Canada must reclaim its role as a world leader

In the mid-1940s, Canada was a principal founder of the United Nations and a Canadian drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, Canada has built an exceptional international reputation with its commitment to multilateral approaches and solutions to international conflicts.

In 1957, the role of Lester Pearson, then minister of external affairs, earned him the Nobel Peace Prize for developing a solution to end the Suez Canal crisis by proposing a peacekeeping force, the famous Blue Berets. In 1965, Prime Minister Pearson named me as his parliamentary secretary and appointed me to his cabinet two years later.

Under Mr. Pearson’s leadership, Canada called for the end of the bombing of North Vietnam to allow for negotiations to end the conflict. Although armed conflicts are sometimes unavoidable, Canada has traditionally sided with countries that sought peaceful solutions. If, however, there were a NATO or UN mandate for military intervention, as was the case in Iraq in 1990 and a few years later in the former Yugoslavia, Canada always stepped up to meet its international military responsibilities and obligations.

Under Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canada pursued independent foreign policy. In 1970, his government established diplomatic relations with China, ahead of the United States. Canada also blazed its own trail, as Mr. Trudeau was among the first to support the struggle of Nelson Mandela against apartheid in South Africa.

Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark, his foreign affairs minister, took the lead in the struggle against apartheid and the movement to free Mr. Mandela. On this point, Mr. Mulroney was not afraid to stand up to Margaret Thatcher and our close ally, Britain. He rightly saw that they were wrong.

Canada has managed to assert repeatedly both its independence and its commitment to international institutions such as the UN and NATO in international relations.

Working within this framework led Canada, during my mandate, to play leading roles on issues such as the Ottawa Treaty, an international convention on the ban of anti-personnel mines, and the establishment of the International Criminal Court. In this same spirit, we also signed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

In 2003, to the dismay of our American and British allies, we refused to go to war in Iraq because the UN refused its consent to what is now universally acknowledged as a big mistake. Canada was noticed and respected for this decision.

However, since then something has happened to Canada’s international reputation. I fear it has been altered and damaged for a long time. In 2010, for the first time, Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations was defeated. The next year we sent our planes to bomb Libya, and we are now participating militarily in Iraq and Syria.

After the campaign in Libya – which we now know had disastrous consequences in the region – the Harper government trumpeted Canada’s bombing role with a flyover above Parliament Hill to celebrate our “victory.” This is a ritual normally characteristic of conquering and warlike countries.

Today, with great sadness and shame, I am watching Mr. Harper’s cold-hearted reaction to the tragedy of refugees from Syria and Iraq. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped up to the plate, and the world looks upon the generosity of her country with admiration. The same goes for Norway, Sweden and Finland, which have welcomed refugees and do not erect roadblocks to taking them in. Instead they get rid of roadblocks. But not Mr. Harper. He has shamed Canada in the eyes of Canadians and of the international community.

In my travels around the globe, I am regularly asked: What has happened to Canada? What has happened to the advanced, peace-seeking, progressive country Canada once was? What has happened to the country that was a model for peace and stability in a tumultuous world? These questions evoke great sadness in me.

I am sad to see that in fewer than 10 years, the Harper government has tarnished almost 60 years of Canada’s reputation as a builder of peace and progress. During all these years, government leaders, whether Liberal or Progressive Conservative, have sought to understand, engage and influence their international peers, including those with whom they disagreed. They did not try to embarrass or give other countries lessons in good behaviour. Rather, they patiently sought to convince others of the universal values that make our global community a better and safer place to live.

Of course, peaceful dialogue does not always work. War is sometimes unavoidable. But solutions should come from the world community working together – not from a handful of countries acting outside international institutions to which they belong.

Canadians will soon choose their next government. When considering the role of Canada on the world stage, I hope they will choose a government in line with our great tradition of peace-building, initiated by Mr. Pearson and promoted by all of his successors until the arrival of the Harper administration.

Let’s take back our place in the world.

Jean Chrétien

Jean Chrétien is a former Liberal prime minister of Canada (1993-2003)

The Globe and Mail, Sep 12, 2015

Linda McQuaig is right: Fossil fuels should stay in the ground

Background: NDP candidate Linda McQuaig's comment on oilsands stirs up hornet's nest

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mcquaig-oilsands-reaction-cp-1.3184704

The Highlander

Thursday, September 3, 2015, Issue 201

Dear editor, 

Toronto Centre NDP candidate Linda McQuaig’s reiteration of climate scientists’ call to leave most of the bitumen in the Alberta Tar Sands in the ground in order to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets deserves honest discussion and debate in this election campaign. It does not deserve the empty rhetoric and partisan gamesmanship we’ve seen to date.

The truth is there’s a huge gap between what climate scientists are saying about our growing climate crisis and what our political leadership, including the NDP, is proposing to do about it. McQuaig should be congratulated, not reined in, vilified or ridiculed, for having the courage to raise the climate change implications of continued fossil fuel development. Tar Sands supporters seem to think we can continue to pump ever larger quantities of earth-warming chemicals into the atmosphere without any ecological consequences whatsoever. They are about to find out nature bats last. 

The stakes involved are not simply the economic impact of ending our fossil fuel dependency on Tar Sands corporations and workers, the people and Government of Alberta, but something much, much higher than that: the entire climate system within which human civilization has flourished for the last 10,000 years or so. 

Do we as a country have the capacity to rise above short-term economic and political self-interest to play a significant role in ending the fossil fuel dependency which has caused the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in our atmosphere to rise to over 400ppm? The signing of the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change in 1992 was supposed to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Instead they’ve risen to the highest levels in over three million years. 

This creates a huge and growing risk of runaway and irreversible change to Earth’s climate system. Nothing less than the future of life on this planet hangs in the balance if we fail to stop denying we’re in a greenhouse gas-induced climate crisis and start acting accordingly. 

James Hansen, one of the world’s preeminent climate scientists, puts it this way in written testimony in support of a recent civil suit filed by young people against the U.S. Government for failure to protect their right to a life-sustaining climate: “It is now clear, as the relevant scientific community has established for some time, that continued high CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning will further disrupt Earth’s climate system, and that, in turn, will impose profound and mounting risks of ecological, economic and social collapse. 

"In my view, our government’s actions and inactions that cause or contribute to those emissions violate the fundamental rights of Sophie, other Youth, and future generations. Those violated rights include the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to government protection of public trust resources, and the right to retain a fighting chance to preserve a habitable climate system. 

“Our government’s persistent permitting and underwriting of fossil fuel projects serves now to further disrupt the favourable climate system that to date enabled human civilization to develop. In order to preserve a viable climate system, our use of fossil fuels must be phased out as rapidly as is feasible. Only government can ensure this will be done. Instead, our government seeks approval for permitting of fossil fuel projects that would slam shut the narrowing window of opportunity to stabilize climate and ensure a hospitable climate and planet for young people and future generations. These projects only allow our government to shirk its duty. Our government’s permitting of additional, new, or renewed fossil fuel projects is entirely antithetical to its fundamental responsibility to our children and their posterity. Their fundamental rights now hang in the balance.”* 

Of course, Hansen’s comments apply with equal force to the Canadian government. With so much at stake we need to demand concrete science-based proposals for real action on climate change from our politicians during this election campaign. They need to stop pretending that business as usual, with its incessant demand for economic growth, is sustainable on a finite planet with a finite atmosphere. They need to get on with figuring out how we can transition off fossil fuels as fast as our combined human ingenuity can get us there. 

Politicians of all political stripes claim they have the best interests of both the current and future generations at heart. They should prove it by initiating an adult conversation during this campaign about the climate crisis and how we’re going to survive it. 

* Paragraphs 7 and 85 From James E. Hansen, written testimony in the matter Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M. et al. v. the United States of America et al., United States District Court, District of Oregon, filed August, 11, 2015 in New York City, New York. Hansen’s entire written testimony can be found at this website:  http://www.columbia. edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150812_FINAL_ HANSEN_DEC_FOR_US_DISTRICT_ OREGON_9PM.pdf.

Terry Moore 

VP Environment Haliburton, 

Climate Reality Haliburton

___________________________________
Reprinted with permission