On Tuesday, Canada’s Governor General, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean delivered a “Throne Speech” on behalf of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government.


Traditionally, the Throne Speech doesn't make much of a noise away from Parliament but this one, aired on prime time TV was accompanied by all the intrigue of a poker game. It was expected that Mr. Harper would take advantage of the Conservatives’ lead in the polls to trigger an election by loading the Speech with a poison pill that Liberal Leader, Stéphane Dion could not swallow.


Dion fooled him. He delivered a scathing rebuttal that offered a series of amendments to the Speech that would be acceptable to Canadians. Harper rejected them and moved acceptance of the Speech as delivered. The Liberals refused to vote on Harper’s motion, knowing it would trigger an unwanted election. With support from the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives’ motion to accept the Speech was carried by Parliament.


The Conservatives immediately introduced a Bush-like Crime Bill designed to inflame the Opposition and trigger another election challenge.


In his response to the Speech from the Throne, Harper promised to strengthen Canada’s sovereignty and place in the world; protect our environment; steer our economy toward long-term prosperity; modernize our federation and our democratic institutions; and make our streets and communities safe again. According to Mr. Harper, our most important sovereignty challenge is the Arctic, where retreating polar ice, rising global demand for resources and the prospect of year-round shipping are creating new challenges and exciting opportunities for the North.


He acknowledges that our role in the world is not just about Arctic sovereignty; it is also about actions beyond our borders and relationships with the international community. He would continue to rebuild the military and defend our mission in Afghanistan as a noble and necessary endeavour. He says “The mission in Afghanistan reflects our conviction that Canadian foreign policy must promote our values and defend our interests.” Could be a page from the global playbook of George W.


Harper abandons the Kyoto Accord on climate change and embraces the Asian Pacific alternative, claiming its targets are among the most aggressive in the world.He announced a reduction in personal income taxes, a further 1% reduction in the GST and a long-term plan of broad-based tax relief that would further reduce taxes for businesses, individuals and families.


He says that his Party has long been “committed to low taxes, direct benefits for families” and a free market powered by the private sector. Everyone wants lower taxes but tax reductions should be used to stimulate economic activity. Tax revenues should be used to improve the life circumstance of Canadians.


The Prime Minister promises to introduce legislation that would place formal limits on the use of federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction and to provide for the opting out of federal-provincial programs by provinces with compensation. He also promises to reintroduce a Senate bill that would reduce term lengths and seek public consensus on Senate appointments – an attempt to end-run constitutional amendment.


Harper’s first priority, post Throne Speech appears to be an anti-crime Bill that would put the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of accused criminals. It would introduce mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes. It would make it tougher for accused gun criminals to get bail. It would give police and prosecutors more tools to get impaired drivers off the road. It would make sure violent, repeat and dangerous offenders stay behind bars.


While the intent may be laudable, the language reminds us of the Dick Cheney approach to “enemy combatants”.


Stéphane Dion, as might be expected was highly critical of the Throne Speech. He noted its ambiguity in respect to Afghanistan, the length of mission in Kandahar and Canada’s role as an offensive combat force. He also questions why the government has asked the panel, headed by John Manley to look at options for Canada’s role in Afghanistan when the Throne Speech chooses an option – training of the Afghan army and police.


Dion challenges the Prime Minister’s unilateral promise to reform the Senate without Constitutional amendment or provincial agreement. On the matter of limiting federal spending powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction, Mr. Dion correctly reminds us that the federal spending power was instrumental in building Canada-wide social programs such as Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, etc.


In respect to the economy, Dion argues that the Harper government has done more harm than good in terms of Canada's international competitiveness. He notes that Harper has promised to spend another $12 billion per year to cut the GST by a point, a measure that does nothing to combat poverty or make our economy more competitive. On the matter of climate change, Dion quotes the Sierra Club of Canada's Kyoto report card for 2007.


The Report observes that the Conservative Government cut over $5 billion worth of investment in environment and climate change programs last year. “Federal programs were slashed, and the importance of addressing global warming was downplayed.” also “The Canadian government’s efforts at the international climate change conference in Montreal won Canada international praise…Under the new Conservative government, Canada quickly went from hero to zero… At an international conference in Bonn, Canada attempted to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol.”

In a spirit of compromise and good will, Mr. Dion offered amendments to the Throne Speech: that the Government take action to catch up on its Kyoto obligations; that Canada announce that its offensive combat mission in Kandahar will end in February 2009; that the Government address the issue of poverty in Canada and that Government bring forward measures to improve the economy.


Mr. Harper refused to consider any of these amendments, thus confirming his distain for Parliament and the Canadian people.

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

On Tuesday, Premier Danny Williams, a Conservative won 70% of the popular vote in the Newfoundland election and promised to fight Stephen Harper, also a Conservative, in the next federal election on the premise that Harper cannot be trusted.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Harper and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald announced that they have resolved Nova Scotia’s concerns related to interpretation of the Atlantic Offshore Accord. If I understand it correctly, the deal means that Nova Scotia will have the option of selecting the old equalization formula negotiated between Nova Scotia and the former Martin Government or the new equalization arrangement negotiated by MacDonald and Harper without risking loss of any of the benefits it would have received from the 2005 Atlantic Accord. Announcement of the Nova Scotia deal drove Newfounland’s Danny Williams into frenzy.

The Nova Scotia Agreement appears to contradict an earlier promise by Prime Minister Harper that he would not be making any side-deals with any province. Ironically, his flip-flop reinforces the argument put forward by some in New Brunswick that Premier Graham should be more aggressive in seeking a “self-sufficiency” investment from Ottawa.

It was Bill Casey, the Amherst Member of Parliament who brought the issue to a head in Nova Scotia. He was booted from the Conservative caucus last May for voting against the federal budget because it abrogated terms of the 2005 Accord. Harper announced on Thursday that he will run a new conservative candidate in Cumberland-Colchester and it will not be Bill Casey.

Saskatchewan’s NDP Premier, Lorne Calvert responded to the deal by saying ‘what’s good for Nova Scotia is good for Saskatchewan’. He will fight a provincial election in the next few weeks and Nova Scotia’s agreement with the Feds could become an issue in his election campaign.

The day after Newfoundland’s election, Ontario voters re-elected Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty in an overwhelming (71-26-10) win and in so doing rejected Conservative leader John Tory’s promise to extend “faith-based” funding for schools in Ontario. Little noticed in that election was the “Electoral Reform Referendum” on the issue of proportional representation. It was overwhelmingly defeated by voters 63% to 36%. John Tory, a highly respected Toronto businessman and former staffer of once Ontario Premier Bill Davis, was given an excellent chance of unseating McGuinty going into this election. Not only did he lose the election, he failed to win his own seat in Don Valley West.

What’s most interesting about the Ontario election is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives lost popular vote when compared to the last provincial election in 2003. The NDP gained two points but more significantly, the Green Party gained more than five points suggesting that the environment and climate change could become a major issue in the next federal election campaign, which might come as early as this fall.

What’s most significant about these two elections is that they were driven by issues They proved once again that an issue-based election can over-ride the best laid plans of man.

Newfoundland voters gathered behind Danny Williams to declare their support for his Newfoundland-first negotiations with multi-national oil companies and with the federal government in respect to the Atlantic Accord. Ontario voters clearly indicated their opposition to the notion of extending public funding to faith-based schooling enterprises. It was the fundamental issue in that campaign.
In the next federal election, the media and party strategists will attempt to pit Stephen Harper against Stéphane Dion in a personality/leadership contest. They will do so at their peril because the next federal election will be about issues as much as the leaders. Where the leaders stand on matters such as climate change or Afghanistan will define their campaigns. Federal spending powers could be a sleeper issue, as could the economy (what do we do with an over-valued Canadian dollar and loss of trade) and social issues (child poverty, the homeless, seniors, etc).

If recent polls mean anything, climate change could dominate the next election because it stands high on the public agenda and because there are fundamental differences between the leaders in respect to what can and should be done about the issue. It’s no coincidence that winners of this year’s Nobel Peace Prizes are climate activist Al Gore and the United Nations Panel on Climate Change. They were jointly designated are for making the world more aware of the effects of global warming and the role of man in accelerating that warming. Canadian Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuit Environmentalist was a nominee.

The Government’s “intensity-based” climate change initiatives stand in stark contrast to Canadians’ demand for real and tangible reductions in carbon emissions. The issue of global warming and its projected impact is real and Canadians want our federal government to do something about it. Canadians also want a coherent policy on Afghanistan, not a macho declaration of support for a government that chooses to execute fifteen people on a single day.

Mr. Harper caps or reduces federal spending powers to buy votes in Quebec and Alberta; he could remove the possibility of federal investment in the Petitcodiac River cleanup or a new convention centre. A cap on federal spending powers would make it impossible for the Feds to invest in new programs that might address child poverty, the quality of our healthcare system, infrastructure replacement or the financial challenges of post-secondary education.

In the days leading up to this month’s Throne speech, I’m told we could see another advertising campaign directed at Mr. Dion and his Liberal Party that would position any vote against the upcoming Throne speech in Ottawa as proof that the opposition parties want to force an election that Canadians don’t want. I may be ahead of myself on this one but I’m beginning to think it’s time for another election.

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

Picture a world where climate change has become an advanced reality.

The Mississippi Delta, islands in the Pacific and a good deal of Bangladesh are disappearing beneath the waves. The Amazon is afire; the monsoon (a periodic wind in the Indian Ocean and southern Asia, characterized by torrential rains) has failed to materialize for a third successive year. India has lost almost all its agricultural production and Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey are turning into deserts.

Would people and governments in that circumstance be seeking friendly, collaborative ways to cope with an international disaster?

In a speech to students, in the University of New Brunswick’s lecture theatre this week, the international journalist and author Gwynne Dyer warned that the affects of climate change could one day push nations into war.

He argued that the effect of uncontrolled global warming will be: mass starvation; mass population movement and war. He said that if we let climate change go to the tipping point we will face dire changes in rainfall distribution that will change agricultural production that in turn will destabilize world politics.

Dyer says a study by the World Bank (which has not been made public) on the affect of climate change on Indian agricultural production concludes that a mean temperature rise of two degrees Celsius would diminish agricultural production in India by 25%. A five degree increase would virtually destroy India’s agricultural production.
Consider what happened in Greece this summer.

Wildfires scorched much of southern Greece during the last week of August. Six thousand homes and four million olive trees burned to the ground. Half the forests of Greece are gone and 64 people are dead... It’s hard to imagine that people will ever live in the carbonized landscapes of the Peloponnesus (the heart and soul of Greece) again.

What nobody saw coming was the political fall-out of those fires.

When the center-right government of Kostas Karamanlis called an early election in August, it had a comfortable lead in the polls and was cruising towards certain victory. The fires changed everything. In polls, published prior to the September 16th election, Karamanlis's New Democracy party had fallen below 40 percent in polls.

In the end, the Party managed to hold on to a tiny majority (152 of 300 seats) with 41.84% of the vote.


Contrast the realities above with Prime Minister Harper’s speech to an assembly of 80 countries at the United Nations this week, where he told delegates that Canada is vigorously campaigning for an international deal that would reject the central foundation of the Kyoto Protocol.
Instead of capping greenhouse-gas emissions at specific levels as called for under Kyoto, Mr. Harper wants to link results of climate change actions to "intensity targets". His position stands in stark contrast to European countries and falls in line with the U.S. approach to climate change.


After addressing the United Nations on Monday, Harper announced that Canada would join a rival climate change pact becoming the seventh member of the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a group nicknamed as the anti-Kyoto partnership by some environmentalists.


The Asia-Pacific Partnership, created by the United States, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea and accounting for nearly half the world's greenhouse-gas emitters has been criticized for ignoring the mandatory reduction targets contained in Kyoto.


The United States withdrew from Kyoto following George W. Bush’s election in 2000. He did not attend the Monday session at the United Nations. Instead, the U.S. President held a parallel climate change conference in Washington on Thursday and Friday, attended by 16 of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters, including Canada.


U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made clear the U.S. preference is for “voluntary measures” not reduction targets. John Ashton, a climate change specialist for the British Foreign Secretary, said “a voluntary approach to global warming would be about as effective as a voluntary speed limit on a super highway”.


Canada’s David Suzuki says the ultimate goal of climate change initiatives must be to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. “That's the cause of global warming. If you don't reduce emissions in absolute terms, then the problem keeps getting worse”.


The Harper/Bush plan calls for a reduction in "intensity targets”. Intensity-based targets will not reduce total gashouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas intensity refers to the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of economic activity (a barrel of oil for example).

If targets are tied to economic growth, then actual greenhouse gas emissions can or will continue to rise, so long as they are tied to economic expansion. The atmosphere does not respond to intensity. It responds to greenhouse emissions. Intensity targets will do little, if anything to fix the problem.


According to a Canadian (Harris-Decima) poll released on Monday, the environment tops a list of most important issues facing Canadians, surpassing health care, the economy and the war in Afghanistan.


The environment was almost twice as important as the war in Afghanistan. The poll says that 61% of Canadians feel strongly about the environment and are "very concerned" about the issue. A meager 11 per cent of those surveyed said the Harper government takes the issue of climate change "very seriously."


If Gwynne Dyer is half right, our future depends on action now. It took the Americans three years and thousands of lives to see through the George Bush deception and rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

Surely, it will not take Canadians three years to see through the Harper sidestep on climate change. It’s time for Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party to step up to the plate with an alternative.

Climate change could be the make or break issue in the next election, particularly if there is one this fall.

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