Monthly Archives: April 2005

Layton takes reigns from Martin

Posted on by

News outlets are reporting that an agreement in principle has been reached between the Liberals and NDP. Both Jack Layton and Paul Martin have confirmed this.

Basically, it looks like the Liberals have completely caved in. These guys really are desperate.

Jack asks to increase Canadas’ Foreign Aid to 0.7 GDP as per International Agreements… done.
Jack asks to give more gas tax moneys to cities to improve public transit… done
Jack asks to increase education transfers to provinces for tuition reduction and EI employment training… done
Jack asks to increase the worker Pension Fund by 100 million… done (I’ve never even HEARD of that before!)
and finally… Jack asks to claw back the tax cuts for Canadas largest corporations to pay for most of it… while keeping the tax cut for small and medium business.

Is there anything there that Canadians can possibly disagree with? It doesn’t change the balanced budget.. the same money going into tax cuts is now instead going to social spending.

What’s hilarious is Paul is trying to take credit:

We agreed to it because we want Parliament to work.

Yes of course you did Paul, unfortunately for you Jack Layton had to propose it in order for it to happen. Without him, your name would already be written into the history books.

It looks like Mr. Dithers has once again taken a backseat to someone who is eminently more charismatic and decisive than he.

P.S.
I realise that even if this deal is finalized and a budget brought in that it by no means assures that the Government will survive for even a month. The NDP is 2 seats short of the balance of power… however, there are 3 independants (and the House Speaker, who votes only in a tie) in the House, plus an empty seat and a couple seriously ill Conservative MPs. It all adds up to a the possibility that the NDP could hold the government together… but if even one Independant decides to go against the Liberals then all bets are off.

As an Aside.. this country REALLY needs Proportional reprensentation. I have really enjoyed the Coalition/Minority atmosphere. Not only is it more engaging, which I think is good for political apathy, I like the fact that the parties are forced to negotiate. I would be dangerous because I think Canadians value stability and certainty. They like a government that gets things done… but I think there is a certain apettite to see the governing party skirm, and nothing does that more than minorities.

Being a Dipper: Not really about the NDP

Posted on by

I’ve never identified myself as a party person, I never have, and don’t plan to ever be a card carrying member of a political party. I like to keep my options open.

That said, in the upcoming election it seems that my choice is clear. Unfortunately, for many, they vote according to what they don’t want instead of what they do want. And to me that’s simply the wrong mode of thinking.
I can certainly frame my vote in that way:

Even if I wanted to vote for the Bloc, I can’t.-I’m in BC
Even if I wanted to vote for the Liberals, I can’t.-How can I support an obviously corrupt establishment.
Even if I wanted to vote for the Conservations, I can’t.- Because I just can’t imagine ever having enough in common!

That said though, I’m not voting for the NDP because of negatives… I’m voting because they seem to represent the only positive. It is they who represent everything that Canadians really seem to value in this country. Universal Healthcare, access to a good Education, Social Security, Multi-culturalism, defense of Human Rights and the fight for National Daycare… which is still yet to be created, but without the NDP giving it a push in this minority government, we wouldn’t be talking about it.

Hey, Jack Layton is the only one of the 4 leaders who passes the beer test. Can you imagine sitting down with Steven Harper for a Lucky? What about Gilles Duceppe and a Guiness? Or Paul and a Canadian? No, only Jack has that lets-go-out-and-get-hammered quality.

But again, it’s not really about Jack Layton.. it’s about voting for a party that represents a positive attitude. Too much in politics today is negativity. Too much is about how bad the other guy is rather than how good you are.

That’s why I think Jack Layton has played these post-desperation-plea-Liberals absolutely perfectly… and I think it’s going to strike a chord with many left-leaning Canadians. He is presenting the only positive option. While it has been presented as an ultimatum of sorts for the Liberals it is still the only option any party is giving to actually move forward and govern rather than go directly into an election that very few people, including me, want.

It seems to me that the NDP is the only party willing to defend its’ beliefs and advance those beliefs in the name of governance rather than politicking.

That is why I’m voting for NDP… not because they are going to save the environment or tax the hell out of corporations. It’s because they are willing to say “this isn’t good enough”. For now the Canadian people deserve a government that lasts over the summer. They certainly deserve a budget for the 05/06 year. Later, they deserve a government that is both representative of their values and stable. Right now, they have nothing except negative-billing-politics, uncertainty and corruption.

When the inevitable does happen… Vote NDP.

Peak Oil by 2006?

Posted on by

That’s what Colin Campbell says in a recent Guardian article:

Campbell reckons global peak production of conventional oil – the kind associated with gushing oil wells – is approaching fast, perhaps even next year. His calculations are based on historical and present production data, published reserves and discoveries of companies and governments, estimates of reserves lodged with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, speeches by oil chiefs and a deep knowledge of how the industry works.
“About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as ‘yet-to-find’, meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year,” he says.

Unfortunately, Campbell isn’t exactly new at this.. he’s been in the industry for 40 years and at all levels. He’s also not exactly a newcomer to the “peak oil” philosophy. He’s been preaching the same decline for at least a decade. (eg: from 1998)

It is important to realize that spending more money on oil exploration will not change this situation. After the price of crude hit all-time highs in the early 1980s, explorers developed new technology for finding and recovering oil, and they scoured the world for new fields. They found few: the discovery rate continued its decline uninterrupted. There is only so much crude oil in the world, and the industry has found about 90 percent of it.

…

Our analysis reveals that a number of the largest producers, including Norway and the U.K., will reach their peaks around the turn of the millennium unless they sharply curtail production. By 2002 or so the world will rely on Middle East nations, particularly five near the Persian Gulf (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), to fill in the gap between dwindling supply and growing demand. But once approximately 900 Gbo have been consumed, production must soon begin to fall. Barring a global recession, it seems most likely that world production of conventional oil will peak during the first decade of the 21st century.

And in another report to the UK House of Commons Committee in 1999…

There are of course many alternatives, but the range of possibility is limited given the resource constraints. These constraints are facts not scenarios. If by some miracle we could add 500 [Bilion Barrels (Gb)] of reserves – more than half as much as produced so far – it would delay peak by only ten years.

One indisputable fact stands out. Discovery peaked 30 years ago [in 1970s]. It takes no feat of intellect to conclude that we now face the corresponding peak of production.

Still think the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil? How about this for an eerie prediction:

1) Oil demand will grow at 1.5% a year – slightly below the IEA estimate of 1.8% – until Swing Share reaches about 35% in 2001.

2) The Middle East countries will then have the confidence to impose much higher prices, realising that they have no competition. They may even get such confidence sooner.

…

6). Nevertheless, I think it will be a time of great political and economic tension as Europe, America and Japan vie for access to Middle East oil. More missiles can be expected. The third world will be badly hit, being unable to afford imports. Agriculture is very dependent on oil.

…

I think it is absurd that the management of the depletion of the world’s supply of its most important fuel should be left to a few feudal families controlling the Middle East. The consuming governments should recognize where their interests lie.

And the ouster of Saddam Hussein has done absolutely nothing to change the nature of who is controlling ME oil.. it’s still a handful of families and tribes with their hand on the spigot from which the world drinks.

Well, put simply… it means that unless demand for oil drops along with supply… then prices will only continue to rise. In other words, the more oil we use, the more it will cost. And that is a Global “We”. Even if Canada and Europe and the US dramatically reduce their consumption, who’s to say India, China and the rest of the emerging SE Asia zone won’t pick up the slack? They have a far larger population… by quite a margin… so as they aspire to our standard of living it is absolutely possible that they could make up for our consumption “loss”.. and then some.

Another factor is that the Middle East is the only region where production of cheaply extracted oil has not already peaked. The North Sea, North/South American, African and Soviet oil fields have all reached their peak and are switching to smaller oil fields or more difficult deposits. That doesn’t mean there isn’t lots of oil left to be had (like in the Tar Sands of Alberta and Venezuela) but it is more and more expensive to extract it… gone are the days of gushing wells… most of the oil from the Americas will be mined, not pumped.

So.. what do you think of those Hybrid Vehicles now?

(Cheers: Pogge.ca)

I do Declare, for the NDP

Posted on by

No, an election has not been called… but after yesterdays shenanigans and since there was a surprise non-confidence motion presented (but not yet discussed) in the House today, I think it is clear that a campaign, and election is imminent.

What’s more, the past week marked the start of an election campaign here in British Columbia. So, with all this political hankering going on, I figure I might as well declare my intentions.

I will be voting NDP in both the Federal and Provincial elections.

I will spell out my reasons and thoughts as time goes on. But for now I want to point you The Blogging New Democrats. A site put up by Robert over at MyBlagh to show support for the Federal New Democrats as they enter into what could be one of their best elections ever.

If you are interested in the Canadian Elections process, even if you’re not in the NDP camp, keep your eye on the the BND site as it hopefully grows into a nice repository of NDP bloggers.

International Policy Statement: Defense

Posted on by

In this continuing series I’ve so far looked at the Diplomacy Policy Statement pertaining to the Foreign Affairs departments’ role in Canadas’ International Policy. I also went in depth to look at their position on UN Reform and multilateralism.

In this article I will analyse the Defense Policy Statement.

Here is the official Defense Policy Statement website, or you can download the PDF from me here.

Perhaps the biggest change is the refocusing of the Canadian military…

Bill Graham says in his message to open the Statement:

The tragedy of September 11, 2001 proved to Canadians that we are vulnerable to the threat of terrorism and the spillover effects from failed and failing states. This policy, therefore, establishes the defence of Canada as our first priority. The Canadian Forces will be reorganized and retooled to tighten their focus on this primary mandate.

I don’t think many Canadians deem protection of their own territory as very important. Indeed, I bet many would ask “why?”. However, this renewed focus at home could serve us well. Both at boosting our credibility with our southern neighbour, and at giving our soldiers a renewed sense of what they’re fighting for. I do not doubt the motivation of our Canadian Forces, but if I were in their position, which seems to be a constant state of flux.. or bored at home… this refocusing would engage me. The Forces *should* be prepared to protect Canada. We should be able to defend ourselves in every single region of our nation. And by doing that… we will be implicitly training for nearly every possible situation that would encounter overseas.

Here’s an interesting graph showing Canadas overal military strength and it’s deployment before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Deployment

Domestic deployments are shown in blue, International in brown.

The Statement goes into detail on how the Canadian Forces will be retasked and retooled… one of the major points is having what looks to be like three distinct “Groups” of forces compromising special ops, land, air and maritime assets.

  1. A Special Operations Group (includes an enlarged JTF2)
  2. A Standing Contingency Task Force. Able to deploy with 10 days notice.
  3. Other Task Forces deployed for longer periods for combat and/or peace support operation

Other interesting “aquisitions” on the table are maritime capabilities that “provide sea-based national or multi-national command capability” and “deploy tactical unmanned aerial vehicles”.

On the airborne side they are looking to; acquire medium- to heavy-lift helicopters.. to support special ops and transport assets from maritime or forward bases, acquire, or ensure access to, the right mix of capabilities to meet the increasing requirements for domestic, global and in-theatre airlift; provide the Canadian Forces with a flexible and pursue the use of satellites to support domestic and international operations.

On the land side: increase the forces by 5000 regular and 3000 reserve. ” complete the acquisition and development of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, ” continue to transform into a modern, combat capable medium-weight force, based primarily on wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles, including the Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle“

As I said above, it appears that one of the biggest shifts for the Canadian Forces will be a new focus on Domestic security. Most of the goals pretty common sense and not really of note.. though this one caught my eye “helping develop a common maritime picture, including by expanding the number of High Frequency Surface Wave Radars on each coast [including the North] “

Throughout the document there is a heavy emphasis on security through intelligence and monitoring. These marine radars, to more aviation radar installations, to increased capabilities for CSIS, cyber intelligence gathering, and the use of satellites and UAVs all add up to the military doing a better job of keeping an eye on Canadas land, air and water. Good or bad.. Big Brother is perhaps getting a little bigger?

On the defense of North America:

Canada’s geography is, from an American viewpoint, destined to regain the importance it lost after the end of the Cold War…. It is clearly in our sovereign interest to continue doing our part in defending the continent with the United States.

NORAD is the focus of the document and looks to continue to be the main method for cooperationg with the United States. That said, there are other, more concrete forms of cooperation including:

improving their ability to operate alongside American forces, including through more frequent combined training and exercises;
[and] continuing to participate in international operations overseas to address threats at their source.

Which brings us to Canadas Overseas responsibilities:

The Canadian Forces will, therefore, maintain their contributions to international institutions such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Membership in both of these organizations continues to serve Canadian interests and reflect our values. At the same time, consistent with international legal norms, when the will of the international community is clear, we will also consider participating in less formal coalitions of like-minded states, as we have seen in the international campaign against terrorism.

…

Canada will take a lead role in the Multinational Standby High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations (SHIRBRIG). The brigade, deployed for the first time in Ethiopia and Eritrea in 2000, will remain critical to the United Nations’ ability to undertake peace support operations in the coming years. Canada held the SHIRBRIG presidency in 2003, and has command of the brigade until mid-2006.

People like numbers… and when they see that the Canadian Forces are being upped by 5000 regular and 3000 reserve men and women they might look at those numbers and say ‘bah, that doesn’t seem like much.. can’t fight a war with 5000 soldiers”.

However, those 8000 new soldiers have, according to this document, given the Canadian Forces the ability to deploy twice the number of troops to conflicts and missions around the world, and sustain them for longer periods.

The new “Land Forces” capabilities include:

  • sustain overseas for an indefinite period two land task forces, potentially in different theatres of operations, to form the land component of Mission-Specific Task Forces. While currently limited to approximately 700personnel, these land task forces will increase to approximately 1,200 personnel. In addition, the land forces will be able to provide a smaller, third task force of approximately 1,000 personnel for a sixmonth period, either to reinforce a current operation or to mount a new short-term mission. Overall, the land forces will effectively double their capacity to undertake and sustain operations; and
  • provide a brigade headquarters, capable of commanding a multinational formation for a year, as part of a larger Canadian international effort.

That’s it for the Defense Policy Statement. There really wasn’t that much to it. It was alot more fluff than the Diplomacy statement though it did at least point a few goals and initiatives that will help the Canadian Forces evolve and grow. I’m glad to see that the new soldiers will be put to use and used to augment rather than simply maintain the status quo. I do think it’s important as well that we have a Canada Command that is capable of responding to domestic emergencies and cooperating with civilian operations… this, I think, has been a huge deficit for the Canadian Forces in the past.