Calgary church 'doubles down' on inclusive welcome with new Pride banners after vandalism

CBC/Radio-Canada - 

It was a special service Sunday at the Scarboro United Church in southwest Calgary as the community celebrated new Pride banners to send the message that they are a strong and affirming congregation.

"We kind of doubled down with being public, intentional and explicit in our welcome," said Rev. Erin Klassen.

The church has been an affirming congregation for at least 12 years, which means it has gone through a process to ensure it is "open and inclusive to folks of all gender, identity and sexual expressions."

But in March, a banner meant to communicate that fact and welcome LGBTQ people was vandalized — partially burned and ripped and with the word "repent" written across it. Calgary police believe it to be a possible hate crime.

Klassen said initial emotions ranged from worry for queer folks having to walk past a symbol of hate, to anger that someone would be so hurtful. But the community quickly showed support.

"As discouraged as we were when the banners were defaced, the response has been wonderful," she said, calling it a sad way to get a good reminder.


© Helen Pike/CBCRev. Erin Klassen, left, stands beside Elder Marilyn Shingoose,

 who led a blessing of the new banners on Sunday.

Three organizations offered to donate new banners, said Sharon Woodhouse, who has been a member of Scarboro United Church for almost 40 years.

"That's just an affirmation for us that we're on the right track and that this is what people need. They need that acceptance and awareness that Scarboro church is going to be where gay people can come and be loved," said Woodhouse.

She said that along with Scarboro, over 50 United churches across Calgary are affirming congregations.


© Helen Pike/CBC

Parishioners gathered outside the church where one of the new banners hangs.

The church's two new banners were donated by Reputable Red Panda.

"When we saw the news … we felt it was our obligation to do what we can," said Brandyn Funk, owner of the Calgary printing service.

He is not a member of the church, but supports its inclusive message.

"We wanted to show that although members of the community may not agree with them, the whole community certainly does."

HEY YANKEE
Overturning Roe v. Wade would have wide-reaching implications beyond U.S. borders


Candace Johnson, Professor of Political Science, University of Guelph - 

YESTERDAY
The Conversation
© THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick Doyle

After after a U.S. Supreme Court opinion indicating Roe v. Wade could be overturned was leaked earlier this month, there has been a lot of discussion about how it will impact Americans. But this will also have wide-reaching implications outside of the United States.

U.S. policy decisions are influential beyond their borders. While the fall of Roe v. Wade would not immediately create legal changes in other countries, there will certainly be spillover effects.

In Canada, this might mean continued limited and uneven access, a real problem in some parts of the country. It would also likely embolden anti-choice politicians and activists, even though the vast majority of Canadians supports a woman’s right to choose.

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a right to abortion. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans support pro-choice positions, the overturn of the decision has seemed inevitable for years, maybe decades.

According to a recent public opinion poll by Leger, 74 per cent of Americans support abortion, yet 29 per cent of those claim that this support applies only in certain conditions.

That same opinion poll revealed that 28 per cent of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned (56 per cent believe it should not).

Abortion is always necessary

Foreshadowed by increasing abortion restrictions, such as parental notifications, mandatory ultrasounds, counselling and waiting periods, targeted regulation of abortion provider laws and the recent appointment of justices during Donald Trump’s presidency. The draft opinion confirmed what many people expected: Roe v. Wade would be overturned.

The opinion contains several contentious points of law — is there a criminal justification for abortion in the Common Law tradition? Are constitutional protections for abortion consistent with “ordered liberty?” It also contains troubling social commentary on the (mischaracterized) racialized dimensions of abortion and modern developments that have seemingly created a set of conditions for women so advanced that abortion should be unnecessary.

But this sort of reasoning is not a reflection of reality. Abortion is always necessary.


© (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades)

A woman chants during a rally for for abortion rights in front of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington on May 14, 2022.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive health and rights research and policy organization in the U.S., “unintended pregnancy rates are highest in countries that restrict abortion access and lowest in countries where abortion is broadly legal. As a result, abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is restricted and those where the procedure is broadly legal (i.e., where it is available on request or on socio-economic grounds).”

So even with the removal of the constitutional protection offered by Roe v. Wade, and the ability of individual states to make their own laws and impose restrictions, demand for abortion will not decrease.

Potential implications in the U.S.

Related video: U.S. braces for fallout from Roe v. Wade decision (cbc.ca)

When Roe v. Wade falls, which is expected to be this summer, there are 13 states with legislation waiting to go into effect that will ban abortion with very limited exceptions. And several other states are expected to ban or severely restrict abortion as soon as constitutional protections are removed.

While many women will be forced to travel across state lines to access abortion — barring those who can’t leave family, jobs or can’t afford to — some will travel across international borders to Canada or Mexico in order to have the procedure done.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half (42.3 per cent) of all abortions conducted in the U.S. in 2019 were medical.

A 2021 Mexican Supreme Court ruling decriminalized abortion throughout the country. And while it is not yet legal in all Mexican states, a broad range of pills are widely available and affordable.

Americans are accustomed to travelling to Mexico to access affordable medical treatment that is out of reach in their own country. Overturning Roe v. Wade will have some Americans looking to Canada as an option.

What’s happening in Canada?

In Canada, abortion is safe and legal, but not always widely available. And there is concern that the spillover effects of overturning Roe v. Wade might make the fragile existing system even worse.

During the last federal election campaign the Liberal government promised to improve access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, including abortion, but so far there has been little to show for it.

Last week, in response to the leaked opinion, the federal government announced $3.5 million in new funding for two initiatives to improve access to abortion. The federal government also withheld money from New Brunswick’s health transfer for its continued refusal to fund surgical abortions outside of a hospital.

This sort of token investment and minor enforcement of the Canada Health Act is largely symbolic, but $3.5 million is simply not enough to have any real impact and punishing New Brunswick does little to affect policy decisions at the provincial level.


© THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick Doyle

In Canada, many pro-life groups are funded by their American counterparts.

While health is a right, the provision of health care falls into the jurisdiction of the provinces. This results in uneven abortion access across the country.

According to Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, there are 49 abortion providers in Québec, 38 in Ontario and 24 in British Columbia. But there is only one provider in the Northwest Territories, as well as one in Prince Edward Island and one in the Yukon. There are also no rural providers across seven provinces and territories.

The overturn of Roe v. Wade would likely not mean that a similar judicial decision is forthcoming in Canada, or that federal legislation, in the short term, would erode access.

The Liberals have supported reproductive choice and denied state funding for anti-choice groups, the Bloc Québécois is decidedly pro-choice and the Conservatives seem to want to avoid or underplay abortion. Both the NDP and Green Party are officially pro-choice, although it took the Greens time to come to this as an official position.

The impending fall of Roe v. Wade will embolden people who are anti-choice and it is conceivable that the end of constitutional protections for abortion in the U.S. will fuel pro-life groups to fund projects elsewhere.

The denigration of reproductive rights in the U.S. might permit provinces that are not doing enough to ensure access to maintain the status quo. Roe v. Wade demonstrates that reproductive rights are fragile, often insufficient and in need of protection everywhere.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
Roe v. Wade highlights the important role of high courts in democratic societies

Impending demise of Roe v. Wade puts a spotlight on a major privacy risk: Your phone reveals more about you than you think

Candace Johnson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Physicists predict Earth will become a chaotic world, with dire consequences

Paul Sutter - Yesterday 
Space

Humans aren't just making Earth warmer, they are making the climate chaotic, a stark new study suggests.

The new research, which was posted April 21 to the preprint database arXiv, draws a broad and general picture of the full potential impact of human activity on the climate. And the picture isn't pretty.

While the study doesn't present a complete simulation of a climate model, it does paint a broad sketch of where we're heading if we don't curtail climate change and our unchecked use of fossil fuels, according to the study authors, scientists in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Porto in Portugal.

"The implications of climate change are well known (droughts, heat waves, extreme phenomena, etc.)," study researcher Orfeu Bertolami told Live Science in an email. "If the Earth System gets into the region of chaotic behavior, we will lose all hope of somehow fixing the problem."

Related: It's 'now or never' to stop climate disaster, UN scientists say

Climate shifts

Earth periodically experiences massive changes in climate patterns, going from one stable equilibrium to another. These shifts are usually driven by external factors like changes in Earth's orbit or a massive surge in volcanic activity. But past research suggests we are now entering a new phase, one driven by human activity. As humans pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we are creating a new Anthropocene era, a period of human-influenced climate systems, something our planet has never experienced before.

In the new study, researchers modeled the introduction of the Anthropocene as a phase transition. Most people are familiar with phase transitions in materials, for instance when an ice cube changes phase from a solid to a liquid by melting into water, or when water evaporates into a gas. But phase transitions also occur in other systems. In this case, the system is Earth's climate. A given climate provides for regular and predictable seasons and weather, and a phase transition in the climate leads to a new pattern of seasons and weather. When the climate goes through a phase transition, this means that Earth is experiencing a sudden and rapid change in patterns.

Logistics problems

If human activity is driving a phase transition in Earth's climate, that means we are causing the planet to develop a new set of weather patterns. What those patterns will look like is one of the most pressing problems of climate science.

Where is Earth's climate headed? That depends significantly on exactly what our activity is over the next few decades. Drastically reducing carbon output, for example, would lead to different outcomes than changing nothing at all, the researchers wrote in the study.

To account for the different trajectories and choices that humanity could make, the researchers employed a mathematical tool called a logistic map. The logistic map is great at describing situations where some variable — such as the amount of carbon in the atmosphere — can grow but naturally reaches a limit. For example, scientists often use the logistic map to describe animal populations: Animals can keep giving birth, increasing their numbers, but they reach a limit when they consume all the food in their environment (or their predators get too hungry and consume them).

Related: The 5 mass extinction events that shaped the history of Earth

Our influence on the environment is definitely growing, and it has been for over a century. But it will naturally reach a limit, according to the researchers. For example, the human population can only grow so large and can only have so many carbon-emitting activities; and pollution will eventually degrade the environment. At some point in the future, carbon output will reach a maximum limit, and the researchers found that a logistic map can capture the future trajectory of that carbon output very well.

Everything is chaos

The researchers explored different ways that the human logistic map could evolve, depending on a variety of factors like our population, introduction of carbon reduction strategies and better, more efficient technologies. Once they found how human carbon output would evolve with time, they used that to examine how Earth's climate would evolve through the human-driven phase transition.

In the best cases, once humanity reaches the limit of carbon output, Earth's climate stabilizes at a new, higher average temperature. This higher temperature is overall bad for humans, because it still leads to higher sea levels and more extreme weather events. But at least it's stable: The Anthropocene looks like previous climate ages, only warmer, and it will still have regular and repeatable weather patterns.

But in the worst cases, the researchers found that Earth's climate leads to chaos. True, mathematical chaos. In a chaotic system, there is no equilibrium and no repeatable patterns. A chaotic climate would have seasons that change wildly from decade to decade (or even year to year). Some years would experience sudden flashes of extreme weather, while others would be completely quiet. Even the average Earth temperature may fluctuate wildly, swinging from cooler to hotter periods in relatively short periods of time. It would become utterly impossible to determine in what direction Earth's climate is headed.

"A chaotic behavior means that it will be impossible to predict the behavior of Earth System in the future even if we know with great certainty its present state," Bertolami said. "It will mean that any capability to control and to drive the Earth System towards an equilibrium state that favors the habitability of the biosphere will be lost."

Most concerning, the researchers found that above a certain critical threshold temperature for Earth's atmosphere, a feedback cycle can kick in where a chaotic result would become unavoidable. There are some signs that we may have already passed that tipping point, but it's not too late to avert climate disaster.

Originally published on Live Science.

Cigarette ads were banned decades ago. Let's do the same for fossil fuels

Peter Dietsch, Professor, Philosophy, University of Victoria -

The Conversation

There is no reasonable disagreement that humanity needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. People might argue over how large a reduction is necessary or about the best ways to achieve it, but almost everyone agrees it has to be done.

The available science suggests that technological fixes alone will not do the trick. We need to reduce the consumption of high-emission goods and services, those made from fossil fuels or that rely heavily on them.

And yet, advertising for such goods and services is everywhere, encouraging fossil-fuel consumption: flights to Rome, pickup trucks and SUVs, cruises to Alaska, steak from Argentina and so on.

Should such advertising for fossil-fuel-intensive goods and services be prohibited? This would only be consistent with how we deal with other products whose consumption causes serious harm, such as tobacco. For example, the United Kingdom banned TV advertising of cigarettes in 1965, the United States banned cigarette ads on TV and radio in 1970, and Canada has banned all forms of tobacco advertising since 1989.
The harm principle

A core principle of liberalism holds that individuals should not be constrained in their actions, unless these actions cause harm to others. For instance, you are not allowed to drive through a residential neighbourhood at 100 kilometres per hour, because this would put the lives of others at risk.

Now, you might rightly point out that when you take a flight to a sunny beach in Mexico, you are not putting the lives of others at risk, at least not in the same, direct way. However, there is a collective action problem here: If everyone takes a flight to a sunny beach in Mexico, the aggregate emissions from all the flights will lead to a warmer planet, extreme weather events and will not only harm others but put lives at risk.


© (Shutterstock)

The emissions from cars, trucks and other gasoline-burning vehicles put lives at risk.

It is controversial whether this mediated harm from your flight to Mexico is enough to justify stopping you from going to Mexico. Instead, I propose to apply a weaker and less controversial version of the harm principle: When the actions of individuals cause significant harm to others, even indirectly and mediated through aggregate effects, then as a society we should abstain from encouraging these actions.

We know that the emissions from fossil-fuel intensive goods and services put lives at risk. We also know that, overall, advertising encourages their consumption. Therefore, on this version of the harm principle, we should ban advertising for fossil-fuel intensive activities.

An important precedent


Related video: FDA Proposes Ban on Menthol Cigarettes  PBS NEWS

As the World Health Organization points out, “tobacco kills nearly six million of its users each year.” Because of the harm smoking causes, its proven link to several forms of cancer in particular, states have taken measures to discourage it.

These measures include a comprehensive ban on all advertising for tobacco products under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. They are further justified because of the second-hand effects of smoke, that is, the health risks for people other than the smoker themselves.

The number of people dying from climate change is already comparable to smoking-related deaths. One study estimates that between 2000 and 2019, more than five million people a year died due to the effects of climate change. With the frequency of heat waves, severe storms, floods and other extreme weather events set to increase due to climate change, this number will only grow in the coming years.

Given what societies have done on tobacco, it would only be consistent to ban advertising for fossil-fuel-intensive activities. In addition, the status quo is also inconsistent with the alleged commitment of governments to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Governments around the world have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, in an effort to meet the Paris Agreement goal to limit warming to 1.5 C. Yet, they tolerate advertising for activities that are clearly counterproductive to achieving this ambitious goal. This is akin to a drug rehabilitation centre putting up posters everywhere telling its patients how great it feels to take drugs.

Where to start?

Coming up with a definition of a fossil-fuel intensive activity is a bit more complex than providing a definition of smoking, but it can be done. Here is a plausible starting point: Define a certain threshold of emission-intensity that qualifies the good or service for the ban.

For example, given that an average passenger vehicle emits about 2.3 grams of carbon dioxide per litre of gasoline, one might ban advertising for any vehicle that emits more than that, and subsequently lower the threshold to further encourage innovation. That same standard would then be applied to other means of transport such as flights, leisure boats, cruises. Similar thresholds for other categories of goods and services such as red meat or construction could also be defined.

Read more: The fossil fuel era is coming to an end, but the lawsuits are just beginning

Politically, the proposal faces two significant challenges: industry pushback and political reluctance to ask voters to rein in their lifestyle. Once again, valuable lessons can be learned from tobacco.

The trigger for change might lie in legal action that gives voice to the fundamental interests of members of future generations — those who are being harmed by fossil-fuel advertising today. We owe it to them not to encourage activities that will kill them.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
Thank you for not driving: Climate change requires anti-smoking tactics

How did orthodontists sell orthodontics?

Peter Dietsch receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and from the Humboldt Foundation. He is a member of the College of the Royal Society of Canada.

HERE IT COMES...CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

BILL 96

Quebec's use of notwithstanding clause in language law opens constitutional debate

 The Canadian Press

MONTREAL — When federal Justice Minister David Lametti reacted last week to the adoption of Quebec's language law reform, he took aim at the provincial government's proactive use of the notwithstanding clause to shield the law from constitutional challenges.

Lametti and other critics of Bill 96 say the government's use of that clause — Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — shuts down debate and prevents a proper judicial review of the legislation. The proactive use of Section 33, which permits a government to override certain provisions of the Constitution, is an "unintended negative consequence in our political system," he said.

The Quebec government, meanwhile, says its use of the clause is legitimate and necessary to protect laws that are supported by the majority of Quebecers. The government calls Section 33 "the parliamentary sovereignty provision."

Bill 96, among other things, limits the use of English — one of Canada's two official languages — in the public service and permits inspectors to conduct searches and seizures in businesses without warrants. The proactive use of Section 33 means the courts cannot declare Bill 96 unconstitutional because of its potential violations of certain fundamental rights included in the Charter.

The two other recent cases where the notwithstanding clause was invoked outside of Quebec — by the Ontario government in 2021 and by Saskatchewan in 2017 — it was used to override court decisions. Quebec is the only province to invoke the clause before judicial review.

The notwithstanding clause, Lametti told reporters, "was meant to be the last word in what is, in effect, a dialogue between the courts and legislatures. It wasn't meant to be the first word."

Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo who studies the Supreme Court's role in shaping public policy, said there's nothing in the Charter that outlines when Section 33 can be used. He said, however, that he doesn't think its pre-emptive use was envisioned when the Charter was drafted in 1982.

"Quebec is right to say, legally, we can use it pre-emptively and they're at least partially right to say the notwithstanding clause is a parliamentary sovereignty provision, but it's also an unprincipled use of the notwithstanding clause," Macfarlane said in an interview Friday.

"It's a political manoeuvre to avoid having that negative judicial ruling that would be inevitable if they hadn't used the notwithstanding clause."


Quebec adopts controversial Bill 96 language reform

Constitutional lawyer Julius Grey argued before the Superior Court against Quebec's secularism law — known as Bill 21 — which bans certain government employees from wearing religious symbols at work. That case is before the Court of Appeal. He said in an recent interview that the question as to how Section 33 can be used will be decided when the case reaches the Supreme Court.

Grey said he hopes the high court will rule that provinces can't use the clause as they please.

"Parliamentary sovereignty is precisely what the Charter wants to get away from," Grey said. "We all understand that parliamentary sovereignty has certain dangers — the rule of the majority can turn into the tyranny of the majority."

Benoît Pelletier, a cabinet minister in the Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest, said he supports the Quebec government's use of the notwithstanding clause, a tool he said is "at the heart" of the separation of powers in Canada's legal system.

Section 33, he said, was included in the Charter to preserve parliamentary sovereignty but also to maintain the balance of power between the judiciary and the government.

For Pelletier, the proactive use of the provision isn't a problem because the courts can still review the legislation — a Superior Court ruling on Bill 21 that upheld most of the law was more than 200 pages, he said. In that ruling, Superior Court Justice Marc-André Blanchard found that Bill 21 violates fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of religion, but he couldn't strike those elements of the bill down because the law was shielded by Section 33.

Pelletier said he thinks the Quebec government is making "moderate" use of Section 33. "As a province, or as a nation, or as a political unit, it's normal that Quebec makes collective choices that are different from those of the other provinces."

Patrick Taillon, a constitutional law professor at Université Laval, said Quebec has been something of a "champion" of using Section 33. The province has used it more than others, he said in an interview Friday, "because it allows our elected officials to exercise a certain form of autonomy."

The Supreme Court, he added, has already upheld the preventive use of the notwithstanding clause, in a 1988 decision involving Quebec's French-language signage legislation. That decision made clear that the court's role was not to decide whether it was right or wrong to use Section 33 but only whether it conformed to the Constitution.

Macfarlane said it's not just Quebec's use of Section 33 that concerns him. The Ontario government's 2021 use of the notwithstanding clause to protect a campaign finance law was also problematic, he said.

"I don't think other provinces are immune to these populist impulses," he said. "But there obviously is something distinct about Quebec's record with the notwithstanding clause relative to all the other provinces.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 29, 2022.

Jacob Serebrin, The Canadian Press

The First Great White Shark Of The Year Has Made It To Canada & He's Almost 1,000 Pounds
Canada Edition (EN) - Friday
Narcity

An absolutely massive great white shark has finally made his way to Canada and he's the first one to arrive for the summer season!

Ironbound, an adult white shark who measures 12 feet 4 inches and 998 pounds, is now swimming around Canadian waters just south of the southwestern part of Nova Scotia.

"This mature male white shark provides a great example of site fidelity, returning to the same region in Nova Scotia year after year," shark research organization OCEARCH said in a tweet on May 26.

At the beginning of May, he started to make the journey north along the U.S. east coast and he was called "the leader of the pack" for leaving earlier than all of the other sharks.

Usually, the animals start to leave southern waters from mid to late May and then arrive in northern waters at the beginning of June so Ironbound really got a jump on the trip.

Great white sharks congregate in Atlantic Canada during the summer and fall months before heading back down south for the winter.

That's because the waters in the region are a "feeding aggregation" for the animals, according to OCEARCH.

Ironbound was first tagged by OCEARCH in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia back in 2019. He's named after West Ironbound Island which is near Lunenburg.

Since then he has been swimming from Nova Scotia, down the U.S. east coast, around Florida into the Gulf of Mexico and then back to Nova Scotia again every year.

He typically stays pretty close to the coastline but he has ventured out into deeper waters a few times.

Another great white shark named Mahone has been "hanging offshore" near Newfoundland recently and he's been slowly getting closer to Nova Scotia.

While Ironbound tends to swim near the coast, Mahone moved away from the U.S. east coast in April and started swimming north further out in the Atlantic Ocean.

His tag last pinged on May 26 at 8:57 p.m. southeast of Nova Scotia's Sable Island.

If you want to watch where these sharks swim around Atlantic Canada, OCEARCH has an online great white shark tracker that you can use!

Kootenay Rockies one of only three places in Canada to achieve biosphere certified destination status

The Kootenay Rockies have achieved yet another level of excellence.

The region — which includes Nelson and the West Kootenay — is a biosphere certified destination, only the third such region in the nation to achieve the honour.

Bestowed by the Responsible Tourism Institute — an international certification body that maintains an memorandum of understanding with UNESCO, is affiliated to the World Tourism Organization and is a member of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council — biosphere destinations are committed to continuous improvement guided by the 17 sustainable development goals of the United Nations, including combating climate change, protecting the environment, supporting economic growth and respecting culture and social values.

The term biosphere certified destination means the region is committed to the ongoing improvement of sustainability in the region, said Sylvia O’Connor, destination development coordinator with Kootenay Rockies Tourism (KRT).


“The certification is based on established standards in areas that include climate change, environment, social, economy and culture — and guarantees compliance and continuous improvement through a private, voluntary and independent certification system — which is evaluated on an annual basis,” she said.

“The certification allows a region to showcase how they take sustainability seriously, but also ensures they are accountable to make necessary and ongoing improvements.”

 CLICK ON TO EXPAND

The process

KRT began its sustainability journey in 2019, said O’Connor.

“This last year the KRT team worked on the biosphere designation to submit evidence of what the destination has achieved so far towards the sustainable development goals,” she said. “The biosphere certification process is quite rigorous.”

The process also highlighted areas of improvement for KRT to continue working on.

Other regional destination management organizations have pursued the designation

Another tool in the toolbox

Having been named a biosphere certified destination would help KRT and others market the region as a destination by attracting visitors who also value sustainability and share the same values on responsible travel, said O’Connor.

“However, most importantly, we are also building a tourism industry that is sustainable for our host communities,” she said. “Our hope is this will increase our visibility to visitors who understand and value the importance of sustainable tourism practices within a destination.

The biosphere certification is an ongoing process, O’Connor pointed out, with the destination working every year to become more sustainable.

“So, we plan on working through these action items for continued betterment. We also want this to open the dialogue with stakeholders about how we can continue to work together as an industry to make tourism more sustainable.

Sources:

https://mailchi.mp/kootenayrockies.com/2113363-2113468

https://www.biospheretourism.com/en/biosphere-certification/83

https://sdgs.un.org/goals

Kootenay Rockies Tourism | Official Site

Kootenay Rockies | Super, Natural BC (hellobc.com)

More information

- The 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations

Timothy Schafer, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Nelson Daily

Return of salmon part of Columbia River Treaty negotiations: First Nations

First Nations are asking for the return of the salmon to the entire Columbia River system as part of the Columbia River Treaty negotiations, including the upper portion of the Arrow Lakes, in order to reclaim their culture.

In a Zoom meeting on May 16 for the latest installment of the Columbia River Treaty negotiations, Chief Keith Crow of the Smelqmix, Lower Similkameen Indian Band, called for greater consideration of salmon in the river system.

“The Columbia River Treaty has been one of the biggest infringements within our territories, infringement of the treaty that was never negotiated with us,” he said.

The benefits that Canada and B.C. have received from the treaty have been tremendous, Crow said, but at the expense of the salmon and First Nations cultural traditions.

He pointed to the Columbia River salmon restoration initiative — which started three years ago — as an example of reversing that trend.

“I think it is another major piece to bringing the salmon back up the Columbia all the way into the Upper Arrow,” he said, which is a goal of the Smelqmix Nation.

Jay Johnston of the Penticton Indian Band agreed. Although the Columbia River Treaty was formed on two points — energy production and flood control — it has never considered the effect on First Nations.

“(I)t left out not only many voices in the (Columbia) Basin and around the river, but it also left out the environment and the ecosystems and the cultural values that are so critically important to all of us,” he said.

Several First Nations have been “working hard” to ensure that the intentions of indigenous nations are included in the renewed treaty, said Johnston, something which was long overdue.

“The voice of indigenous peoples is crucial and is finally coming about in a way that will affect the treaty in a positive and beneficial way,” he said. “Most indigenous communities living along the river system have had to share in the burden, not the benefit, of the river system.”

Salmon is crucial to all First Nations in Canada and in the Basin, Johnston said, and the Okanagan are salmon people.

“The salmon is not just about sustenance and nutrition, it’s also about cultural values and ceremonies, and bringing salmon back is also about re-invigorating of social networks in terms of distribution of food, the ceremonies around the distribution of the food, the teachings from the elders to the youth, the connection of youth back to elders and the community members,” he said.

“All those networks that have been inactive because of the lack of salmon have been re-introduced and re-invigorated as a result of the salmon coming back. It makes stronger, deeper, healthier communities, as a result.”

The sockeye salmon are now returning in numbers that started around 1,000 to now hundreds of thousands, Johnston pointed out.

But the impact of the dams on the river system has to be considered in the new agreement, said Sandra Luke of the Ktunaxa Nation — band councillor from Yaqan Nukiy (Lower Kootenay Band) in Creston.

“The Nation really hopes to reduce the impacts of the Columbia River Treaty operations on our cultural, our waters and our lands … all living things,” she said.

She has been involved with the Columbia River Treaty for the past six years, and noted that the Libby Dam has collapsed the white sturgeon population in Kootenay Lake and the Kootenay River.

“Sturgeon used to be very important to us and we hope a renewal of the treaty will result in improved river conditions for (sturgeon) and other species,” she said.

Nathan Matthew, Secwepemc Nation observer in the Columbia River Treaty negotiations, said the treaty negotiators have some important work to do in order to right history.

“The treaty and the construction of the dams are truly the biggest infringement on the lives of indigenous nations ever in our history, and some of the discussion that we have in terms of how to reconcile, how to bring things up to date in terms of the current commitments of government, it’s not easy, so it’s a really great challenge,” he said.

Going from non-existence of rights to the really quite clear statements of government that they are going to reconcile with the current constitutional and legal frameworks that are out there is really a big task, Matthew stated.

First Nations have the right to the lands — under the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People which Canada signed — the territories and the resources that they have owned, occupied or otherwise used, he added. Article 29 of the declaration says indigenous people have the right to the protection and the productivity of the environment and their lands.

Matthew said the idea that the cultural and ecological values are key to the negotiations, including benefit sharing and the re-introduction of the salmon.

“How do we participate together with Canada and British Columbia and the United States in how the rising and the falling and the flowing of the water through the system impact indigenous interests, and how those operations can be changed so as to provide greater benefits and greater help to indigenous peoples and health to the ecological environment,” he said. “So we have a very clear mandate to protect the land and the resources.”

Kathy Eichenberger, executive director of B.C.'s Provincial Columbia River Treaty team, said the pace of the negotiations was slow, but it now contained cultural values that needed to be sorted out.

“However, to provide this benefit we expect that it is values appropriately and that we are also able to achieve the increase flexibility in the other areas of the treaty that … for our own domestic goals, including ecosystem benefits and indigenous cultural values and socio-economic objectives, considerations that were not talked about in the original treaty.”

Bringing the salmon home

Bringing the Salmon Home: The Columbia River Salmon Reintroduction Initiative brings together five governments — the Syilx Okanagan Nation, Ktunaxa Nation, Secwépemc Nation, Canada and British Columbia — who have made a visionary agreement to explore salmon reintroduction into the upper Columbia River region.

The Letter of Agreement was signed at an official ceremony on July 29, 2019 in Castlegar. This is a three-year renewable commitment by the five governments to work together to look at the feasibility and options for reintroducing salmon into the Canadian side of the Columbia River.

The long-term vision is to return fish stocks for indigenous food, social and ceremonial needs, and to benefit the region’s residents and ecosystems as a whole.

Source: https://columbiariversalmon.ca/

Timothy Schafer, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Nelson Daily

Indigenous filmmaker says he was refused entry on Cannes red carpet for his moccasins

The Canadian Press

Yesterday

TORONTO — A Dene filmmaker says he was "disappointed" and "close to tears" when security at the Cannes Film Festival blocked him from walking the red carpet while dressed in a pair of moccasins.


© Provided by The Canadian PressIndigenous filmmaker says he was refused entry on Cannes red carpet for his moccasins

Kelvin Redvers, a Vancouver-based producer who attended Cannes as part of a delegation of six Indigenous filmmakers, says he was refused entry to the carpet for Valeria Bruni Tedeschi’s "Les Amandiers" last Sunday because festival staff didn't approve of his traditional Indigenous footwear.

He says he was only allowed to walk the carpet if he swapped out his moccasins for a pair of formal shoes that Cannes deemed appropriate.

Redvers obliged, but he says he hopes speaking out about his experience leads Cannes organizers to rethink what counts as formal wear when it comes to representing different cultures on their red carpets.

"Whenever there's an opportunity — if there's an award show or a special event — it's really important for me to be able to bring in a bit of my Dene heritage," he said.

"My goal was to wear my suit, and my bowtie and my Dene moccasins, which are formal, they're cultural. And they're still sort of elegant and classy. I had no reason to believe that they wouldn't fit on the red carpet."

Cannes is notoriously strict about formalwear at many of its red carpet premieres – requiring a black tie for men and evening gowns for women – however, some traditional formal wear is accommodated, such as Scottish kilts and Indian saris.

The festival once outlined some of the formalwear expectations on their website, but in recent years — after a number of controversies, including one involving women wearing flats instead of heels — the official guidelines have all but disappeared online.

Before the Sunday screening, Redvers says he gathered with his fellow filmmakers to take photos in their tuxedos and moccasins. The group, who were in Cannes with the support of Telefilm, the Indigenous Screen Office, and Capilano University's FILMBA program, then headed to the red carpet.

After getting past the first security checkpoint, Redvers pulled off his pair of street shoes and stepped into his moccasins. That is when security at a second checkpoint stopped him.

Various levels of Cannes red carpet officials were brought in to assess the situation, Redvers says, while a French-speaking member of his cohort tried to explain to security, "this is cultural wear, this is traditional. They were just not hearing it."


Related video: Cannes security turned away this Dene filmmaker for wearing moccasins (cbc.ca)


"Eventually one security guard just hit his breaking point," Redvers says.

"He just switched and was ... furiously demanding immediately that I leave, in an aggressive and angry tone, saying, 'Leave, leave, you must leave now.'"

Representatives for the festival did not respond to requests for comment.

After the heated moment, Redvers decided he still wanted to attend the screening, so he took off his moccasins and went into the theatre.

"I was so disappointed, like, it was actually distracting during the movie," he says.

"I just couldn't stop thinking about not being allowed to represent my culture on the red carpet on this world stage."

"I was pretty close to tears and quite upset," he added.

After members of Telefilm and the Indigenous Screen Office complained to Cannes about the treatment the filmmakers received, Redvers says leadership agreed to meet with them and apologize for the negative experience.

"I think it was a productive meeting," he said.

"It's an educational time because they just didn't understand what moccasins were and why they were important. (They) just kind of thought of them as slippers, which is what they said a few times."

Cannes officials invited him to wear his moccasins at the red carpet premiere of David Cronenberg's "Crimes of the Future" the following night. When one security guard rejected his footwear at that screening, a higher-up staff member intervened and let him onto the carpet.

"That was probably the most satisfying moment of the festival," he says.

"To be able to rock the mocs on the red carpet."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 28, 2022.

David Friend, The Canadian Press

U.S. proposal could change the way oil companies report their carbon footprint


The Canadian Press


CALGARY — The officially disclosed carbon footprints of Canada's largest oil companies could balloon in size if tough new climate rules proposed earlier this year by a U.S. regulator come into effect.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's proposal — which at this point has not been enacted and faces stiff opposition from industry groups and conservative lawmakers — would require publicly listed companies to account for their total "life-cycle" greenhouse gas emissions.

The rules would apply not only to publicly listed companies south of the border, but also to the more than 230 Canadian companies that are listed on U.S. stock exchanges. (Among these are Canadian energy giants like Enbridge Inc., Suncor Energy Inc., Imperial Oil Ltd. and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.)

Under the new proposal, companies would have to disclose their Scope One and Scope Two emissions (terms that encompass the greenhouse gases produced directly by a company's operations, as well as indirectly through the generation of energy the company purchases such as electricity to power the business).

But they would also have to publicly account for their Scope Three emissions, meaning all the other greenhouse gases they produce indirectly, including emissions produced by customers when they use a company's product.

In other words, for oil producers, Scope One and Two emissions are the emissions the company makes itself (the methane emitted directly from a well, for example, or the electricity an oilsands producer uses to power its massive facilities). Scope Three emissions are the emissions an oil company causes when it sells its product (when a driver burns gasoline in a car, for example).

"The moment we ask companies to report Scope Three, we're now focusing on the carbon intensity of the product itself," said Tima Bansal, Canada research chair in business sustainability at the University of Western Ontario's Ivey Business School."It’s not the carbon intensity of their process – which they can reduce and can reduce quite substantially — it’s the carbon intensity of their product.”

Many Canadian energy producers have begun reporting their Scope One and Scope Two emissions in the years since the 2015 U.N. Paris agreement on climate change.

These numbers often form the basis of some of the industry's own aggressive emissions reduction targets, such as Pathways to Net Zero — an alliance of the country's biggest oilsands producers that have jointly set the goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The companies behind that initiative (Suncor, Cenovus, CNRL, Imperial, MEG Energy, and ConocoPhillips Canada) have laid out a road map to net-zero that includes the large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage technology, and they're asking for government support to help do it.

However, their plan only addresses Scope One and Two emissions. In fact, the oil and gas industry as whole has been very reluctant to talk about the emissions produced by the combustion of its product itself.

"Reporting Scope 3 emissions continues to be a challenge at this time and will prove difficult to provide in a timely manner, if at all," wrote the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in a recent submission to the Canadian Securities Administrators. (The CSA is currently mulling its own set of proposed climate disclosure rules, though the Canadian version would allow companies to opt out of Scope 2 and 3 disclosures as long as they explain their reason for doing so.)

"We believe this (Scope 3 disclosure) would not only add additional burden to industry, but is also not practical in that upstream oil and gas producers don’t have knowledge or control over the end use of their sales products," the industry lobby group wrote.

While only a very small minority of Canadian oil and gas firms are even attempting to report Scope 3 emissions right now, it's already apparent that having to disclose these numbers would massively increase the size of the carbon footprint that companies must report to investors and the public.

For example, Cenovus Energy — which began disclosing its estimated Scope Three emissions in 2020 — says its Scope One and Two emissions in 2019 amounted to 23.94 million tonnes of C02. But Scope Three emissions, generated by the final use of the company's products by customers, amounted to an estimated 113 million tonnes.

Duncan Kenyon, director of corporate engagement with climate change activist group Investors for Paris Compliance, said more than 80 per cent of emissions from fossil fuels fall under the umbrella of Scope Three — that is, they're produced when the product is consumed.

"I hear it all the time from (oil companies), that Scope Three is 'not our problem, it's the consumers choice,' " Kenyon said. “But you can’t be a Paris-aligned, climate believer if you’re going to say that 80 per cent is someone else’s problem.”

“It also undermines the claims that ‘oh well, if we capture it all and put it underground, we’ll be OK for 2050,' " he added. "Because no, you won’t.”

Oil and gas companies have been returning major dividends to shareholders in the past year thanks to surging global energy demand, so it's easy to question why investors would care about the Scope Three issue at all.

But Kenyon said ESG (environmental, social and governance) focused investors view climate change as a real business risk, and want to know how prepared a company is to adapt to what is coming. For example, an energy company actively working to reduce its Scope Three emissions would aim to increase the percentage of renewables in its portfolio.

“If you do bring in Scope Three disclosure, it becomes apparent really fast where your company is in the decarbonization game," he said. "And then you have to decide what kind of a company you want to be in five years, 10 years or 25 years."

In issuing the regulator's proposal in March, SEC chair Gary Gensler said greenhouse gas emissions have become a commonly used metric to assess a company's exposure to climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on its business.

"Investors get to decide which risks to take, as long as public companies provide full and fair disclosure and are truthful in those disclosures," Gensler said in a news release. "Today, investors representing literally tens of trillions of dollars support climate-related disclosures because they recognize that climate risks can pose significant financial risks to companies, and investors need reliable information about climate risks to make informed investment decisions."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 29, 2022.

Companies in this story: (TSX:SU, TSX:CVE, TSX:IMO, TSX:CNQ, TSX:MEG, TSX:ENB)

Amanda Stephenson, The Canadian Press