This morning I went to the half-hour briefing that the Canadian Delegation runs in the morning for Canadians at the Bella Center. I’ve been there many times, but this time I arrived with a question.
Yesterday morning the meeting – the last meeting that all of civil society from Canada could attend as access started to be limited as of today, and will become increasingly limited as heads of state and their attachés arrive in Copenhagen and at the conference center (the Secretariat accredited 40, 000 people while the center has space for just 15, 000) – was a full house. All the seats were filled and many more stood and listened from the back of the room. The important part was the sheer diversity of Canadians in the room, from farmers to steelworkers to NGOs to indigenous peoples; youth, professionals, academics, politicians, and faith groups alike. These people came from all parts of Canada, East to West, North to South, and from rural regions as well as cities. Not everyone in that room would call themselves an environmentalist, and their concerns were not limited to the environment. They could not be put into a box called ‘Environmentalists’, ‘Greenpeace’, ‘Activists’, or ‘Treehuggers’. They represented so well that all Canadians are concerned about climate change and feel that the government is not fairly representing their concerns or values at these negotiations and in domestic climate policy.
A man from a labour union in Quebec emotionally asked if Michael Martin (chief negotiator) and other members of CAN DEL has considered those that will be disadvantaged in Canada as a result of the insistence by Canada that we use a 2006 base year. His reason was that many have significantly reduced their emissions between 1990 (the year recognized internationally as a base year for emissions reductions) and 2006, and would therefore have to reduce significantly more, and at a greater price, than industries that ignored climate change have only just started, or will soon be starting, to regulate their emissions.
I was empowered in that instance because I realized that Canadians want change. Canadians do not want to be embarrassed by their government’s policies on climate change, as David Miller, Mayor of Toronto, stated he was on Friday. Canada’s do not want to obstruct the negotiations, or garner a bad international reputation.
I started to wonder, who exactly was being represented by our country’s position in Copenhagen – whose interests? Surely not my own. As a young person I can see that the inaction of the government of Canada today and this week in Copenhagen will have serious repercussions on … my future, as cliché as that may sound. I cannot stand for a government that does not represent its people, who has fundamentally violated the contract between citizens and leaders.
I came to the briefing this morning with a question: If the government’s positions clearly does not represent the concerns of youth, students, workers, academics, municipal leaders, provincial leaders, athletes, professionals, indigenous peoples, immigrants – and so many other Canadians- who precisely does their position benefit, and whose voice are they being swayed by?
The answer? Michael Martin responded that the question was of a political nature and therefore not his to answer. This, I knew. Martin speaks to policy and just policy. But, Martin is the only person we have access to. Our representatives, who are supposed to be accountable to Canadians, Prime Minister Harper, and Minister Prentice, have not confirmed a meeting with Canadian Youth. Further, the problem is not specifically policy-related. Rather, it is a question of accountability. The House of Commons voted in favour of a motion for better a emissions reductions target, and a recent poll states that 74% of Canadians ‘believe the government must go further in the fight against climate change and adopt a more ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reductions target’ (a poll by Léger Marketing released on Thursday by Équiterre).
Canadians must be given the chance to express their concerns to the government, and it is unacceptable that the only person we have access to is one who says quite clearly that he is not accountable to us, but rather, accountable to the government. We cannot have our concerns addressed by a person who is not accountable to Canadians.