Email us at

info(at)londoncouncilofcanadians(dot)ca

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Roberta Cory's Book Review of A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency

 Book Review: A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency, by Seth Klein

 

I’m using my time at home now to read and comment on some of the many books we have bought in the last two or three years. If this were a college course, they might be called out of date. But if you will never read these books yourself, enjoy and comment upon the ideas in this book review. Or, if you want to read these books yourself, either ask the library, or ask me to borrow a book. 

 

A Good War uses the measures taken during WWII as a blue print for the fight of our lives today, against an enemy which has no face, uniform, symbol, or nationality. Climate change, runaway climate change, climate change that makes living on Earth impossible, is real. Scientists continually update their predictions about the speed of the melting of the icecaps and glaciers. This is a given: that we are in an emergency situation and must use emergency measures. This book makes the case that there are already solutions available to turn this nightmare around, and we must start using them now. 

 

Weary from the First World War, and struggling with an economic depression, Canadians did not want to get into another war in the 1930s and used many psychological attitudes, from denial to appeasement, to avoid the hard call. Our equivalents today are the anti-science crowd and the oil and gas industry supporters. We have many ways of excusing ourselves: blaming China for coal pollution, feeling relieved that most of us live in the northern hemisphere and above sea level, assuming that technology will come up with a solution soon, continuing to fly, and descending into a culture of impossibility – “that feeling that we are collectively unable to rise to this task.” We tell ourselves that Canada’s emissions are relatively small compared to other countries, but…”on a per capita basis, Canadians are the highest GHG emitters in the world…”  And, on top of that, Canada’s economy, (certainly Alberta’s economy), is based upon exporting fossil fuels to other countries. 

 

On the other hand, a public opinion poll of 2,000 representative Canadians, carried out in July, 2019 by Abacus Data, showed that the public is ready to support systemic solutions to the climate crisis that go farther than what governments are willing to do now. The Abacas Data survey results, provided in this book, reveal that most Canadians are on board with the social changes required to make a just transition to a green economy, to take in climate refugees, and although most had never heard of the Green New Deal, when they learned what it was, they supported it. Climate communications experts Louise Comeau and George Marshall found, after reviewing many climate change polls, that people were becoming more aware of climate disasters and that they were bored with dry statistics proving a point – they responded to passionate, ethically based, empathetic arguments and examples. Following from this, Klein has presented the type of solutions that stand a good chance of drawing mass public support. 

 

While some argue that a “war metaphor” turns people off, others, including Margaret Klein Salamon, Ph.D in clinical psychology, point out that many people who lived through the Second World War found it to be the best years of their lives. It provided meaning to their lives, it united people, as everyone, rich or poor, had the same rations, and everyone was employed doing something for the cause. The rest of this book proceeds to put forth what it would take to use the media to educate and motivate the public to join together for a Good War. 

 

This book is dense, jammed full of serious issues that are not easily resolved. For example, in Part 2, Chapter 3, “…Marshalling Public Opinion…” Klein puts his toe in the murky waters of the morality of rhetoric (Plato), propaganda (Orwell), and the arts in appealing to our emotions over our brains. For someone who wants to explore this nuanced area see “Two Ways of Looking at Propaganda,” John H. Brown, CPD Blog, June 29, 2006.  Also in Part 2, “Confederation Quagmire…,” Klein faces the issue of Provincial jurisdiction (the same issue faced in the U.S. with “states rights.”) A country that spans the continent, with enormous geographical differences, ethnic and cultural identities, and population inequalities is beyond challenging when solidarity is required, as it is when facing an emergency. Part 3, Chapter 6, “Paying for Mobilization, Then and Now,” revolutionizes just about everything, using the Bank of Canada, creating Crown Corporations, selling bonds, and giving financial incentives to corporations, cities, and individuals who switch from fossil fuel use to green energy alternatives. This chapter could be a book in itself and could sustain a book club in discussion for a year. 

 

This is one of the most researched books I have encountered on the subject of how to meet the climate challenge immediately. The sources are so numerous that I would strongly suggest owning the book in order to return to it over and over. It is a beautiful book, full of lucid arguments, statistics, and a can-do attitude. I get the same feeling from reading it as I do when watching a BBC film set during WWII in Britain when people in all walks of life talked proudly about “doing their bit.”

 

Canada has become increasingly divided. Computers, cell phones, air conditioning, subculture identification, the working poor vs the top 1%, rising populations of the hungry and the homeless, and then the Covid 19 epidemic all tend to leave us to experience our despair alone. What I want, and I think what most of us want, is to “do our bit.” We want to pull together not apart. We need a larger sense of meaning than our own family and job. Surely, turning to heal our planet so that we can continue to live on it is something that can activate our deepest passions. But not if it is merely encouraged – it has to be embraced emotionally and the government must be involved with the carrot and the stick.

 

 I read this book to confirm and elaborate my convictions. I am not a climate denier. The only thing that raised a red flag for me was the 2019 Abacus Data Survey. So much of the book rests on the results of that survey. Klein must establish at the beginning of the book that the “people” want immediate action, that, while lowering CO2 and methane emissions, will grow a more egalitarian society where everyone benefits, not just a few. I feel the questions asked in the survey encouraged more positive answers. But then that is what is needed. During the war “defeats as well as victories were reported, but there was no pretense of neutrality.” “…media outlets in the Allied countries modeled a form of “patriotic press.” For example, the press can treat the benign term “climate change” as the climate catastrophe it is.  In May 2019 The Guardian swapped language to make it more compelling with terms such as “climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” and “climate breakdown.” In October 2019, in Victoria, BC, the CBC radio morning show started posting a “daily CO2 reading” into the stock market report. These are examples of the many solutions suggested in “A Good War” which are actually workable – a needed therapeutic for our cynical pessimistic times. 

 

Roberta Cory

 

 

 

Saturday, October 31, 2020

Roberta Cory’s Review of Sylvia McAdam’s “Nationhood Interupted”

Nationhood Interrupted: Revitalizing nehiyaw Legal Systems by Sylvia McAdam (saysewahum).

Book review – Roberta Cory
The European colonizers of Turtle Island made the assumption that the inhabitants were savages and had no culture. Using their own culture as a yardstick, they saw lack of a written language, no property rights for land, subsistence hunting and gathering, and ignorance of Christianity as primitive and set about imposing European values and laws onto the original inhabitants. But what they did not know, because they did not care to find out, was that there already existed a very complicated culture which functioned very well if left alone. 
Sylvia McAdam shares her Cree (nihiyaw) culture and legal system with us in this book. Her main topics are language, protocol, oral history, types of relationships and the breaking of laws governing these relationships, gender, and right mind. 
Treaty 6 was created under these nihiyaw laws. The understanding of the nihiyaw was based upon the only system they knew, their own, and the meaning of their own words in the context of the treaty. Therefore, the English words and interpretation of Treaty 6 are not binding. The Nihiyaw see all words as imbedded in a matrix of relationships. Language is active. It is a dynamic world of responsibilities and obligations so that both parties to a treaty or agreement enter into it with a clean conscience, a positive attitude, and trust. For the Nihiyaw, the Creator made everything to live in a positive relationship. Everything was in ecological balance in the physical world, and in social balance in the human world. They thought of each type of creature or plant as a nation and nations do not touch or hurt one another. 
Their language is nuanced. Pastahowin means to go beyond or over. For us it means breaking a law against another human being. This can happen through an act, through omission, or by talk. Pastamowin is what someone said which lead to an undesirable happening. Words have power and are a gift from the Creator. Only humans were given the power of language. Ways of committing pastamowin are threats, gossip, profanity, and boastfulness. Words have power because once you say them they have a life of their own. Ohcinewin is breaking a law against anything other than a human being. This means any human activity that has a negative impact upon the environment. Torturing an animal, polluting the land, overharvesting of resources, hunting laws that are broken are all examples of Ohcinewin.
The Earth is female and the Clan mothers have a great connection to Mother Earth. The sweet grass is her hair and when they braid it they are braiding the hair of their mother. When a law is broken, the legal council is composed of the Clan mothers. Because they have known the person since even before they were born (the pregnant mother is considered to be bringing a soulfire from the Creator into the human world), and have watched the child grow and develop character, they understand how to best treat the breaking of a law. The treaties that speak of hunting and fishing rights are patriarchal and do not acknowledge the power held by the women of the clan. Women were left out of the treaties.
Some of the early Jesuit priests observed that there was almost no crime. Every child was born into responsibilities and relationships to others and was taught continually by their parents. They were born into a world that is meaningful. Those meanings were shared by all others in the clan. Each child was nurtured in right living. When wrong doing happened, such as harvesting too much of a plant species, or trapping a beaver and hurting it, or not sharing the bounty with others, ceremonies for apologizing and setting things right must take place. 
Europeans only honoured written treaties. But the nihiyaw had an oral tradition and history. Certain children were raised to remember and repeat what was said. Europeans had to be very careful in all negotiations. It is reported that a European could hardly believe that what he had said two years ago, at a treaty meeting, was repeated word for word by the Chief who was involved in the negotiations. 
When I read how hard the nihiyaw people tried in every aspect of their living to do the right thing and to live within the social compact with other humans and with all members of creation, from smudging and going to a clean and quiet place before doing something important, to making it right after breaking a law, I understood that if there was a higher or more advanced civilization when Treaty 6 was made, it was the nihiyaw and not the Europeans.
Roberta Cory

Book Review by Roberta Cory: “How Democracies Die”, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt

Without outside interference, my brain has been comparing and contrasting ideas regarding the ascendency of the Nazi party in Germany in 1933, the culpability of Martin Heidegger* and the fragility of Democracy. I ask, “Can we understand the historical times we live in, and can we act collectively in a positive way to ensure that truth (what is) is debated and not covered up?” 
Authors Levitsky and Ziblatt (L and Z) take a look at democracies around the world that have died. Although some have died from a military coup, others have gradually grown more and more authoritarian. These are the cases that are compared with the situation in the United States today under the Trump presidency. And they will sound familiar to Canadians who are just one election removed from the government of Stephen Harper. 
The first idea these authors put forward is that there is an unwritten understanding between citizens in a democracy of a larger belief system that cannot be found in the constitution or in the law books. This involves a commitment to dialogue and compromise in order to prevent totalitarianism from happening. In the United States it is called a system of checks and balances. The constitution does not list every single situation that is conceivable and gives each branch of the government (the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branch) considerable power. But U.S. presidents have not in the past (save the administration of FDR) used the power of veto, the power to declare war, the power to stack the court, to the extent that they could, because of their belief in the balance of the three branches of government. The Senate has the power of advice and consent. But they have generally confirmed the appointments to the Supreme Court if they were qualified, and have not politicized the judicial. The House and Senate could, if they wished, hold a president hostage by not authorizing funds for programs. But, until recently, this has not happened. The Congress can filibuster to prevent action on a bill, but this negative power has in the past been rarely used. The Constitution does not say how many positions there are on the Supreme Court. Several times in the past presidents have added or subtracted judges but not with overt political intent. Impeachment has not been used in a casual manner and was not intended to be used, since it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which means it must to some extent be bi-partisan. The unwritten understanding, the cement that holds a democracy together, is imbedded in the “robust norms of mutual toleration and forbearance.” Three cases that have challenged America’s democratic institutions are the presidency of FDR, McCarthyism, and the Nixon administration. But, in those cases, the U.S. did not go “off the rails.” “Politicians from both parties – and often, society as a whole – pushed back against violations that might have threatened democracy.” 
In the second half of this book, authors L and Z point to three moves by U.S. governments that are slipping toward an authoritarian regime. 
The first move is “Capturing the Referees.” Not all Republicans, although they may vote for the leader of their party, support all the positions and actions of their representative. Democracy depends upon dialogue within a party. If some of the party faithful are censored, threatened or coerced, democracy has failed. The press has always taken a critical position, more so when the government is unpopular, and less so when it has a high level of support from the people. But the integrity of journalism itself has not been questioned to the extent that it is today. The term “Fake News” undermines the confidence of the public in their ability to make decisions or even argue a position. Bombastic language, lies, generalities and abstractions instead of facts, and the threat of cyberwarfare neutralize the press and the media. 
The second move is “Sidelining Players.” This involves stricter voter identification laws based upon the false claim that voter fraud was widespread in the United States. In this situation, in effect the imposition of a “modern day poll tax,” poor voters of colour, recent citizens, and rural voters were discouraged from voting at all or were turned away at the voting booth. President Trump’s claim that voter fraud denied him votes (in states that Hilary Clinton won) undermines the public faith in the electoral process. 
The third move is “Changing the Rules” or tipping the playing field. For example, gerrymandering of Congressional districts is used to make sure the outcome of an election will be to a particular party’s advantage. The appointment of the president’s family to high positions in the government, where they are able to read and act on classified material and to act with the authority of the president, is tantamount to creating a dynasty. The power of the NRA is also covered in this book, prior to the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In supporting the NRA, the government is encouraging a citizen militia that may prove useful to it at some future date.
Here I will add my personal opinion: that conspiracy theories, whether in spy novels, 911 critics, or Bilderberg narratives, foster fearfulness. If the fabric of democracy is really based upon “robust norms of mutual toleration and forbearance,” then mistrust of other citizens is the acid that will dissolve it. There is a general fear that democracies are in decline all over the world. The authors show that this is not true, but if it is believed to be true, then that belief will weaken our resolve to protect democracy from totalitarianism. 
The last chapter of this book is entitled “Saving Democracy.” The authors point to the 1960s and 1970s, when true racial equality was finally fought for (repressive laws and attitudes having become the norm in various forms after the Civil War). In their opinion, people fearing loss of white supremacy flocked to the Republican party. This increasing polarization is what threatens Democracy; the authors fear that a cultural “war” will rip the country in two. Instead, they plea for cross cultural alliances and compromise, for the moment, on some fronts in order to push hard on other fronts. I feel the sense of danger that these authors are talking about, and I have to support their plea: that we keep our eye on the big picture, that freedom to speak our truths is something we all hold as precious, and that we cannot afford to let that die. The idea of Democracy is the glue that can hold us together. 
Roberta Cory
------------------------------

*Martin Heidegger was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century and the motivation for Hannah Arendt’s work, postmodern thought, feminist thought, and deconstruction. In Heidegger’s Germany of 1933, suppression of alternative “truths” (including firing of professors, performing book burnings, issuing propaganda and using brain washing techniques, and encouraging conspiracy theories) and persecution of Jews, gypsies, LGBT groups, Catholics, Quakers, and the physically and mentally “abnormal” gave the green light for extremism and the darkest forces of human nature to actualize themselves. 

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Book Review – Red Skin White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition by Glen Sean Coulthard

Roberta Cory 

Review – Red Skin White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition by Glen Sean Coulthard

 

Anyone who reads a review of a book should take into consideration the subjectivity of the reviewer (not deliberate bias, but for sure the background experiences, gender, and political position the reviewer comes from).  Short bio then: I am a synthetic thinker between the biological sciences, continental philosophy, and art/anthropology. As a female, a synthetic thinker, and an intellectual, I grew up alienated from my social circumstances. I have great empathy for righteous rage.

 

Red Skins, White Masks begins as an academic piece, covering the history of the subject of racial alienation and victimhood. It acknowledges the Hegelian dialectic of confrontation between the subject and the object (either/or thinking), French existentialism, colonialism, and the psychology of the oppressed. Coulthard follows the position of Frantz Fanon, psychiatrist, Marxist philosopher, and freedom fighter in the Algerian war for independence from France in two ways. First, by analysis of the term “recognition.” Second, in discussion of the term “resentment.”

 

In agreement with Fanon, Couthard makes the case that, in a master/slave, or colonist/colonized power imbalance, asking for recognition means that the terms and understanding of relationship are defined by the giver, and enforced by the giver, the party in power. But it goes deeper than that, since the mind of the colonized is under control of the colonizer. That is what is meant by the recent call to “decolonize your mind.” Whatever recognition is granted by the colonizer, the language, and culture, (the hegemony), of the party in power remains. In addition, the skin of the colonized is always an object of difference and speaks a history of victimhood.

 

“Resentiment,” from Nietzche, is the psychological position of wanting what those in power have, including wishing to have their skin, and to blend in. This is not a healthy position, and the only way to overcome it is to turn it around. Fanon affirms “violence” as the needed therapeutic in overthrowing the power of the hegemony. All revolutions for freedom and independence are violent. But there is a violence that stops short of revolution, when the property, the infrastructure, and the symbols of the oppressor are rendered impotent. When treaties, Acts, Rights, legislation, and determinates of status (written by the colonizing powers) are signed but not enforced (in other words, there is no mutual good intent between the signees) then the only way forward is “direct action.” 

 

First Nations are of two minds. The elected Council and Chiefs have not decolonized their minds. They want in on the capitalist game. They want to own the land which was taken away, in order to profit from resource exploitation. 

 

Coulthard devotes the last part of his book to the “spiritual” traditions which are still available, as a different relationship of Indigenous people to their land, which is that of sustainability. In a hunter, gatherer culture, humans are on an equal and not superior plane with all of the life and life sustaining systems in which they are imbedded. The understanding of a mutual, balanced, and not exploitive relationship with the earth is shared by deep ecologists, their potential allies in this last struggle to save the habitability of the planet. The issue of tradition is a gnarly one – we see it contested in the recent Supreme Court nominee hearings in the United States where a “pure, true way” of thinking from the writers of the U.S. Constitution is appealed to when settling ethical issues in the present reality. Many historians have shown that there is no “garden of Eden” to go back to and recreate. But within the reality of current issues (climate change) the capitalist paradigm of exploitation and resultant inequality does not hold and indigenous ways of dialogue, listening, respecting, and holding sacred are needed.

 

In his Conclusion, Coulthard says, “…the efficacy of Indigenous resurgence hinges on its ability to address the interrelated systems of dispossession that shape Indigenous peoples’ experiences in both urban and land-based settings.”  In earlier chapters he had drawn a distinction between time based and space based relationships. Colonial thinking is time based; ownership is determined by historical documents. Indigenous thinking is space based, rooted in the mutual relationship of the human animal to the land. For example, in colonial thinking, water rights belong to the person who owns the deed to the property. In Indigenous thinking, water, as it is essential to all life, is shared and protected as drinkable for all future generations. Mi’Kmaq scholar Bonita Lawrence is credited for her work on the necessity to repeal the “colonial divisions” which separate Native individuals from their land and their identities, and to work towards relationships of mutual empowerment. This implies traditional teaching and healing within the urban environment, access to the Native land and the Indigenous people still living on it, economic and political aid from urban Indigenous people who are in a position to give it, and a curb on gentrification of Indigenous low income spaces in the city. 

 

Dory Nason, Anishinaabe feminist, is the second woman Coulthard credits with taking on the issue of colonial divisions, in this case perpetuated between genders in her work towards Indigenous resurgence. Nason shows that the violence done through the residential schools, the Indian Act, and other state institutions has resulted in both material and symbolic misogyny. Yet with Idle No More and subsequent resistant actions women have taken the lead. The strength of women, their righteous anger, and their encompassing love, needs recognition from within the Native male community to heal the divisions created by the colonizers. 

 

One can read this book as relevant to all minority cultures oppressed and divided by their colonizers to render them either useful as serfs, neutralized by infra-conflicts, or terrorized by bullying. As a woman, all of the above pertains to me and my sisters. We have been useful as property; sex partners, mothers, caregivers, and domestic or field servants, we have squabbled amongst ourselves over degrees of oppression or privilege, over who is a true “female” (under the hegemony of dualism), and over “identities,” and we have been bullied by our fathers, our husbands, our bosses, and our firstborn males. So, I for one have great empathy for the situation this book tackles. In the spirit of inclusion and intersectionality, I have to recommend a book that not only takes on a most relevant topic, but, is universal in its message. 

 

Roberta Cory

Monday, April 4, 2016

Water is a Human Right: Protecting the Antler River

London Council of Canadians Meeting 
March 30, 2016 

 “Water is a Human Right: 
          Protecting the Antler River” 


Blog by Michael Loebach




Chief Leslee Whiteye 
Chippewas of the Thames First Nation 




Chief Whiteye gave her thoughts on the impact of water as essential to all life. Her nation is downstream from London and wishes to act on water issues, but it seeks to develop relationships with the various entities in the stream, as no one can work on this alone, and actions of the different entities impact others in the stream. Complacency is a problem; thinking someone else will take care of this; the results can show as in Flint, Michigan. The different users of water for fishing, recreation, and industry, both in First Nations areas and in urban areas, must consider the impact on safety and the future, of their use of the water, and be accountable for their impact. Recently, her nation has joined with two other local ones to work together with the City of London to develop a policy with respect to sustainable water use. This is how her ancestors did things with neighboring nations in the past. Water’s well-being is critical to our social, cultural and spiritual well-being. Her hope is that the process with the city will be respectful, not just picking sides, as that leads to litigation, costs, and no results; give and take is needed. Her nation respects the municipal structures but needs to be consulted, and the two entities need to problem solve together and to combat complacency and not leave the issue to industry. 


Grandmother Irene Peters 
Munsee Delaware First Nation 




Grandmother Irene described herself as a Great Lakes Water Walker of the Turtle Clan. She said that she did not want to talk negatively, but that water had to be respected and looked after and not have garbage thrown in. The water is a living spirit; life must be respected; no one should take away life, least of all their own; they need to wait to be called. She had a stroke and felt it was her time, but then she saw that she was not being called. She looked to water to heal, going to a sweat lodge to throw water over hot rocks, to connect with her grandparents, to pray, to heal, and to look for help from the water spirit. She drank water to heal from her stroke and to rehabilitate. In the full moon ceremony there is a connection to grandmother moon, who needs to be trusted, who regulates water, looking to women to purify, and to learn; and to grandfather fire to which all goes to life. The young must learn to respect puberty and menstruation and must learn that water is essential to birth and comes before the baby. She tried to join the Water Walker, Grandmother Josephine Mandamin, in her walk around Lake Superior, but she missed her at that time. She then joined her later to walk around other Great Lakes. She learned how water heals; a doctor had given up on life for a baby, but the baby was brought to the water on the walk, and was healed. An older man with a leg problem (he had been hit by a truck) came and was healed, as he believed water could heal. 


Steve Sauder 
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 




Steve spoke of the Thames River, which has various names, including Antler River. He spoke of his youth when he was curious about nature and spent time at a farm in the countryside and at an outdoor school. Recently he had the opportunity to go to Belize and explored nature, found 115 species of plant and animal life new to him, and was able to connect to nature. He spoke of a 16 year old who was hired by the Authority, who had no formal training in nature, but stood out for his love of nature; he is Scott Dillingwater, and he is now a world-renowned expert on turtles. Scott has headed a project of reproduction of soft shell turtles, which has taken 15 years of work; this year they were able to release 4,000 baby turtles into the river, the survival of which is a strong indicator of river health. Habitat is crucial; they saw that the Avon River banks were barren; there were no tree or plant buffers, but after restoring these they now see brook trout. Wetlands need to be restored, and phosphorous management needs to be more strongly emphasized. They are working on projects in Glen Cairn and Ingersoll. He then showed a video on Scott Dillingwater, which showed soft  shell turtle nests and the release of baby turtles into the river. 


Tom Cull 
Thames River Rally 




Tom spoke about Thames River Rally, a project he started in 2012 with his partner, Miriam, who decided to do a clean up of the river in the Carfrae Park area; in the first year of this project, on the first day they got only one further participant; but with ongoing efforts and a newspaper article, the project has gone on for 5 years, and hundreds have been involved in various cleanup projects in the city. They have learned the links between the environment and social issues, such as poverty, homelessness and addiction, and they see that a strong river leads to a strong community. They have partnered with London Cares, an addiction control agency, and have placed needle bins in many areas, which get up to 4,000 needles per week thrown into them instead of into the river or on the banks. They have, for now, discarded the idea of forming a charity as they see it as too much paperwork, and they prefer using their energy and resources on direct action, in cleanup efforts. They are pursuing a dialogue with first nations and community health organizations. 


Scott Howe 
Grade 8 teacher 
Thames Valley District School Board 




Scott related his experiences with his grade 8 class, which developed Taps On/Taps Off research projects in art, science and math classes, and so became excited and motivated about water issues. At first, the purpose of Taps Off was to advocate shorter showers; then they got interested in broader issues, including the election, the Paris climate summit, and they also learned about First Nations problems with water, in which they had to turn their taps off because of pollution; they learned that the government said it would take ten years to fix, so they did research on the origins of the situation and why it might take that long. They researched the town of Alvinston, Ontario, where there was a water scare, and went to London city hall and spoke to staff for 70 minutes on water issues. They have also contacted David Suzuki to hear what he has to say about solutions to the climate problem. 


Bryan Smith 
OPAL (Oxford People Against the Landfill) 




Bryan spoke about the proposal to put mid-level Toronto garbage into a depleted limestone quarry near Ingersoll. This is an upstream problem (for London) which affects water in the air, on the surface and in the ground. The goals of OPAL are: a) to stop the dump; b) to get the city of Toronto to change its garbage shipment plan. They have held “trashapalooza” events, which are an exchange of used items to prevent them from being put into the garbage stream. 


Question and Answer Session 

Steve Sauder was asked about farm runoff and said that it was getting better and that bigger farms did not necessarily do worse on this. He was asked about phosphorous and said that testing was most important and useful and had to be done right. 

Chief Whiteye spoke about the ongoing efforts to get a friendship agreement between the City of London and First Nations. 

Mark Drewe, our videographer for this event, spoke about his group, which is planning a London-to-Lake St. Clair canoe and kayak trip down the Thames, and stated that Rogers has agreed to do a documentary about the trip.


(Photos courtesy of Mark Drewe)

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Remembering Gilbert Blanchette

Gilbert was a powerful human being and an incredible friend. He embodied what the movement is about - strong convictions for social justice, caring for others and empowering people to take action. Gilbert reached out to people everywhere he went. He was a constant community builder. If you met Gilbert, you didn't forget his charm, warmth, openness and passionate manner. He was a mentor to many and was dedicated to supporting women's political leadership.

 Gilbert was an activist long before he joined the Council of Canadians, relentlessly fighting for the rights of handicapped people. Gilbert worked behind the scenes in the London Chapter and was very active with the chapter's trade justice committee. He helped run events like protests, workshops and open mics. Gilbert's warm heart and dedication to the service of others will be remembered.

Gilbert's love and protection of the natural world is an inspiration not just to activists, but to all peoples; he had a deep spiritual connection to all living things. He was abundant in patience, wisdom, discipline and generosity. The London Chapter of the Council of Canadians grieves his passing and celebrates the beautiful and brave life he led. Many blessings to our friend, Gilbert Blanchette.

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Notes from the London Council of Canadians potluck on October 21, 2015 (including a letter to Justin re Protecting the Thames)

London Council of Canadians supporters collect water from the Thames River at the Forks.
Twenty two members celebrated the end of the Stephen Harper era at our October 21 potluck meeting held at the Mary Campbell Common Room. The room has a fresh coat of green paint and all chairs are new! It is a beautiful place to meet and we are indebted to Kathy Kaill for reserving it for us to use. Conversation was intense, and about the election of course. Thank you all for bringing such wonderful food to share. 

After we finished eating, the subject for discussion was “Where do we go from here?” Suggestions considered came from 350.org, the Council of Canadians, and the Green Party as well as others with proportional representation appearing at the top of most people’s lists.

 http://campaign2015.fairvote.ca 

Rod Morley volunteered to head up a group which would collect a bottle of Thames River water to deliver to Justin Trudeau on Nov. 7 as part of a “Climate Welcome” gift. 

http://climatewelcome.ca/water 

Rod wrote, and Meg edited, a letter (see below) from our chapter to Prime Minister Trudeau asking him to protect our river from toxic oil spills. Dimitri Lascaris agreed to accept the bottle of water and deliver it and our letter personally when he goes to Ottawa. 

We had a guest, Jim Joyce, formerly from London, who plans to relocate here from Yellowknife and wants to become active with our chapter. In Yellowknife they are opposing fracking. Jim serves as Treasurer for the Yellowknife chapter. 

Upcoming events: 

 1) The next monthly event will be our annual AGM, November 18, with our business meeting at 6:30 pm and our potluck at 7:30. It will be at the Mary Campbell Co-op common room. 

 2) Climate Rally in solidarity with the Paris Climate Conference - Victoria Park - Nov. 29 - 1 - 4pm 

 3) “This Changes Everything” a film by Avi Lewis and Naomi Kline, will have its London debut on Dec. 7 as part of our Cinema Politica program of monthly documentaries. Venue and details will follow. 

Roberta Cory, Chair 
London Chapter, Council of Canadians 

----------------------------------------- 

October 26, 2015 

Dear Justin, 

We, the Council of Canadians London Chapter, are writing to you today and sending along a water sample from the former Heritage River known as the Antler/Thames River from Southwestern Ontario. We are providing this gift to you to remind you of your pledge to safeguard Canada’s bodies of water. 

We in Southwestern Ontario are deeply concerned about the possible environmental damage that could occur to Antler/Thames River should the Line 9 pipeline rupture where it crosses this once protected waterway. The Line 9 pipeline is over forty years old and was never purposed to transport the heavy and toxic diluted bitumen that it is now authorized to carry. 

Many of us in Southwestern Ontario do not want to see the repeat of tragedy that occurred near Kalamazoo Michigan just over five years ago when the Line 6B pipeline ruptured, spilling diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River. The Line 9 pipeline was built at the same time, and was built with the same materials and safeguards as Line 6B. We wouldn’t want to see the same devastating result here in Canada, and would hold your two new London MPs responsible should they not heed our warnings and work to stop this accident waiting to happen. It isn't a matter of if it happens – it's when.  

The good people of Southwestern Ontario would love to open up a dialogue with a representative of your government to see if we could come up with alternatives to seeing the start of diluted bitumen – dilbit - being transported through this pipeline. We would love to see if we could come up with new ways to power Canada’s prosperity, without destroying the environmental treasure that is Southwestern Ontario. 

Yours in hope,

Council of Canadians London Chapter http://www.londoncouncilofcanadians.ca/

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Open Letter to Federal Candidates in the London, Ontario Area re Proportional Representation



Dear Candidate: 

Londoners need to hear about your support for a more proportional voting system. 

Last month, 530 academics, including over 30 Canada Research Chairs, signed an open letter calling on the parties to implement a more proportional voting system.

Supporters of a proportional system for Canada are almost unanimously in agreement that a made-in-Canada, proportional solution means we keep local representation, and all candidates face the voters. PR is not one system, it’s a principle - that no matter where you live, your vote should count, and that 39% of the vote should earn roughly 39% of the seats. The last ten Canadian commissions to study the question have recommended PR and 50 year of evidence from around the world strongly correlates proportional systems with higher voter turnout, policies which better reflect voters, stable governments and better representation for women. 

Party policy on electoral reform is already well known and does not need repeating. What Londoners need to hear now is your personal commitment to advocate for a more proportional voting system if you are elected on October 19. 

Many Londoners will be voting for change on October 19: you and your party stand to benefit from that trend. However that change will not be complete unless we also get a proportional voting system as part of electoral reform as well.  

We need your help to “make every vote count” in future elections. We would like to communicate your personal position on Proportional Representation to our organization’s supporters. Please communicate your position on this important issue to us at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, 

Meg Borthwick, Robert Cory, Roberta Cory, Geoff Crealock, Margo Does, David Heap, Celeste Lemire, Paula Marcotte, Julie Picken-Cooper, and Aldous Smith 

on behalf of the Council of Canadians, London Chapter

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Free Trade Shrinks Possibilities for Youth

“Trade agreements do not create jobs. Never have. Never will.” 
-- Michael Hart, Trade Policy, Carleton University 

Family Well-Being

Job security is a serious concern for everyone but especially weighs heavy in the hearts of parents of millennial children. Worry over shrinking opportunities for quality jobs is high here in Southwestern Ontario and throughout North America, particularly in traditional manufacturing regions. Caterpillar, Kellogg’s, Heinz closures come to mind. Your list may differ from mine but the disappearance of community infrastructure since the NAFTA 90’s is a shared experience. You know the story: parent company makes cuts, workers unite to protect a living wage, factory closes then reopens in a cheaper trade zone. NAFTA inspired the era of offshore and North Americans see its signs in their shrinking bank accounts and higher debt. Under free trade regimes that follow the NAFTA template (like the TPP) multitudes have, and will experience more family duress. 

Corporate Trade Creates Job Insecurity

There is a difference between having a job and job security. This difference has been experienced over and over by Canadian, American, and Mexican families under NAFTA. Over two decades into this next generation trade deal and all three signatory countries have seen rising unemployment and the swapping of full-time jobs for part-time work. It’s cause and effect — free trade’s admitted purpose is to send goods and services around the globe with no interference. This encourages corporations to move to where rent is cheaper. Canada has lost over 500 000 manufacturing jobs since factories left in 1989, the start of the new free trade. The closures haven’t stopped. Public Citizen data shows that over 845, 000 people are registered for compensation for job loss from free trade called Trade Adjustment Assistance in the US. The reality for both countries has likely been more undocumented job losses while large corporations abandon community relationships. The redeeming factor of NAFTA should have been the raising of quality of life in Mexico. But Mexico too has experienced lower wages and worse conditions in competitions for the cheapest costs. The Maquiladora free trade factory zones have become heavily concentrated with health and safety violations. Mexico lost over 2 million agriculture jobs because of the US’ subsidized corn industry. These deals lower standards and destroy community-business relations because of their purpose — to remove barriers to investors profits. We can do better with our trade designs but not until people know about their importance. There is more data but do we need it? We know unemployment has risen through the free trade years: we see community members out of work, we see the continual closure of mom–and–pop shops, and we see people desperate, yet hopeful, for job security. 

The TPP

There are trade and investment deals in negotiation now that are based on the NAFTA model but whose impacts will be broader. The Transpacific Partnership (TPP), a deal between the NAFTA countries and nine other Asia-Pacific nations, if passed, will set NAFTA-style norms for 40% of the world’s economy and include more sectors. That’s a lot of families whose jobs and wealth will be influenced. The TPP will make it easier for companies to offshore in places like Vietnam where minimum wage is approximately 60 cents per hour. We don’t typically think of minimum wage as a trade issue, but in the new deals, labour standards have been framed as an illegal barrier preventing investor profit. Egypt was sued in trade court for raising its minimum wage. Focusing on the cheapest deliverables cheapens society. The problem lies not in particular people or particular corporations but in a system that promotes business at the expense of communities. 

A Caring Economy for Families

There are many opportunities to create diverse trade patterns and raise the quality of society through ethical business. Some of the most popular businesses are becoming those that invest in social relationship and community well-being. Trade structures will need to respond to this change. People are returning to their local roots. We are beginning to emerge from free trade fog and it is every day people beckoning forth the change through what they desire — local food, local history, regional travel, and the emerging consciousness that every community needs to take care of its local fabric and workforce. This keeps us sovereign and fed! Let us continue to incent entrepreneurship in our communities and peel back the aspects of free trade that stifle local infrastructure. We are better than policy that offshores our children’s dreams only to break down communities elsewhere. This is one step forward for a program of trade that is healthy. Our families and children are worth it. Fair trade that nourishes communities could be our legacy.

Jennifer Chesnut

Trade Justice London 
London, Ontario Chapter
Council of Canadians

Originally published here:

http://newgenerationtrade.com/2015/05/24/free-trade-continues-to-shrink-kids-chances/

The Great Turning – Negotiations for Public Power

Who will control our power in this crucial decade? 

With the race for climate security on, energy is risky (and expensive) business to be run by corporations. We know there has been irreversible damage to the atmosphere, land and waters. We feel shame and we want change. More serious than the carbon impact of one company, the risks of regional management by a fossil fuel cartel are many. A sustainable energy future requires public control. What will it take for the government of Canada to follow the people’s will? 

The Great Turning 

We live in a time of contrast that raises hope and fear. We put our heads in the sand or open our minds to the question – how can I serve? For me the pressure brings both responses: hope inspired by creative localization, and fear and grief from the dismantling of the commons by private interests. David Korten, and other progressives, call this time of tumultuous change: the Great Turning. Trade and investment pacts are mechanisms of the power crisis because they are the long-term platform for the extraction-privatization of nations. With the new deals, city assets and municipal energy bodies are being traded on the free market. In Ontario where I live provincial and municipal energy service is in the process of being privatized. Selling this people’s asset without permission, and hiring private corporations to run it into perpetuity, is a deal breaker for me. In these energy shaky times, I want the next generation to inherit a public system. This knowing is resultant from more than my Tar Sands shame. Privatizing the energy of Canada’s most populous province risks essential stuff, like affordable rates and service quality. In this blog I explore why energy sectors should not privatize, and if they do, never through trade. I also ask questions about the plans to deregulate Ontario energy. 

Extreme Risks 

 What does it mean to have corporations be in charge of energy? Very few of us can survive off the grid – the majority rely on public energy. All day long we employ energy sources in service of our eating, bathing, working, learning. Nearly all our activities are beholden to shared power. Just like water, energy is essential and the quality of our lives depends on its availability. Many problems can arise when energy becomes managed by for-profit interests. With privatization (or p3ing) we frequently see: decreased access, service limitations, job cuts, rate increases, and environmental risks. California saw rolling blackouts when they privatized. Ontario has its own privatization stories that have increased stress and expense like the 407 highway and Hamilton city water. Because of repeated problems, many municipalities are bringing energy (and other life-dependent sectors) back to public hands. Hamburg Germany residents won an energy referendum in 2013 and are in the process of bringing their energy service fully public again. The purpose behind the “Our Hamburg, Our Grid” campaign is to reclaim public authority in order to create a system based in renewables. Under a North American style trade treaty, like CETA-TTIP, this change could be difficult. 

Ontario announces privatization 

Ontario’s premier, Kathleen Wynne, recently announced her intention to sell 60% of the public’s energy shares. Last week, at the London town hall for a public Hydro One, Andrea Horwath, MPP for Hamilton and head of the Ontario NDP party, announced that this number could reach 90% or higher. The transfer of power remains regardless of the percentage, however, Horwath shared this — if Ontario ownership reaches below 10%, the legislation implies that the public will be barred from bringing it back to public control. Why privatize a successful crown corporation that has been generating funds and providing stability since 1906? The government says they will privatize Hydro One to build other public infrastructure – transit lines, roads and bridges with an anticipated 4 billion of the sales, and to pay off debt with the other anticipated 5 billion. This asset makes 300 million a year in dividend income for Ontario people. Why sell it off for small short-term gain when the return is long-term losses forever? The danger for our future is not only the loss of reliable consistent funding but also the ability to shape our energy program and monitor its integrity. The auditor general and provincial ombudsperson have warned that they will no longer be able to monitor a private Hydro One. 

Plausible Future Outcomes 

Big business investors cannot focus on equitable rates and environmental impacts at the expense of their bottom-line. Company survival depends on increasing profit. This does not an-evil-corporation-make, but a dangerous mismatch of public need with private goals. How do energy corporations manage their quarterly profit targets? Increases in rates, decreases in service, or cutting of jobs is likely. What else can do they do to make more money in a context that requires profit growth? In a future Hydro One, we would have no shareholder voice to create renewable infrastructure. The premier knows that we must take care of the climate. She announced a commitment to dealing with climate change this spring. However, encouraging corporations to run Ontario’s energy is fundamentally incongruent with sustainability. Ontario public energy was previously funding renewables until local procurement provisions were banned by the World Trade Organization. Trade law gets in the way of environmental change. 

More of the story can be found here: http://newgenerationtrade.com/2015/04/21/earth-day-isnt-just-for-turning-off-lights/ 

Ontario Energy and Trade Pacts 

The government should not make key policy and structural changes without a public mandate. Doing this behind closed doors and legislating far into the future through trade treaties, like the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), encourages skepticism. For the first time Canadian energy entities of provincial jurisdiction, like Hydro One, and municipal jurisdiction, like Toronto Hydro, will be ruled through international treaty law. According to the CETA text, Ontario’s energy, including Hydro One, the Ontario Energy Board, and major municipal entities are not protected by Annex reservations. On the European side of CETA-TTIP, sustainable energy choices are also not protected. Europeans will lose their ability to favour cleaner energy sources or suffer the threats of ISDS lawsuits. 

Taking Back Power from the CETA-TTIP 

There are many things that work in a profit model, and many that don’t! Corporate energy systems, that put us at risk of going even higher in parts per million, is not on my list of what the generation after us should inherit. What I love about this time is the sweet significance it holds. The Great Turning is abundant with ways to make purpose of our quiet lives. It’s a time of opportunity to think about what we stand for and what we can do to make things better for those coming next. How we power this planet should not be decided by a management team of large corporations nor secretly designed in a trade deal. What you will you do with your power in the Great Turning? What part of story do you feel compelled to voice? Canadian economist Marjorie Griffin Cohen, back in the early days of new trade, in a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study, says this of energy: “It is an industry that provides for human survival in a densely populated and complex world. Electricity is the basic infrastructure for every industry. The significance of who controls its generation and supply cannot be overstated.” After all, energy is an expression of our collective power as a civilization. Right now that power is being taken away. There are so many other possibilities. Let’s shine a light on them. 

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/electricity.pdf

Jennifer Chesnut

Trade Justice London 
London, Ontario Chapter
Council of Canadians

Originally published here:
http://newgenerationtrade.com/2015/06/02/the-great-turning-negotiations-for-public-power/