Back in July of 2009, the Canadian government launched an eight week public consultation on copyright reform.  Members of the public were invited to let their will be known surrounding issues such as fair use, copyright terms, ISP neutrality and a host of other issues. With over 8,300 respondents in total an astounding 6183 people made it known that they opposed another bill C-61 (a meager 54 respondents favoured the bill)

Bill C-61, of course, was the draconian U.S. DMCA-style copyright reform bill that former Industry Minister Jim Prentice introduced to parliament in June of 2008. The bill was ultimately abandoned when an election was called that fall, but has remained on the periphery since. The Conservatives have attempted to pass copyright reform three times without public consultation, bending to the will of industry lobbyists.

So, finally, the public has spoken and in near unison oppose the claustrophobic sanctions of bill C-61. Canadians, in fact, are a much more generous and trusting population than we could have guessed. The overwhelming majority support stronger fair use/fair dealing protection, shorter copyright terms, and believe individuals should be protected from liability for non-commercial use. Moreover, as popular as lightening copyright restrictions was, the opposite is equally equally true: only 153 respondents favour limiting or halting unauthorized filesharing and only one, one single respondent, supported fining those for copyright violation.

So what does this mean?  Essentially, Canadians are asking for the very opposite of what the government has been trying to pass for years. The question now is whether current Industry Minister Tony Clement is listening.

After the jump, the full results of the questionnaire, courtesy Michael Geist:

All the papers last week were abuzz about an op-ed written by now-backbench Conservative MP Maxime Bernier. Writing how climate change is an unsure thing indeed, he said his party was on the right track by playing it cool in Copenhagen.

He was roundly criticized by Canadian media and bloggers. Globe contributor Robert Silver called him Canada’s Sarah Palin. The National Post’s article on the matter began with Environment Minister Jim Prentice stating that the Harper government did not share Bernier’s skeptical position on the science. And Sun Media writer Lorrie Goldstein’s article, Mad Max makes sense on climate change, stated: “The good news is Harper is better on climate change than the opposition parties. The bad news is, that’s not saying much.”

Wait a minute. Harper not strong enough on climate change? Sounds like something we’ve been saying for a while.

Goldstein, however, thinks he hasn’t rejected climate change enough. Even believing in the evidence is too much.
But that’s okay, who reads the Sun anyway?

Oh right, lots of people.

Sun Media Corp. is Canada’s largest newspaper publisher, having eaten up dozens of mainstream dailies and hundreds of other community papers. It reaches over 10 million Canadians.

Bernier’s view was echoed by Conservative bloggers and comments in online articles. There was significant talk of Bernier setting up a future leadership run for the Conservative Party.

Move over to provincial politics and Ontario’s Conservatives have already chosen their Bernier. Leader Tim Hudak, elected last year, is a right-winger through and through. The Party’s environmental platform is perhaps yet to be hashed out for the next election, but there are rumours that the Green Energy Act—a new staple of support for renewable energy projects in the province—might be something Hudak would repeal.

This would be made politically salable by the unexpectedly strong pressure from supposed grassroots organization, Wind Concerns Ontario, which has branches in towns across the province. Hundreds come out to environmental assessment meetings to oppose wind establishment in their areas. These people are finding a friend in Tim Hudak.

Similarly, the Ontario Landowners Association is one to watch. The organization is another collection of rural groups from across the province with a membership 15,000 strong who support policies that may appear radical or American to their urban friends. And though some are good stewards of their land, they may not be interested in hearing about climate policy.

Although Randy Hillier, first president of the Association, lost soundly to Hudak in the Party’s leadership bid, its strong anti-Liberal message of rural land rights and ability to bus people to meetings may give Hudak the desire to lean on it in the next election. Having been in a room of rural Ontarians during a presentation by climate change skeptic Patrick Moore, I know that there is a widespread desire to hear and believe in the other side.

Drilling down one more level to municipal politics, Rocco Rossi, former National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada and inner-circle advisor to Michael Ignattieff has thrown his hat in the ring for Toronto Mayor, promising to ditch bike lanes and pause the city’s ambitious transit plan. After having taken Al Gore’s climate presentation training, this so-called “liberal” is looking to plan a city without the critical infrastructure necessary to support a safer method of travel for both cyclists and drivers, ditching a key urban carbon reduction measure.

But could it work for him? With commuting cyclists currently making up a very small proportion of residents, a move to make driving even appear more convenient, in a time when traffic jams clog Toronto morning streets, might be politically expedient in many Toronto neighbourhoods.

The United States is undergoing a strong movement of its far-right known as the Tea Party, described in a weekend article by Frank Rich. Rich warns to take the group seriously. The Tea Party has got people in the U.S. talking, and its mainstream conservative party getting nervous.

American writer Chris Hedges gives his answer to the movement and the weakness of Barack Obama (at Copenhagen and beyond), in a piece yesterday stating that the progressive left and the Democrats have succumbed to cowardice and have lost their energy. He urges a move back to third parties on the left, suggesting that a credible alternative to the state of the economy and society is what is most needed to bring the public onside, not liberals talking about policy all the time.

And so in the rural revolution and climate change deniers and their supportive media and blogs, Canadians may have our version of the Tea Party. While Americans, politics may be their hockey at the moment, we too may soon have an excited right which could pit itself against climate progress at a level that even Stephen Harper won’t touch. And whether that means bringing rural landowners in for climate consultation or starting a socialist revolution, it sounds like something worth planning for.

Environmental activists hold a demonstration in the centre of Copenhagen on December 15, 2009 in Denmark World leaders started arriving today to attend the Climate Summit where they hope to work towards a global agreement. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

A lot of stock has been put into the current International Climate Change Conference. Not only a stake in our future, and the world as we know it continuing to exist, but our national identity—how we deal with international conflict, how we assist other countries needing a hand, and when we choose to exert a leadership role. For the issue of climate change has never just been an environmental one, but a moral one.

Yesterday, unexpectedly, the Canadian government announced that Canada had changed its position and would lead in climate reduction figures and commit to aid for developing countries to do the same. In what turned out to be a bit of a cruel joke, however, it was actually a hoax. For Canadians, it remains quite sad that the possibility of our government adopting a leadership role on climate change is just that—a joke.

Long gone are the days when Canada was seen as an international leader. We’re now generally considered one of the bigger obstructions during international discussions on the biggest issue of our time.

Not only are our political leaders positions embarrassing, but some other outspoken Canadian figures. Today on CBC’s Metro Morning Jeff Rubin, former CIBC Chief Economist and author of Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, echoed a disappointing attitude that Prime Minister Harper and Minister Prentice have voiced before—the idea that Canada is not the biggest polluter globally, and therefore it’s China and India that should step up to the plate and reduce their emissions first.

What a sad state of affairs it has become that our national attitude is to rely on developing nations, who still struggle with more basic problems of hunger, housing and poverty, to lead the way. Canadians use more oil per capita than Americans, making individual Canadians more than proportionally responsible for their part in the global climate change dilemma. It is morally reprehensible to expect those with a lower standard of living to “do their part” before us.

Yet an interesting article from the Washington Post suggests that while Canada and America do need to step up to the plate, perhaps the best thing we can do back home to send a clear message to Copenhagen is to make December “Green Free” month—that we should stop our individual efforts and demand institutional change. During the civil rights actions of the 1960’s, the author argues, it would not have been adequate for a few progressive folks to adopt integrative values in an otherwise bigoted environment—the difference is in institutional change.

So too, it argues, should be our attitude to hold our leaders accountable. It will not be acceptable to go half way, it will not be acceptable to rely on individuals to take action, and it will not be acceptable to point fingers and say someone else isn’t doing their part so we shouldn’t have to either.

We can hear the tck tck tcking of the clock as the summit only has a few days before its conclusion. What will leaders emerge with? That they have finally adopted the positions of leadership that their titles would suggest? Or is it up to us, as individuals, to paint the world green? And what, as Canadians, will we choose to hold on to as our national identity?

Flopenhagen, Hopenhagen… it may well be time for Copenhagen. As in, how are we going to cope with the aftermath and repercussions of this conference?

Canada has been a hotspot for international climate activists this week. We’ve got Al Gore in Toronto, warning among other things that using tar sands oil takes away any advantages of greening our vehicle fleet. Then there’s Britain’s George Monbiot speaking this Saturday at the University of Toronto (2-4PM) on the “Countdown to Copenhagen: Who in Canada is Killing the International Climate Treaty?” Possibly even more interesting will be Tuesday night’s Munk Debate with Monbiot, Elizabeth May, and on the pro-climate change side, Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson.

Lots of potential inspiration to elicit further action.

With the announcement that Barack Obama will be attending the Copenhagen talks and bringing hard carbon reduction targets with him, and that Canada’s Parliament passed a resolution that we too must bring strong targets, allow me to provide two more suggestions for action this week, in hopes of putting the political pressure on Harper to make him do it.

Rebecca noted Tuesday that Prime Ministerial phone lines were blocked by Mississauga students calling for climate action. They politely refrained when someone from the office apparently asked them to stop calling, but by then the point was made.

To add to actions to be taken by supporters of the Canadian Youth Delegation and others, how about we all do the same? Organize an event and call: (613) 992-4211. Already hosting a talk? Get everyone’s cell phones out. How about a school democracy project like the one in Mississauga?

My last columns have suggested action by getting religious, rural and other groups on board to achieve climate results in the political realm. There are many high-profile folks who could be encouraged to write open letters to the Prime Minister or to newspapers for action. Since religious organizations are good places to get support, how about starting with the United Church of Canada and move right from there? Their national leader has called for climate action before.

Municipal leaders in Tory ridings, agricultural organizations and service clubs like Rotary could go a long way in lending their hand—but they likely need a nudge from you. I challenge some folks to start writing and posting their letters here, giving each other a hand in getting the work done.

Further action in the West may be starting, as both Environment Minister Jim Prentice and former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose both had their offices occupied this week by climate activists, including by a 70-something professor emeritus.

And contrary to some recent comments I’ve received to my column — I don’t worship the alter of former American President uh, Vice-President Al Gore. But I do think, if we don’t succeed in getting the Conservatives on board, we might do ourselves a favour and try acting a little crazy.

To me, our Canadian identity has always seemed deeply rooted in our belief that as a country we do the “right thing.” We assumed for years that we were the moral compass of the globe and could do no wrong. But from where I’m standing, that reputation is being dragged through the mud and plenty of us are red-faced in embarassment.

A recent major survey indicates that three quarters of Canadians are embarrassed about our country’s lack of a leadership on climate change. And don’t think the results were specific to just one province. In Alberta, heart of the controversial Tar Sands, 65% of those surveyed agreed we should be doing more, with the highest level of those embarrassed by our government’s inaction at 86% in Quebec.

Imagine what the results would be if that translated to the polls? It seems that our government might have assumed that just because Stephane Dion was defeated as Liberal Party Leader last year, thanks largely to his controversial Greenshift proposal, that Canadians don’t give a hoot about climate change.

But the evidence seems to be stacking up that people are tired of Canada’s increasingly ridiculous climate legacy, and are telling the government exactly that. Last week, I began encouraging everyone to send a postcard from the government’s own website telling Stephen Harper about climate change, and was very happy to read that I wasn’t the only person asking a government official to stand up and fulfill their obligations.

High School students in Mississauga organized an event to call the Ontario government and ask them to take action on climate change. According to the students, they were asked by the Prime Minister’s Office to stop calling in as they were blocking up the switch board.

Going for the heart of the beast in Calgary, seven people were recently arrested after occupying Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice’s office, demanding action on climate change. Mr. Prentice even held a brief phone conference from Ottawa with the occupants, but ultimately an agreement couldn’t be reached.

Probably because Mr. Prentice insists we don’t need to make any real impact on climate change for about 40 years, even though the International Panel on Climate Change (a group of scientific leaders from across the world, generally thought to be the authority on climate change) outlines it is essential to take action immediately in order to halt and reverse the already very real damage we’ve caused.

This is the man who is supposed to protect our resources for now and future generations and be an authority on best environmental practices. Sure, I get it, what does he care? Both Mr. Prentice and Mr. Harper will be out of office in 40 years time. So I suppose it might be tempting to sit on one’s hands when it won’t have any direct impact on you either way. But for a party eager to win a majority government in the next election, you would think they would give the people what they want in the meantime, because while they might not be around to care, you bet those of us who will are going to fight damn hard for our future.

So keep pushing those buttons, because people are taking notice. The message is getting through to the public, and that squeaky wheel is slowly catching the attention of our government. Hopefully it won’t be long before they begrudgingly accept responsibility for their part in reducing the international climate burden—and then it can be their faces that are red.

Pelley is just one of many journalists who have run up against the federal department’s new communications policy, which restricts how government researchers may interact with reporters. At the very least, the new policy is causing frustrating delays. At its worst, according to both reporters and ministry staff, the new policy is causing a chill among researchers and is keeping the public from hearing about Canadian environmental research.

This year-old policy requires reporters to request interviews through a central office in Ottawa, “to ensure that requests for information by the media are responded to quickly, accurately and in a consistent manner across Canada,” explains an email from the department’s communications office.

Previously, researchers were free to discuss their research and reporters normally went directly to these experts for information. Both the Environment Canada head of communications and its minister, Jim Prentice, refused interview requests for this story.

The situation is painful enough that some reporters have started turning to researchers from other countries, rather than face delays from Environment Canada. In April, the 1,500-member Society of Environmental Journalists wrote to the minister to express their frustration that the department had not responded to their concerns and to ask the department to change its policy. “The new policy shows a lack of commitment to government transparency and obstructs the public’s access to information,” said the letter, which was co-signed by a number of organizations including the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, and the U.S. National Association of Science Writers.

Opposition environment critics David McGuinty and Linda Duncan both say this is just one part of a government-wide campaign by the Conservatives to block access to information, adding that they’re facing similar problems at the Parliamentary committee level.

“They ran on openness and transparency,” says an exasperated McGuinty. “There’s no reason in the world why officials shouldn’t be able to speak.”