Daily Archives: December 9, 2015

Politics, Activism, climate science, Naomi Klein

With a 1.5 degrees celsius target, the climate-justice movement is poised to score a surprise win.

Leave a comment

Pressure from activists and vulnerable countries has shifted the discussion away from a 2 degrees C target—a virtual death sentence for millions of people.

COP21
Hundreds of environmentalists arrange their bodies to form a message of hope and peace in Paris, France, as the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) continues near the French capital. (Reuters / Benoit Tessier)

By Mark Hertsgaard, reposted from The Nation, Dec 7, 2015

Paris—Here at the Paris climate summit, the big news is that the final agreement governments hope to sign by week’s end may urge limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This would represent a major shift from the current international goal of 2 degrees C as well as a historic—and surprising—victory for the world’s poor and most vulnerable nations. Their representatives, joined by climate-justice activists, have long criticized the 2 degrees C goal as a virtual death sentence for millions of people already suffering from the sea-level rise, harsher droughts, and other impacts unleashed by the 1 degree C of temperature rise measured to date.

“If it were New York City or London that was disappearing beneath the waves like some of these Pacific Island states are, I guarantee you there wouldn’t be any debate about 2 degrees versus 1.5 degrees,” Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International, told The Nation. “We need to set an official target of 1.5 C, challenging as it will be to meet it, in order to save as many people as possible.”

Previously dismissed by most wealthy countries as economically unrealistic, the 1.5 degrees C target has reemerged at the Paris summit due to a confluence of factors: increased recognition by many wealthy countries that even 2 degrees C will bring ruinous changes to food, water, and other vital systems; a more unified diplomatic posture on the part of the 100-plus poor and highly vulnerable countries on record supporting a 1.5 degrees C target; and relentless pressure from civil society.

Civil society has been creative, outspoken, and even boisterous during the first week of the UN climate summit, despite the official ban on large public gatherings that canceled a massive march intended to greet world leaders arriving a week ago. If pressure is sustained during the second and final week of negotiations, said former heads of state, business executives, and climate-justice activists on Sunday, the summit could end up endorsing a long-term target of 1.5 degrees C, an agreement of unprecedented ambition.

After French authorities banned large outdoor marches in Paris following the November 13 terrorist attacks, climate activists accepted the decision but quickly devised alternative methods of making their voices heard. Thousands joined hands to form a human chain along the two-mile route of the cancelled march, while hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in cities around the world. Also in Paris, activists placed an estimated 20,000 shoes in the Place de la République to symbolize people who were prohibited from marching. Pope Francis donated plain black dress shoes; Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, donated a pair of jogging shoes.

On Saturday, Nation contributors Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein hosted a mock trial of ExxonMobil at a “People’s Climate Summit,” held in the Parisian suburb of Montreuil. The next day, activists carried 196 office chairs through the square facing the Montreuil city hall—chairs that had been “liberated” from banks throughout France. “These chairs were requisitioned to reveal the links between the tax evasion practiced by big banks and the lack of funding needed against climate change, particularly the $100 billion a year for adaptation that wealthy countries have promised poor countries but that has been blocked by financial elites,” said Cindy Wiesner of the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance. “Thirty trillion dollars disappears every year into the black hole of tax havens that these banks control, tax havens that benefit criminals and murderers—drug cartels, gun traffickers, and the banks themselves. These 196 chairs represent the 196 countries whose people deserve a seat at the table for a just global economy.”

“We need civil society to keep the pressure up for the rest of this week,” Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, said Sunday in remarks to a “Development and Climate Days” conference urging “zero poverty, zero emissions.” “We need to remind negotiators of what world leaders said in their speeches on Monday, which was very good,” said Robinson, who now heads the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice. “It was about ambition, it was about people, it was about justice.”

The French president, François Hollande, for example, said, “We cannot accept that the poorest countries, those with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, are the most vulnerable. It is therefore on behalf of climate justice that we must act.” Hollande added that temperature rise must be limited to 1.5 C “if possible.”

Two days later, Jochen Flasbarth, the state secretary of Germany’s Ministry of the Environment, said the 1.5 C goal “must be mentioned” in the summit’s final agreement and confirmed that this was the official position of the German government, reported the online news service Climate Home. Thus the 1.5 C goal has now been endorsed by the host nation of the summit as well as Europe’s strongest economy.

On Monday, a delegation from the European Parliament came to the summit to support a 2 C target, but “1.5 C is obviously a better target,” said Matthias Groote of Germany, the spokesperson for the environmental group of the delegation. Stressing that he was not authorized to take a position for the European Parliament as a whole, Groote added that, “personally, of course I would prefer a 1.5 C target. At the end of the day, it will not be as expensive as the 2 C target, so if we can achieve a global agreement on this, let’s grab that chance.”

Also on Monday, Todd Stern, the chief US negotiator in Paris, reaffirmed that the United States has heard the concerns of poor and vulnerable nations and is open to adjusting the final text regarding the 1.5 C goal. “The goal isn’t going to change, the goal is to hold the temperature [rise] as far below 2 degrees as possible,” Stern told a press conference at the Le Bourget convention center. “We are working with other countries, with our island state friends and other developing countries, and developed countries, on language toward that end.”

The agreement taking shape in the lead up to the Paris summit was “not good enough,” as it would produce at least 3 degrees Celsius of temperature rise by 2100, Robinson told The Nation. But the world is capable of much better, she added, noting that she had just attended an event where top business executives had pledged that their companies would achieve zero net carbon emissions by 2050.

“Carbon neutral by 2050, we will have 35 years to get there,”Richard Branson, the CEO of Virgin, said at the event organized by the self-described B Team Robinson referenced, which includes Unilever and Marks & Spencer. “It’s actually just not that big a deal,” Branson continued, “but we need clear long-term goals set by governments this week. Give us that goal and we will make it happen.” The B Team contends that putting the world on track for zero net emissions by 2050 would also “keep the door open” to eventually limiting temperature rise to 1.5 C.

Also giving credence to the possible adoption of the 1.5 C goal in any agreement this week in Paris was Saleem ul Huq, a scholar and activist who directs the International Center for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh. Huq has trained many of the diplomats representing the 48 Least Developed Nations at past climate summits, and he remains privy to their deliberations.

“I foresee that we will get an agreement including the 1.5 C goal,” Huq told The Nation. “Nobody wants to walk away from Paris without an agreement, neither the rich countries nor the poor countries. The Least Developed Countries have a clear position: World leaders must agree to support and protect all of the people on earth, not just some of them. The language that rich countries are now offering would commit the world to a long-term goal of keeping temperature rise ‘well below 2 C.’ Poor countries, though, are insisting that the long-term goal must be 1.5 C, and I think they’ll get it. President Obama and most world leaders seem receptive to this language, and we’ll spend the next week beating up on any other nations that try to block it.”

In the United States, mainstream media focused on war, terrorism, and presidential politics are paying relatively little attention to the Paris summit. Sunday’s online edition of The Washington Postcarried five lines about the summit; the Sunday New York Times ran a single article. Mainstream European media are much more engaged; The Guardian in particular is providing in-depth, timely coverage.

Meanwhile, activists are relying on social media to spread their message. Huq noted that the 1.5 C goal already has its own hashtag, #1o5C, which he said supporters have been tweeting along with selfies of the 1.5 C hand signal: The pinkie of the right hand forms the 1, the other four fingers are circled to form the decimal point, and all five fingers of the left hand are spread to make the five. As he demonstrated the gesture for a reporter, Huq broke into a beaming smile. SOURCE

Politics, climate science

Kerry signals U.S. support for ambitious 1.5-degree goal in climate deal

Leave a comment
Kerryarrivesparis
US Secretary of State John Kerry gestures upon his arrival at Le Bourget airport in the outskirts of Paris, Monday, Dec. 7, 2015. IMAGE: MANDEL NGAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS

By Andrew Freedman, reposted from Mashable, Dec 8, 2015

PARIS — The United States is in favor of incorporating an ambitious 1.5-degree Celsius warming limit into the climate agreement at the ongoing U.N. Climate Summit in Paris, also known as COP21, provided that the aspirational language wouldn’t replace the previously agreed-upon 2-degree target, Secretary of State John Kerry told Mashable on Monday.

Speaking in a Facebook Live interview, Kerry said he is sympathetic to the the position of small island states, as well as other nations that are more vulnerable to climate impacts. Those countries are seeking the more ambitious climate target, instead of the already agreed-upon target of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels through 2100.

 

SEE ALSO: Why COP21 matters: These islands will disappear if nothing changes

“I think we should embrace it as a legitimate aspiration,” Kerry said of the more ambitious goal. But though the U.S. would favor including wording that supports a 1.5-degree limit, it wants to keep the official target at 2 degrees to ensure broader support for the climate deal.

“I mean anything we can do to go below 2 [degrees] is to the benefit, so we shouldn’t say, ‘No, don’t even think about it,'” Kerry said. “But I don’t think we can make it the embraced targetable goal because we lose people when we head that way, and we want to keep this moving in the right direction.”

Other countries at the Paris talks, namely Saudi Arabia, have sought to keep references to 1.5 degrees Celsius out of the agreement. In fact, Saudi Arabia has fought any inclusion of conclusions from a U.N. panel that examined a 1.5-degree target and found it to be less risky than if the climate were to warm by a global average of 2 degrees Celsius. That report was requested at a previous round of climate negotiations.

Representatives of the small island countries and the Climate Vulnerable Forum, some members of which believe that their very survival is on the line in a Paris agreement, have adopted the slogan “1.5 to stay alive” and made sure it has permeated the climate talks both inside the halls of the negotiating site in Le Bourget, on the outskirts of Paris, as well as around the world.

Kerry, who was speaking just two hours after arriving in Paris from the U.S., said a Paris agreement could stimulate a massive shift in the private sector, away from fossil fuel investment and into clean energy research, development and deployment. He said if the world follows through on provisions in a potential agreement, it’s still possible to hold global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius in the long run.

Marshall Islands
This Nov. 8, 2015 aerial photo shows a small section of the atoll that has slipped beneath the water line only showing a small pile of rocks at low tide on Majuro Atoll in the Marshall Islands. IMAGE: ROB GRIFFITH/ASSOCIATED PRESS

However, many scientific studies show this would require a herculean effort involving negative carbon emissions sometime between 2050 and the year 2100.

“I believe we get to … 2 degrees or less, and that is sufficient to being able to protect the island nations and other low-lying nations from the worst effects,” Kerry said.

 

“We’re already stuck, unfortunately, because of the delays that have taken place with some level of [climate adaptation], and so I’m very sympathetic with every one of those countries” that are seeking 1.5 degrees as the climate target, Kerry said.

He said the more ambitious target would break the consensus that is emerging around an agreement:

“I think we also have to think about how do we build the consensus that gets everyone on board with an agreement, and for some countries that might wind up being a bridge too far but we should embrace it as a legitimate goal, as an aspiration, without tying us to something that is unachievable at this point.”

Later, during a Q&A with Mashable at the Earth to Paris event held at Le Petit Palais, in conjunction with the U.N. Foundation and other organizations, Kerry described the 1.5-degree target as something to be taken note of in the agreement, rather than the agreement’s central goal.

“It needs to be an adjunct to the notion that the formal goal of the agreement is 2 degrees, but yes, we all need to take note that it would be better if we can move in the direction of some further reduction,” Kerry said. “And I think that would be a way of trying to get the best of both worlds, because we still have to get consensus from a lot of countries for whom the whole picture is going to be very important.”

Kerry has long been a fixture at climate summits, dating back to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 that led to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Now, 21 climate summits later (hence the numeral in “COP21”), he says this time is different, with far greater likelihood of succeeding.

“Now is the time, this is the moment,” he said.

One feature of this climate summit that was absent all the ones that have come before it is that there is a large, diverse and global activist movement pushing leaders to act, and businesses from Google to Amazon working to reduce their emissions. These ingredients should help COP21 succeed, Kerry said.

“I’ve been at this a long time, I was in Kyoto when we did the mandatory reductions, and countries were too distrusting of each other to be able to do it that way. Now the science has grown, people are much more persuaded,” he said.

Kerry speaks out on climate finance, legal status of agreement

In addition to the temperature target, other sticking points in the climate talks that still need to be resolved include the agreement’s legal nature as well as its financial aid provisions. Kerry addressed both issues on Monday.

Kerry said the U.S. is pushing for language that provides for all countries to contribute to financial aid for countries affected by climate impacts.

“… It is time to get rid of this rigid differentiation between developed and developing [countries] in a way that has – that prevents us from maximizing our progress forward,” he said.

“The world has changed and Paris needs to reflect that change,” he said, noting that at the time of previous climate talks South Korea had been receiving aid from the U.S., but it now provides aid to other countries as it has grown economically. “It is an absolute fact that the developing countries are the majority of emissions,” he said.

Kerry said the U.S. and other developed countries need to live up to the previous agreement struck in Copenhagen in 2009 to provide at least $100 billion in climate finance a year by 2020. “We have our obligation and we need to live up to it,” he said.

“Going beyond that, I believe we need to find a way to continue that kind of contribution because there are countries out there that don’t have the money” to fund programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to global warming impacts.

He said a critical component of a COP21 agreement, however, will be to allow for commercial partnerships and other financial deals between nations of all sizes that help to address climate change.

Kerry’s comments come as ministers on hand for the final phase of the climate talks begin to grapple with climate finance, which is an issue that is likely to go down to the wire at these talks. Developing countries are skeptical about the U.S. stance on this issue, as well as that of other industrialized countries, because only about $64 billion of the $100 billion called for in 2009 has so far been committed.

He also provided insight into why U.S. negotiators have been particularly sensitive about inserting language into the proposed agreement that would require the U.S. to take particular actions. The word “shall” has come under particular scrutiny, for example.

“Well, the frank and simple answer is that certain legal – certain terms have legal impact and certain legal impacts have political impact, and certain political impact can kill the agreement,” Kerry said.

The Obama administration is aiming to avoid the need to submit a Paris deal to the Senate for ratification, since the Republican-controlled chamber would almost certainly vote it down. SOURCE

RELATED:

John Kerry: Remarks on COP21 and Action Beyond Paris

Preventing Ecocide, Politics, democracy

Historic Supreme Court Victory Against Rio Tinto: First Nations Join Forces to Ensure that Private Companies Account for Past Damages

Leave a comment
Rio Tinto says it accepts the court’s decision. (Radio-Canada Archives)

Press Release from Director of the Office for the Protection of Rights and the Territory, ITUM , Dec 9, 2015

OTTAWA, Dec. 9, 2015 /CNW Telbec/ - Following their recent victories in Canadian courts against the Rio Tinto multinational mining company, First Nations communities from Quebec and British Columbia are speaking with a single voice to let all natural resource companies know that they can no longer hide behind governments. Any company wishing to develop the natural resources of the traditional territory of a First Nation cannot ignore its rights and must obtain its consent.

On the occasion of the meeting of Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada, the Innu Chiefs of Uashat mak Mani-utenam and Matimekush-Lac John in Quebec and the Chiefs of the Saik’uz and Stellat’en First Nations in British Columbia have publicly shared their historic joint victory in the Supreme Court ofCanada over mining giant Rio Tinto, handed down on October 15, 2015. The Supreme Court released its decisions in the two cases on the same day because, although the cases are somewhat different, both involved a similar ploy by Rio Tinto to avoid meeting its legal responsibilities toward First Nations.

“The Supreme Court of Canada was quite clear,” said Mike McKenzie, Chief of Uashat mak Mani-utenam. “Canadian courts can hear our communities’ lawsuits against Rio Tinto or any other company. After doing everything it could to delay the legal process, Rio Tinto will finally have to answer for its actions.”

It is important to note that this rejection of Rio Tinto’s demands by Canada’s highest court sets a major precedent. This ruling clearly establishes the right of First Nations to take direct legal action against a company without being required to have this right recognized beforehand by a court or a government. The result is an immutable right to sue a company.

“We were able to see the similarities in our struggles and to appreciate the courage of our Innu brothers against the mining company,” said Chief Stanley Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation. “Like us, they had to show determination in fighting Rio Tinto’s lack of respect for our rights.”

Chief Réal McKenzie of Matimekush-Lac John added: “Our meeting confirms the culture of denial and injustice that prevails at some companies and that has being going on since the 1950s. In Western andEastern Canada, we will do everything we can to make sure that history does not repeat itself and that companies wishing to exploit the resources can no longer act to our detriment.”

The Supreme Court ruling marks another major advance following the Tsilhqot’in ruling. It is worth remembering that the Supreme Court in that ruling warned developers and governments that they could avoid disruption of their activities by seeking First Nations’ consent when using or exploiting their territory.

“With our historic ruling against Rio Tinto, all First Nations now have an important tool to ensure that companies obtain the necessary social license for their development projects,” stated Chief Archie Patrick of the Stellat’en First Nation. “As of now, all private companies operating on our lands require our consent.”

SOURCE Director of the Office for the Protection of Rights and the Territory, ITUM

Preventing Ecocide, Politics, Activism

Take Action! Brazil, India, China, South Africa: Sign a 100% clean energy deal

Leave a comment

Petition for Avaaz, Dec 9, 2015

Great news from the global climate talks in Paris!

A coalition of more than 100 countries just announced itself and said it was going to drive through an ambitious legal climate agreement! But to get that deal — China, Brazil, India and South Africa need to come on board. We have 48 hours to to win on 100% clean. Add your voice now and tell everyone — for every 10,000 of us who sign, delegates will get an SMS straight to their phone inside the plenary:

Preventing Ecocide, Politics, democracy

Paris climate change conference: Highlights from day 9

Leave a comment

Developing nations ask for more, China cites smog as a factor in its green shift, John Kerry points to a more aggressive target and the Vatican puts on a light show

The facade of St. Peter's Basilica turned into a massive backdrop for a photo light show about nature Tuesday. The show was a gift to Pope Francis to mark the beginning of his Holy Year of Mercy.
The facade of St. Peter’s Basilica turned into a massive backdrop for a photo light show about nature Tuesday. The show was a gift to Pope Francis to mark the beginning of his Holy Year of Mercy. RICCARDO DE LUCA / AP

By: The Associated Press, reposted from TheStar, Dec 8, 2015

Developing nations call for more

Major developing countries taking part in climate talks outside Paris called on wealthy nations to increase their financial support to help poor countries to cope with global warming.

In a joint statement, the delegations of China, India, Brazil and South Africa urged rich nations to “progressively and substantially scale up their support” beyond their collective pledge of $100 billion in annual climate financing by 2020.

Indian Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar told reporters that rich countries “have not made much headway” toward the $100 billion that they pledged in 2009.

RELATED:

Is holding warming to 1.5 degrees realistic?

Radical innovation is necessary to hold warming to Paris targets, experts

Rich countries say they are on track to fulfil that pledge, pointing to an OECD report this year which said climate finance for developing countries reached $62 billion last year.

The rich nations are also encouraging some major developing nations including China to join the donors. China has pledged more than $3 billion in climate finance but stresses it’s a voluntary contribution.

The U.S. points to a more aggressive target

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says he believes the climate change agreement being negotiated outside Paris can make a reference to the desires of the most vulnerable states to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So far the U.N. climate talks have been guided by a goal of keeping the temperature rise below 2 degrees C, compared with pre-industrial times. But some developing countries want an even stronger target, including small island nations who fear that they will be inundated by rising seas.

Kerry told reporters Tuesday that negotiators were working on ways to keep the 2-degree target, while also acknowledging “the aspiration to reach 1.5 if it’s doable.”

He says “I think you can write that aspiration into the agreement in a way that doesn’t make it a target.”

Scientific analyses of the pledges countries have made to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions say they would put the world on track for around 3 degrees Celsius of warming.

At St. Peter’s, for one night only

The Vatican held a special public art installation timed to coincide with the final stretch of climate negotiations in Paris.

On Tuesday night, the facade of St. Peter’s Basilica turned into a massive backdrop for a photo light show about nature organized by several humanitarian organizations.

The initiative, featuring images by National Geographic and well-known photographers including Sebastiao Salgado, was similar to ones that used the U.N. headquarters and the Empire State Building in New York as backdrops.

Pope Francis has strongly backed the environmental cause, issuing a landmark encyclical in which he blasted the fossil-fuel-based economy for impoverishing much of humanity and destroying the planet.

Organizers offered the installation as a gift to Francis to mark his Holy Year of Mercy, which began Tuesday.

China calls smog a lesson

The head of China’s delegation at U.N. climate talks said that the heavy smog in Beijing in recent days shows how important it is for the country to transition to clean sources of energy.

Xie Zhenhua, China’s special representative for climate change, told reporters that it’s normal for countries in the process of industrialization “to be suffering from pollution problems.”

He pointed to London, which had serious problems with smog linked to pollution from coal plants in the 20th century.

“That’s why we are stressing a low-carbon development in a transition to a green economy,” Xie said.

The latest bout of pollution in Beijing was the first to trigger a red alert under a two-year-old system. The smog has persisted despite the Chinese government’s stated priority of cleaning up the legacy of pollution left from years of full-tilt economic growth. Most of the smog is blamed on coal-fired power plants, along with vehicle emissions, construction and factory work.

China is the world’s top consumer of coal but has also become a leader in renewable energy, with rapid expansion of wind and solar power. SOURCE

 

Preventing Ecocide, Remediation and Restitution, solutions, Politics, racism

Canada Launches Inquiry Into Murdered Aboriginal Women and Opens the Door to Repealing ‘Racist’ Indian Act

Leave a comment

By Justin Ling, reposted from Vice, Dec 8, 2015

Speaking in front of representatives of indigenous communities from across Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised “nothing less than a total renewal of the relationship between Canada and First Nations Peoples.”

Trudeau stepped out before a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations in Gatineau, Quebec, on Tuesday, welcoming the congregation in a half-dozen different Aboriginal languages.

But while Trudeau reiterated five campaign promises, aimed at rebooting that strained relationship, his government wasn’t ready to commit to reforming the legislation that governs Ottawa’s relationship with many Aboriginals across the country — the Indian Act.

Of those commitments that the government did make on Tuesday, all five were met with raucous applause from the regional chiefs.

The most immediate was the commitment to launch an inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women that will aim to address the root causes, societal factors, government failings, and general circumstances that have contributed to, as Trudeau phrased it on Tuesday morning, that “national tragedy” of violence against indigenous women.

Meetings with families of women who have been killed, or who have gone missing, will begin as soon as Friday.

The government heeded calls from various indigenous people and organizations to hold off on the inquiry itself until enough stakeholders have had a chance to offer their input. Those consultations could take months, as the government tries to design the specifics of the inquiry, which will be launched some time in the next two years.

Carolyn Bennett, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, promised that the government will take “as long as it takes to get it right.”

Aboriginal women in Canada are six times more likely to be the victim of murder than non-Aboriginal Canadians, according to Statistics Canada. Given that Aboriginal men are even more likely to be murdered than non-Aboriginal men, calls have also been made to expand the inquiry for all Aboriginals, not just women.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which represents many urban-dwelling indigenuous people, called the inquiry a “bold step,” with National Chief Dwight Dorey adding that The plight of our 1,200 grandmothers, mothers, sisters, aunts, daughters, cousins and friends has been ignored for far too long,”

Trudeau also promised “significant” new investment in education for First Nations communities — a figure, if Trudeau sticks to his platform, which will total over $500 million in additional funding per year.

He also vowed to fulfill all of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While Trudeau has already promised to fulfill some of the committee’s recommendations, like increasing education funding, some — such as creating a statutory holiday to commemorate those who survived abuse at state-run residential schools, and re-writing the Canadian oath of citizenship to incorporate recognition of indigenous peoples — might prove more trickier to adopt.

One commitment that was immediately met with a standing ovation from the chiefs was a pledge to remove the cap that currently prevents the government from increasing funds for band councils’ budgets by more than two percent per year.

“It hasn’t kept up with the demographic realities of your communities, nor the actual costs of program delivery,” Trudeau told the assembly.

While the other promises made by Trudeau had already been addressed during the campaign, the prime minister offered a new commitment to the chiefs on Tuesday: to abolish laws adopted by the previous government that could hurt First Peoples.

“We will conduct a full review of the legislation unilaterally imposed on indigenous peoples by the previous government,” Trudeau said. “Where measures are found to be in conflict with your rights, where they are inconsistent with the principles of good governance, or where they simply make no public policy sense, we will rescind them.”

 

We will conduct a full review of the legislation unilaterally imposed on indigenous peoples by the previous government.

That promise, however, does not extend to the much-maligned piece of legislation that lays the groundwork for Ottawa’s relationship with indigenous communities — the Indian Act.

The Indian Act, which is nearly 140 years old, originally banned traditional religious and cultural practises, denied Aboriginals the right to vote, and restricted various types of trade with non-Aboriginals, amongst a host of other things.

The Indian Act has been amended extensively to remove many of its features, but it still governs how First Nations reserves elect their band councils, provide reserves with tax-exempt status, and ultimately vests financial decision-making in the hands of the Canadian government.

Asked on Tuesday whether the government would be open to repealing the legislation, Bennett said “absolutely.”

Bennett, alongside Minister for the Status of Women Patty Hajdu and Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould, announced the first details of the government’s inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women.

Wilson-Raybould, speaking specifically about the inquiry, said the Indian Act may come into play.

“It is a topic that could be the subject of discussion,” said Wilson-Raybould. “And not to presuppose the topics of the inquiry, but certainly we will be listening to the families, we will be listening to national Aboriginal organizations, and many others to look at how we can get to the root causes of poverty and marginalization, and certainly the governing structures on First Nations communities have something to do with that.”

But many First Nations are still divided about the best course of action. There is no consensus as to whether the law can be fixed, overhauled, replaced, or — as some conservative-minded academics and commentators have suggested — simply repealed, along with the entire reserve system.

Related: Police Say Indigenous Women Are Still Overrepresented in Canadian Murder Statistics

The law applies to First Nations — so-called ‘status Indians’ — and not to Canada’s Metis or Inuit communities.

Speaking on Tuesday, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Perry Bellegarde said that Canada has to “move beyond” the Indian Act. And he isn’t the first.

When the Liberal Government of the day in 2002 amended the legislation, the Assembly of First Nations slammed the changes as idle tinkering.

“The Indian Act is a racist document. Why should we build on a racist document?” Then-National Chief Matthew Coon Come told the CBC.

One of Coon Come successors’ in the job, Shawn Atleo, summed up the Indian Act in an op-ed for the Toronto Star in 2010.

“The Indian Act controls us from cradle to grave. When we are born, the act lets the government decide who is and is not an Indian. When we die, the act gives the government control over our wills and estates. In fact, it gives the government power over pretty much everything in between. It allowed the government to apprehend our children and place them in residential schools. It holds our political and economic development hostage to an ever-growing and burdensome bureaucracy at Indian Affairs,” Atleo wrote.

The most recent pushes for reform was in 2012, when Conservative Member of Parliament Rob Clarke introduced legislation to repeal certain aspects of the bill and to commit the government to adopt a plan to eliminate the Indian Act altogether. The bill requires Bennett, as the minister responsible, to report to Parliament on the progress being made to abolish the bill early in 2016.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper — the man whose legacy that Trudeau is trying to undo — said in 2012 that repealing the act needs to be done, but needs to be carefully. “That tree has deep roots,” he said. “Blowing up the stump would just leave a big hole.”

SOURCE

Follow Justin Ling on Twitter: @justin_ling

Video, Politics, democracy

Is the Canadian Government Misleading the Public About Ability to Regulate Tar Sands?

Leave a comment

TRNN Correspondent Dimitri Lascaris speaks to legal expert Paul Cavalluzzo, who says regulatory authority stems from the fact that tar sands production would have catastrophic effects on First Nations, national, and international communities

Is the Canadian Government Misleading the Public About Ability to Regulate Tar Sands?DIMITRI LASCARIS, TRNN: This is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for the Real News from Paris, France, and the COP 21 Climate Conference of the United Nations.Joining me today is Paul Cavalluzzo. Paul is a senior partner at the leading Canadian public law firm of Cavalluzzo, McIntyre, Shilton, and Cornish. He specializes in, amongst other things, constitutional law, and has argued significant, important constitutional matters at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Thank you very much for joining us today, Paul.

PAUL CAVALLUZZO: You’re welcome.

LASCARIS: So Paul, I’d like to begin our discussion by telling you about a chance meeting that I had with the new minister of the environment for the Canadian government and her chief of cabinet. And as you know, the minister of the environment, her name is Catherine McKenna. And prior to becoming the minister of the environment she was a lawyer, a practitioner, first at the Bay Street law firm of Stikeman Elliott, subsequently in-house counsel at the Canadian Real Estate Association. And her chief of cabinet is a gentleman by the name of Marlo Raynolds, who at a prior time was the executive director of the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank.

So the background to this is that I attended a climate action in Ottawa several weeks ago which was called the Climate Welcome. And a number of activists sat in at the gates of 24 Sussex, the residence of the prime minister, with the hope that he or a senior member of his government, possibly the environment minister, would engage us in a discussion about two things.

The first is a justice-based transition to a clean energy economy, and the second issue was whether or not the new government would freeze tar sands expansion. Because as you know, Paul, that’s a major source of CO2 emissions in Canada, and the science is telling us that we have to leave the majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground in order to avoid dangerous warming in excess of two degrees Celsius.

So during the four days that activists were camped out in front of the prime minister’s residence, no senior member of the government came. And we got no response to our two demands, the ones I just mentioned, including the demand for a tar sands freeze.

However, on my way home and purely by chance, I ran into the environment minister and her chief in cabinet Marlo Raynolds, and engaged them in a discussion about the government’s, the new government’s policy, in relation to tar sands expansion. And I discovered, somewhat to my surprise, because I too am a lawyer and have some knowledge of constitutional law, that it appears to be the government’s position that it does not have jurisdiction under the constitution in Canada to freeze tar sands expansion.

And I’ll tell you a little bit about the exchange that I had.

Mr. Reynolds asked me, as a lawyer, he said to me, because you’re a lawyer I want to ask you, I’m curious how you see the federal government doing what you are suggesting, in other words freezing tar sands expansion, given provincial jurisdiction over resources.I then laid out some bases under the constitution, but not all under which the federal government could take that action. And his response, and I’m quoting him here, is, you are best to ask Premier Notley that question, given jurisdiction over resources.

And of course he’s referring there to the premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley, Alberta being the province in which the tar sands are principally situated.And so what I’d like to talk to you, because of your extensive expertise in this area, is whether you are of the view, in your professional opinion, that the federal government does not have jurisdiction under the constitution to effect a tar sands freeze.

CAVALLUZZO: Well, in my view, Dimitri, I think that you have been misled by that statement, that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the tar sands. There are several provisions within our constitution which indicate to me that the federal government does have jurisdiction, particularly in light of the national implications which the tar sands have, not only for the people of Alberta, but for the people inside of Alberta, in Canada, and indeed internationally. And it would seem for me that because of the national and indeed international implications of production which goes on at the tar sands, that the federal government has jurisdiction over its authority in respect of peace, order, and good government, as well as other portions of Sec. 95, which grant legislative authority to parliament.

For example, parliament has authority in respect of inland fisheries. Parliament has jurisdiction in respect of First Nation communities and reserves. And it seems pretty clear at this point in time that the production at the tar sands has very prejudicial implications for First Nations communities north of Fort McMurray, as well as the inland waters which seem to be, have been polluted, by the production at the tar sands, so that there are several areas under which the parliament of Canada could act.

And indeed, you mentioned Premier Notley. Well, it’s quite ironic that in July of 2014 there was a study done by the University of Manitoba in respect of the impact of the tar sands on First Nations community north of Fort McMurray. And clearly the implications were very negative in terms of the increase in cancer rates, and other illnesses which were experienced by the First Nations community, and indeed at that point in time Premier Notley as an MLA, of course she was in opposition at that time with the NDP party, she immediately demanded for government intervention in respect of the production at the tar sands, because of the unbelievable and catastrophic implications it may have for particularly our First Nations communities.

LASCARIS: And Paul, was that the federal government whose intervention she was calling for?

CAVALLUZZO: Well, she just called for government intervention. And indeed, I would think that it would be federal government intervention, because when we’re looking at authority to deal with these kinds of national and international problems, we have to look at whether the federal government is the only government which can effectively regulate this particular matter. And it sees to me it’s quite clear at this point in time, particularly in light of our international commitments which we’re about to make as a result of the Paris conference, that it is only the federal government that can effectively deal with the tar sands. And it would seem to me that a moratorium should be called by the federal government to give such time that an extensive study can be done in order to realistically assess the implications of production there.

LASCARIS: And as, as you know quite well, Paul, I believe it was during the government of the current prime minister’s father, Pierre Trudeau, that the Constitution Act was amended and a new section, 92A, was added to the constitution which, and I’m simplifying here, declares that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over non-renewable resources. Can you tell us a little bit without, you know, descending too much into the technicalities of the constitution for our audience, why that provision would not stand in the way of the federal government acting here to impose that moratorium that you spoke about?

CAVALLUZZO: Well, when Sec. 92A was enacted in 1981 as part of a number of constitutional amendments, including the Charter of Rights, it was never intended to take away or usurp the authority of parliament to deal with national problems.

Indeed, the background to Sec. 92A is that during the 1970s there was a great confrontation which occurred between the government of Alberta and the government of Canada because of Mr. Trudeau Sr. passed what was called a national energy program. And as a result of that it was viewed by the province of Alberta that the federal government was interfering with their jurisdiction over non-renewable resources.

As a result of that, in order to give the provinces comfort, and in order to pass the other elements of the constitutional framework which was passed in 1981.Sec. 92A was passed, once again, to give the provinces comfort that they had jurisdiction over non-renewable resources. But at the same time, it expressly states that the authority of parliament to deal with national problems is not taken away as a result of the enactment of 92A.

So what you find yourself in right now is probably the federal government is a little reluctant to act because they see what happened back in the 1970s with Mr. Trudeau Sr. in his National Energy Program. But it seems to me we are in a not much different historical moment. At this time we are dealing with a situation where the future of the earth is an issue. And it seems to me that the federal government should act in order to ensure that we deal with this national problem in an effective way.

LASCARIS: And one would expect, would we not, that on a matter of such importance in particular, the government would have sought the advice of the Ministry of Justice, that has at its disposal many capable and knowledgeable constitutional lawyers. And if you agree with that, what advice do you think they would have received, the Trudeau government, from the Ministry of Justice?

CAVALLUZZO: I would think they would have received the very same advice that I’ve just referred to you. That the federal government does have jurisdiction because the matter has reached a point of national and indeed international implication. And as a result of that, the federal government is the only effective means by which we can control this problem.

LASCARIS: Well, thank you very much for joining us, Paul. And I hope we will have an opportunity to talk again about constitutional matters as they impact upon the climate crisis.CAVALLUZZO: Anytime, Dimitri, and thank you.LASCARIS: And this is Dimitri Lascaris for the Real News.