Since 2005, Stephen Harper’s government has been accused of stifling the freedom of its Members of Parliament (MPs), and being overly controlling of the parliamentary agenda. This past week, Conservative MP Mark Warawa attempted to debate and pass a motion in the House of Commons that would condemn the practice of sex-selective abortion. He found his motion declared ineligible by a bipartisan House subcommittee.

The clearest explanation for why this motion was not allowed to go to the floor was supplied by Minister Rona Ambrose, who said, “The concern about Mr. Warawa’s motion is that the opposition has positioned it as an issue about abortion, so it becomes a very divisive issue.”

The Conservative whip, Gordon O’Connor, also gave a revealing glimpse into the mind of the government, by comparin Harper’s control of his MPs, to that which a coach would have over his athletes. Instead of playing a vital role in Parliament, MPs are viewed essentially as puppets, and are subject to censure if they wish to state anything remotely controversial.

There are so many dysfunctions at play here, that it is difficult to start with just one. Obviously, much of the blame must fall with the Prime Minister, who has repudiated the notion of parliamentary freedom within his own party. This not only sets a bad tone for the present, but it will also give future Prime Ministers the precedent to muffle the voices of their MPs. It seems that with every new parliamentary session, the Prime Minister’s office gains more power, while MPs are increasingly relegated to the sidelines. To some extent though, Harper’s concern is understandable. It is likely, had this motion gone to the floor, that it would have turned into a partisan shouting match, with Harper’s opponents accusing the government of finally enacting a secret pro-life agenda.

This fear of an overblown reaction to a symbolic motion, with which most Canadians would probably agree, is another dubious trait of our current system of government. However, Harper may have miscalculated whether this is really an issue that the opposition wants to fall on its own sword for. I cannot imagine that a large portion of MP’s would be so vocal against this motion, even if they feared it would open a conversation about abortion. While to be taken with a grain of salt, an Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada found that 92 per cent of Canadians were against the practice of sex-selective abortion. Thus, Warawa’s motion would theoretically be met with approval, either  silent or overt.

Besides the public support battle, Harper is also losing a tactical skirmish with opposition parties. While Harper appears obstinate, the NDP is busy sticking up for MP independence, with house leader Nathan Cullen saying that whether one agrees or disagrees with Warawa, every MP should be able to speak their conscience. Though undoubtedly a bit cynical, Cullen has only shown how Harper has positioned his opponents for a win-win situation. If Harper doesn’t allow Warawa to bring his motion to the floor, he is rightly deemed as someone overly controlling of his caucus. If Warawa does bring the motion to the floor Harper will be decried for wanting to strip women of their abortion rights.

Given the choice between those two unsavory options, it would seem that the right choice regarding both principle and strategy would be to permit Warawa to bring his motion to the floor—allowing at least some modicum of autonomy to be brought back to the House of Commons.

The ongoing debate on campus divestment stems in part from advocacy for the large-scale production of renewable sources. However, a full transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources while sustaining current levels of energy consumption is not a viable option to cope with future demand.

Many existing renewable platforms are not ready for full deployment, and encounter obstacles such as research constraints in the domains of storage and production, and subsidy issues. Uncertainty also looms regarding the potential of fusion fuel as a reliable long-term energy source. The estimated expense of constructing fusion reactors, and economic trade-offs regarding the public cost pose challenges to fusion as a competitive resource.

With added scale, renewable fuel providers could maximize profitability and deliver value to shareholders, yet the importance of fossil fuels as a key economic pillar cannot be understated.  The Divest McGill movement, and the greater Divest movement from which it originates, oppose investment holdings in companies involved in the Plan Nord mining development, as well as fossil fuel and Oil Sands’ extraction. To date, four U.S. universities have divested, and reviews are pending for the University of New Brunswick-Fredericton and McGill. However, no campus with endowment exceeding $1 billion has agreed to implement the divestment initiative. Currently, 5.7 per cent of McGill’s $978.4 million university endowment fund is concentrated in businesses operating under the fossil fuel extraction model. A core issue at the forefront of the Divest movement is that financial effects on energy producers’ bottom lines will be minimal, if any. The argument, then, boils down to social capital—making a harmful impact on the reputations of energy producers involved in the Oil Sands’ operations.

In the past year, over $260 billion were invested in the global green energy landscape. By re-allocating university endowments from fossil fuels to renewable sources, the shift towards alternative energy will be advanced. However, a fine line must be drawn between the viability of short and long-term investment prospects. University endowments must exhibit competitive returns in a short time horizon, while criteria for the longer term differs. Full divestment from fossil fuels may not be financially viable, although incremented divestment may be beneficial once renewable energy producers accumulate a more stable operational base.

The divestment criteria occupy a grey area; following the same logic, educational institutions should divest from companies that utilize fossil fuels as an input in their operations, as this contributes significantly to climate change. Furthermore, a hypocritical element arises because crude oil-based petroleum is a key input in consumer products frequently used by students, ranging from plastics to electronics and medical products. Ultimately, major players in the oil industry are primarily sustained by operating cash flow, not investment. The sale of oil and related products constitute the majority of these companies’ profits. As long as consumer demand exists, energy firms will continue to flourish with no desire to decrease production.

With uncertainty surrounding the execution of renewable energy platforms on a large-scale basis, the importance of exploring divestment on a partial, long-term basis emerges as a priority. Perhaps this should not be viewed solely as a market-regulated issue, overlooking governmental influence. In order to further develop alternative sources, governmental purchasing power could be re-aligned with clean energy technologies. As a result, private investment would be encouraged, creating a new marketplace for clean energy sources. While the essence of the divest movement is noble, its criteria should be better aligned with target investment objectives, and governmental implications towards the current energy landscape.

Inter-city rail in North America is often far below the standards of other developed nations. In many parts of the continent, notably those outside of the Eastern Seaboard and select other hubs, rail service simply isn’t a competitive alternative to driving or flying. The Montreal-New York corridor, spanning two major metropolitan areas across a distance of 381 miles, is an excellent case study of the current issues with rail services across North America, and brings to light some potential solutions. Evidence of the problems is not hard to find—the train currently takes almost 11 hours (when on schedule), substantially longer than taking the bus or driving.

The push for faster rail in the United States has been led most recently by President Obama, who proposed a multi-billion dollar investment in high-speed rail corridors across the U.S. last term. Of these plans, the only current development of true high-speed rail—defined as trains reaching over 150 miles per hour—is a California effort planned to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles. That project, constantly plagued by threats to future funding, is fast turning into a typical boondoggle. While the Obama plan favoured a Boston-Montreal route, over the years there have also been discussions of varying seriousness between New York and Quebec about a high speed rail plan. Ignoring the fact that such plans are far from the main political agenda in either jurisdiction, a better case could be made for spending the money now on improvements to the current basic speed infrastructure.

The current Montreal-New York train, the Amtrak Adirondack service, has had an “on-time performance” of slightly over 75 per cent over the past year, meaning that the train has failed to reach either end of the route within 10 minutes of the scheduled arrival time about a quarter of the time. Even though the U.S. and Canadian customs inspections, which generally take an hour to 90 minutes, are actually not the largest cause of delays, they are the ones most obvious to a casual traveler. Shaving that hour-plus off the trip would require pre-clearance facilities on either side of the border, where passengers are inspected by customs officials before boarding the train or after exiting. There was an initiative from several U.S. senators to bring such facilities to Montreal’s Central Station last year, but little has been heard from the project since.

The other and much bigger causes of delay, train interference, and track and signal issues, are less specific to the international nature of the route. As with most of Amtrak’s services, the trackage of the Adirondack is owned almost entirely by other companies, save for a short section along the West Side of Manhattan.  The New York-Albany section of the route is largely owned by the Metro North commuter railroad and freight operator CSX, while the section between Albany and Montreal—generally more problematic in terms of delays—is owned by Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. Amtrak runs on these sections via agreements with the host railroads, and they often give short shrift to less profitable passenger trains when there is a scheduling conflict. Last year, CP Rail was among the worst of Amtrak’s host railroads in terms of both interference delays, and delays caused by “slow orders,” or reductions in speed on a section of rail below the designed speed limit.

Reducing these delays would require increasing track capacity and making repairs to the sections of track currently subject to these “slow orders.” While the idea of high speed rail as has been seen in Europe and Japan carries the sort of appeal that more basic changes do not, the key to improving American and Canadian rail travel is to first make it competitive with driving on speed and price. Routes that have accomplished this, including the New York-Albany service, have seen substantial improvements in ridership over the years.