Economy’s performance will depend on how we handle climate change

It is often said that there is no greater responsibility for the federal government than providing security and stability for its citizens. I agree.

Security and stability include ensuring that economic prosperity is sustainable for current and future generations. Unfortunately, the existing Conservative government is massively failing in its responsibility towards Canadians by creating utter policy confusion when it comes to sustainable development. I would argue that the Conservative government is risking the future security and stability of our country and citizens.

Our economy’s performance, and by extension employment activities and living standards for Canadians, will largely depend on how we tackle the most pressing issue facing our time: climate change. It will depend on how we reconcile future economic growth with environmental needs. Ultimately, the well-being of Canadians is and will be dramatically influenced by how the federal government manages these fundamental needs.

Regrettably, the Conservative government has shown little political will to demonstrate any leadership on this matter.

Despite years of denial, climate change sceptics are now reverting to different tactics. Now that the science is indisputable, those that have historically denied climate change are arguing that implementing any major new policies will have a traumatic effect on our economy and will erode jobs and prosperity. This rhetoric is consistent with their pattern of rejecting logic and common sense. The reality is that adjusting our industrial and economic activities to reduce our ecological footprint will not only be beneficial to the environment and to future generations, but it will create exciting business opportunities that will produce new jobs and new wealth.

In an era of increased security vigilance, the Conservatives have never argued that increasing security regulations would have a devastating effect on our economy in spite of the major financial costs. Instead, it has been understood and accepted as an inevitable priority. While there is an ongoing and healthy debate about balancing individual civil rights and new security regimes, there are virtually no voices that argue that such security measures might cause economic ruins.

While new security regimes may have imposed new economic pressures, the overall economic outcome has been interesting to observe. Billions of dollars of new business opportunities have emerged to address these new needs and new jobs and creative technologies were created.

Markets always respond to new demands. Businesses and countries that recognize new markets ahead of others are always able to position themselves as leaders and are able to harness greater economic rewards than those that are followers.

The Conservatives need to understand how markets work and realize that positioning Canada as a leader in combating climate change will not just be morally right but will also be economically profitable. It is not a stretch to predict that new sustainable development regimes would create new industries and employment opportunities that would enhance our economy and prosperity.

As we exist in a new age of security vigilance, it is undeniable that we are also facing a new era of environmental adaptation and awareness. The whole world has accepted the urgency and significance of the climate change impact on our lives. The sooner the Conservative government recognizes that Canada can be a world leader in achieving simultaneous economic success and sustainable development, the greater the chance will be for Canada and Canadian businesses to help the environment and make money while doing it.

The federal government has a responsibility to pave the way for businesses and individuals to champion these new opportunities. Businesses tend to be risk averting in their decision-making for understandable reasons. When the government shows a lack of enthusiasm for creating new regimes and regulations for the pursuit of sustainable development, businesses will be reluctant to invest and research new technologies to facilitate and help implement those new regulations. But when the government sends a clear message and takes decisive action by mandating new methods that are environmentally conscious, businesses will be racing and competing to offer solutions.

If you don’t believe me, then listen to what Canada’s CEOs are saying. Thomas d’Aquino, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, warned a business audience in Toronto on November 26 that the current government’s “policy chaos” on global warming has led to confusion, uncertainty and inertia. Mr. d’Aquino went on to say that, “The opportunities far exceed the liabilities.”

If Canadian business leaders are telling us that there are more opportunities than risks in pursuing responsible and environmentally friendly policies, why are the Conservatives telling Canadians that such policies would cause severe economic sacrifices and unbearable job losses?

It is time that we moved beyond the notion that combating climate change would lead to reduction in economic activities and lower living standards. Instead, what needs to be done, and very quickly, is to position Canada and its industries as world leaders in producing new technologies and processes that would be environmentally sustainable and economically profitable. The world is going to leave us behind if we don’t act fast and then we will have no choice but to purchase other countries’ technologies and miss out on a massive new market of opportunities.

The ongoing debate over “reasonable accommodation” has been cause for significant unease and discomfort for many Canadians.

However, rather than demonstrating clear leadership by addressing those concerns constructively, some of our political leaders have exploited the issue for short-term political gain, creating even greater unease.

As our society becomes more diverse, it is natural for a conversation about our evolving identity to arise. However, the key to success lies in that conversation being grounded in respect and dignity rather than mistrust and division.

The dialogue should focus on how we build a community that contains respectful space for all of our cultural and religious traditions to interact and contribute within the laws and norms of a liberal society.

We are witnessing a toxic version of that conversation unfold today. Naturally, the notion of “reasonable accommodation” might mean different things to different people, and that gap in understanding is being used to polarize Canadians into “us” and “them.”

Some opportunists suggest that multiculturalism is a threat to the very essence of Canada and Quebec; these fears are entirely unfounded. Aside from stoking ill-founded fears, none of the opportunists has demonstrated how one Canadian’s expression of their faith or culture diminishes those of others.

How does allowing a Muslim to wear a hijab or a Sikh to wear a turban diminish the rights or beliefs of others? These expressions of faith do not require any compromise by others because they are simply individual life choices. Clearly, they are red herrings in the “reasonable accommodation” hysteria.

Of course, there may be instances when respecting someone’s cultural or religious practices necessitates some accommodation, like requesting a prayer space or providing for special dietary needs. However, such requirements are both minimal and reasonable.

Last month was the 78th anniversary of Persons Day, which celebrates the date in 1929 when women were declared “persons” under Canadian law. Looking back, we might find it strange, or even absurd, that women were not legally “persons” in this country. However, I wonder if the opponents of women’s rights in 1929 might have argued that such an extension of legal rights was an accommodation that threatened the “Canadian way of life.”

The fear that the Canadian way of life will be lost if we accommodate others is based on a narrow view of this great country. Canada prospers because our identity is robust and open to new ideas. For example, bilingualism likely would not have survived if not for Canada’s values of respect and inclusion. Some have argued that “multiculturalism” fosters division and segregation. On the contrary, it is a policy that appreciates the reality of this country by promoting healthy integration balanced with respect for difference.

Many Canadians are immigrants or the children of immigrants who emigrated from countries that brutally denied minority rights and demanded assimilation. For those Canadians, it must be disheartening to see strains of their native lands’ assimilationist policies arising in Canada under the cover of a debate on “reasonable accommodation.”

Rather than exploiting misunderstanding and fear, political leaders should be bringing Canadians together. They ought to reassure us that celebrating Diwali does not mean the rejection of Christmas, and accommodating Kosher dietary requirements does not mean banning the consumption of pork.

Unfortunately, the separatist parties and the governing Conservatives have been fuelling anxiety by jumping on the unreasonable accommodation bandwagon.

Xenophobia is largely driven by fear of the unknown. Political leaders can act responsibly by demonstrating that diversity is not a zero sum game; diversity holds the promise of economic prosperity for Canada and cultural richness for its citizens.

The process of nation-building is delicate and difficult. But, does that mean we should shy away from what is required to continue building the best country in the world? In this new millennium, Canada is well-positioned to leverage its great strengths and lead the world economically, politically and socially.

Our diversity is one element of our strength as a nation. Realizing that, we can become more united and cohesive than we have ever been. All we need is proactive leadership to take us there.

Once again, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is using fear and patriotism to distract from reality and fact as parliamentarians consider renewing two of the most extraordinary and controversial powers of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act.

Extraordinary, because they give law-enforcement and security agencies broad powers to arrest Canadians without charge (preventative arrest) and compel them to testify against their will (investigative hearings); controversial, because legal experts, community leaders and respected human-rights organizations have warned that such broad and unprecedented powers may threaten Canadian protected liberties. Indeed, recognizing their unique nature, parliamentarians approved these provisions in 2001 as temporary measures that would automatically expire after five years.

Of course, if, after review and sober second thought, Parliament decided to renew these powers, they could do so. That brings us to the debate before the House today. An all-party committee of Parliament reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act has recommended the two provisions be renewed, but with the addition of specific safeguards to prevent abuse and costly mistakes.

Notwithstanding the advice of the committee, the government decided to propose a take-it-or-leave-it, unrevised three-year renewal.

Despite being branded soft, the opposition parties are united against the motion to renew these extraordinary powers without any revisions or safeguards. What have we learned from the passage of time, careful deliberation, and sober second thought? When the Anti-Terrorism Act was introduced in 2001, many legal experts took special exception to preventative arrest and investigative hearings. Eric Rice, president of the Canadian Bar Association at the time, reminded a Senate committee that “no one wants a regime where wrongful arrest and detention are unchecked, or where the right to remain silent or the right to privacy or freedom from discrimination is damaged beyond repair. The 20th century left a legacy of many states where freedoms were removed temporarily at first and then lost permanently.” In the context of the 9/11 attacks, there was an assumption that our traditional laws were not sufficient and perhaps a new set of powerful tools was necessary to combat a new form of threat. But parliamentarians had the presence of mind to build in a safety mechanism — the sunset clause.

Five years later, we have the benefit of experience and hindsight.

Judges have raised serious concerns about some of our national security legislation. Preventative arrest and investigative hearings provide a temporary suspension of judicial oversight. It is important that we restore that oversight because the checks and balances between branches of government are the bedrock of our democracy and the rule of law. We need only look at the tragic case of Maher Arar to see what the lack of transparency and accountability can do to innocent families. History is replete with the victims of unchecked governments acting to keep us safe because of unintended or misguided errors. It is irresponsible and cruel when the Conservatives provide the false perception that, without these provisions, Canadians are less secure or that security agents are handicapped. These claims are, at best, misleading, and at worst, fear-mongering. Canadians remember when Mr. Harper accused the Liberals of “hitting the snooze button on security matters” when they were trying to bring Mr. Arar back home.

Our legal system has evolved over many years and fine-tuned methods to distinguish truth from falsehood, guilt from innocence, while respecting human rights. Certainly, mistakes are made, but on the whole, our justice system is robust and effective. Those who say we will be less safe without the extraordinary provisions in question, or those who argue that we ought to maintain them “just in case” have not provided any evidence to merit the risk of such extraordinary tools.

In the past five years, ordinary criminal powers and investigative techniques were used to apprehend alleged terror suspects in Toronto.

The extraordinary powers in question apparently were not necessary to nip impending acts in the bud. This speaks volumes about the effectiveness of good police work using ordinary legal measures.

This is a serious and legitimate debate. It would be unfortunate if we lost sight of the substance of this debate and let ourselves be dragged into a rhetorical battle.

Parliament’s priority is to protect all Canadians and not to allow ideology to trump rational and evidence-based debate. It takes strong leadership and rock solid commitment to see through the fog of emotions and to stand up for the collective well-being of all Canadians.

The unfolding crisis in Lebanon that launched the largest evacuation operation conducted by the Canadian government has stirred a lot of heated debate. The extensive and difficult evacuation process that, to date, has rescued more than 13,000 Canadians, generated some questions about whether the Canadian government should help Canadians who are abroad and who hold dual citizenship.

Some have labeled Canadians with dual citizenship who live overseas as “part-time” Canadians and undeserving of government assistance. There is the argument that when a Canadian chooses to reside abroad, and pay little or no Canadian taxes during that period, they should not expect any assistance from Canada. There is also an idea that because some carry dual citizenship, their first loyalty is not to Canada and hence, the Canadian government has no obligation to help them.

Before engaging in this debate, it has to be clearly stated that there has been no evidence as to what percentage of Canadians who were in Lebanon at the start of the crisis were permanent residents of Lebanon or were there on summer vacation.

The champions of this debate have been raising many questions which branch out into various and sometimes irrelevant topics. I am going to try to dissect the different aspects of this discussion so that we can accurately analyze the substance of the issues without emotion and rhetoric.

Citizenship Acquisition: The conversation over the process of acquiring citizenship and the types of requirements one is expected to comply with before becoming a Canadian citizen is a healthy one. I am sure there are ways to improve the existing process and I welcome a national discussion on the matter. However, once an individual legally becomes a Canadian citizen, we must refrain from questioning the authenticity of their citizenship.

Fraud: An investigation into how some people may acquire Canadian citizenship through fraudulent or deceptive means is necessary. The rules are clear about how one can earn Canadian citizenship and anyone who obtains citizenship by breaking any of those rules must accept the consequences of judicial accountability, including possible revocation. Nevertheless, we should not treat the majority of new Canadians with suspicion simply because a few have abused the system.

Dual Citizenship: Should a Canadian citizen be required to renounce their other citizenships to prove their loyalty to Canada? This question stems from an attitude that Canadians are not accustomed to. Canadians as a society have grown over the years by the nature of our diversity and respect for one another. Millions of Canadians were born abroad and many others hold dual citizenship through their parents. Loyalty should never be measured with a piece of paper like a citizenship document. The concept of loyalty is one that is abstract and expressed through practice and behaviour. While this is another healthy debate, we must not lose sight of the reality of our collective identity.

Government’s Obligation to Canadians Abroad: The question of a government’s obligation to assist its citizens when caught in international disaster areas is another important debate. However, it should never be constrained by the amount of taxes an individual pays. The relationship between a government and its citizens should not be defined as a linear financial transaction. Canadians have always believed that our country should be committed to equality and fairness to all citizens regardless of income or background. We have to consider what type of assistance a government should provide its citizens, but once that is determined, it should never be selectively based on income, taxes paid, place of residency or dual citizenship. The assistance needs to be standardized to all Canadians or we risk the creation of a ‘second–class’ type of citizenship that many Canadians would not find acceptable.

It is unfortunate that some people chose to exploit the human tragedy in the Middle East to promote divisive ideas. There are many legitimate and important questions that Canadians and their political representatives need to revisit and reassess. Yet, in this discussion, we must also be mindful of the timing and tone adopted by some. There are approaches which could feed into an attitude of hostility and suspicion against an innocent group of people who are proud Canadians and whose dedication to this country has been demonstrated over and over again. I am not just referring to Lebanese-Canadians. I am talking about Canadians who hold dual citizenship, Canadians who were born abroad and Canadians who reside abroad.

Canadians should not be made to feel guilty for choosing to work or reside abroad. These are personal choices that many people make based on their own differing circumstances.

Our commitment to maintaining a citizenship that does not discriminate based on place of birth, ethnicity, religion, income, place of residency and background should remain an integral part of our proud identity.

It has been close to three weeks since 17 individuals were arrested under the charge of terrorism. Six of the men in question lived in my city, the city of Mississauga. The story has captured headlines and public attention. The dramatic arrests have raised many questions and concerns. At this time, it would be helpful to reflect and contemplate the risks of “homegrown” terrorism.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial of those 17 individuals, many have been describing the incident as a “turning point” and a “wake-up call.” I agree, however, I am not impressed with some of the recently proposed ideas for change. We must confront our concerns in a thoughtful and deliberate way, the Canadian way.

The threat of mass violence in our cities is a serious risk. In the face of international instability, the rise of terrorism around the world, particularly in the Muslim world, has been troubling.

The majority of the Muslim world has been experiencing turmoil and conflict. For decades, if not centuries, most Muslims have suffered under various forms of colonialism, totalitarianism and oppression. The denial of fundamental rights, the absence of independent and ethical judiciary and the lack of free debate have paralyzed hundreds of millions of people for a very long time, thus creating a great vacuum that has desensitized populations toward civic engagement and created a feeling of helplessness. This has left the door wide open for criminal and power-hungry elements to promote the same techniques their oppressors have been using, as the only way to express their grievances or correct the situation.

These tyrannical gangs and rebels exploit the sense of despair and anger among average folks using passionate and divine rhetoric to further their own goals because, in their eyes, self-righteousness trumps all other competing ideas and the ends must always justify the means.

It is essential that we come to terms with this reality if we want to shut the door on any criminals or terrorists who aim to recruit soldiers. Muslim communities and broader society need to identify the challenges if we are to overcome them.

Muslim Canadian communities must tear down self-imposed barriers and unshackle the chains of historic conditioning that they have been exposed to for generations. Canada offers its citizens respect, opportunity and responsible freedom. While many Muslim Canadians have been successful economically, achieved high levels of education, and been law-abiding citizens, there is still room to develop stronger relationships with broader society that would result in a dynamic of deeper understanding and coexistence.

Canada does not imprison dissidents or persecute social activists. Muslim Canadians need to remember that not only is social involvement permitted, but encouraged, and is in fact necessary for the collective good and their own well-being.

The broader society also needs to be aware of the challenges that many new Canadians face while integrating into our communities. Recognizing these hurdles would help in defining priorities that would assist immigrants in this transition period. Promoting social engagement and civic responsibility should be as important as offering language education or skill training to newcomers. Government agencies should consider some creative incentives to accelerate their integration such as reducing education tuition fees, setting up volunteer or part-time job placements for women, and strengthening the capacity of civil society that deals with new arrivals. These are just a few examples of initiatives that go beyond a simple citizenship exam that applicants must complete before earning their citizenship.

Terrorism and violent crimes are masterminded by individuals who exploit emotions and ignorance to help them achieve their goals. Not only should we be vigilant against these criminal groups but we must protect those who are at risk from being recruited by them.

Reductionists and the uninformed have been playing up their sense of superiority by questioning other cultures and implying that multiculturalism is fuelling isolationism.

Thankfully, Canadians are more thoughtful and realistic than what some “experts” claim. Our deep sense of understanding and respect compels us to always be responsible when dealing with challenges or adversaries. We must be willing to compete with the criminal element for the hearts and minds of our youth and confront any possible causes of marginalization and radicalization. This duty must be shared by government agencies and community leadership.

Canada’s diversity and multiculturalism have been among our unique strengths. We offer a success story to the rest of the world. Our tradition has largely been able to avoid isolationism and defeat intolerance. While we must continue to find ways to evolve, we should also harness what makes us different and not abandon the character and principles that have gotten us this far.

Morgan: real concerns

I read Gwyn Morgan’s article (Don’t Be Deterred From Serving — May 19) with interest. It is quite revealing how the Conservative Party chose to disregard the legitimate concerns that most Canadians had about his nomination for the public appointments commission.

I am a member of the government operations committee and voted against his appointment for substantive reasons and not out of blind partisanship.

The record of that interview is public and clear.

At a time when visible minorities are trying to break visible and invisible barriers to have a presence at all levels of the civil service and government, it was disheartening to see the Harper government nominate someone who has offended immigrants and refugees by perpetuating stereotypes that many Canadians try to combat on a daily basis.