First Expert guests I watched presenting to the committee were unable to understand French question fired at them because they were not equipped with translation headphones. Nathan Cullen leaped up and got the headsets for them.
CLC points out they are a political org and that is why they are interested in this subject of electoral reform.
Now May is questioning Prof. Jim Harding. Interesting there are few environmentalists who’ve presented to this committee thus far, she notes. Is there a connection between FPTP and lackluster environmental protections.
Justice is at the centre of principles for this committee, he says. Beauty is also central to all societies, including environmental beauty. We have local representatives, but they presently have to bow to some special interests over the collective wishes of their constituents.
Ruby S. with a question to CLC now. Union polls, etc. Not keeping my interest.
Also I’m thinking about what I will say. I don’t want FPTP, and want the PM to keep his promise that last election was the last time.
I’m the youngest person in the gallery of observers, only a woman behind me is the same generation. About 35 here to watch or speak. Maybe some will come tonight to speak? I doubt it. I feel compelled to mention it and ask that whatever system change is made the committee also change voting age down to 15 or 16 to create interest in our politics among young people.
If they don’t grow up voting they are less likely to care. They grow up disenfranchised teenagers able to drive and participate in society in most ways except choosing our lawmakers.
I told story of time I voted at University versus at parent’s riding, thus triggering a tie vote in that other riding.
Dave Orban speaking on behalf of non human organisms. Humans could be voted off the planet. MMP favoured by his constituents.
First woman at open mic. is a PR supporter. Doesn’t like strategic voting. Global warming is most urgent issue of our time. Earth cannot last another Harper style government.
“We’ve become a backwater.” In how we don’t have PR, what stable countries tend to use.
Next woman said other presentations were great and committee is on an adventure meeting Canadians.
Next man wants a referendum and “didn’t vote for this government”. Wants them to take their time.
Voted for 20 years and never been represented by her choice. She is a parent of teenagers “I’m used to not being listened to.” “FPTP is undermining Rule of Law”.
People may feel they shouldn’t follow the law if they don’t have a say in how laws are made. People will stand in front of bulldozers to stop pipelines and not pay taxes and that’s a problem.
-Really good presentation by Patricia Farnese
Jane had a good presentation too.
Next guy wants a referendum. Doesn’t trust Liberals to get it right. Concerned extreme parties could elect MPs.
In light of this news from Elizabeth May, it may be worth re-reading these blog entries from 2012 and 2009. Duffy’s trial raised some damning information about the first infamous robocalls used to steal an election for the Conservatives in B.C.
The Prime Minister spoke about forest fires’ connection to climate change at a community affected by a massive evacuation due in part to climate change.
“The reality of climate change is that we’re going to see more and more extreme weather events and we need to make sure that as a country we’re properly equipped to deal with these challenges.”
Trudeau said he expects a better collaboration between all levels of government on resources, training and funding when it comes to fires.
Fast forward a few months to this week.
Responding to comments made earlier, Trudeau said May’s suggestion that the disaster was “very related to the global climate crisis” was neither helpful, nor accurate. […]
“It’s well known that one of the consequences of climate change will be a greater prevalence of extreme weather events around the planet,” Trudeau told reporters at a news conference.
“However, any time we try to make a political argument on one particular disaster, I think it’s a bit of shortcut that can sometimes not have the desired outcome. There have always been fires.
The Trudeau government was also advised when it was sworn in last November that wildfires were getting worse. The bureaucrats at Natural Resources Canada told their new minister, Jim Carr, that governments across the country hadn’t provided enough funding to help communities prepare for the worst.
The provincial, territorial and federal governments developed a Canadian Wildlands Fire Strategy in 2005, calling for “more resilient communities, improving fire management approaches to balance ecological integrity with protection of life and property, and implementing modern business practices.”
But Carr was told that governments didn’t invest enough money to support that strategy in the last decade.
“Governments remain supportive of the Strategy, but progress towards implementation over the past decade has been limited, primarily due to fiscal constraints,” said briefing notes, prepared for Carr.
“The frequency and severity of wild land fires have been trending upwards in the past few decades and summer 2015 was particularly severe. As a result, there have been calls from the public, communities and provinces for increased federal involvement in wildfire management.”
David Schindler, a University of Alberta scientist who studies the ecology of inland bodies of water, said there have been increasingly favourable conditions for forest fires in recent years. He noted that climate scientists have been predicting the increase in forest fires for at least a decade.
Despite the obvious drought conditions (we got almost no snow last Winter), the federal government wasn’t warning people of the extreme danger.
Wildfires briefing by mikedesouza
Hat tip to Daniel.
Canadians were so eager to get rid of Stephen Harper, they forgot they weren’t served very well by a mainstream party holding a majority on power the last 4 years.
*uncharacteristically crumples plan paper up into a ball and throws it in the garbage*
October 19, 2015 at 1:35 PM:
The alternate universe of sensible adults and fair outcomes would include a minority Parliament with Trudeau, Mulcair, and May all sharing the role of PM at different times over the next 4 years. But, we won’t get such an outcome, and are more likely to get [a Liberal minority without Harper in opposition].
If a Liberal majority, then status quo in a lot of ways for the next 4-5 years.
There’s too much change across the country to digest in one blog post about it all. I’m more optimistic about the future than in 2006 when Harper won, but I also have 9 years of experience, and the world has another decade lacking significant action to turn away from civilization destroying air pollution, and deforestation.
What is Trudeau going to do to inspire real changes? His advisers I don’t have much confidence in, sorry, I don’t. I hope he breaks party lines and appoints a few NDP MPs, and Elizabeth May to his cabinet, but that’s too much to hope for.
The Globe and Mail, Google Canada, and Munk Debates all ought to be ashamed of their brands.
In both cases, the organizers say they chose to invite leaders whose parties have official status in the House of Commons, which requires at least 12 seats. The Green party, Bloc Quebecois and Forces et Democratie each have two seats.
So, rather than doing the common sense thing, and inviting all of the parties in the House to participate (more debate is good in a democracy), they do the convenient and wrong thing instead and exclude the Greens in a faux attempt to be “fair and balanced” since they’ve no desire to see F&D no the Bloc on TV at all. Clearly, they’ve no respect for Elizabeth May or the millions of Canadians who’ve considered voting Green.
The Globe has no intention of allowing a party outside of Ottawa/Toronto’s comfortable power structure. They’ll have a harder time grabbing sound bites to rebroadcast later if they have more participants. It’s scandalous that a major newspaper would harm their journalistic integrity so badly, that TVO trumps them when it comes to principles. Heck, CBC, CTV, and Global are more ethical than the Globe, and that’s surprising (since they at least are allowing the Greens equal air time).
Google shouldn’t be evil.
I barely know of the Munk Debates, but I know I’ll never promote or watch one of their broadcasts again if they continue down this anti-democratic path. It’s ironic they’ve “debates” in their organization’s name, since they do debates so pathetically.