Fukushima Anniversary: How Climate Change Endangers Nuclear Safety

WASHINGTON -- A year after a 30-foot tsunami ravaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, some scientists say regulators underestimate the threat that climate change poses to nuclear power plants in the U.S.

"There are clear lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster, yet our government allows the risks to remain," said Jordan Weaver, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"It doesn't have to take an earthquake and a tsunami to trigger a severe nuclear meltdown. In addition to human error and hostile acts, more common occurrences like hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding -- all of which took place around the country last year -- could cause the same type of power failure in U.S. plants."

Nuclear reactor facilities, which need a reliable source of water for cooling purposes, are usually located near the ocean or alongside a large lake or river. There are 104 nuclear reactors at 65 sites across the U.S., nine of them located within 2 miles of the coast. That's a somewhat fraught positioning from the lens of climate science, particularly since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report from 2007 found that ocean levels are rising roughly 1.2 inches each decade, with some scientists predicting that water levels could rise by as much as a meter by the end of the century.

Bill C-10: The Debate that Wasn't

Today, the House had its final opportunity to debate Bill C-10, the Conservative omnibus crime bill. I rose to participate in the debate and began with my prospective conclusion -- that, if at the conclusion of this debate we adopt Bill C-10, we will adopt legislation that lacks an evidentiary basis in its pertinent particulars; we will be adopting legislation that is constitutionally suspect, thereby violating our obligations and inviting future Charter challenges; we will be adopting legislation for which the costs remain unknown, thereby breaching our responsibilities for the oversight of the public purse while also burdening the provinces.

If we adopt C-10, we will increase prison over-crowding -- also giving rise to Charter concerns -- while again not improving the safety of Canadians in any way. Indeed, adopting this legislation would be a betrayal of the very mandate common to all parties in this House: ensuring safe streets and communities. For we will end up, as I said when this bill was introduced -- and must reaffirm again -- with more crime, less justice, spiralling yet undisclosed costs, less rehabilitation for the offender, less protection for the victims, and less safety for our citizens.

Simply put, the entire C-10 debate -- consisting of repeated invocation of time allocation and summarily rejecting all opposition amendments -- is endemic of the government's ill-considered, unthinking, and intemperate "rush to judgment." I say "rush to judgement" because, in a sad irony, that is what this bill seeks to do. It is quick to judge non-violent offenders as needing lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Politics breeds hypocrisy, north and south

Whited sepulchres have been around for an awfully long time.

(Jesus did have a way with words, didn't he? Or maybe it was Matthew. Either way, you won't find a more striking metaphor for hypocrisy than that image of exterior respectability, all neatly whitewashed, masking the corruption inside.)

From ancient high priests who spoke one way and acted another, to contemporary preachers of piety who prey on trusting children, public hypocrites are as common as dirt in life's passing parade.

But common as they are generally, they are even more numerous, more concentrated, in particular areas of human endeavour. Like politics.

In politics, hypocrisy is what makes things run. It's grease for the wheel. With very rare exceptions, it's simply the way things are done, with depressing regularity and mind-blowing frequency.

And it's shameless. To hang on to the power that has become their very lifeblood, its practitioners, confronted with evidence of the gap between rhetoric and reality, will look you in the eye, smile and deny, deny, deny. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," insisted affable Bill Clinton - executive-inchief, loving husband, devoted father - possibly setting new standards for low on the deceitfulness scale.

New Canadians key to Conservative fortunes: Kenney

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party would have an even stronger majority government today if new Canadians had been the only ones voting last May, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told Conservatives on Friday.

Speaking at the Manning Centre networking conference, Kenney said new Canadians in the last election cast ballots for the Conservatives in greater proportions than did other voters.

“We have gone from a 50-point deficit vis-a-vis the Liberals amongst new Canadians in 2000 to a 24-point lead in this last election,” said Kenney. “We apparently won the votes of 37 per cent of Canadians born in the country, but 42 per cent of immigrants to Canada and 43 per cent of immigrants who arrived at least 10 years ago.

“This is today’s Conservative Party. If it was just new Canadians who were voting, our majority would be even bigger.”

Canadian Charter of Rights: What is the status of press freedom in Canada?

Some 30 years ago, on a blustery, rainy day on Parliament Hill, prime minister Pierre Trudeau presided over the most significant milestone in our country since Confederation.

On that historic day when Canada’s Constitution came home — April 17, 1982 — freedom of the press was enshrined with the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2b of the Charter explicitly states that we all have the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”

Do you cherish the Charter? Does Section 2b make you proud to be a Canadian?

You can be sure that most journalists will tell you they care deeply about this fundamental freedom. It is the foundation of all that we do.

Feds want private sector to plug holes in social safety net

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley says the federal government "can't do everything" to meet Canada's social challenges and is looking at the business and non-profit sectors to deliver more government services.

Speaking at a conference of Conservatives in Ottawa, Finley said millions of taxpayer dollars are spent annually on such social issues as poverty, often without substantial improvements. The federal government can no longer afford to continue spending money on the same old approaches and expect to achieve better results, she said.

"Governments can't do everything to meet our social challenges. Governments can't simply fund every demanded service without regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay," Finley said in her speech at the Manning Networking Conference, which has Conservatives from across the country in the nation's capital. "Governments can, however, facilitate and empower others to deal with social challenges." The Conservative government is considering a number of alternatives when it comes to the "social economy."

She said one is "pay-for-performance agreements" in which federal dollars are only paid when clear tar-gets are met. Such an approach would have the private sector more involved in addressing social challenges and delivering innovative solutions, she said.

Where did all the Conservatives go?

This is from some remarks I'm making Saturday morning to the Manning Centre conference, a gathering of conservatives, and Conservatives, in Ottawa.

I confess I'm not particularly interested in defining conservatism. I do not see the point of knowing whether a given idea is or is not conservative, or in asking how a conservative would respond to X or Y. This strikes me as an odd way to think about the world: to start with a box and try to make your views fit inside it.

What I believe in are a set of principles having to do with the freedom of the individual, the usefulness but not infallibility of markets, and the legitimate but limit-ed role of the state. There are, in brief, a few things we need government to do, based on well-established criteria on which there is a high degree of expert consensus. The task is simply to get government to stick to those things, rather than waste scarce resources on things that could be done as well or better by other means: that is, government should only do what only government can do.

As I say, these ideas are not novel, or controversial. Indeed, you would find support for them, to a greater or lesser degree, across the political spectrum.

Seems even Harper and Charest can't save Canada’s deadly asbestos exports

Despite Stephen Harper and Jean Charest, it appears increasingly likely Canada will export no more Quebec-mined asbestos to countries like India and Indonesia, where it could bring misery and death to those who come in contact with it. Almost all those affected would be very poor workers and their families. But to the bitter end, the two leaders have been determined to preserve Canada’s shameful record of knowingly exporting a carcinogen.

In the face of denunciations of asbestos exports by virtually all health authorities, the Prime Minister made it a point during last year’s election campaign to visit the riding held by Christian Paradis, home to one of Canada’s two last remaining asbestos mines. Both mines are now closed, but Mr. Paradis wants them re-opened. He has long been a proponent of asbestos exports, dismissing out of hand all the proven health risks as well as all the Canadians who have died hideous, prolonged deaths from exposure to the substance.

Mr. Harper has since promoted Mr. Paradis to be Industry Minister. And last June, a month after forming his majority government, he chose to celebrate St. Jean Baptiste Day in his young minister’s riding – and in the town of Thetford Mines itself, the actual home of the asbestos mine Mr. Paradis wants to see re-opened.

NDP fears Tories won’t act on pledge to strengthen elections watchdog

The Conservatives say they support an opposition motion that would strengthen Elections Canada’s power to investigate voting irregularities like the ones alleged in the robo-call affair. But New Democrats are skeptical of the government’s commitment.

The House of Commons will vote Monday on the motion by NDP MP David Christopherson that would allow the chief electoral officer to request any documents needed to ensure compliance with the Elections Act. It would also force mass-dialling companies that provide services to political parties during an election to register with Elections Canada and require their clients to be registered and verified.

When asked about the original motion, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his party is “not at all opposed to that proposal.” But, because it is non-binding, the government is not obligated to follow up with legislation.

So, for two days in a row, New Democrats have demanded to know if the government really intends to act on its motion and whether it will accept the amendment to backdate it to cover the 2011 election. And for two days they have not received a straight answer.

Opposition MPs say they’ll now think twice about accepting Canadian Forces’ invitations

The Canadian Forces’ practice of inviting opposition members of parliament to observe aircrews at work, only to later turn over details about such visits to Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office for use in partisan attacks, could backfire on the military, warns an MP caught up in such a process.

Opposition MPs such as Liberal Scott Simms and the NDP’s Jack Harris had accepted invitations from the military to take part in flying exercises so they could gain a better understanding of defence matters, such as search-and-rescue operations.

But MacKay used details of their visits, provided by the military, to later attack Harris and Simms in the House of Commons. The two MPs had criticized MacKay after reports emerged alleging that his office summoned a search-and-rescue helicopter to transport MacKay from his vacation, and that he had racked up millions of dollars of flights on government executive jets.

MacKay countered that NDP and Liberal MPs also flew on military aircraft.