getthere. I have read news articles that assume Cana-da’s target is consistent with the Paris goals—it isnot. I have read stories that assume the new Liberaladministration of Prime Minister Trudeau hasadopted the previous government’s weak climatetarget. It has not. I have read articles that claim theParis Agreement is not legally binding. It is.

These issues tend to get muddled. Even one ofmy most respected sources of information, the Par-liamentary Budget Office (PBO), has this weekstumbled slightly into error.

COP21 goalsLet’s start with the goals of the Paris

Agreement. It is a turning point. For the first time

195 nations have essentially agreed that our econo-mies are going off fossil fuels. The treaty calls forreducing emissions sufficiently to avoid global av-erage temperature ever exceeding 2°C above whatit was before the Industrial Revolution, while striv-ing to keep the world safer by holding global aver-age temperature to no more than a 1.5° rise. Thatimplies keeping concentrations of green house gas(GHG) to no more than 425-450 parts permillion. And that measurement means very dramat-ic reductions in GHG emissions.

The Paris Agreement requires countries to placetheir own plans, both for emission reduction targets,

adaptation and financing to help poor-er countries, in line with the UnitedNations climate secretariat. These tar-gets can be removed at any time, butonly to be replaced with more aggres-sive targets.  This is the “ratchetingup” feature of the Paris Agreement.

Current goals lead to failureThe current aggregate of all tabled

targets of all nations—if achieved—take us to a range of global averagetemperature increase of 2.7° to3.5°C. Anyone familiar with climatescience will recognize in those tem-peratures a threat to human civiliza-tion itself. They are not merely “failedtargets;” they suggest a “failed spe-cies.”

Of all the currently tabled targets,Canada’s is among the weakest.  While the Europe-an Nations pledge to reduce GHG to 40% below1990 levels by 2030, Canada’s pledge is even weak-er than the US, and is the weakest of any G7nation. Our base year is 2005, when emissions werefar higher than in 1990.  And our deadline year isfive years later than the US.  Under former PrimeMinister Stephen Harper, Canada pledged to reduceemissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

If Canada wants to have any credibility in sign-ing and ratifying the Paris Agreement, then ourtarget must be significantly boosted. It is time tostop debating what is possible and start doing whatis necessary.

Opponents use errors to push backBut there is push back.  Even though Environ-

ment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McK-enna has always referred to the Harper target as “thefloor,” forces are gathering to set that goal in con-crete.  Bear in mind, Harper never consulted prov-inces (or anyone) before setting that target.  Nor didhis government develop any plan.

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 15

There was a Cabinet document prepared for theConservative administration as the 30% below 2005by 2030 target was being put forward.  It suggestedthat Canada should look to buy credits in othernations.

PBO commits two errorsThat thought brings me to where the PBO paper

committed two serious errors.  Firstly, the Parlia-mentary Budget Office is to be commended forundertaking the work. It relied on the NRTEE (Na-tional Round Table on the Environment and theEconomy) paper from a few years ago estimatingthe cost per tonne of reductions within Canada.  Italso looked at carbon pricing estimates from thosecalculating how high a carbon price would need tobe to meet our targets, by that mechanism alone.The PBO estimate of what it will cost every Cana-dian is premised on the assumption of a $100/tonneof reduction cost.

But this is an “all hands on deck” kind ofmoment.  Carbon pricing is only one mechan-ism. Improving energy efficiency, hiring legions ofcarpenters, electricians and plumbers to reduce the30% of GHG emissions that come from our leakybuildings, and improving the East-West electricitygrid to bring green renewable power from one prov-ince to another, will accelerate the transition awayfrom fossil fuels. Carbon pricing is a necessary step,but it is not by itself enough, and by itself it is toocostly.

We need to involve developing countriesMoreover, to reduce GHGs fast enough to

avoid 1.5 degrees, we would be smart to put re-sources into reductions in developing countrieswhere the price per tonne is much lower. The dis-cussion in the Cabinet document to the previousgovernment was right about this. But the PBO paperleaves out this aspect of meeting the 1.5 degreestarget.  The atmosphere does not care where theGHGs come from—a tonne of GHG from India orVenezuela has the same warming impact as a Cana-dian tonne.

Secondly, the PBO is to be commended as wellfor figuring out that Canada’s current target doesnot meet even the 2°C level of ambition.  So PBOdescribes the current Harper target as“interim.” The implication is that sometime before2030 we have time to move to a tougher target.  Butwe do not. Carbon dioxide emitted today remainspowerfully warming the atmosphere for another100 years. As Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ex-plained at the United Nations signing ceremony onEarth Day 2016, the window is rapidly closing onour opportunity to keep global average temperature[increase] below 1.5°C. We must ramp up targetsfaster and everywhere.

Canada can leadAnd here is where Canada can play the most

important role. We need to lead in ratcheting up ourtarget. We need to add up all the current provincialplans and demand more of provincial governmentswhile pressing the federal government to use all ofits jurisdiction and powers to be much more aggres-sive. Fortunately, spending on green infrastructurewill help our economy.  Fortunately, catching upwith other countries’ investments in clean andgreen technologies will create more jobs.

The risk is not in doing too much to address theclimate crisis.  The threat is of reckless complacen-cy and the siren call to “be reasonable.”

Slightly edited fromhttps://www.greenparty.ca/en/blog/2016-04-25/climate-time-do-what-necessary, April 25,2016.

___________________

US childrens’ environmentalrights upheldby Patrick Brown

District Court in Eugene, Oregon upheld therights of 21children, ages 8–19, representing

their generation, and Dr James Hansen, represent-ing future generations, to the exercise of due proc-ess by the US government to control and limit thegreenhouse gas CO2 in and over the United States.This is a novel legal action with novel objectives.

This hearing dealt specifically with motionsby the US government and the fossil fuel industryto dismiss and strike the childrens’ action, whichnames the government and the industry as De-fendants. Their motions were denied, thus freeingthe action to move on to further stages in thejudicial process.

Their remaining agenda is ambitious. Theyseek a declaration that the Energy Policy Act,Section 201, is unconstitutional. (This section au-thorizes the sale of biomass from federal lands forenergy generation.) They also ask the court toorder the Defendants to prepare an ‘enforceablenational remedial plan to phase out fossil fuelemissions’. And, very specifically, they seek adeclaration that the government’s authorization toJordan Cove Energy for an LNGterminal at Coos Bay is uncon-stitutional.

Excerpted from Island Tides(April 21st, 2016) of whichPatrick Brown is a co-founderand contributing writer.

________________

Summer 2016 JUSTnews 16

JUSTnews is published byCanadian Unitarians for Social Justice

www.cusj.org

PresidentMargaret Rao

Editorial CommitteePhilip Symons, Editor; Don Vipond,

and Leslie Gillett.

Production and Proof ReadingPhilip Symons, Alastaire Henderson,

and Debra Mair,

Distribution ListsJoy Silver

Submissions to or enquiries regardingJUSTnews should be addressed to:

Philip Symons, Editor JUSTnews1394 Vista Hts.

Victoria, BC, V8T 2J3

Phone 250 592-6484philmar@islandnet.com

The views published herein do not nec-essarily reflect views and opinions ofthe Canadian Unitarian Council, Cana-dian Unitarians for Social Justice or allCanadian Unitarian Universalists.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSEThe CUSJ purposes are:

• to develop and maintain a vibrant network of Unitarian socialaction in Canada and elsewhere and to proactively representUnitarian principles and values in matters of social justiceand in particular

• to provide opportunities, including through publication ofnewsletters, for Unitarians and friends to apply their religious,humanistic and spiritual values to social action aimed at therelief of (1) poverty and economic injustice, (2) discriminationbased on religious, racial or other grounds, (3) abuses ofhuman rights whether of individuals or peoples, (4) abuses ofdemocratic process, and

• to promote peace and security, environmental protection,education, and literacy in keeping with the spirit of Unitarianvalues.

These purposes are an integral part of the Constitution ofCUSJ, adopted at the CUSJ Annual Meeting in Mississauga,ON, May 19, 1999, and amended at the 2003 AGM.

I agree with the above Statement of Purpose, and wishto

join or renew membership in CUSJ.

Enclosed please find my donation of $__________

Name________________________________________

Address______________________________________

______________________________________

Tel ( )________________Postal Code____________

Email________________________________________

Add me to the CUSJ ListServ: yes no

I would like to receive my JUSTnews Newsletter by:

Post e-mail

Name of Congregation (if a UU member):

______________________________________________

Date:___________________

Please mail to: CUSJ Membership, c/o Bob Staveley,P.O. Box 40011, Ottawa, ON K1V 0W8

Publications mail agreement No. 40037866

Return address:52-3190 Tahsis Ave.Coquitlam, B.C.V3B 6G1 Printed on recycled paper