Fertility clinics to be regulated by Canadian provinces

Important changes made today to Canadian biolegislation: It will now be up to individual provinces to draw up a new legislative scheme to regulate fertility treatments and embryonic research after the supreme court declared it a provincial, not a federal, responsibility. It will now be up to provinces to control the licensing of doctors and clinics and to regulate how they deal with donors and would-be parents, or with eggs, sperms or embryos for research purposes, including developing new genetic therapies for disease.

This is good news and will prove to be beneficial for fertility clinics and research specialists. Individual provinces will be able to focus on and promote more focused and specific lines of research. It will also reduce the need for Canadians to go about the "medical tourist" route.

That said, certain federal criminal bans still stand: It is still illegal to pay for surrogacy, and the federal government may limit reimbursements to donors and surrogates for expenses only, although the federal government has never defined an allowable expense. Ottawa may still legislate mandatory written consent of donors; a ban on extracting eggs or sperm from persons under 18 except to preserve their fertility; and a prohibition on human-animal hybrids.

Still, it's progress.

Ignatieff and Obama: Intellectuals on the rise

Left-wing intellectual icon Michael Ignatieff has taken the helm of the federal Liberal party in Canada. Given the current political crisis in Canada, and given that the Liberals have now solved their leadership problem, Ignatieff is poised to become the country's next Prime Minister -- something that could happen as early as January should Parliament go ahead with a non-confidence motion.

Though he could hardly be called Canada's Obama, the parallels between the two men and the two countries are interesting. Currently, both Canada and the United States are governed by heads-of-state who are ultra-conservative and populist and who allow their religious views to influence public policy. Both Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have caused great divisiveness in their respective countries and gone out of their way to alienate entire swaths of the citizenry. And neither Harper or Bush have instilled any real sense of confidence about their ability to govern; these are administrations in which inaction reigns and where egg-heads are strictly forbidden.

In Canada, Harper's work of late has been particularly infuriating. He recently appointed the conservative populist Preston Manning, a Creationist and member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, to his scientific advisory board. Harper continues to govern in utter denial of the current climate crisis, contributing to Canada's track record as one of the world's worst polluters and green house gas emitters. And most recently, in an attempt to save himself and his party, he reopened the national unity debate by accusing the Coalition of going to bed with the "separatist" Bloc Quebecois -- this after Harper depended on the Bloc to prop him up during the last 3 years of minority rule.

Consequently, it's reassuring to see both Canada and the U.S. poised to bring in leaders with roots in academia -- incoming leaders who are engaged in public discourse and who have the requisite qualifications to lead their countries. In the case of the U.S. it's a done deal; as for Canadians it's still within the realm of wishful thinking.

Obama and Ignatieff certainly have the creds. Both leaders have ties to Harvard University: Obama is a graduate of its law school and Ignatieff the former director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (it's also where he earned his PhD in history). Ignatieff also spent time at Oxford and the University of Toronto where he was a visiting professor and senior fellow of the Munk Centre for International Studies.

In his teaching and writing, Ignatieff has addressed such topics as Canadian culture and human rights (on moral issues he maintains that Canadian law is secular and liberal, approximating European standards more closely than American ones), international affairs (he was very critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide), and the so-called 'lesser evil' approach in which he has argued that Western democracies may have to resort to indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, and pre-emptive wars in order to combat the greater evil of terrorism (Ignatieff has since toned down his position, likely out of political necessity).

I don't imagine that all Canadians will agree with his positions (myself included), or that they'll even care that he is an internationally recognized intellectual. But there's no denying that in Ignatieff the Liberals have found a unique leader who is poised to give the party a significant boost.

Not to mention the distinction he would return to the position of Prime Minister should he get there.

Coalition governments in Canada: The new normal?

What do you get when you put a federalist, a socialist and a separatist in the same room?

Well, if you're in Canada you get a ruling coalition government.

By this time next week it is expected that the minority Conservative government will be overthrown by an alliance comprised of the Liberals, NDP and Parti Quebecois (although technically speaking the PQ will prop up the government and not be a part of the coalition).

Much to the surprise of many Canadians, this is a completely constitutional course of action. And it's happened before; the Liberals and NDP toppled Joe Clark's PC government in 1979.

If all goes according to plan, the newly formed coalition will put forth a vote of non-confidence next week and a new government will take its place (unless the Governor General calls for an election, but that is highly unlikely given that the last election was only 6 weeks ago and that the economy is in a sorry condition).

Canadians are not used to this sort of parliamentary political maneuvering. And for those who support the Conservatives, this is beyond the pale. Even those wary of the Liberal Party are concerned, noting that 74% of Canadians voted against them during the last election. For many, the whole situation seems fishy and a tad extreme. As one of my readers recently noted, “This is a coup if I ever saw one.”

Part of the concern stems from the feeling that the vote of non-confidence is unwarranted. Critics feel that this is nothing more than sour grapes and opportunistic power-grabbing. On this point I'll disagree for reasons elucidated in my previous post; the Harper regime is a mess of contradictions and a band of phonies who have chosen to rule with arrogance and indifference during a time of economic crisis.

But further to the point of parliamentary coalitions, what many Canadians have failed to realize is that this has been fairly inevitable: The face of Canadian politics is changing and coalitions may become a regular fixture of parliament.

There was a time when there were only three players in town, the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. Today there are 5 viable parties, including the addition of the startlingly influential Parti Quebecois and the up-and-coming Green Party. This has caused the left to fracture, a turn of events that has greatly benefited the only true right-wing party in Canada, the Tories.

We've also been somewhat immune to the reality of coalitions here in Canada. In Europe it’s par for the course. Take Italy, for example, in which there are typically no less than a dozen parties that can comprise a government. Indeed, this can often make for strange bedfellows, but such is the nature of parliamentary democracies.

And in such systems, voters may get to choose who goes to parliament – but it's the parliament that gets to choose the government.

Federal Tories architects of their own demise

Last week’s economic status report from the federal Conservatives was too good to be true.

Now, that’s not to suggest that the Tories presented an overly-ambitious strategy for rescuing the slumping Canadian economy or that they unveiled an over-the-top stimulus package.

Rather, it was too good to be true because the Tories have now set the stage for their own demise. And for the 63% of Canadians who voted against the Conservative Party just 6 weeks ago, this is good news; the anemic Tories are about to be thrown out into the cold Canadian winter.

Indeed, the Conservative Party’s shocking inability to demonstrate to Canadians that they’re willing to do something, anything, to address the recession may prove to be the final straw. A parliamentary vote of non-confidence is now all but assured.

The Conservative response to the recession, or lack thereof, is certainly surprising given recent events south of the border. President-Elect Barack Obama assembled a 17-member economic advisory board just days after his election to help him piece together a recovery strategy -- a team that includes Warren Buffet and Eric Schmidt. And this on the heels of a hotly contested election in which the ravaged economy arguably tilted the results in Obama’s favour.

But here in Canada, our minority government (which acts and thinks like a majority government) has chosen to ignore the public's concerns and at their own peril; Canadians are getting increasingly worried as the manufacturing sector continues to collapse at a frightening rate. Even a hint of hope would be appreciated at this time.

But perception doesn't seem to matter to this government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper would rather play power-politics than draw inspiration from the United States. With millions of Canadians expecting at least something in the report, it came as a complete shock to get something even worse than nothing: in addition to more do-nothingism, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty unveiled a plan to curb party funding and ban public sector workers from striking.

Say what!?

This is the response to the worst economic crisis in modern memory? By attacking the other parties and protecting its own ass from potential union unrest?

Talk about a cry for help. This government is acting as if it wants to be put out of its misery.

Well, if all goes according to plan, a coalition government made up of the Liberals and NDP (and propped up by the Parti Quebecois) will remove the Conservatives as early as next week. And further to this end, the coalition has already hinted at a team of economic advisors that may include former deputy prime minister John Manley and former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna.

This coalition may not prove to be the most effective government in our history, but it’s already step ahead -- even if only on paper.

[photo credit: The Globe and Mail]

Canada's poor effort in dealing with climate change

Ronald Bailey's recent article, "Climate Change Confabs," brought to my attention Canada's rather lackadaisical and irresponsible response to the global warming crisis. Bailey writes,

How are the Kyoto signatories—chiefly the European Union (EU), Japan and Canada—doing at meeting their emissions targets? Emissions from the EU-15 have dropped by 1.5 percent since 1990, which is still well above their agreed target reduction of 8 percent below what they emitted in 1990. A report last year from the European Environment Agency projected that the EU-15 would not likely reach their 2012 Kyoto Protocol emissions target unless they adopt more stringent policies. Nevertheless, the EU jauntily declared that it would cut its GHG emissions by 20 percent below its 1990 level by 2020.

Canada committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 6 percent below its 1990 level, but as of 2004, Canada emitted 27 percent more GHG than it did in 1990. Japan is supposed to cut its GHG emissions by 6 percent, but recent projections suggest that it may emit 2 percent more than it did in 1990. For comparison, U.S. GHG emissions are up over 16 percent of what they were in 1990.

At the U.N. meeting on Monday, the EU, Canada, and Japan all came out in favor of a binding target of cutting GHG emissions by 50 percent below their 1990 levels by 2050. The Bush Administration is against binding reductions targets, preferring to focus on research to develop clean energy technologies that do not emit GHGs—e.g., nuclear, wind, solar and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Carbon sequestration means burying carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels by injecting it into underground reservoirs. At the U.N. climate confab, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice declared, "Ultimately, we must develop and bring to market new energy technologies that transcend the current system of fossil fuels, carbon emissions and economic activity. Put simply, the world needs a technological revolution."

Entire article.

Embarrassing. Canada has got to get its act together on this.

As for the U.S. "solution", they are hand-waving in order to justify inaction. Instead, we need to a) reduce emissions now and b) work towards the development of cleaner technology. It's not an either/or scenario.

Related article: "Canadian shame at the UN's conference on global warming (2006)."

Bush skips talks on climate change, extends middle finger at UN

The unilateral streak that has come to define the neocon Bush administration has once again reared its ugly head, this time at the United Nations talks on global warming. The gathering, which is bringing together the leaders of over 80 countries, is geared around efforts to combat human-instigated climate change.

The talks come several days after an announcement that melting temperatures this summer shrank the Arctic Ocean's ice cap to a record low and that the fabled Northwest Passage is now open.

George W. Bush, however, will not be there, and instead plans on convening his own meeting on how to address global warming. His hope is to avoid global treaties and anything that could give the United Nations jurisdiction over the issue.

The U.N. continues to exist as a toothless, and subsequently, useless entity -- thanks mostly to the U.S.'s utter disregard for the institution and all those countries who use this an excuse and inspiration to go it alone.

Meanwhile Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper is at the global warming talks, but his presence is about as useful as Bush's no-show. His own environmental advisory body, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, directed sharp criticisms at the Conservatives for their climate-change strategy and accused them of overestimating what the plan will accomplish. The report claimed that Harper's plan is vague, uses questionable accounting methods and exaggerated greenhouse-gas cuts it would result in.

What a sad mess...

The Canadian Conservatives' faux environmentalism

The minority Conservative government in Canada is launching a series of attack ads in which they slam the Liberals and their new leader, Stephane Dion. No, it's not election time in Canada; this is how the Conservatives do business. Knowing they're on thin ice, and failing to actually govern and implement effective policies, the government's primary concern has shifted to propaganda.

The ads suggest that Dion is a weak and unproven leader who would take Canada in the wrong direction. The ads also slam Dion and the previous Liberal government for their poor environmental track record. Yes, the previous government should be ashamed of their disregard for environmental issues, but this is really starting to be a tired tune.

It has been one year since the Conservatives took power and they have yet to unveil an environmental policy. They've used the year to do nothing more than attack the previous government. This tactic completely backfired on the Conservatives late last year at the UN's global warming conference in Nairobi, Kenya. Since that time, Prime Minister Steven Harper has relieved MP Rona Ambrose of her environment post and assigned John Baird to the position. Part of the motivation to do so is the Canadian public's growing concern with the environment. Baird has acted big and has admitted that global warming is happening, but that's been the extent of his work.

One year of lip service, empty gestures, and meaningless rhetoric. There is no Conservative environment policy and no vision.

But put together a series of attack ads, well, that they have the time and resources for. What an embarrassing and infuriating government we have here.