Canada – Page 94 – a sibilant intake of breath

Climate change and the G8 meeting

Who would have thought – three or four years ago – that climate change would become the central focus of a G8 meeting? While the situation certainly demonstrates the problems that remain to be overcome (both American unwillingness to accept emission caps and the need to incorporate large and rapidly developing economies like India and China into such a system), the level of attention being directed at the problem is very welcome.

The sad fact is that Canada has the worst record of any G8 state, when it comes to the gap between our Kyoto commitment and our present level of emissions. For a state that prides itself on being a responsible global citizen, this is hardly a position that is tenable in the long term.

When Canada ratified Kyoto, we committed ourselves to emissions 6% below the 1990 level, achieved by 2012. At present, Canadian emissions are about 26% over. The United States, by contrast, is only about 16% above 1990 levels. The only G8 state on track to meet its commitment because of policy efforts is Britain. Germany has cut emissions, but not yet by as much as they pledged. Russia has much lower emissions, but it is on account of the collapse of their economy after 1989, rather than any self-restraint. Indeed, Russia ends up in the odd position of being able to sell credits for emissions that would never have occurred anyhow (the so-called ‘hot air’).

Global emissions continue to grow at a rate even higher than the most pessimistic option modeled by the IPCC. Indian and Chinese emissions are each up by about 100% since 1990. Everyone need to do better. Hopefully, the ongoing gathering of political energy will make that come to pass.

[Update: 7 June 2007] Unsurprisingly, the G8 seem to be developing a fairly toothless joint statement on climate change.

Climate change and responsible global citizenship

During my second-to-last high table dinner in Wadham tonight, I got into a long conversation about Canada and climate change. The man with whom I was speaking asserted that (a) Canada would benefit directly from moderate warming and (b) Canada would benefit from activities that encourage global warming, such as the exploitation of the tar sands. Neither of these claims is unassailable on a factual basis, but the normative implications are more interesting to consider at the moment.

Let’s say that both claims are true. Should Canada act to combat climate change? To me, it seems the answer is an unambiguous yes. If I live uphill from a farm and have the opportunity to benefit from cutting down all the trees on my land, the fact that erosion will harm my downhill neighbour is not external from the consideration of what ought to be done. Depending on your conception of ethics, it may or may not be ethically appropriate for my neighbour to pay me not to cut down the trees. Regardless, the ethically optimal solution is generally to avoid impoverishing one’s neighbours to enrich oneself. This is especially true when you are much richer than those likely to be most immediately and significantly harmed. Being a mugger may be a personally advantageous course of action, but we have obligations to others that preclude it from being an acceptable choice for a member of society. Among a society of nations, there is likewise an obligation to behave with consideration for others, even if it diminishes one’s own prospects. Of course, such noble sentiments are hard to embed in policy.

Christie precedent overturned

The Canadian Supreme Court seems to have overturned Christie v. AG of B.C. et al. This 2005 decision held that the poor could not be charged the 7% tax on legal services that existed in British Columbia at the time. In the Reasons for Judgment, the B.C. Supreme Court stated:

[The Act] constitutes indirect taxation and is a tax on justice contrary to the Magna Carta and the Rule of Law…

I am prepared to grant the following declarations: A declaration that the Act is ultra vires in the Province of British Columbia to the extent that it applies to legal services provided for low income persons.

The court held that those earning under $29,000 should no longer need to pay the tax. It also reimbursed, with interest, the $6,200 that had been seized from Christie for non-payment of the sales tax on behalf of poor clients.

Dugald Christie, the man behind the 2005 BC case, was a Vancouver lawyer who had dedicated himself to helping the poor get representation within the legal system. He died about ten months ago while bicycling across Canada to raise money for that cause. Prior to his death, Christie lives in a small room at the Salvation Army’s Dunsmuir House, where he apparently worked twelve hours a day encouraging lawyers to do more pro bono work. He founded the Western Canada Society to Access Justice, which consists of sixty legal clinics across British Columbia, and has since expanded into Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The Supreme Court has now held that:

“a review of the constitutional text, the jurisprudence and the history of the concept does not support the respondent’s contention that there is a broad general right to legal counsel as an aspect of, or precondition to, the rule of law.”

I was surprised to see that a right to council isn’t actually included in section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The idea that a normal person can have a fair trial without legal council doesn’t seem a very plausible one.

Ignatieff speaking in Oxford

One upcoming talk that may be of particular interest to Canadians in Oxford is being given by Michael Ignatieff in the hall of Wolfson College this Thursday. The talk is the annual Isaiah Berlin lecture, and it is on the topic “Political Judgement: Theory versus Practice.”

Ignatieff is one of the most well known Canadian academics, as well as a recent contender for leader of the federal Liberal Party, so I suspect this talk will attract a fair bit of attention. It starts at 6:00pm.

One of his books – Blood and Belonging – was mentioned here before.

Victoria Day

Natives of the United Kingdom may be surprised to learn that today is a royal holiday – in Canada, at least. Celebrated on the Monday before May 25th, Victoria Day is a celebration of both Queen Victoria‘s birthday and that of whoever the current monarch happens to be. It replaces the rather less politically correct ‘Empire Day,’ which was renamed ‘Commonwealth Day’ in 1958.

While it is pleasant enough to have the Queen’s well-composed visage on the back of currency and Regina v. whomever as the standard form for criminal cases, Canadians might be forgiven for thinking the monarchy is a archaic throwback to an earlier era. Most Canadians probably don’t know that Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-Chief of Canadian Forces, as well as Colonel-in-Chief for nine different military units, including the Military Engineers and three groups of Highlanders. While Canadians do appreciate opportunities to differentiate themselves from their southern neighbours (especially as they grow even more unpopular internationally), at least some people have been watching Austalia’s flirtations with republicanism with marked curiosity.

Given her smooth but bland rein, perhaps Elizabeth II would be a fitting final monarch for Canada.

What dread hand and what dread feet?

Tragically and unusually, someone in British Columbia was killed by a tiger this week. Apparently, the animal was privately owned and part of some sort of exotic zoo. The 32 year old woman was standing near the cage when a single paw strike severed her femoral artery. As a consequence, people have called for tougher laws on the ownership of such animals and the tiger has been killed.

The first measure seems entirely reasonable. It is well worth asking whether ownership of endangered and dangerous animals should be permitted. Certainly, the incident demonstrates that they are not always confined appropriately. Whether their welfare is being adequately maintained or not is another concern. According to the the Victoria Times-Colonist “the tigers were kept in small chain-link cages with no flooring.” It sounds as though the circumstances in which the animals were held were neither respectful, humane, nor intelligent. Apparently, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has tried several times since 2005 to have this tiger seized from its owner, on the basis of both safety and animal welfare. Paul Springate of the Rainforest Reptile Refuge has some intelligent comments on the failures in the current Canadian system for managing exotic animals. It seems intuitively obvious that if people are allowed to own such animals (itself a policy of dubious quality), there must be standards for keeping them and a system of inspections.

Putting the tiger to death, on the other hand, strikes me as highly inappropriate. It should come as no revelation to anybody that tigers are dangerous and that spending time at close quarters with one could imperil you. It is certainly a tragedy that this young woman’s life was cut short and it makes perfect sense to investigate the conditions that led to it and act upon them. Punishing a tiger simply for being a tiger, on the other hand, is an inappropriate extension of vengeance into a situation where it makes no sense to apply.

54 days left in England

I have booked my flight back to Canada for the 2nd of July. My exams are between June 11th and 13th. On the 29th, it is possible that I will have a viva (oral) examination. That would only be if I found myself on the cusp of passing or failing, or passing and getting a distinction.

Whittling down my possessions to two checked bags of under 20kg will be a challenge. Oxford residents may be interested in what I have for sale.

Alternative health care models

On their website, Scientific American has a story comparing the Canadian and American health-care systems. The story suggests that Canadians get better value for money, and may well have a better health system overall, despite spending about half as much per person as Americans do. The article explains that Canadians live longer in general, as well as being less likely to die during the course of treatment.

There is good reason to believe that there could be greater efficiency in a system like those of Canada and Britain, where the federal government is the main purchaser of health products. Unlike individuals – who have limited knowledge about health care and few opportunities to exploit economies of scale – governments can buy intelligently and in big batches. They can make deals with pharmaceutical producers and other suppliers of health products. The importance of scale in the purchase of health products is demonstrated by efforts by groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to acquire effective and affordable treatments for the major illnesses of the developing world through the use of large-scale acquisitions. More controversially, central-payer health care systems may be better placed to prioritize who should be treated and to what extent. Spending large amounts of money extending the lives of very sick people contributes less to overall societal health than spending the money on early treatment or preventative medicine, though the relative desirability of the two depends on your philosophical beliefs about how spending should be prioritized. Arguably, the Canadian system also produces fewer conflicts of interest than the American political system, in which health corporations are major campaign donors.

In comparing the two, there is one other major phenomenon that bears considering. Because Americans are the main market for new drugs, forms of surgery, and other types of medical care, it is possible that they are subsidizing research and development which can then be accessed at a lower cost by those outside the United States. One does ocassionally hear accusations that Canadians are ‘free-riding’ on the American system in this way. This is obviously connected to one of the hottest topics of political and legal debate at the moment: intellectual property law. In particular, the ethical questions about who bears the costs and benefits of innovating still only have partial and contingent answers.

It will be interesting to see what the Canadian and British systems look like in twenty-five or thirty years. Managing the ongoing demographic transition will be a challenge – just as it will be with pensions – but it seems as though it will ultimately be beneficial to have a lower birthrate and population. Only once that is true of the world as a whole can we really expect to create a society that is sustainable overall.

The Golden Spruce

John Vaillant’s The Golden Spruce is a superb book: the best I have read in many months. It tells the intertwined stories of British Columbia, the economic development of Canada, old growth logging, the Haida (and the Haida Gwaii), and, of course, a unique Sitka Spruce and the man who destroyed it. Particularly for somebody interested in both Western Canada and the environment, it was the ideal type of non-fiction reading.

The story told is a compelling one, full of informative detail and light on preaching and speculation. I read it in one long session, sitting in my hermitage in Devon while temporarily avoiding thesis work. What the book did remind me of, in part, is why the whole study of the environment is important.

I already have two people waiting to borrow my copy (one of the books my mother kindly sent to England for me), but there are surely other examples of it out there.

Heading for the 40th Parliament?

After 15 months with a Conservative minority government, it looks like Canada is heading for a new general election.

For those not paying overly close attention, the Liberal Party held its convention back in December, choosing Stéphane Dion as their new leader. Dion beat out Michael Ignatieff who had, at times, seemed the front-runner. Back in January 2006, the Conservative Party managed to secure a minority government, ending Y years of Liberal control over the House of Commons.

Stephen Harper is obviously trying to consolidate his earlier victory into a majority government. The election should be an interesting one, primarily because of social and environmental issues. There is a lingering suspicion that the relative moderation the Conservatives have shown in power is a tactical choice for the period until they get a majority government (though those fears may simply be stoked by Liberals hoping to frighten a few votes their way). On the environment, nobody is looking too good at the moment. The Conservatives have all but abandoned Canada’s commitment to Kyoto, which the previous Liberal government had never put a sufficient amount of effort into. The heightened level of concern about climate change will probably make the issue front-and-centre in the campaign. Whether that will lead to anything meaningful or not remains to be seen.