A friend of mine sent me this interesting, and kind of disturbing article about Detroit’s proposed solution to its urban sprawl and diminishing populations: tearing down the neighbourhoods and creating new agricultural land.

It has taken me a while to write about it, because, honestly, I wasn’t sure what I could say – it is heartbreaking to see a city that was built on the promises of a modern world in decay and decline. But it is also unsurprising – thanks to Michael Moore’s early films like Roger and Me (which focused on Flint, MI), it is widely known that Detroit was made promises by the auto industry that were not kept.

Promises that could not be kept given the current legislation that deals with corporations (and, yes, I realize that legislation in the States is different than here). Corporate Charter legislation that demands they provide ever-increasing profit to their shareholders, regardless of consequences. ‘Free’-Trade Legislation that makes it more affordable to build cars 1,000 or 5,000 kilometres away from the market where they will be sold than to pay union wages. Accounting and Income Tax legislation that allows companies to externalize environmental and social justice repercussions of the decisions they make. And, finally, a legislative bundle that has created an entire generation of corporate CEOs and profiteers with a twisted set of values where a dollar is more important that a human life and lying is justified when it will make more profit.

I don’t really have a problem with delivering value and profit, that is what companies are for, after all. The problem I have is with the current definition of ‘value’. As a Green, if a company wants to deliver value to me, then it had better be thinking, not just about the jingle of money in my piggy bank, but also the long-term health and well-being of me, my children and my community. I care about the sustainability of my investments, I want to know that it is a good idea not just for me, but for my kids and their grand-kids.

And I have to say that the current corporate culture does not seem to be taking us in that direction. Our current system of fines is largely meaningless and has almost no power to change the behaviour of a corporation – especially for the largest ones, the current fines are considered part of doing business, certainly not a deterrent. Yet, in case after case, companies that take better care of their employees, community, and the environment are more profitable than those who insist on sticking to the ‘status quo’.

So here’s what I would like to see: a Corporate Charter granted in Canada would be dependent upon the company agreeing to both domestic and foreign Corporate Social Responsibility Charters and that, if a corporation was in violation of that Charter on a regular basis, that the Charter would be revoked, the Corporation would be dissolved, and the proceeds of asset sales would be used to compensate employees and shareholders. I would like to see the onus of proof on the corporations themselves, and I would like to see this legislation enforced.

Oh, and one other tidbit I would love to see thrown in to deal with exorbitant executive salaries: let’s cap their compensation at 1000x that of the lowest paid worker. That’s right, if you operate in a free trade zone and the worker there makes $0.50 or $1.00 per day, your total compensation (no sneaking around with stock transfers) is going to work out to around $52,000 per year. Too low, you protest. How about 10,000 times? $520,000 doesn’t sound too bad. Does it? Right now, there are many executives being paid 100,000 to 1 million times more than their lowest paid worker. Does that seem right? Do you think that companies would behave differently if their compensation were tied to that of their lowliest employee (contract or part-time)? I do.

As for Detroit, a relic of the modern-age experiment in automobiles, perhaps they will figure out a way to revitalize their economy and transition to sustainable growth through green industry… or maybe it will just become a great place to own a farm.

Today marked the conclusion of a Summit to discuss issues surrounding the opening Arctic waters. It didn’t end as well as our Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Cannon, would have liked, according to the Montreal Gazette. U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton chastised Mr. Cannon, and by extension, the Canadian government, “for excluding aboriginal leaders and three northern nations — Iceland, Finland and Sweden — from the gathering.”

Mr. Cannon defended his exclusionary tactics by commenting that “Arctic Ocean coastal states have an important stewardship role in the region.” Ah yes, and our Conservative government is doing such a good job with their ocean stewardship – if stewardship means voting against attempts at the recent CITES conference to protect polar bears or rapidly diminishing fish stocks like Salmon and Bluefin Tuna or against banning bottom-trawling fishing vessels, which ravage the ocean’s bottom, not only removing all current life but making regeneration almost impossible.

Yup, Canada is surely a beacon of ocean stewardship, what with Victoria and Halifax still dumping raw sewage into their respective harbours and our careful management of the Atlantic cod fishery. Even our refusal to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a few years ago shines as an example of stewardship of fragile ecosystems and populations.

We should totally be allowed to take a leadership role on the incredibly fragile Arctic while the EU and aboriginal peoples are excluded from the talks because, well, they actually give a darn about the Arctic as more than another area to exploit as thoroughly as possible, arming it and using it for commercial traffic.

Yup, we are very special indeed.

BTW, here’s a quick link to the GPC policy on the Arctic. Yes, we have one. And while it is called the Green Arctic strategy, we certainly would prefer to avoid that – an outcome the governing parties don’t really seem to mind.

Here is a video of his speech and the text.

“Sometimes I think about how I got involved in politics. I didn’t think of myself as a potential politician when I get out of college. I went to work in neighborhoods, working with Catholic churches in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, trying to figure out how people could get a little bit of help. And I was skeptical about politics and politicians, just like a lot of Americans are skeptical about politics and politicians are right now. Because my working assumption was when push comes to shove, all too often folks in elected office, they’re looking for themselves and not looking out for the folks who put them there; that there are too many compromises; that the special interests have too much power; they just got too much clout; there’s too much big money washing around.

And I decided finally to get involved because I realized if I wasn’t willing to step up and be true to the things I believe in, then the system wouldn’t change. Every single one of you had that same kind of moment at the beginning of your careers. Maybe it was just listening to stories in your neighborhood about what was happening to people who’d been laid off of work. Maybe it was your own family experience, somebody got sick and didn’t have health care and you said something should change.

Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don’t just look out for ourselves, that we don’t just tell people you’re on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community — (applause) — and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class. That’s why you decided to run.”

I wish them all the best tomorrow during this historic vote.

P.S. As for the TeaParty opposition, you might want to watch this revealing video on their Fox News educated protest.

There are no words to express the awesomeness of this blog post (not mine, obviously, but the one I am linking to):

http://www.1001words.com/2008/09/obama-to-nation-im-outta-here.html

Enjoy!

Last week a Canadian judge ruled in favour of the Canadian Council on Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International in a case brought against the Canadian government regarding the Canadian-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) that forces refugees to apply for status in the first country they arrive in. According to the Globe and Mail, the judge has ruled that this agreement puts Canada in breach of our international obligations (because of course Canada has signed the refugee convention, we sign everything). Specifically, it violates our commitments under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the UN Convention Against Torture.

According to the decision the judge decided against the STCA because the U.S. treats refugees so abysmally that we can not legally force refugees to stay there. There was also the whole shipping people off to countries for torture aspect of the U.S. system as well. (BTW, if there are any legal wonks out there reading, the link above will take you to the federal court decision in its entirety which is nicer than relying on the newspaper reports. If you just want to read the outcome, skip down to Section IX. Conclusions.)

Justice Michael Phelan also criticized the Canadian government for not fulfilling its commitment to review the agreement “despite both the significant passage of time since the commencement of the STCA and the evidence as to U.S. practices currently available”. Once again, our government is letting things slip through the cracks while they act like a bunch of dilettantes (see any post relating to Kyoto or Schreiber).

Who does this affect most? For Canada, it will have the greatest impact on refuge seekers from Latin America who travel overland – since 2004, we have been able to turn them away at the border but if the STCA is overturned we will have to let them in.

If this ruling destroys the agreement (and opinions seem to be leaning that way) then they will be allowed through the U.S. and into Canada. Both parties have until 14 Jan 2008 to file their appeals.

Thought you might like to know.

It will be interesting to watch the international fall-out from Canada declaring again (through the proxy of its court system, of course) that the U.S. is a human rights violator.

So Schreiber had his extradition postponed so that he could once again appear before our Parliamentary Ethics Committee and make them all look like a bunch of fools – again.

At what point do we just cut our losses and remember this old phrase:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

or W’s version (plus more Bush witticism’s):

Fool me once, shame on [pause] shame on you.
Fool me [pause] you can’t get fooled again.

We seriously need to extradite this man (oops, that would be Schreiber, not Bush, we can’t extradite him).

I, for one, will welcome our new robot overlords! (just wanted to show my support early)

My favourite lines:

Tyrone: Robot overlords don’t give Scooter Libby pardons. No rich man can bribe his way out of the robot overlord court. You telling me you don’t want to see the robot overlords kick in Dick Cheney’s door –
John: I would buy that DVD. The two disc box set, with robot overlord commentary.

The CBC is so much fun early in the morning.

I must, must, must own music by this man, Marcel Kahlife, he is fantastic. Excellent grooving music. The song was Aqasim. Thank you Metro Morning.

Also, the theme music for RadioPrague is super-cool. If only I knew how to find it.

Poor, poor OJ Simpson – the man is obviously not right.

Oh, it is so about time: Blackwater is booted from Iraq. But who will act as the fists in Bush’s war now.

Finally, Microsoft has been slapped by the European courts and is deciding whether or not to appeal the ruling – it may mean that you won’t get Media Player next time you buy a new computer. Will Microsoft have to revamp their entire software packaging operations?

Not that I regret my morning post or anything, but I thought it might be a good idea to actually look up what it means to be treasonous in Canada. From our legal description (included below), the only treasonous way to overthrow the government is through force – nothing is written about undermining Canada’s sovereignty until the country crumbles. So, our PMs are off the hook.

There is also a lovely prohibition about attempting to kill the Queen. Fabulous. We are *so* 21st century. Of course, that means that there is nothing treasonous about attempting to kill the PM. Which I would never advocate – I’m just trying to make blatantly obvious that this law is stupidly out-of-date.

or is it…

Here’s the problem: I love Canada. I love Canada a lot. I love being Canadian and I am proud to be Canadian.

or at least I used to be. Now I’m wondering what it means to be Canadian. Is there a Canada at all? Are we still just a silly little dominion in the crumbled British Empire, asserting loyalty to a royal family an ocean away while neglecting our own citizenry and sovereignty?

or was there a brief period mid-twentieth century where maybe we did have an independent identity, where Canada built its reputation and stood for something.

and then we became part of the American Empire. Maybe we should change the law to make it treasonous to plan to assassinate the President of the US.

BTW, I don’t like using the word assassinate, its done enough damage already hasn’t it?

Shouldn’t it be treason to attempt to kill our own head of state, our own PM? If we were a real, independent country, free and proud, wouldn’t that be treason?

–V

From the Canadian Criminal Code:
PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

I’m not sure exactly what constitutes treasonous behaviour but I’m taking a course called “Diplomacy” and while I was doing the first readings last night I started thinking about supreme interests. You see, the supreme interest of a nation is its survival as a sovereign state. To be sovereign means that a state is able to act in its own interests both internationally and domestically.

So, I began to wonder if various prime ministers we have had over the last 20 or 30 years have compromised the integrity of Canada to the point that our continued existence as a *sovereign* state is jeopardized. Did Brian Mulroney compromise this ability with the signing of NAFTA and the inclusion of the proportionality clause that dooms us to be forever beholden to American needs instead of our own? I’m sure that Chretien and Martin furthered the process while in power, but not particular instance pops to mind. Certainly signing on to the Kyoto protocol and then doing nothing for several years was against our national interest and severely damaged our international reputation – the consequences of which are still to be seen.

But my mind drifted most to Harper and his affection for big business and especially big oil. I know that he loves Alberta – but does he love Canada? I’m sure his answer would be yes but how is that demonstrated? Does encouraging deep integration with the US and the actions of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives show a love of Canada? To me it is betraying our supreme interests, it threatens our very survival as a sovereign state. I think that that is treason.

Am I in so much trouble?