Who will run for parliament in the Nunavut riding?

As of right now (as far as I know), there are  no candidates lined up to compete against Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq  in the riding of Nunavut.  Neither the NDP nor the Liberals have been able to find a candidate so far although the Greens had a candidate initially, but he withdrew from the race shortly after being announced.  

So at this point it doesn't seem likely that anyone is going to be able to put up a decent challenge to Aglukkaq in this riding despite several websites predicting that this will be a "race to watch."  In 2008 Aglukkaq won by 5.5% with about 35% of the vote.  I expect the margin to be a little bigger this time.

Minister Aglukkaq (Shown here preparing to slap political opponents)

UNSC passes no-fly zone over Libya

Just two quick things to say:

1) Awesome

2) Pretty happy right now that Canada didn't get a seat on the security council.  Harper probably would have had us abstain, and we'd never have been able to live that down.

Leave a comment with your thoughts

SFUO Elections

Tomorrow is the last day of elections for the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa.

Lets all face some facts here: if you haven't voted yet, odds are you don't really care who gets elected.  If you cared that much you would have voted already.  Tomorrow you're going to see candidates running around telling people to vote for them in a last minute attempt to clinch the election.   I recommend you do what they say.

Allow me to explain:

A good work ethic is probably at least as important as a good platform for a member of student government, and what better way to test work ethic than a frantic race around campus, petitioning undecideds?  So if you have no knowledge of any of the platforms, just vote for whoever gets to you first.  If nothing else, at least we can have a hard working student government.
 

CBC: Excessive Royal Wedding Coverage

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has taken every possible opportunity in recent weeks to report on the impending marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton, a subject that doesn't affect Canadians in any significant way and most Canadians don't really care about.

Canada's state media apparatus has always been somewhat out of touch with what Canadians are interested in, but their recent obsession with British Royalty has been particularly uninteresting.  Lately I've started changing the channel over to CTV whenever the a "Royal Engagement" segment comes on.

The above graphic was meant to illustrate the convoluted and mostly meaningless way that the wedding is relevant to Canadians, but I'm not sure I really got the message across.

I did come across one interesting story on the CBC website while I was researching this post.  Apparently, some British parliamentarians are considering amending succession laws so that a daughter born to William and Kate would have a place in the line of succession.  If Britain made this change and Canada didn't, then Canada could technically recognize a different person as "King of Canada" while his older sister would be "Queen of Britain."  Hilarious.

China and the Canadian Seal Hunt

Recently, the Canadian government signed a deal with China that will allow the Canadian sealing industry to sell its products there.  The industry has been suffering lately following the European Union's ban that recently came into affect.  The deal seems to have drawn the attention of groups such as PETA who claim that animal rights groups in China are speaking out against their government's decision to sign the deal.

Firstly, if this is true, I am greatly encouraged by the level of free speech developing in China that allows these groups to criticize their government.

Secondly, while I know making fun of PETA is like shooting fish in a barrel (an act they would, hilariously, probably fight against), none of the seal hunting practices described in the above article are in use today.  The Canadian seal hunt is at least comparably humane to any other modern animal industry, so there is no reason we should treat the seal industry any differently.

Left: Cute.  Right: Delicious?

It's not that I think PETA is wrong, necessarily.  Obviously its important to insure our industries are humane.  It's just that the vast majority of people who support bans on seal products are likely to give up their Big Mac somewhere around the time it is pried from their cold dead hands.  Either you're against products made from animals or you support them.  Pick a side, we're at war.

Gun control: then and now

This Saturday, comedian Seth Meyers weighed in on the gun control debate currently going on in the United States (I couldn't find a link that works in Canada, but its on Hulu if you're in the States.)  He suggested that if the American founding fathers were here today they wouldn't be supporting the right to bear arms as much as they would be horrified by what guns are now.  I thought that was a good point, so i decided to take a look at the differences between modern weaponry and the weaponry of 1787.

Rifles:
1787:
  

2011:



Handguns:
1787:

2011:

Close Range:
1787:

2011:

Graph of Population By Latitude and Longitude

While browsing the internet I came across this graph showing the world population by latitude and longitude and thought I would share it.

Via: Chris Blattman

Fun fact: the most populous settlement north of 60 (Helsinki, Finland) has 63.5 times the population of the most populous settlement north of 70 (Hammerfest, Norway) which has 1852.2 times the population of the largest settlement north of 80 (Alert, Canada).

Why Canada doesn't need its Senate

Welcome to part 1 of my indefinite part series: Why we don't need the Senate.

This month, Senator Andree Champagne attacked Vietnamese born MP Eve-Mary Thi Lac by questioning her loyalty to Canada.  Champagne then went on to be quoted in the Toronto Sun saying she was proud of being "a pure French Quebecer - see my geneology."

This is absolutely ridiculous.  I think the important thing to draw from this is that no elected government official could possibly get away with being so offensive.  Today's reason we don't need a senate?  They aren't held accountable for the ridiculous things they sometimes say and/or do.

Funny side note: When the Sun tried to reach Champagne for comment they couldn't because she was on vacation.  She's a Senator, of course she's on vacation!

Is Canadian oil really "ethical" oil?

In a recent article in the Toronto Sun, Ezra Levant (author of "Ethical Oil") applauded environment minister Kent's description of the Canadian tar sands as the world's "ethical oil" source.  Levant's argument is summed up best in the following quote:

"We're not just better than they are environmentally. We're also more peaceful, we treat workers better and we respect human rights. In other words, we produce oil in a Canadian way, not a Saudi way. The oilsands are like the fair trade coffee of the word's oil industry."


In many respects this is a fair argument.  It is certainly undeniably that Canada has the best human rights record among the top 4 oil exporting countries, and I'm sure Canadian environmental regulations far outmatch those of Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the U.A.E.


But does being better than the most obvious alternative really make the tar sands the best option?
The answer to that question is an obvious no.  In this age of climate change and environmental degradation, government policy should be promoting solutions in more sustainable energies such as solar, nuclear and geothermal.  If the best  we can do is a slightly better alternative to the practices that got us into our current mess, then clearly we're not trying hard enough.

My Picks for "Public Eye Awards 2011"

Recently I came across this website which is holding a vote for most evil corporation of the year.  Now obviously evil isn't the right word so for the remainder of this article I'll say irresponsible.  So among the corporations nominated on the aforementioned website, here's how I would rank them from most socially/environmentally responsible to least socially/environmentally responsible.


                                                                                                                                                                    
6) Axpo.  Current place in voting: #2
"Axpo obtains Uranium from the most radioactive place on Earth and has been concealing this fact for years."

Ignoring the inconsistency of the website which describes the area as "the second most radioactive" and "one of the most radioactive" places on earth in other blurbs, Axpo seems to be exactly the kind of organization that Greenpeace (who funded the website) would normally support. Axpo garners my award for "least irresponsible nominee" for its active work in the fields of geothermal, hydro, and nuclear energy, all of which are reducing the use of fossil fuels which contribute to global warming.
                                                                                                                                                                   
5) Phillip Morris. Current place in voting #6.
"Philip Morris filed a complaint against Uruguay’s anti-smoking laws and thus undermines public health policy."

Its not that I think smoking is beneficial to society or anything crazy like that, but I do believe that initiating a discussion of the role of the state in what people choose to put into their bodies shouldn't get a corporation nominated for "most evil."






                                                                                                                                                                    
3 and 4(Tie) . Current place in voting #4 and #5.
"Foxconn’s miserable working conditions drove at least 18 young Chinese to commit suicide in 2010"
"AngloGold Ashanti’s gold mining in Ghana contaminates soil and poisons people."

These corporations are both nominated for effectively the same reason: poor operating conditions in underdeveloped countries. In both cases, this isn't really a failure of the respective corporations as it is a failure of government to regulate. Or in the case of China, a failure of government not to intentionally oppress its own people.


                                                                                                                                                               
2) Neste Oil. Current place in voting #3.
"Under the misleading name of “Green Diesel", Neste Oil mass-produces biofuel that results in the clearing of rain forest."

Bio-fuel is fuel made out of plants. Plants are green. Ergo, Green Diesel. Its only misleading if Greenpeace thinks they have a monopoly on the word green. As much as I like to call out Greenpeace on their inconsistencies, I do think bio-fuel is pretty much the stupidest attempt at eliminating fossil fuels that anyone could come up with. The growth of plants for bio-fuel takes up farm space that should be producing food and results in the clearing of rain forest in order to create more space for bio-fuel farming. However, this is more the case of a company responding to incentives thought up by stupid politicians than it is a case of a company acting irresponsible or "evil," so Neste Oil doesn't make it to number one.
                                                                                                                                                               
1) British Petroleum (BP): Current place in voting #1.

"The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico cost 11 people their lives and has killed off vast marine areas for years to come."

Of course its BP. The disaster in the gulf dominated headlines for months this year while I don't think anyone has even heard of most of the other corporations on this list. While I still wouldn't apply the label "evil" to BP, the fact that an accident like this is even possible shows that companies engaging in deep-water drilling activities such as this are taking on an extraordinary amount of risk in an incredibly irresponsible manner. The worst part of the disaster though, is that it is going to slow down the timetable for arctic oil development in Nunavut. Seems we will have to wait a little longer before that industry is going to start contributing to local economies in northern Canada.

                                                                                                                                                                
So with the exception of Axpo, it seems that I agree for the most part with voters on this website. I think people just assume Axpo is irresponsible because its involved with nuclear energy which has a powerful stigma associated with it in North America. In reality, nuclear power is going to be an important part of our future strategies to combat climate change, so people are going to have to learn to deal with it.

I'm not sure why such a poll is necessary really. I feel like they could have just ran BP as an uncontested candidate for "most evil corporation" and nobody would have complained.