Canada's divisions not as deep as they appear

  

It was in my fourth year of university when I realized I was majoring in the wrong subject. As dry as it sounds, Political Science 100 was enlightening. 

The class’s fundamentals guide me to this day... Okay, maybe not every day, but it has helped me understand why Alberta hates Ottawa (usually) and why Quebec wants to be left alone. It helped me realize that our Constitution is not so clear cut. Provincial and federal responsibilities overlap in strange and confusing ways. 

Hence, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal government’s new environmental impact legislation remains a mystery to most of us. What we do know is that environmental protection is under the jurisdiction of both Canada and the provinces, leaving grey areas subject to interpretation. 

Another grey area is healthcare. Even though this significant government expense falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government holds influence. With cold, hard cash, the federal government tries to maintain a consistently funded healthcare system across the country. 

Ottawa often uses money to influence provincial policy. One area where it is interestingly absent is education. Despite this, public K-12 education runs nearly as seamlessly as healthcare, with similar curricular requirements across the provinces. 

Advanced education is another provincial domain where universities have tended to operate at similar levels across the country – even maintaining similar tuition rates. Until last week, that is, when Quebec announced tuition rates for Canadians outside of Quebec would nearly double. In an effort to save its French universities, Quebec may cannibalize its most successful schools like McGill. 

Then there’s equalization.... Most people don’t know much about it. The old joke is that only three people understand the formula and two of them have since passed. Equalization is a means to redistribute the country’s wealth, where provinces like Quebec receive up to $14 billion a year for essentially having a weaker economy, and Manitoba gets over $3 billion because hydropower is not included in the formula (again, few know why). Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia get nothing, and resent the rest of Canada because of it. 

As always, there are cracks in the federal experiment that both narrow and widen over time. Some provinces think they should run things on their own. Quebec has been afforded the most autonomy with fewest strings attached to federal funding. Together with hefty equalization payments, some would suggest this is the price we pay to keep Quebec in Canada. 

Recently, Alberta has followed Quebec’s lead with plans to run their own pension plan. The Alberta government claims they’re putting more into the Canada Pension Plan than they are taking out. With a younger, wealthier population than the rest of Canada, that could very well be. I would argue it’s all part of the give and take of being in Canada, and until Alberta has a PST of its own, it has more to give!

Our nation's governing is full of give and take. Some provinces like Alberta grow resentful over time from continuous “giving.” Quebec and the Maritimes, on the other hand, don’t want to be made to feel like they’re receiving handouts. 

As worrisome as these issues are, they are relatively small cracks in our federation. Compared to the very real threat of Quebec separating from Canada in the 1990s, this is peanuts. 

Western alienation has also diminished in the last couple decades (and will further diminish should Trudeau lose the next election). Despite central Canada’s historic control over the country’s politics, Western provinces have begun to show greater political and economic influence. 

Remember, as my university professor taught, the provinces still hold the cards when it comes to government’s two biggest sectors, healthcare and education.  

How and when they play their cards is all part of Canada’s complicated constitution game. 

 

The terrorist trap

 

About a year after the 9/11 attacks, I went to hear a renowned liberal author talk about her new book. Much to my dismay, she ditched her planned speech on globalization to talk about George W. Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. 

Unlike her writing, her talking points were bland and not well thought out, but it didn’t matter. She was preaching to the choir. Everyone in this Canadian audience knew the plan to invade a second Middle Eastern country in two years was crazy. 

Now we know for sure. The resources spent, the lives lost, the occupation that’s lasted for over two decades was a mistake. It was clearly an overreach, using an act of terrorism to justify control of an oil-rich country. 

The invasion of Afghanistan, on the other hand, was not questioned. As a country that harboured terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, most nations could support military action. And yet this occupation turned out to be just as futile, with the Taliban returning to power as soon as American soldiers retreated in 2021. 

On a side note, a friend of mine from Pakistan suggested the Taliban is not nearly as bad as what the West has made them out to be. They are representative, generally, of the people they rule. They don’t adhere to the West's progressive values, but that’s typical of the region. He agrees they are not “good,” but neither are the rulers of most Middle Eastern countries presently. 

Like most governments, good or bad, they bring stability to the region and don’t want to attract much international attention. Terrorists and terrorist states, by contrast, thrive on it. 

Hamas clearly wanted a fight. They committed atrocities to demand retribution. And perhaps unwittingly, they have drawn the world’s attention to the plight of the Gaza Strip, an area of the world I knew very little about until a few days ago. 

Over two million people, almost half of them children, live in this incredibly condensed area, barricaded by Israel on one side and the Mediterranean Sea on the other. Their living standards are some of the lowest in the world. With little political autonomy, they are almost entirely dependent on Israel for the essentials of life – food, water, and most electrical power. 

It's easy to understand how this could become a breeding ground for terrorism. Not that it’s justified in the least, but the conditions exist, like in Afghanistan, to feed resentment and hostility. 

Hamas was ruthless in its attack on Israel. Unfortunately, their acts of terror will be quickly forgotten by the Arab world if Israel reduces the Gaza Strip to rubble. The humanitarian crisis that’s unfolding is a gift to extremists worldwide. For those who invaded Israel, who killed without thought, there was no goal to conquer. There was simply one goal: Gain the attention of the world as Israel destroys our people. 

Now the world watches as hundreds of Palestinians perish, most of them unaware of what their dictatorial government was even planning.  

It’s a sad state of affairs that feels inevitable. When countries are attacked, like after 9/11, they fight back. To not act would convey a toleration of barbarism. The public would not stand for it. 

But the quashing of a weaker enemy, without consideration of the innocent, may soon be viewed by the world just as cruel. 

 

 

Climate change already gobsmackingly bananas

  

As I get older, the heat doesn’t bother me as much. Plus 30? Bring it on. On a strictly personal level, climate change suits me just fine.

My teenaged daughter, on the other hand, has an aversion to heat, where any day above 25 is considered life-threatening. She starts withering in July. I’ve come to learn there’s a limit to any outdoor activity with her after 10 a.m. 

Much to her chagrin, the Prairies saw their share of 30-degree weather this year, starting in June. Did I mention her school doesn’t have air conditioning? 

Last summer felt even hotter, so I was a little surprised when a meteorologist said temperatures on the Prairies were only on average one degree above normal. It felt at least five degrees hotter. 

It’s a similar shock when people learn that the earth has only warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius due to global warming. That’s it? one might think. What are we worried about!? 

As it turns out, averages reflect massive changes on a global scale. An average global increase of two degrees could result in a non-reversible tipping point – when many ecosystems can no longer cope with the change in temperatures. On our current trajectory, we can expect a 2.7 degree increase by 2100. 

This September broke records by a long shot, with global temperatures 1.7 to 1.8 degrees above the preindustrial average. This surprised even climate scientists, one calling the warming "absolutely gobsmackingly bananas." This terminology, while unscientific, could easily become part of our new era's lexicon. We have no idea what we're getting into when altering climate at this rate.

The most common counterargument is that the earth has warmed before; that humans have survived heating/cooling throughout earth’s history. And we have. Thousands of years ago there was an ice age, where glaciers extended into the United States. They left behind lakes and scars across the landscape that are easily identified from the sky. At the ice age’s peak, 20,000 years ago, the earth’s average temperature was five to six degrees Celsius cooler than what it is today. 

One can only imagine how our lives would be disrupted should another ice age occur. Agriculture and ecosystems would be significantly impacted. Given enough time though – like a few thousand years – we would gradually adapt.  

We don’t have that kind of time. We have eight billion people dependent on ecosystems that are already under pressure. 

The earth can survive a two degree increase in warming – that's not to the problem. It will recover. The wildlife around Chernobyl is recovering – the animals may glow at night (that’s an exaggeration), but they’re still thriving without humans. Humans would rather not have the cancer and deformities that could result from living in the area, but animals have no choice. 

As humans, our thresholds for tolerable change are low. A few degrees temperature change indoors and we crank up the AC. There’s a very fine line, and we use technology keep ourselves as comfortable as possible 

But there are limits. There are limits to water efficiency, to cooling, and to the amount of smoke we can endure each summer due to wildfires. Interestingly, our forests have been net carbon dioxide emitters for the last twenty years due to increased wildfire activity. 

There’s also the question of how much wildlife we want to exterminate in our lifetime. Are we okay with 10 to 20 percent fewer species by 2100? Destruction of habitat is an issue unto itself, with climate change only augmenting the pressures. 

About 10 years ago, a fair-minded Canadian environmentalist suggested we'll only start seeing the significant impacts of climate change after 2050. We’re obviously seeing the effects already, but assuming the very serious impacts will begin then... I’ll be 73 (fingers crossed), but my daughter will still be younger than I am now. Her kids may be teenagers. 

I’m guessing there will be more to worry about than a lack of air conditioning in schools.