My first musical love was folk music, and nobody told its stories better than our own Gordon Lightfoot.
Cover Art: The album was originally titled Sit Down Young Stranger, but when If You Could Read My Mind became a monster hit, they added the little pink sticker until the next pressing when they could rename the album.
As a young pup one of my first forays into the wider world was the bus trip I took to Toronto to see my musical idol, Gordon Lightfoot, live in concert at Massey Hall. And it was fabulous. I’ll always remember Gord’s introduction of one of my favorite songs, “Second Cup of Coffee,” self deprecatingly pointing out his folly in pairing the lyrics of despair with such an upbeat tune. The audience laughed good naturedly, but it was clear we would continue to love the song anyway.
Whether they were songs were about love or heartbreak, ballads about building the railway or laying in wet grass watching a 707 fly home, or maybe a chance to hear Don Quixote rail against injustice at an unsympathetic ocean or agonize as the Yarmouth Castle dies beneath its waves, Lightfoot’s music doesn’t just tell us his stories, he pulls us into them.
My beautiful older sister will always be a part of me.
She was both the worst enemy and greatest friend of my childhood. She was cool, and sometimes my hero,
6 year old Lynda
Of course I wanted to be just like her. Other times I hid quietly in the attic so I wouldn’t feel her wrath of her fists. We had a see-saw relationship throughout our lives.
Lynda gave me a home when I needed one, and helped me find my way to “launch” … then was angry with me when I went. As I was finding my own way I had to push her away when she tried to tell me how to live my life,
But later when we were both truly grown up we finally became the friends we might have always been, but for a better childhood.
Lynda had survived the worst childhood by far of any of the original seven because she couldn’t let what was broken alone. She stood up and fought for herself when no one else would. In the process, she taught me the cruelest lesson of my childhood: the only way to live through it was *not* to fight. Lynda was a fighter, and fighting a losing battle. So I learned to swallow my pride & pain & let it slide.
I will always treasure the relationship we had, good and bad, especially the good we had in later life when we finally became the friends we should always have been. By this time I knew I was a fighter too, but I could fight for anyone else, almost never for myself.
Lynda and Poukie
(late 1970s)
When Lynda got sick, at least I knew she was a fighter. But then couldn’t believe it when I realized she had chosen *not* to fight. Instead of following medical advice, she decided to put her faith in carrot juice and religion, tantamount to giving up, I was shocked and hurt beyond belief. I couldn’t believe it. Th angry she was giving up, that she was leaving me. I tried so hard to convince Lynda — of all people — that she had to fight for herself. But all I got back was an infuriating Mona Lisa smile. She wouldn’t even fight with me.
It was too soon to lose her. I wasn’t ready. I was afraid to lose my wonderful infuriating big sister. And these days I am afraid Lynda was just tired. Tired of having to fight. Almost always by herself. For everything.
Always.
I still couldn’t really accept it the last time I saw her in the hospital, but at least I could let her know I loved her, and she could let me know she forgave me.
I wish so many things had been different. I couldn’t really accept it until after she was gone. I wish I had been different. And I wish I had been able to be a better sister to her. I wish I could have stood up for her when we were young, and most of all, I wish I had been able to get past my anger and fear to be there for her at the end.
Despite the fact most Canadians only started hearing about Electoral Reform in the lead up to the 2015 federal election, it is not by any means a new thing. Canadian Electoral Reformers have been calling for a better way to vote here since before thw country called Canada even existed.
This is my first #FlashbackFriday post, where I’ll share some words of wisdom I’ve found in one piece of the Parliament of Canada’s 1923 debate on Proportional Representation.
Perhaps one reason why the Tory House of Lords found it necessary to vote for proportional representation was that they were beginning to see that very soon, if they did not get their proportion, they would not have any representation at all, and I have no doubt the time will come when the Conservatives of this House will take the same attitude.
Proportional representation is becoming popular in the public mind as a corrective to the present system of voting. I shall mention very briefly two points where the present method of voting is very unfair and undemocratic.
In the first place, a minority candidate in any constituency may be elected. Let us take an example. Suppose we have a constituency with a hundred votes. Suppose there is a Liberal, a Conservative and a Labour candidate in the field. We will give the Liberal 30 votes, the Conservative 30 votes and the Labour candidate 40 votes. The Labour candidate will be elected with 40 votes. There will be 60 votes against him, therefore the majority of the votes of that constituency have no representation at all, whereas the minority have the representation. That is one fault of the present system of voting. -Extend that over the whole country and you frequently have a party in power which has not the support of the majority of the voters.
The next point is that a very large minority may have no representation at all. That has just been very ably pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Take the illustration again of a constituency with a hundred votes with two candidates running, one Tory and one Grit. We give the Grit 51 votes and the Tory gets 49, very nearly half. The Tory has no representation; the Liberal has it all. Spread that over all the nation, and you may possibly have almost one-half of the voting population of Canada without any representation whatever. That is possible under the present system, and I believe the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), cited a number of instances in Canadian politics where a similar situation to what I have described arose..
This resolution, as again was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, does not mean to isolate the practice to one or two constituencies as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), who built up a very elaborate argument on that assumption, seemed to conclude. This resolution asks simply that proportional representation be experimented with in one or more multi-member constituencies created for the purpose at the present redistribution. Therefore, the whole argument of the leader of the Opposition falls to the ground, as it presupposes a condition that is foreign to the intention of the resolution.
If so, they may vote against proportional representation; otherwise, they are voting against the very things which they pretend to be willing to see established.
Some of them have advanced the argument that this will encourage groups. The leader of the Opposition very properly admits that this will not and cannot create groups. The best that it could possibly do would be to give the groups already in existence an opportunity of expressing themselves. Is that not British?
Personally, I have opposed the idea of direct action. Direct action has been advocated in certain sections of Canada and also in Great Britain. There is no better incentive that I know of to direct action on the part of a section of the people than an electoral system which prevents them from giving expression to their opinions. That is the system which we have in vogue at the present time, and I believe that if the various groups now existing had an opportunity of expressing their opinions and desires, there would be no danger of the development of an unconstitutional method of taking action.
I want briefly to follow two or three of the hon. members who have attempted to criticize this resolution. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) seems to get a little mixed between the federal government and the British system. He distinguishes between the British system as applied in municipal government and the British system as applied in the federal government. I do not know why he makes that distinction; but may I ask-since when has a mere method of marking a ballot determined the system of government in any country? Will the mere system of marking a ballot alter the form of government in this or in any other country? That is a question which I would leave to the hon. member for Vancouver South.
His next point was that this would dissipate cabinet unity. He says that the keystone of the present system of government is the Cabinet. We say that the keystone of the present system of government is democracy, the people, and so, if that is true, then I fail to understand his claim that he stands for democracy.
Another hon. member advanced the argument that proportional representation would prohibit canvassing; that it would be almost impossible for him, indeed, it would take him years to canvass his constituency, providing it is a group constituency as is called for by proportional representation. It might be a very excellent thing if members were prohibited from canvassing, if this method of voting were adopted. If it threw upon the people themselves the responsibility for political organization, if it gave to them instead’ of to politicians, the responsibility of running elections, that would be a very decided advance. In view of this, I do not consider the canvassing objection as constituting an argument against proportional representation. The hon. gentleman’s second point was that this might interfere with members of parliament carrying on their correspondence during the year. That again, I submit, is rather a lame argument to advance against a principle so needed to correct the weaknesses of the present system of voting.
Another hon. gentleman opposed proportional representation because it was not pro-, portional. If that is really his argument, I wish, as a student of proportional representation, to assure him that we will make it proportional. He need not fear for that at all. Indeed, when we are dealing with proportional representation, we are dealing with mathematics, and there is no doubt about getting the proportion. I am of the opinion the hon. gentleman must have made some grave mistake in his figures to arrive at such a conclusion.
A number of hon. members opposing this have said, calmly and seemingly in their right minds, that we have group government in Ontario, and that the adoption of proportional representation would give us group government in Canada. Let me point out to those hon. gentlemen that we have not group government in Ontario. There is not group government in any province in the Dominion of Canada; there is not group government here; there is not group government anywhere that I know of in the English speaking world, There is, in Ontario not group government, but a coalition system of government, which might indeed be said to be the most pernicious form of the present party system of government which we have. I do not say that the Ontario government is a pernicious government, by any means; I hasten to say, on the contrary, that it has been a very excellent government. But the coalition makeshift of government has grown out of the British .system under certain conditions, and we had it in full force in the government which preceded the present government. If that is group government, then the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) introduced it into this House. That is not group government as I understand it; that is coalition government.
Another hon. gentleman seemed to think that proportional representation had something to do with horse-racing, and that if he had a lame horse in a race, by proportional representation he might get it in first. That is how I understood his argument. But he seems to me to want to deny the right of considerable numbers of people in a constituency to run after a fad if they want to. He prefers that they should run after his fad; that he should be allowed to state to the electorate what the real issue is, and when he has done that, to get them all to follow him. That is perfectly democratic; that is perfectly in line, as he sees it, with the British system of constitutional government! But to allow Dick, Tom and Harry to say what they think the issue is, that would never do at all, because if you did that, you might not elect the Tories! That is very clear reasoning, and I am in sympathy .with the hon. gentleman’s position, but not with his point of view.
That is a summing up of the opposition to this motion. I conclude by reiterating that this is merely a change in the form of marking a ballot and a corresponding rearranging of constituencies to make that possible. Its aim is to give expression to every considerable group in a nation and it prevents minorities from having power as they sometimes have to-day. It would ensure the continuance of majority rule, and, therefore, those who claim to be such ardent supporters of democracy and majority rule should find themselves bound to vote in favour of this resolution.
February 19th, 1923 — House of Commons, Parliament of Canada
I was so sorry to hear about the passing of Nichelle Nichols. She was definitely the coolest woman on #StarTrek (back in the days before you had to add TOS). She was someone you wanted to grow up to be.
Lt. Uhura was a strong role model, far more so than most of the other women portrayed on The Original Series.
Mr Roddenberry had tried to create a strong woman First Officer in his original concept, but that idea was too progressive even for the 1960s, so it was killed by the NBC brass.
I think Uhura was allowed to get away with being a strong woman precisely because she wasn’t one of the series’ three primary characters. She didn’t have to be a potential love interest for the Captain, (like Yeoman Rand) or the First Officer (like Nurse Chapel).
Instead, she was clearly her own woman, professional and competent. Being drop dead gorgeous, Lt. Uhura could even carry off that ridiculously sexist Star Trek uniform. But you didn’t have to see Mirror, Mirror to know nobody would dare put the moves on her without her permission.
Yet there was no doubt Lt. Uhura had a softer side when she cooed over a Tribble, or sang a song to cheer up Lt. Riley. And although she undoubtedly had a romantic life, it was nobody’s business but her own.
Much is made about “the first interracial kiss” in American prime time. Yet something I’ve never heard or read anyone talk about was the fact it was not a romantic kiss, or even voluntary.
Yet it wasn’t an ordinary case of a sexual harassment. Lt Uhura and Captain Kirk were forced to kiss by the kinetic power of a malevolent alien, and both actors played it that way. No doubt it was handled this way to get it past the network censors.
But for an older me, when I watched this episode again in reruns, what got my attention was the demonstration that sexual assault was more about power than sex.
When Nichelle Nichols came into the role of Lt Uhura, you’d never know she was a singer, not an actor. Her acting was flawless.
In the whole series, the only thing that came out of her mouth that didn’t ring true was the line from The City On The Edge of Forever, “Captain, I’m frightened.”
Not because Uhura wouldn’t have been afraid at a time anyone would have been, but because saying it aloud was totally out of character for the always professional Star Fleet officer. But even as a kid I recognized it as classic sexual stereotyping and didn’t blame her for it.
Later as a young adult, working with my friend running the Canadian Trekkies Association and publishing two issues of our Canektion fanzine, I learned Nichelle Nichols didn’t just inspire women through her acting, in her later work she actively helped NASA recruit POC and women.
We celebrate the life of Nichelle Nichols, Star Trek actor, trailblazer, and role model, who symbolized to so many what was possible. She partnered with us to recruit some of the first women and minority astronauts, and inspired generations to reach for the stars. pic.twitter.com/pmQaKDb5zw
Nichelle Nichols was a real inspiration, even for little white girls like me growing up in the 1960s. She showed us women’s work could be whatever we wanted it to be.
Over the past several years I’ve become more involved in Canadian politics because we are facing challenges we can no longer afford to ignore—
from:
the existential threat of climate change to
Canada’s human rights violations at home and abroad,
festering social justice issues of colonization,
systemic racism and the need to defund the police,
our entrenched inequities,
Victorian attitudes toward work,
economic inequities,
presumed “worthiness” for survival,
systemic gender inequality
the sexist rape culture spotlighted by the #metoo movement,
the ever expanding incursions into our cultural freedom being made by the voracious “intellectual property” regime (prompting creation of this blog),
our government’s abject failure to put aside partisanship and deal with the Covid-19 pandemic and
subsequent failure to even try to “build back better”
— all of these things highlight our desperate need for real real change (not the phony real change™ Mr Trudeau promised in 2015). And we need it now more than ever before.
When I realized everything has kept getting worse throughout my adulthood it occurred to me this was caused the fact we don’t actually have the representative democracy they tell us we have.
After a lifetime of voting in every election without ever electing a representative I was on the brink of giving up hope things would ever get better. Then I discovered it didn’t have to be this way. I learned there were other ways of achieving democracy. Better ways.
And the means to transform this country into an actual Representative Democracy not only exists, but more than 90 countries have done this already, some for more than a century.
The way we can actually start fixing the things that are so badly wrong— so we can work toward the future we need– is to upend the status quo and change the way we elect our governments. Much to my surprise I discovered there have been Canadians trying to make this happen pretty much for all of Canadian History.
Andrew Ross McMaster, 1923 Liberal MP, Brome
Now is the time to stop trying. Because as Yoda would tell us, there is no “try.” We must do.
We can make our democracy representative by implementing Proportional Representation.
We can do it!
At this point I understand I am only one person, and I only have the time to write one blog. This is it.
Right now my focus has to be on Proportional Representation.
“The present situation [First Past the Post Plurality voting] appears to me to be one which does not appeal to logical or righteous minds, it does not give us proper representation of the thought and the political sympathies of the people; therefore, we should strive to find out something that will.” — Andrew Ross McMaster
Q1. What opportunities do you think the Government of Canada should pursue to reduce emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and position Canada to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, including in any or all of the following economic sectors? Please elaborate on your answers where appropriate, including any specific insights on policy opportunities or initiatives.
Q1 – Buildings
Since buildings are the source of 12% of our GHG emissions, the reasonable first step is to stop building buildings we know need expensive retrofits to get to NetZero.
It’s economical to build to standards we know are necessary.
Since time is of the essence, we need a moratorium on new buildings until we set and adopt a nation-wide net zero emissions building code for 2022, while concurrently developing a model retrofit building code.
Government commitments of $100 million for EV charging stations and grants up to $5000 for home retrofits is a start, but doesn’t go far enough. Especially amid Covid-19 economic challenges, offering homeowners grants to cover a percentage of needed retrofits will help only homeowners with the wherewithal to rennovate. We haven’t the luxury of abandoning homes—and homeowners— who can’t.
Banks could also be obliged to provide low or no-interest loans to retrofit homes.
Q1 – Electricity
Electrify everything and clean up how electricity is produced. Phase out coal but not by switching to natural gas. We need to phase out natural gas too. Nuclear is both too slow to get up and running and too expensive. Do not invest in LNG.
Q1 – Oil and Gas
Eliminate fossil fuel subsidies NOW, as promised in 2015.
Phase-out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations.
Q1 – Transportation
We need to electrify transportation With EVs and zero fare public transit. Build intercity transit, implement high performance rail.
Stop subsidizing airlines.
Stop building highways.
Incentivise development of compact, mixed-use communities, and promote work from home and co-share work spaces.
Q1 – Agriculture and Waste
Keep your promise of “Triple funding for cleantech on farms, including for renewable energy, precision agriculture, and energy efficiency.”
We need food security, but we also need to revisit the whole idea of animal agriculture and factory farms.
Stop promising to ban single use plastic and DO IT.
Reduce and eliminate plastic production. Recycling is not enough.
Q1 – Nature Based Climate Solutions
Support conservation of wildlife habitat, nature conservation, wetland restoration, and recreation. Planting seedlings is no replacement for mature trees, especially old growth. Promote bamboo and hemp as alternative quick renewable replacement for paper plastic and wood fibre.
Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend is the carbon pricing gold standard but the price has to rise much more rapidly.
Q2. What do you see as the barriers or challenges to reducing emissions in these sectors? Do you have suggestions on how to overcome these barriers?
Lack of political will.
Vote.
Proportional Representation.
Q3. What broader economic, technological, or social challenges and opportunities do you foresee resulting from efforts to reduce emissions in these sectors? For example, opportunities associated with economic diversification across sectors. Do you have suggestions on how to address these challenges and opportunities?
No.
Q4. Looking beyond 2030, what enabling measures, strategies or technological pathways do you think the Government of Canada should put in place now to ensure that Canada is on track to net-zero emissions by 2050?
Stop investing in Fossil Fuels.
Stop investing in military expansion and armaments.
Q5. What broader economic, technological, or social issues to you foresee as a result of the transition to a net-zero economy in Canada? Do you have suggestions on how to address these issues?
Our children will have a livable future
Q6. How would you like to be engaged on Canada’s climate plans moving forward? How often should this engagement occur, and what method or format would be preferable?
Every 6 months.
You need to do a better job engaging the public.
This would be okay but not anonymous.
The questions should be posed better.
I must admit I don’t expect this Liberal government to actually listen. They have been talking about climate action — like stopping fossil fuel subsidies— since 2015. They never actually managed it, yet they did manage to buy a pipeline. Clearly I have good reason to be skeptical. Nonetheless it is important to participate in consultations– even if we think they are simply window dressing— if for no other reason than to get our opinion on the record.
Without Proportional Representation, our Representative Democracy isn’t very accountable to us. But maybe they’ll listen.
The Government of Canada is holding another Climate Consultation. Despite the fact they completely ignored the public input from the 2016 in-person Climate Consultation, it is important for every Canadian concerned about the Climate Crisis to participate.
This time, they don’t have a majority government, so they have to at least pretend to listen to us.
You don’t have to be a climate expert to partcipate… climate change is already affecting all of our lives. The policies our governments make will either help or make it worse. So far, Canadian policies have only made it worse.
The deadline for submissions is tonight (January 14th, 2022) at 11:59 pm (one minute before midnight), so to make it easier, I’ve reproduced the questions so you can think about what you will say before you go online. It’s important to note that 1,000 characters is the maximum for the answer blocks on the form, except the “tell us more” essay questions have a 5,000 character limit.
Privacy They’ve made this an anonymous survey, and we are repeatedly advised not to use any identifying information in our answers. And yet the largest part of the survey is asking for our demographic information, even though they provide a “prefer not to say” answer to each of the demographic questions. Although privacy is an important issue to me, very often we have to make tradeoffs, particularly if we want our voice heard. And the government is more likely to accept our answers as legitimate if we indicate we are Canadians.
(I would also like to point out that if you would be liable to negative repercussions from the government, it would be better to use your own anonymizing method (using a public access machine and going through TOR. If this is impossible, you would do better not to make a submission at all).
Q1. What opportunities do you think the Government of Canada should pursue to reduce emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and position Canada to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, including in any or all of the following economic sectors? Please elaborate on your answers where appropriate, including any specific insights on policy opportunities or initiatives. • Buildings • Electricity • Heavy industry, including oil and gas • Transportation • Agriculture and waste • Nature-based climate solutions • Economy-wide (e.g., carbon pricing, climate-risk disclosure, sustainable finance, etc.) • Other, please specify Please tell us more:
Q2. What do you see as the barriers or challenges to reducing emissions in these sectors? Do you have suggestions on how to overcome these barriers?
Q3. What broader economic, technological, or social challenges and opportunities do you foresee resulting from efforts to reduce emissions in these sectors? For example, opportunities associated with economic diversification across sectors. Do you have suggestions on how to address these challenges and opportunities?
Q4. Looking beyond 2030, what enabling measures, strategies or technological pathways do you think the Government of Canada should put in place now to ensure that Canada is on track to net-zero emissions by 2050?
Q5. What broader economic, technological, or social issues to you foresee as a result of the transition to a net-zero economy in Canada? Do you have suggestions on how to address these issues?
Q6. How would you like to be engaged on Canada’s climate plans moving forward? How often should this engagement occur, and what method or format would be preferable?
Demographic questions
D1. In what capacity are you completing this engagement process? As an: • Individual • Representative of a business/business association • Representative of an Indigenous organization • Representative of a not for profit organization such as a charity or academic organization • Representative of a government organization • Prefer not to say
D2. What is your province or territory? • Alberta • British Columbia • Manitoba • New Brunswick • Newfoundland and Labrador • Nova Scotia • Ontario • Prince Edward Island • Quebec • Saskatchewan • Northwest Territories • Nunavut • Yukon • Outside of Canada • Prefer not to say
D3. Please select the option that best relates to your sector (business). • Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting • Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction • Utilities • Construction • Manufacturing • Wholesale Trade • Retail Trade • Transportation and Warehousing • Information and Cultural Industries • Finance and Insurance • Real Estate and Rental and Leasing • Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services • Management of Companies and Enterprises • Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services • Educational Services • Health Care and Social Assistance • Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation • Accommodation and Food Services • Public Administration • Other, please specify • Prefer not to say
D4. Which of the following age groups do you fall into? (individual) • Under 24 • 25 to 39 • 40 to 64 • 65+ • Prefer not to say
D5. How do you identify yourself? (individual) • Woman • Man • Non-binary • Other • Prefer not to say
D6. Do you identify as any of the following? Select all that apply (individual) • First Nations • Inuit • Métis • Racialized Canadian • LGBTQ2S+ person • Person with a disability • Official language minority • New immigrant to Canada • None of them • Prefer not to say
CONCLUSION
When you’ve reach the end of the survey you can go vack and review or change your answers. When you’re happy about it, press the [SUBMIT] button.
Points You might want to bring up:
Canada must adopt a 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 50%, but 60% would be better.
In 2015 we were promised an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Now we’re told that will finally happen in 2023. That isn’t good enough: it needs to happen now,
Since climate change is an existential threat, the government must spend whatever it will take.
Stop ssearching for new fossil fuel projects. Stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure, like pipelines and LNG facilities.
Declare a Climate Emergency Accept, at every level of government, that climate is not an environmental issue. It is the gravest security threat the world has ever seen.
Establish an inner cabinet of all parties Modelled on the war cabinets of Mackenzie King and Winston Churchill, parties will work together to ensure that climate is no longer treated like a political football. It requires all hands on deck.
Set stringent new targets Establish our new target and file it as Canada’s Nationally Determined Contribution with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: 60 per cent GHG reductions against 2005 levels by 2030; zero emissions by 2050.
Assume leadership Attend the next climate negotiation in Chile this year and press other countries to also double their efforts.
Respect evidence Restore funding of climate research within the Government of Canada and in the network of universities that received financial support before 2011.
Maintain carbon pricing Revenue neutrality will be achieved through carbon fee and dividend and we will eliminate all subsidies to fossil fuels.
Ban fracking No exceptions. It destroys ecosystems, contaminates ground and surface water, endangers our health and it’s a major source of GHGs.
Green the grid By 2030, remove all fossil fuel generation from our national east-west electricity grid.
And modernize the grid By 2030, rebuild and revamp the east-west electricity grid to ensure that renewable energy can be transmitted from one province to another.
Plug in to EVs By 2030 ensure all new cars are electric. By 2040, replace all internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles, working with car makers to develop EVs that can replace working vehicles for Canadians in rural areas. Build a cross-country electric vehicle charging system so that drivers can cruise from St. John’s, NL to Prince Rupert, B.C. – with seamless ease.
Get Canada back on track Modernize VIA Rail, expand service and ensure trans-modal connections across Canada to light rail and electric buses, so that no one in rural and remote areas of Canada lacks efficient, affordable and safe public transit.
Complete a national building retrofit Create millions of new, well-paying jobs in the trades by retrofitting every building in Canada – residential, commercial, and institutional – to be carbon neutral by 2030.
Turn off the tap to oil imports End all imports of foreign oil. As fossil fuel use declines, use only Canadian fossil fuels and allow investment in upgraders to turn Canadian solid bitumen into gas, diesel, propane and other products for the Canadian market, providing jobs in Alberta. By 2050, shift all Canadian bitumen from fuel to feedstock for the petrochemical industry.
Switch to bio-diesel Promote the development of local, small scale bio-diesel production, primarily relying on used vegetable fat from restaurants. Mandate the switch to bio-diesel for agricultural, fishing and forestry equipment.
Create new partnerships for renewables Form partnerships with Indigenous peoples, providing economic opportunities by ramping up renewables on their lands. Harness abandoned deep oil wells, wherever feasible, for geothermal energy, using workers who drilled the wells to manage the renewable energy generation.
Call for all hands on deck Engage every municipality and community organization, as well as every school and university to step up and plant trees, install solar panels, heat pumps, assist in retrofitting buildings to maximize energy efficiency.
Prioritize adaptation Invest significant resources in adaptation measures to protect Canadian resource sectors such as agriculture, fishing and forestry from the ravages of climate change. Review all infrastructure investments for adaptation to climate change. Map flood plains, tornado corridors and other areas of natural vulnerability and adjust land use plans accordingly.
Change planes Cancel the purchase of F35s and buy more water bombers to protect communities from forest fires. Cut standing dead timber to establish fire breaks and save lives.
Curtail the “other” GHG sources Address the fossil fuel use that falls outside the Paris Agreement – emissions from international shipping, aviation and the military.
Restore carbon sinks Launch a global effort to restore carbon sinks, focusing on replanting forests and restoring the planet’s mangrove forests as quickly as possible. https://www.greenparty.ca/en/mission-possible
If you prefer, LEADNOW has put together an identifiable letter form response. https://leadnow.ca/climate-consultation/ I think it better to submit your resonse in the manner the government has asked for, but the most important thing is to submit something.
It has been far too long since I’ve carved out the time to write what I want to write. So here I am again, participating in #NaNoWriMo.
So far it’s going well. Especially since I only decided to commit to this on November 1st. My wordcount yesterday (Day 3) was 7,005, putting me just ahead of the curve. I also filled in a lot more of the outline. And created the above cover art entirely on my phone. But it’s early days.
I’ll continue posting daily wordcounts on Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram. And perhaps periodically on the Laurel L. Russwurm, Author page on Facebook.
The Green Party Leadership race, like any major party leadership, is important for all of Canada. TVO recognized this from the get go, but even so there has been very little serious MSM coverage.
In the Internet era, we’re no longer entirely at the mercy of MSM gatekeepers, so there’s been plenty to see online. Tonight CBC, Youtube and Facebook will present live election night coverage.
As most of the GPC Leadership campaign has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, although a few of the Candidates had begun cross Canada tours when the shut downs hit, there has been very little opportunity for Green Party members to actually engage with leadership candidates face to face.
But that hasn’t stopped the Canadian Greens from putting on an excellent engaging leadership campaign. Interim Leader Jo-Ann Robert’s People, Politics and Planet podcast hosted interviews with all the candidates. We began with 10 candidates, and end with 8 going into tonight’s election.
Early on in the #Covid19 pandemic I was impressed by the excellent Czech Republic PSA video recommending #Masks4All.
It inspired me to start sewing masks. Since I’ve been employed in an essential service, namely a grocery store, a potential epicentre, I’ve been working at designing and creating the most comfortable reusable non-medical masks I can devise, for myself, family and friends. I’m hoping to help inspire near universal mask use, as well donate to people in need.
Hanging out with upwards of 30,000 strangers assembled on a very hot day during the COVID19 pandemic, pretty nearly everyone wore masks. Waterloo Region public health later announced only a single case of COVID19 was linked to anyone at this event.
This time, they don’t have a majority government, so they have to at least pretend to listen to us.
Laurel's Free Culture Blog 