Well, no wonder: “While other countries have set up pavilions and exhibitions in Durban to promote their climate policies, Canada is missing in action. Other countries, even heavy polluters such as China and the United States, are organizing panels and speaking daily to the world’s media at the conference. Canada is nearly invisible, except for a tightly restricted briefing to a handful of Canadian media in a small hotel room, more than a kilometre from the conference site, where Environment Minister Peter Kent issues his daily statements.
Members of Parliament at the Durban summit, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and deputy NDP environment critic Laurin Liu, have been barred from Mr. Kent’s daily briefings. They were also refused accreditation in Canada’s delegation at Durban, forcing them to seek accreditation from other countries, such as Papua New Guinea.”
Read the full article on The Globe & Mail.
7 December 2011
Transport Canada has written off the need for truck sideguards again.
I’ve been talking about this simple, no-nonsense improvementfor years, but The Globe & Mail has again highlighted the need for truck sideguards in the wake of another cyclist death in Toronto this week.
Right-hand-turn deaths tend to be the most common for cyclists, and a simple, absorbable, one-time expense for the trucking industry would prevent needless fatalities across Canada (there were 65 cyclist fatalities in Canada in 2007, many of them in large, busy, truck-lined cities).
Transport Canada doesn’t need to study this. The City of Toronto found that sideguards would be effective in its 1998 Coroners’ Report, and the provincial coroner in Ontario will most likely recommend the same measure in the upcoming report on cyclist fatalities.
While we wait years and years (and years) for on-road cyclist safety measures, like barrier-separated lanes, the federal government has a one-off opportunity to make things better now.
The trucking industry has a powerful lobby and will fight any efforts to impose new safety costs on fleet owners. Please articulate your thoughts to your local MP and, most importantly:
Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews - vic.toews@parl.gc.ca
Minister of Transport, Denis Lebel - denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca

10 November 2011
A recent bulletin from the Conservative war office warns: “We have seen what the NDP can do. In Ontario, we remember what happened when the NDP got hold of the reins of power: tens of thousands of jobs lost, an economy totally mismanaged, and skyrocketing taxes.”
I know. Bob Rae is a Liberal now. It was Ontario, not Canada. It was 1990. North America was experiencing its worst recession since the Great Depression and governments of all stripes, including Brian Mulroney’s federal Conservatives, were struggling with deficits and high interest rates.
Doesn’t matter. Rae’s short-lived experience as premier has long been a truncheon in the Conservative armour — a handy way of shifting focus from today’s reality to ancient history of questionable relevance. Even if an inexperienced Rae did make costly mistakes — and, at the same time, save jobs at Algoma Steel with a bailout not unlike Harper’s rescue package for the auto industry — what does that have to do with Layton, a different politician in a different era?
If the common link is party label, why choose Rae’s government? Why not compare a notional Layton-led coalition to Roy Romanow’s stable and successful regime in Saskatchewan, or Gary Doer’s equally popular NDP government in Manitoba? If New Democrats are genetically irresponsible, as Harper seems to imply, why did he send Doer to Washington as Canada’s ambassador? Why did “socialist” provinces consistently run surpluses and spend frugally?
~ from the astute Susan Riley of the Ottawa Citizen. This is a must-read article for those wondering about the potentials and perils of NDP leadership.
29 April 2011
Except this time the “hope guy” is *actually* a liberal.
Poster courtesy of Amanda Woodward on flickr.
28 April 2011
I’ve been sitting on this post for awhile because I wanted to take a close read of Elizabeth May’s summary on the COP16 climate change talks in Cancun. If you want to understand how different the proceedings were compared to COP15 in Copenhagen, this is worth a serious look. Note Elizabeth’s responses in the Comments section.
5 January 2011
I’m not sure what to make of this, considering the source:
courtesy of Grant Lawrence
(Source: unfuckwithable)
22 November 2010
Pixel wants to join the patio party too (Taken...
The Netherlands is going wild over the Europan...
...
Bertrand Eberhard