LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

My latest lockdown pastime has been watching Marvel's "WandaVision" and geeking out a bit on the many fan theories.  Without spoiling things, the premise is layers of the notion that "things are not what they seem", and the open question is who the big bad behind everything might actually be.

That notion that there might be a greater menace behind the present danger is a classic comic book and film trope.  Yet, it really hit home to me in today's world of COVID-19 quarantining as we see the ravages of the climate crisis looming, with freak cold snaps knocking out Texas's natural gas systems, as just one example.

The fearful reality is clear that even as we face a once-in-a-century pandemic, the bigger crisis remains.

On that front, governments have had to walk and chew gum as they fight the pandemic.

In the United States, the Biden administration is all hands on deck to get their vaccination program up and running, but they also took the time to ensure the country is back in the Paris climate accords, and moving forward on green energy, fuel-emission standards, and other historic and aggressive actions.  There's even talk of actually doing an "infrastructure week".

Here in Canada, the Trudeau government made the politically courageous decision to announce the carbon pollution pricing rate would increase in the coming years, but they also announced a major infrastructure funding plan of their own.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has promised a major stimulus program to fund "building back better" to the tune of nearly $100 billion coming out of the pandemic.  As part of that overall package, Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna announced a "down payment" in the form of an additional $15 billion on transit and active transportation funding, with a permanent fund of $3 billion per year, and an immediate injection of $5.9 billion for "shovel-ready" projects.

This announcement is good news for our communities and especially for commuters and the climate.

Edmonton Mayor Dan Iveson said of the announcement, "Permanent transit funding offers cities long-term predictability to finally be able to deliver transformational system expansion and drive durable economic growth across our country.  The recovery support here can be massive.  It can be the centrepiece of the job-creating, emissions-reducing recovery that Canadians are looking for."  There's that link between COVID-19 and the climate again — and, crucially, the economic impact of addressing both.

Speaking of mayors, I recently read former Toronto mayor David Miller's new book, Solved: How the World's Great Cities are Fixing the Climate Crisis.  In it, he outlines a variety of inter-connected approaches that should be undertaken to address environmental protection and climate action, from energy retrofits to transit to waste management.  He illustrates an array of approaches from major global cities to demonstrate how those approaches can be actioned, with a particular focus on what he led in Toronto.

Miller expressly argues in his preface, "there is evidence that environmental destruction — which worsens climate change — contributes to the increased risk of global health challenges… Scientists have been warning us about such events for a very long time — a changing climate has the ability to devastate people and nature.  And the potential consequences are serious indeed."

Further, Mayor Anne Hidalgo of Paris provides an afterword to the book, which ties in the pandemic and climate change, writing, "I truly believe we can meet the goals of the Paris Agreement… regional, national, and local governments are mobilized to cope  with the global COVID-19 pandemic, and we need to be united and keep our minds open to new ideas, taking the best practices and making them universal, challenging ourselves daily to make our cities healthier, more equitable and better places to live… I am hopeful that we can build this future — not only because it is possible but because we cannot fail."

Our way out of the economic impacts of COVID-19 should also be a way to combat climate change, by building complete communities that are resilient, liveable and energy efficient.

Photo Credit: youmatter.world

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Here's some good news for anyone who cherishes our democratic liberties: the next federal election might be a little bit freer.

That's because an Ontario judge recently tossed out section 91 of the Canada Elections Act, ruling it was unconstitutional since it infringed on every Canadian's Charter-guaranteed right to free expression.

So, what is this Section 91 and why did a court rule it clashed with our democratic freedoms?

Well, the story goes back to 2017, when the Liberal government amended this section of the Canada Elections Act in order to thwart the spread of "fake news."

Originally, before the Liberal amendments, the law was straightforward and explicit — it made it illegal for anyone to knowingly make false statements about the personal conduct or character of a candidate for office.

But in amending this section, the Liberals made it a lot less precise so it could cast a wider net.

In other words, under the law's new wording, Section 91 would catch any individuals who posted "false" news, even if those individuals did so in good faith, believing it was true.

Basically, the word "knowingly" was deleted, and the term "false" was left undefined.

What this meant in practice was that under a strict interpretation of the Act, a citizen could conceivably be charged for making a sarcastic joke on social media.

And it's this vagueness and broadness of Section 91, which concerned the Canadian Constitution Foundation, an Alberta-based civil liberties group.

Indeed, the CCF was so concerned it decided to challenge the law in the courts.

In its affidavit, the group wrote: "Those who make statements honestly and in good faith are exposed to the risk of imprisonment.  It is a blunt and unrefined instrument that treats sarcastic quips and deliberate lies as one and the same both are subject to a blanket ban."

Such a ban argued, the CCF, would have a chilling effect on democratic speech.

As Joanna Baron, the group's Executive Director, told the media, "In the digital age, social media serves an important 'town hall' function, and laws such as this one, which is vague, overbroad, and backed by severe punishments, pose a serious threat of chilling the debate and discussion that are necessary to a vibrant democracy."

Mind you, the government defended its changes to the law, arguing they were needed to stop the spread of malicious misinformation from proliferating on social media.

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau once put it, "We're in a world right now where we've seen the impact of the kinds of polarization, the kinds of politics of misinformation, of fear and division.  We have developed an approach that is going to be protecting Canadians from misinformation.  We recognize that this is a careful line to walk and we will continue to walk it with Canadians."

The CCF countered that such a heavy-handed legal approach was not the answer.

CCF lawyer, Christine Van Geyn, put it this way: "What we need to do is educate the public on how to review information, how to analyze facts and think 'Is this real?  Is this fake?  And am I being manipulated?'  Not have the government come in with a huge hammer and try and pound away at these rights in order to get the outcome that they want.  Education is a much better tool for that".

At any rate, at the end of the day, the court sided with the CCF, ruling Section 91 violated Section 2(B) of the Canadian Charter which protects the right to free speech.

Mind you, the government might appeal this ruling to the Supreme of Canada, but for now freedom has won the day.

To my mind, that's a good thing.

The more freedom of speech, the more opinions, the more debate we have in our elections, the better.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.