Latest Comments

• I think the biggest challenges facing Canada are chiefly those noted at the Can150 conference: the aging of our population and the financial strain this will place on our welfare institutions such as public health care and pensions; the slow growth of productivity in Canada and problems of some people's lack of employability, higher unemployment and continued poverty, particularly among certain groups; the need to move away from fossil fuels and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming; and internationally, the problems posed by terrorism and religious fundamentalism, and the need to find an effective and beneficial role for Canada in response. In reply to these challenges I think that we should first affirm our commitment to maintain and where possible improve public health care, pensions and access to higher education, which are so essential to people's well-being and opportunity in life, even if this requires some future tax increase. Second, we should seek to increase economic productivity and innovation, improve the education and employability of our citizens who need this, and reduce poverty. Third, we should reduce our use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable sources of energy. Finally, we should play a positive role in dealing with international problems of terrorism, religious fundamentalism, poverty and violence, as well as promoting our trade interests. To achieve these above priorities I would suggest, very selectively, that we, first, maintain access to and improve the timeliness of public health care, support home care as a generally preferred and cheaper alternative to hospital and nursing home care, and extend drug insurance (drugs can sometimes be a cheaper alternative to surgery). Second, promote the development of child day care with early learning to increase job opportunity, combat poverty, help disadvantaged children as well as increase the labour force and birth rate. Third, instead of general reductions in corporate tax rates (which haven't much increased our productivity), increase corporate tax credits or write-offs in return for increased capital investment, research and development and employee training. Fourth, emphasise research, regulation and subsidy to promote energy efficiency in industry, transport and homes, including development of public transit, and to achieve targeted levels of green energy production (carbon taxes create opposition to higher prices and make our goods uncompetitive unless other countries so tax; cap-and-trade applies only to industry). Fifth, internationally, support a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including if we get on the UN Security Council), and help the Afghan government defend its institutions and provide honest and effective government, including post 2011.
  — Robert Hajaly : Shape our platform, together
• In my view as well as from what I read and hear we as Canadians want the first priority of the Liberal Party policy to be a visionary over-riding policy, which focuses how the Liberal Party frames all individual policies on for example health, education, economy, environment and etc. This visionary goal is then what is foremost and centre in Canadians minds when they hear Liberal. Following from this whenever the Party speaks on an issue or a policy this vision is expressed. I strongly advocate that this policy vision be building a sustainable society for Canadians. Thus for example when a health care policy is announced it is lead into by say here is building block critical for creating and maintaining a sustainable Canadian society. Thus the Liberal Party’s policy on rural healthcare is….. This is simply branding of the Liberals with a vision of building a sustainable future. The same when being critical of the government, e.g. spending a billion on security in Toronto does not contribute to a sustainable Canadian society. To me that vision and focus is critical for the Liberal’s future. Having this visionary focus the Party can then engage and solicit people to assist developing policy that achieves the goal and build Party Support asking Canadian to join and to help make this vision a reality.
  — Murray Colbo : Shape our platform, together
• [...] Ignatieff and the Liberal Party invite you to have your say, to participate, to build the Canada of [...]
  — Canada 150 Summary « Tim Fugard : Shape our platform, together
• A friend sent this to me and I think it very pertinent! "The more we know, the grimmer it gets. Presentations by climate scientists at this weeks conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects: • Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves. • Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane. This could catalyze one of the world's most powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming. • Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have been underestimated in the last IPCC report. Apart from the sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC assessments that are years out of date even before they are published, as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its implications for global policy. The second is that we have to stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe events like this, with their devastating implications for global food security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential catastrophe humankind has ever encountered. I think we should call it "climate collapse". Does anyone out there have a better idea?"
  — Jennifer A. Temple : Shape our platform, together