It’s time for Canada to act…
There is something happening to Canada that makes me uncomfortable. Last week, our Prime Minister joined with President George W. Bush to defer action on climate change to United Nations talks planned 18 months from now in Copenhagen.

This week, the Prime Minister allowed Robin Long, a U.S. Army deserter who fled to Canada three years ago to be deported to the United States, marking the first time a resister to the U.S war effort in Iraq has been removed from this country by Canadian authorities. Long sought refuge on the grounds that the U.S. Army wanted him to participate in an 'illegal war of aggression” in Iraq.

Coincidentally, the Prime Minister abandoned Omar Khadr to the vagaries of the U.S. Military tribunal prosecuting him for alleged war crimes, including the grenade killing of a U.S. soldier. The Prime Minister’s failure to act on the above reflects poorly on the values of Canadians and plants Canada’s international reputation in an unfamiliar place.

Omar Khadr was born in Toronto. He is a Canadian citizen. He was captured in 2002, at the age of 15 by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. He was a “child soldier”. He should have received the protection of international law. Instead of being tried in U.S. military courts, he should have been protected and offered rehabilitation. He has been held without trial in a U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002.

Although born in Toronto, Khadr spent much of his early life in Pakistan. In 1992, Khadr's father was severely injured and the Khadr family moved back to Toronto so he could recuperate. When the family returned to Pakistan, Khadr’s father was arrested following a 1995 bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan.

He was later released for lack of evidence and moved his family to Afghanistan where it’s alleged that he frequently visited the compound of Osama Bin Laden where Omar played with the bin Laden children. Put on a list of suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Omar’s father was killed in a shootout with Pakistani forces near the Afghanistan border.

Omar’s father was an Egyptian immigrant to Canada, a Canadian aid worker and patriarch of the Khadr family. He reportedly had close ties to a number of militant and Mujahideen leaders, including Osama bin Laden. The Canadian government once considered him the country's highest-ranking member of Al Qaeda and the United Kingdom added his name to a list of al-Qaeda members in 1999.

Omar Khadr’s time at Guantanamo is colored by charges of torture. He says that he was refused pain medication for his wounds (suffered in the firefight with U.S. military), that his hands were tied above a door frame for hours, that he had cold water thrown on him, that he had a bag placed over his head and was threatened with military dogs, that he was flatulated upon and forced to carry 5-gallon pails of water to aggravate his shoulder wound, that he was not allowed to use washrooms and was forced to urinate on himself.

In February 2003, six months after his capture, Khadr was interrogated at Guantanamo by Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) officials. The interrogation was taped.

In 2007, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just fishing for information and that disclosing their records could jeopardize our national security.

Critics alleged that the refusal to release classified documents was due to the potential "embarrassment" they might cause to the Government. On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Government of Canada had acted illegally, contravening the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ordered the videotapes of the Khadr interrogation released.

It’s not clear to me that Omar Khadr is guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged. It’s not clear to me, based on his family’s history of association with terrorist figures that Omar is a salvageable person. What is very clear is that he is a Canadian citizen and that he deserves to have all of the resources of the Canadian Government brought to bear on his behalf to ensure that he finds a just and legal conclusion to his circumstance.

Omar Khadr is the only known citizen of a western country remaining in Guantanamo. The U.S. military tribunals have been censured by U.S. courts. Canada has refused to seek Khadr’s extradition or repatriation despite the urgings of Amnesty International, the Canadian Bar Association and other prominent organizations.

Like it or not, Khadr is a Canadian and it’s time for Canada to act.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

The Conference Board of Canada, in its recent “Annual Report Card” ranks Canada’s environmental performance 15th out of 17 countries with poor performances in greenhouse gas emissions, smog and waste generation.

The Report charged that Canadians generate more waste per person than any other country in the world and that only Australia produces more per capita greenhouse gas emissions than Canada.

This week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined with his good friend and mentor George W. Bush in declaring that the G8 countries, at their summit in Japan had made an "important advance" in controlling climate change by conceding the necessity of having a long-term mandatory goal to cut greenhouse gases in half by the year 2050.

Great in theory but the declaration offers no base year from which to measure the cuts and offers no short term goals that would set us on the way to a 50% reduction in gas emissions.

The G8 countries produce 62 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases. While their declaration raises the prospect of big cuts by 2050, it doesn't commit anyone to deliver the goods. This week’s declaration simply defers the decision to adopt mandatory reductions to United Nations climate talks to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Further, the decision appears to be conditional on having developing countries including: China, India, Brazil and others sign on to the program. In the meantime developing countries are saying that the G8 group should be taking the lead by reducing emissions now. Mr. Harper caps the discussion by suggesting that at the end of the day, we may not be talking about emission cuts but simply lowering the rate of growth.

Closer to home, Canadians have launched a debate on carbon taxes. British Columbia has already introduced a carbon tax. New Brunswick is seeking advice from the public in respect to the possible introduction of a carbon tax. The Federal Liberals have promised to introduce a carbon tax if they form the next government. According to a Harris-Decima poll released this week, Canadians, by a 2-to-1 margin favour strong measures to reduce carbon emissions but not everyone agrees.

Those who oppose carbon taxes, say we can’t afford them because they would increase the cost of transportation, destroy our trucking industry, unfairly target the poorest in society and be nothing more than a tax-grab.

When someone suggests that we could avoid the need for a carbon tax by slowing down our highway driving speeds, others suggest it’s not a good idea.
James Hansen, a leading climate expert who raised the alarm about global warming with the U.S. Congress some 20 years ago, says he's 99% sure those carbon emissions contribute significantly to global warming but he’s still not 100% sure.

So why should we pay more by way of a carbon tax to address a problem that may not exist?

David Suzuki admits that we aren't 100% sure that human activity is causing global warming.

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists will only
admit to being 90% certain that our carbon emissions are causing global warming on such a scale that we face global catastrophe if we fail to change our ways. Suzuki provides relevance with this question “If nine out of 10 doctors said your child needed an immediate life-saving operation, would you wait until all 10 agreed?”

The only way Governments can change public behaviour is by regulation, taxation or force. My preference is to use the tax system. Let’s assume the imposition of a 10% carbon tax and let’s assume that the tax caused people to drive less, heat less, light less and consume less (carbon).

And let’s assume further that the net out of pocket increase in cost for the average household would still be about $1,000 a year. If we lowered personal income tax payable by $1,000, the carbon tax would cost taxpayers nothing. If we treated carbon taxes as input costs against collected HST, businesses would not be penalized. There is only one loser in this scenario and that is the individual or business that does not pay income tax.

What if such individuals were given a prepaid credit card, equal to the projected annual cost of the carbon-tax that could be used to purchase food, clothing and other goods and services?

They would be freed from the carbon-tax burden.

In my opinion, we should not be blindly opposing a carbon-tax, we should be demanding that the details of any such tax-imposition provide offsetting tax relief or alternative compensation and provide monetary incentives for those who reduce their consumption of carbon-dependent fuels, energy and products.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

Statistics Canada reports that in 2005, there were 96,815 reported abortions in Canada. Except for a few places in North America (and indeed the Western world), safe, legal and accessible abortion has become the norm.

This week, the Advisory Committee on Order of Canada
Appointments, headed by Canada’s Chief (Supreme Court) Justice, Beverly McLauchlin nominated Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the “Order of Canada”.

The nominating process called for a recorded vote (as far as I know, it was the first in the history of Order of Canada nominations). The Order of Canada recognizes a lifetime of achievement, dedication to community and service to the country (Canada). Dr. Morgentaler’s achievement was to make abortion a woman’s private choice, subject to no one’s choice but her own.

There are two issues here: one, should Canada’s top legal officer be taking, what appears to be an interventionist position on a matter of public policy and secondly is a declared abortionist someone we want to honour for a lifetime of achievement and service to the country.

If you are pro-choice, the answer is clearly yes. If you are pro-life, the answer would likely be no.

In respect to the first issue, it is my opinion that our Chief Justice has no place in the Country’s policy development (other than in legal interpretation) or promotion of a particular policy as might be influenced by the Judge’s pursuit of an Order in Canada appointment that honours one who clearly represents one of a number of points of view in Canadian society – free choice (abortion). A judge is supposed to be a person of impartiality, not advocacy.

On the question of honouring an abortion advocate, the issues are more complex. Most Canadians likely support restricted abortion rights for women in their early months of pregnancy. I suspect that most would also disapprove of late-term abortions, except in cases of serious, late-term maternal risk. Some people are opposed to abortion on religious grounds.

That said, abortion is legal in Canada and practiced by physicians under good practitioner circumstances.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has asked that the appointment of Morgentaler be reconsidered (not rescinded). They suggest that Morgentaler’s appointment to the Order of Canada creates controversy and division in the country. They suggest that Dr. Morgentaler has been purveyor of a “culture of death. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has distanced himself from the decision to appoint Morgentaler to the Order of Canada pointing out that appointments are recommended by an “independent advisory committee” and decreed by the Governor General.

For some people, Dr. Morgentaler’s selection has cast a shadow over the appointment of a number of other Order of Canada designates including: former Prime Minister Kim Campbell; former Premier of New Brunswick and Canadian Ambassador to the United States Frank McKenna; Wallace McCain (Maple Leaf Foods and McCain Foods), former Cabinet Minister and Secretary General of the OECD Donald Johnson and members of the arts world including: short-story writer Audrey Thompson and Nova Scotia poet George Elliott Clarke.

The award of Canada’s highest civilian honour to one whose professional life has been a crusade to make abortion available to the widest cross-section of Canadian women is clearly controversial.

Is it right? Does it reflect the values of Canadians?

There is no question that Morgentaler has delivered a lifetime of achievement and service to those in the country who advocate abortion as a woman’s private choice. The flip side of that acknowledgement is that Henry Morgentaler has delivered a lifetime of achievement in opposition to life, albeit a controversial definition of life.

Traditionally, abortions were obtained by desperate women who were singled out by circumstance or economics to seek the life-ending procedure. I am conflicted in this discussion by the fact that I have two daughters, who collectively have four children. Would I wish that one or more of those children not be here because of an abortion? No way! Would I support the notion of abortion if one of my daughters had faced a life-threatening pregnancy? Absolutely!

I was raised as a Catholic. Clearly, the Catholic clergy opposes abortion on the grounds that it is life-ending. In principle, I agree with them. In reality, I know that circumstance dictates real-life decision and real-life support for a particular position.

At the end of the day, I have to come out in opposition to Henry Morgentaler’s appointment to the Order of Canada because in my view, he has not contributed to the advancement of life in Canada.

Clearly, he has contributed to the advancement of life circumstance for many women in this country. That should be acknowledged but it need not be glamorized by appointment to the Order of Canada.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com