[APTA-2048]

Bonus points. We get a Liberal Senator who said we shouldn't call out Chinese treatment of Uighurs because of our history with residential schools, suggesting that a foreign agent registry is racist:

Senator fears 'modern Chinese exclusion' but some redress activists reject link

Senator Yuen Pau Woo questions whether a foreign influence registry might become "a modern form of Chinese exclusion," and says angry reaction to his suggestion proves his point about racial profiling and stigmatization.

www.ctvnews.ca

Any bets on how many of his friends would end up on the registry?

I do think we have to be very careful how this is discussed in public though. I’m a Chinese Canadian and I’m not going to lie, I feel a little bit uneasy as to where this could lead for people like me. I saw first hand just how vile and hateful people could be during the pandemic. There is valid criticism of the Chinese government (they are also vile), but I already know there are many people in this country who can’t have this conversation in a rational way.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Immediate action can limit worst effects of climate change, says UN report that distills eight years of science​

From link.

Climate change is transforming the planet, damaging the global economy and increasingly threatening human well-being, officials behind a United Nations report said on Monday.

While there remains an opportunity to minimize the harm caused by fossil fuel emissions – which continue at an increasing rate with each passing year – it will take urgent action during this decade by governments and others to seize that chance and spare every region of the globe from experiencing the most serious consequences of a dramatically warmer world.

That conclusion, from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comes as no surprise. But in the final summary of an eight-year process by scientists, economists and other experts to determine the current state and future course of the Earth’s climate, the message has never been so well-documented.

“This report will serve as the resource for policy-makers at a critical moment in history – a time when it is imperative that climate actions become a much higher priority,” said IPCC chair Hoesung Lee, at a news briefing on Monday. He and other IPCC officials spoke to reporters in Interlaken, Switzerland, where representatives have been meeting since last week to hammer out the final text of the report.

Many of the possible steps that can help improve climate outcomes and produce a more prosperous, livable world later this century are well-known, the authors say. They include smarter approaches to how we live, eat, work, build, farm and transport ourselves from place to place.

They also require stepping up our resilience as we adapt to the effects of climate change, including fires, floods, deadly heat, drought, rising seas, melting permafrost, and broader more fundamental changes to the basic systems of the planet that sustain all species.

Above all, the report stresses, they require putting climate into the mainstream of policy-making at every level, to help bend the trajectory that the planet is currently on and avoid squandering investments that have already been made toward managing the transition to higher global temperatures.

“Losses and damages are part of our future,” Dr. Lee said. “But the report also emphasizes that effective and equitable climate action now can lead to a more sustainable, resilient and just world.”

The report marks the finale of the sixth global assessment of the world’s climate since the IPCC was formed in 1988. It is a synthesis of three working group reports, released since 2021, that provide detailed overviews of the physical causes, impact and options for mitigating climate change. It also incorporates three additional documents issued since 2018 that focus on the science of climate change on land and agriculture, oceans and the frozen parts of the globe, and the consequences for humanity of the average global temperature exceeding 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The end result offers a one-stop snapshot of what is known about climate change, distilling the work of hundreds of expert authors who together reviewed thousands of scientific studies. Compared to the previous five assessments, it is also the most direct in its message – notwithstanding the fact that all 195 countries that are members of the IPCC had to sign off on the text before its release.

“The thing that has stood out most for me is the evolution of our understanding of the human influence on climate change,” said Greg Flato, a senior research scientist with Environment and Climate Change Canada, who was among the report’s core team of authors.

In the first report, released in 1990, that link was stated only tenuously, Dr. Flato said. In the current version, the human role in climate change is deemed “unequivocal” based on the scientific evidence.

And compared to earlier assessments, this one became far more pointed about what needs to be done to address the challenge.

“You can see there is a very clear sense that we can’t not talk about politics any more. We can’t just hint at it here and there,” said Matthew Paterson, director of the Sustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester who was involved in the previous assessment, released in 2014.

Politics will certainly come into play if the world is to achieve the transition away from fossil fuels that is needed to limit warming much beyond 1.5 or even 2 degrees, as specified in the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

In terms of hard numbers, the scientific evidence shows that humanity is well on course to cross the 1.5 degree signpost some time during the first half of the next decade, said Peter Thorne, a report author and professor of physical geography at Maynooth University in Ireland.

“This is why the rest of this decade is key,” he said during the briefing. “The rest of this decade is about whether we can apply the brakes and stop the warming at that level.”

Among some of the report’s other main takeaways:

• losses and damage owing to a changing climate are apparent around the globe, with nearly half the world’s population living in regions that are highly vulnerable to climate change;
• the best solutions for dealing with the problem, including shifting to low carbon energy sources, will not only reduce future environmental harms but improve human health outcomes;
• increasing investments and removing financial and other systemic barriers to sustainable development will ensure that technology and human ingenuity can be applied to the problem to best effect.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The overall message from the panel is that measures taken to date to address climate change are important but not sufficient to avert a larger crisis later this century.

Nevertheless, experts who were part of the IPCC process or informed by it say there are bright spots.

Sarah Burch is a Canada Research Chair in Sustainability Governance and Innovation at the University of Waterloo and a lead author for IPCC6, writing for Working Group 3 on sustainable development.

Prof. Burch said she’s heartened by creative efforts at local, national and international levels to transform energy, food and agriculture systems.

“I’m thrilled by the growing recognition that if we want good jobs, beautiful communities, thriving nature and healthy people, dealing with climate change head on is central to all of it,” Prof. Burch said.

Valérie Courtois also sees reason for hope.

Ms. Courtois is director of the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, an Ottawa-based group focused on Indigenous-led conservation. For the past decade, ILI has been working with Indigenous communities on initiatives including Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas as well as guardian programs, in which Indigenous peoples are involved in research, monitoring and regulatory compliance activities on traditional territories.

Those initiatives are gathering momentum, reflecting research that suggests IPCAs can help Canada meet its conservation goals

The federal government has made substantial investments in Indigenous conservation, including a December, 2022, announcement of $800-million over seven years to support up to four Indigenous-led conservation areas.

“The thing that gives me hope is that I know a lot of the solutions lie with Indigenous peoples,” Ms. Courtois said.

Forests, wetlands and grasslands, often referred to as “nature-based climate solutions,” can capture and store carbon and help in mitigation by reducing the impact of flooding, wildfires or other disasters, Ms. Courtois said.

She’s also encouraged by growing global recognition of how IPCAs can play a role in improving communities’ social, physical and mental health by developing more sustainable economies. That could involve new approaches to industrial activities such as forestry.

“So that changes the entire paradigm. You’re not looking to maximize use. You’re thinking of what needs to stay for landscapes to be healthy – and what needs to stay for people to be healthy,” Ms. Courtois said.

“The number one question I ask is, ‘What needs to stay?’ – rather than, ‘What can I take?’”

Frank Jotzo, an IPCC core team author and a professor of environmental economics at the Australian National University in Canberra, said that another positive message from the sixth assessment is that technological solutions are beginning to appear that can lead to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

“That process has got under way,” he said. “If it can continue and accelerate then the chances of keeping to lower levels of global warming are greater.”

The sixth assessment was the longest in the making for the IPCC, in part because of delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic. With its conclusion, the UN body is now set to proceed with the production of a seventh assessment, a five- to seven-year process that will officially kick off this July.

Neil Swart, a scientist with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, a federal facility based in Victoria, said that an important part of the effort will be co-ordinating results with the centre’s counterparts around the world to achieve a reliable view of where the climate is heading. As in previous cycles, the challenge will lie in properly taking into account the natural variability of Earth’s climate system as well as the choices that people and governments are collectively likely to make.

What has raised the stakes on the entire process is the growing intensity of severe weather events and their impact on people, he said.

“We’ve seen a steady increase in the request for climate information over the years,” Dr. Swart said, “but once these extreme events really started to pile on over the last few years, that demand has really peaked.”

The next assessment cycle undertaken by the IPCC is likely to benefit from the models that can provide a more fine-grained analysis of climate change in different regions and spotlight vulnerabilities.

William Cheung, an ocean scientist at the University of British Columbia and another Canadian author of the synthesis report, said the next cycle should also strive to look collectively at the full suite of global societal challenges, including climate change, food security and biodiversity conservation.

“They are so interconnected yet they are often dealt with separately in national and international policy discussions,” Dr. Cheung said. “The IPCC started doing this in the sixth assessment, and I think it will be an important focus in the next cycle.”

Time for the federal government to implement a High Speed Rail network, starting with the Windsor - Quebec City corridor.

Time for the federal government to subsidize all transit agencies across Canada with their operating budget. Not just the ribbon cutting opening of rapid transit lines, but as a constant assistance to cities.

 

[afransen]

Not to mention that far from being 'racist', a foreign agent registry would serve to protect immigrant communities from pressure from their home countries in various ways. Some of the loudest voices calling for it are Chinese Canadians who are being harassed by agents of PRC.

 

[kEiThZ]

I do think we have to be very careful how this is discussed in public though. I’m a Chinese Canadian and I’m not going to lie, I feel a little bit uneasy as to where this could lead for people like me. I saw first hand just how vile and hateful people could be during the pandemic. There is valid criticism of the Chinese government (they are also vile), but I already know there are many people in this country who can’t have this conversation in a rational way.

We should be careful about how we discuss it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the conversation at all. This is exactly what the senator is trying to do: shut down the conversation.

You're also ignoring the fact that a substantial amount of victims of CCP operations are actually Chinese Canadians:

I would suggest that the best way to make sure our fellow citizens don't get targeted by a hostile foreign power is by talking about what that hostile foreign power actually does.

 

[APTA-2048]

We should be careful about how we discuss it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the conversation at all. This is exactly what the senator is trying to do: shut down the conversation.

You're also ignoring the fact that a substantial amount of victims of CCP operations are actually Chinese Canadians:

I would suggest that the best way to make sure our fellow citizens don't get targeted by a hostile foreign power is by talking about what that hostile foreign power actually does.

I never said we shouldn't discuss it and I never defended the senator at all.

But it's funny. I've seen that line you used thrown around to shut down discussion about racism and discrimination too. I'm not ignoring anything. Chinese Canadians know all about the CCP. It's actually a little bit insulting. Maybe rethink responding with that when someone brings up their concerns about racism.

We can have this important conversation. But as it stands, the opposition and the government both appear to struggle with how to do this properly. Hysteria and denial are both things that should be avoided. This whole thing was poorly handled from the start. Leaking something like this with missing information is part of the problem.

 

[lenaitch]

I would just as concerned and outraged if I learned that the Koch Brothers, Apple or The Vatican were interfering in our elections.

 

[Northern Light]

I would just as concerned and outraged if I learned that the Koch Brothers, Apple or The Vatican were interfering in our elections.

For the record, in one fashion or another, (mostly, I think, legally) all three of those are......

Which is not to distract from the fundamental point that in an ideal world, we would like our elections to have a measure of legitimacy. While we may collectively differ on the details, we would generally agree that from riding nominations to party leaderships to election writ-large, these ought to be determined by Canadian citizens, who have a vested interest in the welfare of this country.

Of course, in reality, things are already far from any idyllic, ideal.

My biggest concern in spending anytime of substance on the China issue is not that what's being alleged isn't real, or concerning, its likely both.......

Rather, its that it makes this un-toward influence seem abnormal and particular to China; it is neither.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would just as concerned and outraged if I learned that the Koch Brothers, Apple or The Vatican were interfering in our elections.

China is the tip of the iceberg. In one of their reports CSIS pointed out that five hostile state actors had influence operations in Canada. I would assume China, Russia and Iran. Not sure who the other two. And those ops almost always target immigrants from those places.

I will point out though that the Koch Bros and Apple lobbying is different from Chinese agents working out of the embassy or consulate to influence local officials. For one, corporate lobbying happens domestically too. It's not like Loblaws and Rogers don't lobby. That's why a good lobbyist registry and regulation is necessary. State agents have none of these requirements. The ones who work from diplomatic missions have official cover and diplomatic immunity. Their domestic unofficial agents don't have to register anywhere. This is part ofv the problem at hand.

I never said we shouldn't discuss it and I never defended the senator at all.

But it's funny. I've seen that line you used thrown around to shut down discussion about racism and discrimination too. I'm not ignoring anything. Chinese Canadians know all about the CCP. It's actually a little bit insulting. Maybe rethink responding with that when someone brings up their concerns about racism.

I'm not sure what your point is then. Nobody has suggested that we target all persons of Chinese descent. But yet, the minute this topic comes up, the go to talking point is the slippery slope cautions of racism. The Prime Minister has insinuated that even suggesting there was interference is racist. Now we have a Liberal Senator suggesting a Foreign Agent registry is akin to the Exclusion Act. And yet your go to point is the slippery slope?

I'm not white. I'm well aware of the issues and sensitivities with law enforcement and intelligence agencies working with ethnic communities. This is something Canada does exceptionally well. We should build on it. Not just shut down discussion for fear of the troglodytes and bigots. We have tools to deal with them too.

 

[kEiThZ]

Time for the federal government to implement a High Speed Rail network, starting with the Windsor - Quebec City corridor.

Time for the federal government to subsidize all transit agencies across Canada with their operating budget. Not just the ribbon cutting opening of rapid transit lines, but as a constant assistance to cities.

I'm not sure why the feds always have to be responsible for everything. But I question why the feds should invest substantially in cities that refuse to cooperate on housing and densification, keep prioritizing auto centric design and infrastructure, and refuse to work on issues like permitting speeds and wait times. As a federal taxpayer, I hope they extract concessions from the cities before handing over a cent. I'm sick of seeing federal and provincial money pour into cities with local councils than undermining all that investment with local policy.

 

[lenaitch]

For the record, in one fashion or another, (mostly, I think, legally) all three of those are......

Which is not to distract from the fundamental point that in an ideal world, we would like our elections to have a measure of legitimacy. While we may collectively differ on the details, we would generally agree that from riding nominations to party leaderships to election writ-large, these ought to be determined by Canadian citizens, who have a vested interest in the welfare of this country.

Of course, in reality, things are already far from any idyllic, ideal.

My biggest concern in spending anytime of substance on the China issue is not that what's being alleged isn't real, or concerning, its likely both.......

Rather, its that it makes this un-toward influence seem abnormal and particular to China; it is neither.

China is the tip of the iceberg. In one of their reports CSIS pointed out that five hostile state actors had influence operations in Canada. I would assume China, Russia and Iran. Not sure who the other two. And those ops almost always target immigrants from those places.

I will point out though that the Koch Bros and Apple lobbying is different from Chinese agents working out of the embassy or consulate to influence local officials. For one, corporate lobbying happens domestically too. It's not like Loblaws and Rogers don't lobby. That's why a good lobbyist registry and regulation is necessary. State agents have none of these requirements. The ones who work from diplomatic missions have official cover and diplomatic immunity. Their domestic unofficial agents don't have to register anywhere. This is part ofv the problem at hand.



I'm not sure what your point is then. Nobody has suggested that we target all persons of Chinese descent. But yet, the minute this topic comes up, the go to talking point is the slippery slope cautions of racism. The Prime Minister has insinuated that even suggesting there was interference is racist. Now we have a Liberal Senator suggesting a Foreign Agent registry is akin to the Exclusion Act. And yet your go to point is the slippery slope?

I'm not white. I'm well aware of the issues and sensitivities with law enforcement and intelligence agencies working with ethnic communities. This is something Canada does exceptionally well. We should build on it. Not just shut down discussion for fear of the troglodytes and bigots. We have tools to deal with them too.

My post was an attempt to counter another without directly quoting so as to not be dragged be dragged into the 'race card' debate. Quite frankly, I dragged my examples out of thin air, but KeithZ raises a good point about State vs non-State players.

 

[kEiThZ]

My post was an attempt to counter another without directly quoting so as to not be dragged be dragged into the 'race card' debate. Quite frankly, I dragged my examples out of thin air, but KeithZ raises a good point about State vs non-State players.

I get the temptation to draw parallels, but there's a real danger and naivete in equating corporate lobbying with what is effectively espionage from state actors. Maybe, it's my professional experience with this stuff. But state actors are far more dangerous to me. They have protections, abilities and motivations that corporate actors just don't have. And whereas corporate lobbyists tend to target politicians mostly, state actors actually target civil society, minority communities, industry, etc. in addition to lawmakers. Also, there's the level of threat. Maybe the Koch Bros lobby against climate legislation. Bad. But nobody is getting killed. On the other hand, Iranian agents may be threatening to kill family members left back, of dissidents in Canada.

 

[W. K. Lis]

NEXUS application centres reopen at 8 Canadian airports starting March 27​

From link.

Starting Monday, March 20, NEXUS applicants can book interviews at most major Canadian airports.

The enrolment centres have been closed since March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but were extended because of a diplomatic dispute over legal protections for American customs officers.

That has led to a huge backlog in applications.

NEXUS enrolment centres will be reopening at the following airports and dates:

March 27
Halifax Stanfield International Airport (YHZ)
Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport (YWG)

April 3
Vancouver International Airport (YVR)

April 12
Calgary International Airport (YYC)
Edmonton International Airport (YEG)

April 17
Montreal-Trudeau International Airport (YUL)

April 24
Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ)
Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (YOW)

Travellers who want the streamlined border-crossing benefits of a Nexus card need to go in for an enrolment centre interview held by both Canadian and U.S. officials before being granted one. Thousands of travellers request NEXUS memberships each month, CBSA said in a news release.

The 13 Canadian enrolment centres have been closed for about one year because of a dispute over legal protections for American customs officers, including the authority to be able to carry a gun while on duty.

The U.S. reopened its 13 Nexus centres in April to allow that joint interview process to continue as normal. But CBP insisted Canada grant its agents the same legal protections they enjoy on U.S. soil before returning to Canadian Nexus centres, which Ottawa refused to entertain.

As a workaround, Canada and the U.S. began allowing Canadian applicants to be jointly interviewed at American land border crossings in order to begin addressing a backlog that reached as high as 350,000 applicants by early fall 2022.

CBSA said since Oct. 1, 2022, CBSA and CBP have completed more than 300,000 NEXUS enrolments and reduced the net inventory of applicants by approximately 130,000 from its peak in summer 2022.

On the U.S. side, where enrolment centres have been open since April 2022, what had been a 16-month wait between making an application and receiving a Nexus card was down to between 12 and 14 months as of January 2023.

CBSA says the new enrolment option for air travellers has two steps:

• Canadian airport enrolment centres will be staffed with CBSA officers who will complete the Canadian portion of the NEXUS interview;
• The U.S. interviews are completed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at Canadian airport preclearance locations when applicants depart Canada to fly to the U.S.

International airports in Canada that offer preclearance services include those in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa and Winnipeg, as well as Pearson International Airport in Toronto.

Conditionally-approved NEXUS applicants and renewing members who require an interview will be able to book the Canadian portion of their interview at one of these airports through the Trusted Traveller Programs scheduler as interview times become available.

Applicants have three options for their NEXUS interviews:

• A joint U.S.–Canada interview at a land enrolment centre (14 locations) in the U.S.
• A split interview at a Canadian land enrolment centre (two locations) followed by an interview at a U.S. land enrolment centre
• A two-step interview at a Canadian airport enrolment centre (eight locations), followed by an interview at a U.S. preclearance location in a Canadian airport.

Existing members who renew their membership prior to the expiry date will have it extended for up to five years to allow for the scheduling and completion of interviews, as required.

After being conditionally approved for NEXUS, applicants have up to five years to complete both the U.S. and Canadian interviews.

Canada doesn’t want American customs officials to have guns outside their preclearance area; it’s just okay for them to have guns across the imaginary line in the airport!

 

[APTA-2048]

I'm not sure what your point is then. Nobody has suggested that we target all persons of Chinese descent. But yet, the minute this topic comes up, the go to talking point is the slippery slope cautions of racism. The Prime Minister has insinuated that even suggesting there was interference is racist. Now we have a Liberal Senator suggesting a Foreign Agent registry is akin to the Exclusion Act. And yet your go to point is the slippery slope?

I'm not white. I'm well aware of the issues and sensitivities with law enforcement and intelligence agencies working with ethnic communities. This is something Canada does exceptionally well. We should build on it. Not just shut down discussion for fear of the troglodytes and bigots. We have tools to deal with them too.

I only mentioned it because I wanted to express my thoughts after a difficult three years for Asian Canadians. Just as the pandemic winds down we have to deal with more potential backlash brought on by the Chinese government. The atmosphere right now feels similar is what I was trying to get at and I just wanted to put it out there that this conversation is important, but needs to be done rationally.

I guess my feelings are better summed up in this article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/anti-asian-racism-china-election-interference-justin-trudeau-1.6779785

Despite the headline, it’s quite balanced. It has a section of “Racism as a shield” which is what you’re talking about. It also touches on Chinese Canadian’s dual fear of the Communist Party and of a domestic backlash against them.

My post was an attempt to counter another without directly quoting so as to not be dragged be dragged into the 'race card' debate. Quite frankly, I dragged my examples out of thin air, but KeithZ raises a good point about State vs non-State players.

I’m assuming that was directed at me, but mentioning other types of influence and interference has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Read what I wrote above to see what I meant.

I want to make it clear: I don’t want to shut down discussion. I was just hoping some people on here could empathize with how Chinese Canadians may feel. Like the article points out many fear the Communist Party, but there is also the fear of domestic hate as seen throughout the pandemic. And to complicate matters: people using “racism as a shield.” That definitely muddies things.

In hindsight maybe my original post should have been a stand-alone post so it did look like I was defending certain individuals.

 

[kEiThZ]

I only mentioned it because I wanted to express my thoughts after a difficult three years for Asian Canadians. Just as the pandemic winds down we have to deal with more potential backlash brought on by the Chinese government. The atmosphere right now feels similar is what I was trying to get at and I just wanted to put it out there that this conversation is important, but needs to be done rationally.

Anti-Chinese racism during Covid was absolutely disgusting. Governments should have done more to crack down.

The current atmosphere is most definitely not great. And that goes beyond the security concerns, with broader issues with immigration. Sadly, the advocates who would be best suited to speak up for Chinese Canadians (politicians from that community) are some of the very problems that agencies are complaining about.

I worry that the political polarization around interference and the willingness of the current government to use racism as an excuse to avoid accountability and scrutiny, is risking delegitimizing real complaints about racism. At some point, the government in power will change (as is the course of democracy) and when it does I don't want combating racism to be seen solely as a Liberal cause and combating foreign interference as solely a Conservative cause. This would be very bad for the country and even worse for Chinese Canadians.