The WAR on Science: Thursday, November 21, 2013, 7:00 pm Room 1900, SFU Harbour Ctr

[GLG]

Ok Here is a better graph from elsewhere.

More graphs at this link....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

It says something when you have to go to a climate denial website to get information that our Canadian government should be supplying us...

 

[GLG]

Request to interview federal scientist sparks 110 pages of government emails

VANCOUVER — It was a story about rock snot.
And if there’s a person you want to talk to about the pervasive algae also known by the less-offensive, more scientific name of Didymo, it’s Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientist Max Bothwell.
Bothwell is, other scientists will tell you, the rock snot man. He wrote the book. Or in this case, co-authored a published article in a renowned scientific journal.
But a request from The Canadian Press to speak to Bothwell when the article was published in May failed to produce an interview.
What it did produce was 110 pages of emails to and from 16 different federal government communications operatives, according to documents obtained using access to information legislation.
Many hours after the request was made the morning of May 8, an email from Robin Browne, strategic communications adviser for the Communications Division of Environment Canada, contained a list of responses for the approval of David Boerner, director general for water science and technology in the ministry.
“CP asked to interview Max today but media relations is negotiating that to buy us more time. Thanks!” he wrote.
Not long before that Bothwell — described by the co-author of the article as “really the Yoda of knowledge about Didymo” — tried to hurry things along.
“I will search my computer for the approved responses from the last interview,” Bothwell wrote to a growing list of media handlers.
That unleashed a frenzy of emails trying to find the aforementioned “approved” responses. It appeared they were not located, and approval had to begin from scratch.
The emails refer to “agreed answers” for the scientist and “approved interview script” throughout.
“Can we prepare answers to these questions please,” Danny Kingsberry, acting manager of media relations, wrote. “I will get necessary approvals and we will schedule the interview after.”
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.
The Canadian Press story about Bothwell’s breakthrough on the origins of this pervasive algae appeared on news sites and in newspapers across the country without Max Bothwell, a research scientist at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, B.C.
Why the fuss?
Calvin Sandborn, a lawyer with the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, thinks he may have some idea.
Politically sensitive issues are red-flagged for tight political control, said Sandborn, who helped author a comprehensive report by the law centre.
“In particular, if they’re talking about issues that are sensitive to the oil and gas industry — specific issues like climate change or oilsands or grizzly bears.”
Of the 110 pages, one single sheet offers a hint.
“Blooms are the result of global climate change factors,” said the document, entitled “background advice.”
A complaint from the centre and the group Democracy Watch prompted the federal Information Commissioner to launch an investigation last year into government communications practices.
Since the Conservatives took office in 2006, the “information services” sector of government has swelled more than 15 per cent, to some 4,000 employees, according to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
These days, Canadian scientists are sent to international conferences with “government minders,” Sandborn said.
“It’s crazy. We have fisheries scientists saying that they’re restricted from issuing red tide warnings without getting political approval from Ottawa,” he said.
“So, you have a government scientist put in a quandary: do we issue a red tide warning — because red tides can kill people — do I do that right now or do I send it off to Ottawa and follow all the protocols and just hope that nobody dies while we’re waiting for political approval from a minister’s office?”

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada...ientist-sparks-110-pages-of-government-emails

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/carol-linnitt/war-on-science-canada_b_5775054.html

Carol Linnitt
Site Manager and Director of Research for DeSmog Canada

Canada's War on Science Brings Us International Shame
Posted: 09/07/2014 9:54 pm EDT Updated: 09/09/2014 9:00 am EDT


A push to prioritize economic gains over basic research is endangering science and academic freedom in countries around the world, according to a new report http://sncs.fr/sites/sncs.fr/IMG/pdf/vrs397-web.pdf published by a leading researchers union, the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers (SNCS-FSU).

The group surveyed higher education and research unions in 12 countries including France, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S.

The research union found governments internationally are pushing for policies "geared towards innovation in order to spur consumption and competitiveness," according to Patrick Monfort, secretary-general of the SNCS-FSU. "Budget cuts are often blamed for our problems," he said, "but they are only part of the picture."

Monfort told the prestigious journal Nature http://www.nature.com/news/put-focus-back-on-basic-research-say-science-unions-1.15817 that scientists in Canada have been particularly hard hit, not only by broad funding cuts, but contentious communications protocols that prevent their freedom of expression.

The new French-language report mentions Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick, who was prevented from speaking about his research on the ozone layer as well as Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristi Miller, who was prevented from speaking with the media about her research into declining salmon stocks.

The report also notes Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore who was not allowed to speak with media about a flood that occurred 13,000 years ago without receiving ministerial approval.

The turn to applied research and science that directly benefits the economy threatens the job security of professional scientists, concludes the new report. The problem is affecting the international scientific community to such an extent the group will call for an international science campaign at their upcoming Higher Education and Research Conference this November.

Canada's so-called "War on Science" has made international headlines, especially after deep funding cuts led to the closure of some of Canada's most important research centres. Thousands of federal scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as Environment Canada have lost their jobs as a result of the cuts.

Since 2006 the Harper government has introduced strict communications procedures that prevent scientists from speaking freely about -- and at times even publishing -- their research. Federal scientists are required to gain upper-level bureaucratic approval before they speak with journalists about their work, leading the international scientific community to call for the "unmuzzling" of Canada's scientists.

A report last year from the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre http://www.scribd.com/doc/126316306/2012-03-04-Democracy-Watch-OIPLtr-Feb20-13-With-Attachment catalogued numerous instances of muzzling and led to an investigation by Canada's information commissioner Suzanne Legault. That investigation is on-going.

Another report, released by the Professional Institute for the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), released in October 2013 found 37 per cent of federal researchers and scientists felt that within the last five years they were directly prevented from sharing their expertise with the public or media.

Nearly 25 per cent said they were forced to by government officials to modify their research for non-scientific reasons.

PIPSC president Gary Corbett told DeSmog Canada he found the level of political interference in federal science "very surprising."

"The findings should be very concerning to the public," he said, adding a full 50 per cent of scientists said they were aware of cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

The PIPSC survey came on the heels of a fundraising letter from the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association that referred to a group of Canadian scientists as "radical ideologues."

This letter was mentioned in the recent SNCS-FSU report, noting the phrase "radical ideologues" is "a term normally reserved for terrorists."

The muzzling of scientists in Canada -- and its political implications -- is well documented in DeSmog Canada contributor Chris Turner's book "The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Willful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada" http://www.amazon.ca/The-War-Science-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312 and has gained celebrity attention from the likes of actress Evangeline Lilly.

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Lilly recently said she was "terrified" to hear about the muzzling of Canadian scientists.

"All over Canada right now scientists are having their funding pulled," she said, "especially scientists who are speaking about climate change."

"I rely on the experts in this world, experts like scientists and journalists, to give me the information to help guide me, to help me guide the government and I think that circle is the way democracy is supposed to work," she said.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this blog stated a memo calling Canadian scientists "radical ideologues" was sent by Greg Rickford. It was sent by the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association. We regret the error.

 

[agentaqua]

There could be increased numbers of psychopaths in senior managerial positions, high levels of business, research shows
Date: September 8, 2014 Source: University of Huddersfield

Summary: For the first time, it has been demonstrated that people with psychopathic tendencies who have high IQs can mask their symptoms by manipulating tests designed to reveal their personalities. It raises the possibility that large numbers of ruthless risk-takers are able to conceal their level of psychopathy as they rise to key managerial posts.

Despite the media’s invariably lurid use of the term, there are various categories of psychopath and they are not all prone to physical violence.
Credit: © gemphotography / Fotolia
[Click to enlarge image]

A breakthrough by a talented University of Huddersfield student has shown for the first time that people with psychopathic tendencies who have high IQs can mask their symptoms by manipulating tests designed to reveal their personalities. It raises the possibility that large numbers of ruthless risk-takers are able to conceal their level of psychopathy as they rise to key managerial posts.

Carolyn Bate, aged 22, was still an undergraduate when she carried out her groundbreaking research into the links between psychopathy and intelligence, using a range of special tests and analysing the data. She wrote up her findings for the final-year project in her BSc Psychology degree. Not only was she awarded an exceptionally high mark of 85 per cent, her work has also been accepted for publication by the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology – an unusual distinction for an undergraduate.

Carolyn, who has now graduated with First Class Honours, said that her project was triggered when she read about research which showed that while one per cent of the population were categorised as psychopaths, the figure rose to three per cent in the case of business managers.

“I thought that intelligence could be an explanation for this, and it could be a problem if there are increased numbers of psychopaths at a high level in business. The figure could be more than three per cent, because if people are aware they are psychopathic they can also lie – they are quite manipulative and lack empathy. This could have a detrimental effect on our everyday lives,” said Carolyn, who added that some researchers have suggested that episodes such as the Wall Street Crash could be blamed on the numbers of psychopaths among decision makers.

She points out that, despite the media’s invariably lurid use of the term, there are various categories of psychopath and they are not all prone to physical violence.

“The ones who are at the top of businesses are often charming and intelligent, but with emotional deficits, as opposed to psychopaths who are quite erratic and tend to commit gruesome crimes and are often caught and imprisoned.”

Sufficient intelligence to fake their emotional response

To test her ideas, Carolyn assembled 50 participants, mostly from among students, who underwent a series of tests – conducted in strict confidence – beginning with an appraisal of IQ levels using a standard procedure. Then they completed the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, which established which participants had either Factor One or Factor Two psychopathic tendencies.

Then Carolyn used the technique of Galvanic Skin Response (GSR). Electrodes were attached to the fingers of participants in order to gauge their reactions to images on a computer screen. They included pictures of crying children, people being threatened and scenes of natural disasters. There were no truly horrific images, but they were of the sort that would shock a completely normal person. However, a person with Factor One psychopathic tendencies – the sort more likely to become a business manager – would display little or no emotional response; while a Factor Two psychopath would demonstrate a heightened response due to excitement.

Carolyn found that the GSR responses among her participants were much as she would have predicted – except for the fact that it was only those with lower levels of intelligence who displayed the expected levels of excitement.

The conclusion is that those with higher IQs had sufficient intelligence to fake their emotional response, making it more difficult to detect their condition. This is the discovery that means Carolyn has made an original contribution to research in the field.

She has contemplated the implications and whether or not it is important to develop new procedures to screen out psychopathic people who are in line for top business posts.

“Perhaps businesses do need people who have the same characteristics as psychopaths, such as ruthlessness. But I suspect that some form of screening does need to take place, mainly so businesses are aware of what sort of people they are hiring,” she says.

Having graduated in psychology, Carolyn – who is from Leeds and attended Abbey Grange Academy in West Park – is now heading in a different direction. She returns to the University of Huddersfield for a year in order to acquire a Postgraduate Certificate in Education, with the goal of becoming a maths teacher.

But she retains the fascination for psychology that led her to study the subject at degree level and she praises her University of Huddersfield tutors, including Dr Daniel Boduszek, Senior Lecturer in Criminal Psychology, who supervised her final-year project, now to be published. “I am really grateful to Dan, who was an excellent tutor,” says Carolyn.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Huddersfield. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: Carolyn Bate, Daniel Boduszek, Katie Dhingra, Christopher Bale. Psychopathy, intelligence and emotional responding in a non-forensic sample: an experimental investigation. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 2014; 1 DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2014.943798

 

[agentaqua]

http://wcel.org/speak-out-BC-Societies-Court

Speak Out: BC’s societies don’t belong in Court!
The BC Government is currently considering a new Societies Act that would allow anyone who believes that a society is acting “to the detriment of the public interest” to file a court petition against that Society. We are calling on the government to drop these alarming provisions, which have the potential to allow deep-pocketed interests to drag any community group that opposes them into court.

Unbelievable? Here’s our blog post that examines these changes in more detail. http://wcel.org/resources/environme...eties-act-could-invite-litigation-non-profits

The government has asked for feedback on the proposed new Societies Act and wants to hear from you – until October 15th. We need to tell them loud and clear that a vibrant civil society – comprised of community groups, churches, health organizations, environmental organizations and other societies – is a good thing, and their heavy-handed proposals to invite court petitions against these community groups will hurt us all in the long-run.

 

[agentaqua]

http://wcel.org/resources/environme...es-canada’s-environmental-laws?utm_source=LEB

Who writes Canada’s Environmental Laws?
17 September, 2014
We’ve written before about the apparent and unacceptable influence of the oil and gas industry on Canada’s environmental laws, which may have extended to a suggestion that the Canadian government roll multiple amendments into omnibus budget bills (as it did in 2012). Two documents obtained recently under freedom of information legislation demonstrate that industry, and in particular the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), is still at work trying to weaken our environmental laws:

One reveals that CAPP has been actively asking the federal government to weaken Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA); and
The other reveals that CAPP played an active role in a recent, unsuccessful effort to reduce environmental assessment requirements for Liquid Natural Gas operations.
We are concerned. Canadians have seen that the current federal government will not shy away from rewriting environmental laws to accommodate industry. And the government has promised a major rewrite to SARA for some time.

Species at Risk Act

We know from the Lobbyists Registry that the CAPP’s hired lobbyists have been meeting with Canadian Government Ministers, asking them to rewrite SARA to strike a better “balance” between endangered species protection and “existing and future oil and gas exploration projects.” But exactly what that means was revealed recently when Press Progress released a November 2013 letter from CAPP to federal Minister of Environment Leona Aglukkaq detailing the specific amendments to SARA that CAPP has been pressing for:

Guided, in part, with the goal to provide “more stable regulatory regime to enable responsible development of Canada's oil and gas resources and to enhance Canada's global competitiveness,” CAPP is zeroing in on the recovery provisions in the act, according to the newly released letter, dated November 7, 2013. … CAPP … wants to add social and economic considerations to the recovery strategy.

Press Progress provides a detailed review of CAPP’s proposed amendments. In essence, what CAPP wants is to introduce political discretion into what is currently a science-based process.

To understand why that’s a bad thing, let’s start with the fact that SARA is intended to protect those species that are teetering on the edge of extinction – as a result of policies, practices and laws that have been anything but balanced. It is a last-ditch safety net for those species that development and human activities could literally wipe off the face of the earth. Despite the urgency for these species, in many cases SARA only actually applies to federal lands, meaning that its ability to protect endangered species – or affect industry – is pretty limited on lands controlled by the provinces.

It is because of these stark realities that SARA actually (and somewhat unusually for Canadian environmental law) puts science ahead of politics for many key decisions. Recommendations about what species are “at risk” are made by a respected scientific body known as the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). While the government can refuse to accept a recommendation to designate a species as at risk under SARA, they can’t just ignore the recommendation, and have to give reasons if they refuse to follow COSEWIC’s advice.

And once a species is designated as “at risk”, there is an obligation to develop a science-based recovery strategy. Several recent court cases brought by our colleagues at Ecojustice have emphasized that the government cannot just choose to ignore this obligation.

So when CAPP talks about a “balance”, it doesn’t want Canadian environmental laws as a whole to be balanced – it wants to weaken a safety net that is intentionally strict, precisely because the existence of an entire species is at stake. Imagine a hospital striking a “balance” between the needs of a patient on life-support and the need to free up available bed-space. Oh, is that tasteless? Sorry, but that’s what we’re talking about: an attempt to allow private and political interests to trump the measures needed to prevent an irrecoverable event.

Canada’s current government has not always been a big fan of SARA, so CAPP’s lobbying is worrying. In 2012, then Minister of Environment Peter Kent openly promised a major rewrite of SARA: “Sooner rather than later we need to address changes to the Species at Risk Act to be more effective.”

Disappointingly, there has been very little coverage in mainstream media of the document uncovered by Press Progress. CAPP itself was embarrassed enough to respond with a Facebook Post reassuring us that its main concern with SARA is that “little or no progress has been made on actually achieving species recovery”, while still calling for a “balance” that will “enable responsible development of Canada’s oil and natural gas resources.”

Weakening BC environmental assessment

Earlier this week, the Canadian Press broke the story that CAPP had also played a major role behind a change to BC’s laws that would have exempted natural gas processing facilities from environmental assessment:

In January of this year, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers made a presentation to high-ranking officials in British Columbia’s Environment Ministry, outlining changes they wanted to environmental review rules for natural gas projects.

Those changes became law on April 14, but they didn’t stay that way for long.

An outcry from First Nations organizations forced an about-face from Environment Minister Mary Polak, who rescinded the revisions two days after they were passed by order-in-council.

When the changes to the environmental assessment rules were announced, we issued a press release warning that these changes risked harming the environment, but it was public opposition from BC’s First Nations that forced the BC government back-track.

In this case it appears that the influence of CAPP caused the BC government to rush ahead with regulatory changes that it had not thought through – disturbing evidence of just how much influence the industry seems to have.

The real need for balance

CAPP claims that Canada’s environmental laws do not strike the right balance. But having strong environmental laws that apply despite the oil and gas industry’s political clout is essential to real balance. Canadians don’t accept that it is balanced to drive entire species to extinction, or that the oil and gas industry shouldn’t be subject to environmental assessment laws. Having laws in place that hold the oil and gas industry to account represents real balance.

If we’re going to talk about an imbalance, let’s talk about an imbalance in the level of access and political power that one industry seems to have with both provincial and federal governments. Canadians need to know that our politicians will not cater to the demands of one industry at the expense of the rest of us.

By Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer

 

[agentaqua]

Here's the letter:

 

[tincan]

[A_sHriUR1IY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_sHriUR1IY

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/25/305314/confirmed-canada-2011-polls-fraudulent/

Confirmed: Canada 2011 polls fraudulent

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Sat May 25, 2013 9:18AM GMT

The Council of Canadians says that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to disrupt the Federal Court case by the CIMS makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to conceal.”

The Canadian Federal Court has confirmed that the country’s 2011 federal election, which led to the victory of Stephen Harper's government, was fraudulent.


The court emphasized in a Thursday ruling that it has found in no uncertain terms that widespread election fraud took place during the vote.

The ruling also stated that “there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the [Conservative Party's] CIMS database.”

Accordingly, the Council of Canadians has called on the Conservative Party to investigate the issue. It says anything less at this point would be a cover-up on behalf of the Conservatives.

The Council of Canadians says that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to disrupt the Federal Court case by the CIMS makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to conceal.

Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians said “This Federal Court decision is a major indictment of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

“Either senior leaders of the Conservative Party were directly involved in election fraud or they were astoundingly negligent in securing access to their voter database. Illegal or incompetent--just like in the Senate scandal.”

YH/HN

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jeff-rosemartland/gg-petition-harper_b_3467490.html

Why the Governor General Should Remove Harper
Jeff Rose-Martland
Posted: 06/19/2013 5:41 pm EDT Updated: 08/19/2013 5:12 am EDT

Over the past week or so, people have become quite fond of name calling and deriding the intelligence of a certain individual: me. Perhaps they caught it from the Commons.

Collectively, the message is this: petitioning the Governor General to remove the Prime Minister won't work. One camp insists that the GG removing the PM would clearly be anti-democratic and I must be an idiot for suggesting it. A more polite, if condescending, group suggest I don't understand how responsible government works, with some going so far as to recommend further reading. More detractors maintain that, even if the Governor General has the authority on paper to remove a sitting Prime Minister, such action would result in a massive constitutional crisis. Then they start spouting legal references like Trekkies arguing which captain is better, Kirk or Picard.

Get over yourselves, please. You have been gazing into the fuzzy navel of Parliamentary law for so long you have missed the obvious. Of course the Governor General has the authority; the GG uses it all the time.

When an election is called, what happens? The Governor General dissolves Parliament. In other words, he removes all Ministers and MPs from office. What about resignations? When a Minister - or Prime Minister - steps down, they don't shout 'I Quit!' at the Speaker and leave. No, they submit in writing or in person to the Governor General, requesting to be released, and the GG removes them. In the case of no-confidence votes, the Commons sends a letter to the Governor General asking either the Prime Minster be struck and replaced (with the Opposition Leader, generally) or that Parliament be dissolved (see above).

Bottom line: only the Governor General removes Prime Ministers. The fact that it is done by request of the PM or the Commons is irrelevant for our discussion. The GG has the power and uses it regularly - end of debate.

More of my recent lambasting follows this line: Petitions don't work you fool! What we need is protests!

Sorry to burst your bubble my friends, but protests are petition. So are letters, legislation awaiting assent, national strikes, Senate requests to remove Senators, the request to dissolve parliament for an election, all of it... perhaps even tweetstorms. Any time one asks the Governor General to act, one is petitioning the GG. Petitioning, as in 'Your Excellency, we would be most pleased if you might see your way clear to...' Any statement, endorsed by 1 or more individuals, requesting that the Governor General perform an action is, in fact, a petition.

The formal request-endorsed-by-citizens type of petition is more likely to be considered legal than the informal crowd-of-people-chanting-slogans type of petition. Civil unrest indicates only that people are upset. Without an attendance tally connected to, and endorsing, an official statement, all one has is spectacle. In order for a massed rally to affect change, it needs to a) clearly indicate what it wants done and b) be able to demonstrate that those rallying are entitled to make such a request.

In other words, a petition.

The final group of personal assailants chime in along these lines: the Governor General is Harper' puppet, in his pocket, is his crony, owes Harper for appointing him, or something about David Johnston's daughter connected to some company that Harper is connected with (or something, I wasn't able to follow the dots.) Basically, large bunches of Citizens believe Harper controls the GG, as he does the Senate, and that Governor General Johnston won't remove Harper, no matter what happens.

If those people are correct, then we are in very serious trouble.

If the Governor General won't concede to the wishes of Citizens who signed a formal petition, then he is not likely to pay much attention to Save Canada Day. Or Idle No More's Sovereignty Summer. Or the scientists, doctors, civil servants, veterans, or, indeed, anyone else who has been rallying on Parliament Hill. If, as they say, the GG is in cahoots with Harper and will not act, where does it leave us?

The Governor General is the only one who can remove Harper. If the Conservative caucus were to revolt and kick Harper out of caucus, we could be faced with Stevie-the-Indie-PM. Even if Harper resigns - which isn't likely - it is still the GG who choses to accept. And, according to them, His Excellency wouldn't accept. Which leaves us stuck with PMSH for 2 more years - at least.

As I discussed elsewhere, The Prime Minister has already forced the civil service into supporting him. He's already attacked those who dissent. What will 2 more years bring? Will it be made illegal to support a non-Conservative Party? Like the civil service, will you risk losing your income from EI or Canada Pension if you are not loyal to "the government of the day"? The Conservatives have already violated the Elections Act and there was fraud in the 2011 election (not yet linked to the party except by their voter contact list). Perhaps Prime Minister Stephen Harper will simply decide to dispense with elections altogether. Why not? Who's to stop him? He already controls the Commons and the Senate, and some say, the Governor General. So what is preventing him from doing whatever he wants?

I have faith in Governor General Johnston. As a lawyer, he respects the rule of law and the prime tenet that no one is above the law. As a Governor General, he must respect the right of citizens - individually and collectively - to petition for his assistance. If there are enough Citizens who are angry, fed up, and disgusted with the Harper Government; if enough of us want Parliament paused and answers provided; if enough of us who want our rights back; then I believe the Governor General will act.

Failure to heed the will of the population usually leads to violent insurrection and none of us want that, most especially me. Me, who decided to stand and declare his position; to risk retribution from a Government known to strikes out at dissidents; to put my reputation - and perhaps even freedom - on the line to do the right thing and try to head-off violence.

So go ahead, mock me, insult me, list all the reasons this won't work, but ask yourself this:
If this does't work, then what happens?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/yve...es-prompt-civil-liberties-complaint-1.2780666


Yves Fortier's oil patch ties prompt civil liberties complaint

Yves Fortier sat on board of company behind Keystone pipeline

A civil liberties group is objecting to Canada's spy watchdog assigning Yves Fortier to investigate alleged spying on environmental activists, citing a conflict due to his former petroleum industry ties. (Ryan Remiorz/Canadian Press)

A civil liberties group is objecting to Canada's spy watchdog assigning Yves Fortier to investigate alleged spying on environmental activists, citing a conflict due to his former petroleum industry ties.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association's lawyer has written to the Security Intelligence Review Committee asking that Fortier "recuse himself from any participation" in the matter since he once sat on the board of TransCanada Pipelines — the company behind the Keystone XL project.
■U.S. to delay Keystone pipeline decision
■CBC Calgary holds Keystone pipeline town hall
■TransCanada targetted by U.S. activist hedge funds

Fortier, one of three review committee members, was recently appointed to lead an investigation into the association's complaint that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service gathered and shared information about activists opposed to Canada's energy policies.

The association filed the complaint with the review committee in February after media reports suggested that CSIS and other government agencies consider protests and opposition to the petroleum industry as possible threats to national security.

Groups are not 'criminal organizations'

The complaint also cited reports that CSIS had worked with and shared information with the National Energy Board about so-called "radicalized environmentalist" groups seeking to participate in the board's hearings on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project, which would see Alberta crude flow to westward to Kitimat, B.C.
■Alleged CSIS, RCMP spying on Northern Gateway pipeline protesters

The groups included Leadnow, ForestEthics Advocacy Association, the Council of Canadians, the Dogwood Initiative, EcoSociety, the Sierra Club of British Columbia and Idle No More, the indigenous rights movement.

"None of these groups are criminal organizations, nor do they have any history of advocating, encouraging, or participating in criminal activity," says the Feb. 6 complaint.

Pipeline boreal forest
The controversial Keystone project will have pipelines linking Canada's oil sands region to Texas refiners. (Todd Korol/Reuters)

The CSIS Act is clear that "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent" cannot be regarded as threats to national security, the complaint adds.

Former cabinet minister Chuck Strahl stepped down as chairman of the review committee earlier this year after it was revealed he had registered as a lobbyist on behalf of Enbridge's Northern Gateway project.

The complaint says while Strahl "had done the right thing," remaining review committee members with current or past ties to the petroleum industry — namely Fortier and Denis Losier, who sat on the board of Enbridge NB — should not be involved in the matter. (Losier has since left the committee.)

Appearance of bias

Paul Champ, a lawyer for the civil liberties association, says a copy of the complaint was sent to CSIS director Michel Coulombe but no reply was received.

Earlier this month, the review committee informed Champ that Fortier had been assigned to the complaint.

Fortier, an accomplished lawyer and former ambassador to the United Nations, has served as a director for many Canadian corporations. He was appointed to the review committee in August 2013.

'This is a highly serious complaint and should be handled in a manner that is in every way beyond reproach.'- Letter from the BCCLA

Fortier's assignment to the civil liberties association's complaint prompted a Sept. 25 letter from Champ to the committee reiterating the B.C. group's position that despite Fortier's "exemplary reputation," his involvement creates an appearance of bias.

"Indeed, he is clearly a Canadian of extraordinary accomplishment and rectitude who has made significant contributions to Canada," the letter says.

"Still, the BCCLA submits that this is a highly serious complaint and should be handled in a manner that is in every way beyond reproach, with justice not only done, but seen to be done."

Josh Paterson, executive director of the civil liberties association, said he hopes the review committee "will consider it very carefully, and that Mr. Fortier might decide to step back from this one."

The review committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Aside from Fortier, the other current review committee members are Gene McLean, a private security specialist, and Deborah Grey, a former MP who is serving as interim chairwoman.


© The Canadian Press, 2014

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2014/0...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=290914

Help Put the Spotlight on Government Secrecy

Enraged by redacted FOIs? Baffled by backroom deals? Hashtag it #cdnfoi.

By Sean Holman, 26 Sep 2014, TheTyee.ca


Spread the message. Spotlight examples of government secrecy with the hashtag #cdnfoi.

Partisans may not believe it, but Canada's "culture of secrecy" existed long before Stephen Harper moved into the prime minister's office. And it'll be around long after he moves out, unless Canadians do more than cast their ballots in the next election.

That's why four groups concerned about freedom of information, one of which I'm part of, are launching a campaign encouraging Canadians to take a small but vital step on social media that would raise more awareness of just how much is being hidden from us: spotlighting examples of government secrecy with the hashtag #cdnfoi.

Such secrecy has its roots in our political system, which has a tradition of strict party discipline. Because of that discipline, decisions made by the government behind closed doors -- in cabinet meetings, for example -- are rarely defeated in the House of Commons, making secret forums the principle arbiters of public policy.

To be sure, the Harper administration has done more than its share to cultivate a backroom state, frustrating access to government records and officials, as well as failing to fix our broken freedom of information system. But Canadian society is an especially fertile ground for the growth of policies that violate our right to know.

No exclusive defenders

In part, that's because our country doesn't have any groups that exclusively and routinely advocate for greater freedom of information at a national level. Probably the closest we have to that is the small B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.


As its name implies, the association's two staff members toil on information and privacy issues in British Columbia and the rest of Canada from a tiny office above a beauty salon and spa in Vancouver.

Meanwhile, other organizations that care about our right to know have even more sprawling mandates. For example, Ottawa's DemocracyWatch stands on guard for democratic reform and corporate responsibility, as well as freedom of information. Meanwhile, Halifax's Centre for Law and Democracy deals with other human rights issues abroad.

By comparison, the United States has three umbrella organizations that exclusively safeguard Americans' right to know.

They include OpenTheGovernment.org, representing 94 groups; the National Freedom of Information Coalition, representing 30 dues-paying groups; and the Sunshine in Government Initiative, representing nine groups.

Longtime push for change

Such umbrella organizations have always been few and far between in Canada. In the 1970s, a coalition called ACCESS: a Canadian Committee for the Right to Public Information was established to lobby for greater freedom of information.

Reports from The Globe and Mail back then described the committee as having the backing of groups such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association.

But long-time right to know researcher Ken Rubin said that ACCESS, which played a key role in the creation of Canada's current freedom of information law, was actually "primarily a group of diverse individuals" that included academics, activists and lawyers and had some "paper" affiliations with other organizations.

The committee had folded by the 1980s. According to Rubin, during the same decade, a loose coalition came together under the auspices of the Canadian Federation of Civil Liberties and Human Rights Associations to "monitor and improve" freedom of information. That coalition also "went by the wayside" once the federation "faded away."

Then, in Jan. 2000, investigative reporter Robert Cribb announced the formation of Open Government Canada -- a "national forum for FOI networking, education and advocacy pushing for legislative changes that grant greater access to public information. "

Canadian FOI poster


Spread the message. Spotlight examples of government secrecy with the hashtag #cdnfoi.

More than 25 groups were represented at its founding conference in March of that year. However, in an email Cribb stated the coalition "died a regretful death."

The reason: "It proved to be impossible to lure financial support for such an endeavour -- part of the perplexing lack of concern, engagement or righteous indignation in Canada around issues such as freedom of information and the public's right to know."

Those concerns aside, in 2011 DemocracyWatch launched the Open Government Coalition. So far, the coalition is made up of three groups not counting DemocracyWatch and an affiliated charity, although founder Duff Conacher plans to expand it this fall.

In the meantime, the New Democrats and the Liberals have proposed laws and policies that would open up government. They should be applauded for doing so. And if the past is a predictor of the future, they may even act on some of those proposals if they win power -- just as the Conservatives did.

No monopoly on secrecy

But eventually the expediency of secrecy seems to seduce every government, regardless of its political stripe. Which means a New Democrat or Liberal administration will likely become as tight with information as the Conservatives -- albeit, perhaps, with more of a velvet glove covering that clenched, iron fist.

Don't believe me? Well, look no further than the United States where Democrat president Barack Obama swept into office promising an "unprecedented level of openness in Government."

Five years later, an Associated Press analysis found that in 2013 his administration "more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act."

More recently, the agency also listed "eight ways the Obama administration is blocking information."

Meanwhile, for his part New York Times reporter James Risen has called Obama "the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation."

Just as neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on the truth, neither has a monopoly on secrecy.

As a result, it's vital for Canadians to start paying better attention to our information rights so we can better safeguard them.

Help your fellow citizens

That's why the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Canadian Association of Journalists, DeSmog Canada and IntegrityBC are now encouraging Canadians tweet about threats to their right to know using the hashtag #cdnfoi.

Those threats include everything from backroom government meetings and frustrated freedom of information requests to inaccessible officials and nonexistent public records, whether at the federal, provincial or local level.

Canadian FOI poster


Spread the message. Spotlight examples of government secrecy with the hashtag #cdnfoi.

At present, the use of that hashtag isn't widespread, making it more difficult for Canadians to know about such threats.

So, by just tagging stories about government secrecy with #cdnfoi, you can help your fellow citizens know about what they aren't being allowed to know.

And you can encourage others to take up the fight by sharing graphics that promote #cdnfoi -- helping change Canada's culture of secrecy in the process.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...r/04/aboriginal-rights-canada-resource-agenda

Aboriginal rights a threat to Canada's resource agenda, documents reveal

Canadian government closely monitoring how legal rulings and aboriginal protest pose an increasing ‘risk’ for multi-billion dollar oil and mining plans

A man waves a Mohawk flag at a Montreal demonstration in support of the indigenous Idle No More movement in January, 2013.A man waves a Mohawk flag at a Montreal demonstration in support of the indigenous Idle No More movement in January, 2013. Photograph: Oscar Aguirre/Demotix/Corbis


The Canadian government is increasingly worried that the growing clout of aboriginal peoples’ rights could obstruct its aggressive resource development plans, documents reveal.

Since 2008, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has run a risk management program to evaluate and respond to “significant risks” to its agenda, including assertions of treaty rights, the rising expectations of aboriginal peoples, and new legal precedents at odds with the government’s policies.

Yearly government reports obtained by the Guardian predict that the failure to manage the risks could result in more “adversarial relations” with aboriginal peoples, “public outcry and negative international attention,” and “economic development projects [being] delayed.”

“There is a risk that the legal landscape can undermine the ability of the department to move forward in its policy agenda,” one Aboriginal Affairs’ report says. “There is a tension between the rights-based agenda of Aboriginal groups and the non-rights based policy approaches” of the federal government.

The Conservative government is planning in the next ten years to attract $650 billion of investment to mining, forestry, gas and oil projects, much of it on or near traditional aboriginal lands.

Critics say the government is determined to evade Supreme Court rulings that recognize aboriginal peoples’ rights to a decision-making role in, even in some cases jurisdiction over, resource development in large areas of the country.

“The Harper government is committed to a policy of extinguishing indigenous peoples’ land rights, instead of a policy of recognition and co-existence,” said Arthur Manuel, chair of the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, which has lead an effort to have the economic implications of aboriginal rights identified as a financial risk.

“They are trying to contain the threat that our rights pose to business-as-usual and the expansion of dirty energy projects. But our legal challenges and direct actions are creating economic uncertainty and risk, raising the heat on the government to change its current policies.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs declined to answer the Guardian’s questions, but sent a response saying the risk reports are compiled from internal reviews and “targeted interviews with senior management in those areas experiencing significant change.”

“The [corporate risk profile] is designed as an analytical tool for planning and not a public document. A good deal of [its] content would only be understandable to those working for the department as it speaks to the details of the operations of specific programs.”

Last year Canada was swept by the aboriginal-led Idle No More protest movement, building on years of aboriginal struggles against resource projects, the most high-profile of which has targeted Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry Alberta tar sands to the western coast of British Columbia.

“Native land claims scare the hell out of investors,” an analyst with global risk consultancy firm Eurasia Group has noted, concluding that First Nations opposition and legal standing has dramatically decreased the chances the Enbridge pipeline will be built.

In British Columbia and across the country, aboriginal peoples’ new assertiveness has been backed by successive victories in the courts.

According to a report released in November by Virginia-based First Peoples Worldwide, the risk associated with not respecting aboriginal peoples’ rights over lands and resources is emerging as a new financial bubble for extractive industries.

The report anticipates that as aboriginal peoples become better connected through digital media, win broader public support, and mount campaigns that more effectively impact business profits, failures to uphold aboriginal rights will carry an even higher risk.

The Aboriginal Affairs’ documents describe how a special legal branch helps the Ministry monitor and “mitigate” the risks posed by aboriginal court cases.

The federal government has spent far more fighting aboriginal litigation than any other legal issue – including $106 million in 2013, a sum that has grown over the last several years.

A special envoy appointed in 2013 by the Harper government to address First Nations opposition to energy projects in western Canada recently recommended that the federal government move rapidly to improve consultation and dialogue.

To boost support for its agenda, the government has considered offering bonds to allow First Nations to take equity stakes in resource projects. This is part of a rising trend of provincial governments and companies signing “benefit-sharing” agreements with First Nations to gain access to their lands, while falling short of any kind of recognition of aboriginal rights or jurisdiction.

Since 2007, the government has also turned to increased spying, creating a surveillance program aimed at aboriginal communities deemed “hot spots” because of their involvement in protest and civil disobedience against unwanted extraction on their lands.

Over the last year, the Harper government has cut funding to national, regional and tribal aboriginal organizations that provide legal services and advocate politically on behalf of First Nations, raising cries that it is trying to silence growing dissent.

Follow Martin Lukacs on twitter: @Martin_Lukacs

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/..._protesting_pipeline_plan_documents_show.html

RCMP spied on B.C. natives protesting pipeline plan, documents show

The RCMP has been spying on a group of British Columbia First Nations that has been vocally opposed to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, according to documents obtained through an access-to-information request.

Chief Na'Moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, left, Chief Martin Louie of Nadleh Whut'en, centre, and Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik'uz nation attend Enbridge's annual shareholders imeeting in Toronto on Wednesday.

MARK BLINCH / REUTERS

Chief Na'Moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, left, Chief Martin Louie of Nadleh Whut'en, centre, and Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik'uz nation attend Enbridge's annual shareholders imeeting in Toronto on Wednesday.

By: Martin Lukacs and Tim Groves Special to the Star, Published on Wed May 09 2012


The RCMP has been spying on a group of British Columbia First Nations whose vocal opposition to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline has taken them to the company’s annual shareholders meeting in Toronto, according to documents obtained through an access-to-information request.

The documents show that a provincial RCMP unit has been closely tracking the potential for “acts of protest and civil disobedience” by the Yinka Dene Alliance, a coalition of northern B.C. First Nations who have been at the centre of resistance to Enbridge’s $5.5 billion pipeline proposal.

Their territory covers a quarter of the route of the pipeline, which would carry more than 500,000 barrels of oilsands crude from Alberta through pristine territory to Kitimat, B.C., for export by supertanker to Asia and other markets.

The revelations add ammunition to critics who have charged that the Harper government is waging a campaign to demonize legitimate opponents of resource developments like the Northern Gateway, by labelling them as radicals or including them in Canada’s “counter-terrorism” strategy.

Saik’uz First Nation Chief Jackie Thomas, a member of the Yinka Dene Alliance who made a cross-country trip on the “Freedom Train” to protest in Toronto against the pipeline on Wednesday, said she has had suspicions for some time about RCMP surveillance.


“We’ve always been peaceful, but this is how they try to paint us as the enemy,” said Thomas, a grandmother and mother of four concerned that an oil spill could destroy the lands she hunts and fishes on with many of her community members.

“The federal government seems to be using all its arms to push through this project against the will of anyone who opposes it, but we won’t be deterred. It is not a crime to defend our land and waters from a tarsands pipeline and to make the future safe for our grandkids.”

According to the documents, the RCMP unit gathered intelligence from unspecified “industry reports,” newspapers and websites, and Facebook and Flickr photo accounts.

They also appear to have monitored private meetings, including one between First Nations and environmental organizations held in Fraser Lake, B.C., at the end of November, which Thomas says was not announced publicly.

The meeting’s purpose was “to strengthen the alliance between First Nations and environmental groups opposing Enbridge,” an intelligence report from December states.

Enbridge declined to comment about whether it has been exchanging information with the RCMP.

The monthly intelligence reports note that the oil company “will experience increasingly intense protest activity due to the environmental sensitivity of the Northern Gateway path, combined with the fact that the territory has never been ceded to the Crown by First Nations in B.C.”

The pipeline would cross more than 700 rivers and streams, whose abundance of fish has spawned an economy integral to the region, and three vital watersheds: the Mackenzie, the Fraser and the Skeena.

More than 100 First Nations have banned an Enbridge pipeline from their territories, declaring “we will not allow our fish, animals, plants, people and ways of life to be placed at risk.”

An intelligence report notes that the Yinka Dene Alliance will show an “increasing propensity and likelihood of utilizing blockades and confrontation to deter industry from accessing disputed territory.”

With opposition growing among the B.C. population, including NDP leader Adrian Dix, likely the next premier, Enbridge will face an uphill battle to build the pipeline.

As previously reported in the Star, a national RCMP surveillance program monitoring First Nations that ran between 2007 and 2010 shared similar intelligence reports about First Nations with the private sector, including energy companies.

According to newly released documents, since the closure of that national program the surveillance has continued under different RCMP branches.

A RCMP spokesperson said intelligent reports are provided only to law-enforcement agencies.

The provincial unit has been tracking protests by other B.C. First Nations, including opposition to the Pacific Trails pipeline that would bring liquefied natural gas to the coast for export, and the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline carrying Alberta crude oil to tankers in Vancouver.

The RCMP also kept tabs on conflicts over logging, mining, and fracking, and monitored ongoing and potential court cases involving First Nations.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.straight.com/life/741201...-stephen-harper-revolution-new-book-harperism

life / book features
Author Donald Gutstein reveals extent of Stephen Harper revolution in new book Harperism

by CHARLIE SMITH on OCT 1, 2014 at 10:34 AM
BURNABY AUTHOR DONALD Gutstein has spent the past 40 years tracking the rise of neoliberal ideology. Over lunch at Tangent Café on Commercial Drive, the adjunct SFU communication professor says that after all these years, many people are confused about what this term means because it’s rarely defined. So he decided to write a book about it, using Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a case study.

In Harperism: How Stephen Har*per and His Think Tank Colleagues Have Transformed Canada (James Lorimer & Company Ltd.), Gutstein makes the case that neoliberalism is far more sinister than simply having a desire for smaller government. A central tenet of his new book is that Harper is undermining democracy by marshalling the power of government to create and enforce markets where they’ve never existed before.

“He’s gradually moving the country from one that’s based on democracy to one that’s based on the market, which means that the decisions are not made by our duly elected representatives through the laws that they pass and the regulations that they enact,” Gutstein says.

When asked for an example, the bearded intellectual mentions the temporary-foreign-worker program. That’s because it advances the notion that employers, and not the government, should determine who immigrates to Canada under a market-based system.

Another example is free-market environmentalism, which was developed by the neoliberal Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and has been embraced by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute.

According to Gutstein, the objective of FME is to have environmental issues addressed by markets rather than through government regulation.

This is accomplished by placing a dollar value on environmental assets, which then can be leveraged for loans or securitized and sold off by investment dealers. As an example, TD Economics recently estimated that the Lower Mainland’s urban forests are worth $224 million in annual economic and environmental benefits and have a replacement value of $35 billion.

“So it’s a step in that direction,” Gutstein says. “If you can put a value on it, then someone can own it.”

...continued...

 

[agentaqua]

Now in his mid-70s, the trim academic argues that Harper’s policies are rooted in the neoliberal belief that “economic freedom” trumps other societal objectives. The Fraser Institute defines the “four cornerstones” of economic freedom as “personal choice, voluntary exchange coordinated by markets, freedom to enter and compete in markets, and protection of persons and their property from aggression by others”.

With astonishing intellectual dexterity, Gutstein demonstrates in his book how Harper’s overarching mission to promote economic freedom through the imposition of markets is reflected in Conservative government policies.

This explains the zealous desire to dismantle environmental regulations, muzzle government scientists, and scrap the long-form census. The faith in markets also underlies Harper’s blindness to rising income inequality and his eagerness to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board.

In addition, it provides a theoretical framework behind efforts to persuade First Nations to abandon collective ownership of their land in favour of a fee-simple system. Neoliberal ideology also manifests itself in Harper galloping around the world to sign free-trade agreements, which limit municipal and provincial governments’ ability to introduce regulations or procure locally produced goods and services.

Gutstein argues that Harper is radically re-forming the Canadian state but it’s largely gone unnoticed because he’s doing it gradually and with considerable stealth.

“When you take an incremental approach, it doesn’t look like a revolution,” the professor says with a smile.

The neoliberals’ ultimate prize would be to enshrine property rights in the Constitution. Gutstein shows how this, too, is being done incrementally by focusing on Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as a means to get this implemented in Ontario first. From there, it could spread across the country.

If that happens, it will become more difficult for governments to introduce environmental regulations because companies could launch court challenges, arguing that their charter rights are being violated.

“Neoliberalism is a utopian project,” Gutstein explains. “It will never be totally accomplished. That’s why there’s always more to do.”

So where did neoliberal ideology come from? Gutstein’s book highlights the importance of the little-known Mont Pelerin Society, which was created in 1947 by neoliberal economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. They had a long-term goal of disseminating ideas to counter social democracy by relying on what Hayek called “second-hand dealers”.

Second-hand dealers include various newspaper columnists and editorial writers across Canada who parrot reports by neoliberal think tanks such as the Fraser Institute, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Montreal Economic Institute, and Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. Second-hand dealers can also be teachers, church ministers, artists, playwrights, and filmmakers—anybody who can put neoliberal ideas in a form that can be understood by audiences.

“They’re crucial,” Gutstein emphasizes. “Nothing would happen without them.”

In Gutstein’s eyes, another second-hand dealer was novelist Michael Crichton, a climate-change denier whose State of Fear characterized environmentalists as mass murderers.

In Harperism, Gutstein shows how the creation of the Mont Pelerin Society and its associated neoliberal think tanks led directly to the rise of British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, U.S. president Ronald Reagan, and Harper.

“Harper was introduced to Hayek as a graduate student at the University of Calgary in the 1980s; Hayek seems to have guided Harper’s thinking since then,” Gutstein writes in the book. “The debt Harper owes these neoliberals, their ideology, and their network of affiliated think tanks is just as enormous as that owed by Thatcher and Reagan.”

Gutstein emphasizes that Hayek, who died in 1992, and Friedman, who died in 2006, didn’t invent this approach to changing the political climate. Rather, he argues that they were merely copying Britain’s Fabian Society, which used similar methods to advance socialism and the welfare state.

In Canada, two of the most influential Mont Pelerin Society members have been the Fraser Institute’s former executive director, Michael Walker, and Brian Lee Crowley, founder of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and former president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.

When asked how important Walker has been in the evolution of the Canadian state, Gutstein simply replied, "Really important."

For a while, Crowley was a senior economic adviser to the federal finance ministry.

Crowley’s Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada’s Founding Values (Key Porter Books, 2009) describes how “traditional” Canadian values, such as a commitment to family and a solid work ethic, were undermined by the baby-boom generation and the rise of Quebec’s separatist movement. But he claimed that this is changing.

“Already with our early welfare reform in the nineties, we began to shift away from an unhelpful focus on ‘poverty-as-victimization’ to seeing poverty as much more an outcome of the behaviours of the poor themselves,” Crowley wrote. “In this we are rejoining the mainstream of thinking in the Western world. We see poverty, in other words, more and more as a matter of character.”

Postmedia columnist and weekly CBC TV commentator Andrew Coyne attended the London School of Economics with Crowley, an ardent Hayekian. Coyne has called Fearful Symmetry a “profoundly important book” for its analysis of the impact of a shrinking labour market.

“It will mean cutting taxes, to provide incentives,” Coyne wrote in the introduction to Fearful Symmetry. “It will mean opening ourselves further to international trade, to make better use of the productive talents of workers in other countries. It will mean having more children, which will in turn require policies that buttress the family unit—or at least do not discourage it.”

Gutstein writes that Coyne is much more than a second-hand dealer of Hayekian ideas because he “occupies the interface between think tanks and media, crucial territory in the neoliberal war of ideas”. This is why Coyne receives far more attention than any other Canadian journalist in Harperism.

“As of this writing in mid-2014, a tightly knit, smoothly operating neo-liberal propaganda system has been installed in Canada,” Gutstein claims in his book.

To further their success, neoliberals have paid great attention to the use of language in selling their ideas to the public. Gutstein notes in his book that Conservative politicians repeatedly claim to support “sound science” and condemn “radical environmentalists” even as they’re preventing government scientists from being interviewed by reporters.

Gutstein explains that Harperism really has three key ingredients. First and foremost, it promotes neoliberalism. Secondly, it’s gradual. And thirdly, it involves fundamentally redefining Canada as a great nation with a glorious military past. He argues that this is why the Canadian citizenship guide was rewritten.

“The word ‘war’ doesn’t appear in the Chrétien-Martin guide, but is used fifty-five times in the Harper version,” Gutstein writes.

If neoliberal ideologues have an Achilles’ heel, Gutstein says, it’s their refusal to acknowledge how their policies increase inequality. Citing statistics from the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Gutstein points out that income inequality is at its highest point in 50 years among the 34 most developed countries in the world.

According to the OECD, increased income inequality is linked to declining union membership, minimum wages not rising with inflation, lower employment standards, and reduced length and generosity of unemployment benefits. However, Gutstein notes that Hayek associated income inequality with economic progress.

“Consequently, Hayek asserts, we must live with inequality because government intervention to reduce it will make things worse,” Gutstein writes.

Not everyone agrees with Hayek on this issue. British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett demonstrated in The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone (Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, 2010) that income inequality generates worse health outcomes for all of society, including the rich. Moreover, their data showed that higher inequality reduces everyone’s life expectancy.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong consistently ranks first in the Fraser Institute’s annual ranking of economic freedom, even though it has the greatest income inequality in the developed world.

Gutstein reports in Harperism that the Fraser Institute’s Fred McMahon condemned the Hong Kong government for introducing a minimum wage because it “interferes with voluntary arrangements between hirers and employees”.

McMahon said this even though the employers were often billionaires. His comment reflected Hayek’s general opposition to central planning.

When asked why neoliberals have these views, Gutstein says that it’s rooted in their belief that governments will always screw things up and only the market can be trusted to make the right decisions.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a cult,” he says. “It’s a brotherhood. It’s a worldwide network.”

Donald Gutstein will hold a book launch for Harperism: How Stephen Harper and His Think Tank Colleagues Have Transformed Canada at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday (October 8) at SFU Harbour Centre.

Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter @csmithstraight.

 

[tincan]

https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/canscientistsspeak


Evidence for Democracy has released a report titled "Can Scientists Speak? Grading communication policies for federal government scientists".

This report grades 16 Canadian federal government departments on their communication and media policies, finding:

Government media policies do not support open and timely communication between scientists and journalists.
Policies do not protect scientists’ right to free speech.
Policies do not protect against political interference in science communication.
Over 85% of departments assessed received a grade of C or lower.
All but one department scored lower than the United States average in 2013.
The Department of National Defence took the first place spot for open communication.
The Canadian Space Agency, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada were tied for last place with failing grades.

"Our findings are concerning because current media policies could prevent taxpayer-funded scientists from sharing their expertise with the public on important issues from drug safety to climate change. This information is essential for people to see how science is used in government decision-making, and thus be able to hold the government accountable," says E4D’s Executive Director Dr. Katie Gibbs, an author on the report.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/revenue-canada-targets-birdwatchers-for-political-activity-1.2799546

Revenue Canada targets birdwatchers for political activity
Canada Revenue Agency issues warning letter to wildlife club to curb any political activities
By Dean Beeby, CBC News Posted: Oct 16, 2014 5:00 PM ET Last Updated: Oct 16, 2014 6:49 PM ET

Watching the birdwatchers

A small group of nature lovers in southern Ontario enjoy spending weekends watching birds and other wildlife, but lately they're the ones under watch — by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists, a registered charity, is apparently at risk of breaking tax agency rules that limit so-called political or partisan activities.

Earlier this year, tax auditors sent a letter to the 300-member group, warning about political material on the group's website.

The stern missive says the group must take appropriate action as necessary "including refraining from undertaking any partisan activities," with the ominous warning that "this letter does not preclude any future audits."

A copy of the five-page March 11 letter, signed by Valerie Spiegelman of the charities directorate, was obtained by CBC News.

Officials in the naturalist group are declining comment about the cannon shot across the bow, apparently for fear of attracting more attention from the tax agency.

Member speaks out

But longtime member Roger Suffling is speaking up, saying the issue is about democratic freedom and not about arcane tax rules.

'Effectively, they've put a gag on us.'
— Roger Suffling, member of Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists
"Effectively, they've put a gag on us," he said in an interview, noting that the letter arrived just after the club had written directly to two federal cabinet ministers to complain about government-approved chemicals that damage bee colonies.

"You can piece together the timing," said Suffling, an adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo. "The two things are very concurrent."

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq responded to the group’s complaint in a March 14 letter — or just days after the Canada Revenue Agency letter arrived — and Suffling is convinced the two events are linked. Aglukkaq's office denies there's any link, saying the agency operates independently.

Suffling said that if government is using the tax agency as a "pit bull to stifle dissent, then there's something very wrong."

The group, with annual revenues of just $16,000, has also had a guest speaker to talk about the oilsands, and has publicly defended the Endangered Species Act from being watered down.

Suffling said members of the group are older, small-c conservative, "not radical in the least sense."

Political activity audits

The Canada Revenue Agency launched a special program of so-called political activity audits after Budget 2012 provided $8 million for the project, later topped up to $13.4 million.

CDA UN 20140923
Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq speaks at the UN earlier this year. A member of a naturalist club in Ontario suspects Aglukkaq was behind a warning letter his group received from the Canada Revenue Agency about political activities. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

The rules say a charity can devote no more than 10 per cent of its resources to political activities, and none to partisan activities, but critics say the guidelines are fuzzy or can be Byzantine in their complexity.

A special squad of 15 auditors has so far targeted some 52 charities, many of them critical of Conservative government policies. Environment groups were hard hit in the first round in 2012-13, but the net has since widened to snare social justice and poverty groups, among others.

So far, no group has been deregistered, but the audits have been expensive and disruptive for charities, many of which operate on a shoestring.

Critics cite 'advocacy chill'

Critics say the program has led to "advocacy chill."

"What we've seen and what we've heard is this nervousness," said Bruce MacDonald, president and CEO of the charities lobby Imagine Canada, based in Toronto.

"Whether it is increased scrutiny, increased attention of the scrutiny, we're not entirely sure what's causing it. It does seem, though, to be top of mind for everybody right now."

Canada Revenue Agency officials say they do not target any one charitable sector, and are choosing groups impartially, without input from the minister's office.

The decision to launch an audit is also not based on any group’s position on the political spectrum, charities directorate chief Cathy Hawara has said.

The agency also has another tool in its arsenal beside audits. "Reminder letters” are issued to some groups to warn that Canada Revenue Agency analysts have been watching their political activities, and may launch full audits if things aren't rectified.

snowy egret
A snowy egret takes flight in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region. A local naturalist club has come under scrutiny by the Canada Revenue Agency for allegedly paying too much attention to politics and not enough to wildlife. (Contributed by Brett Woodman)

So far, 23 such letters have been issued, including to the Kitchener-Waterloo group, though the agency won't say exactly which groups are on the list, citing the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act.

"The local naturalists' club was silenced when its views became known to government and it was silenced for voicing public concern, not for breaking the rules,” Suffling wrote on a recent blog.

"How many other inconvenient charities are there out there?”

The Canada Revenue Agency declined interviews. But spokesman Philippe Brideau sent an email indicating said the decision about whether to launch a full audit or to issue a reminder letter comes after an initial screening process based on internal files as well as publicly available material.

"Where the regular activities of a registered charity appear charitable and the political activities appear to have minor issues or to be increasing or changing, following an office review/monitoring, a reminder letter informing the charity about the rules for political activities may be sent,” he said.

Brideau declined comment about the Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists, citing confidentiality.

Follow @DeanBeeby on Twitter

With files from Margo McDiarmid

 

[tincan]

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/offices/bc/events/naomi-klein-capitalism-vs-climate

Naomi Klein on capitalism vs. the climate

*Tickets for this FREE talk cannot be reserved online or by phone – the only way to get advance tickets (a maximum of two) is in person at the Chan Centre box office beginning October 21st. There should be enough seats, but it could fill up. Come early if you’re keen! Click here for more information.
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate

Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein will be addressing the Vancouver Institute on Sunday, October 26, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., Chan Centre for the Performing Arts, University of British Columbia.
- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/o...in-capitalism-vs-climate#sthash.JRuHg4sP.dpuf

 

[agentaqua]

Updated: One thousand Plus Reasons why Harper is a scumbag
http://westcoastnativenews.com/six-hundred-reasons-why-harper-is-a-scumbag/

Updated: One thousand Plus Reasons why Harper is a scumbag

derrick on July 22nd, 2014 9:03 pm - 6 Comments




Republished from concernedcitizensletter

Open Letter to the Toronto Star from a Concerned Citizen
June 20th, 2014

The Toronto Star
Toronto, Ontario

Dear Sirs,

Stephen Harper promised to change Canada into something we would not recognize.

Unless one has been in a cave, on a perpetual drug trip or inebriated on a beach in Brazil, one would know he has succeeded.

To be sure, Mount Logan is still the highest mountain in Canada and the sun still rises in the east, but Canada has been detrimentally changed.

From financing the killing of Palestinian children, to being the laughing stock of scientists around the world, to being criminal violators of human rights according to the United Nations, we as a country had better wake up.

As the messenger, the Main Stream Media has a responsibility. As once one of the most revered mediums in our country, why is your grade, in the opinion of many Canadians, now a fail? Who is screening your word?

On Monday, June 17th, you published:
“When the obituary is finally written on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government, it is the tone that will stand out. Most of his actions will not. With some notable exceptions (such as gutting environmental regulations), they have not been extreme.
and “Voters will put up with any number of dubious government actions. Enough might even put up with the Northern Gateway pipeline.”

With an attitude like that, why don’t you just tell the estimated 10,000,000 eligible voters who probably won’t bother to vote next year:
“Except for some minor kinks, it’s all just fine in Ottawa; nothing to see there Folks.”

There are THOUSANDS of serious and corrupt issues which Harper and the Conservatives should be held accountable for, and, based on that message you conveyed to Canadians, you are typical of Canada’s Main Stream Media falling asleep at the switch.

The following are six hundred of thousands of reasons your pages should constantly be screaming blue murder about Canada’s destruction by Harper and EVERY Conservative MP, (all voting as a unified caucus).

If Harper had been a Chief Executive Officer in any reputable company, the Board of Directors would fire him on the spot for ANY of these reasons.

Moreover, if Harper was in private practice and handled shareholders’ money like he handles Canadian Taxpayers’ hard-earned, heavily-taxed wages, he would have been charged, arrested, tried, judged, convicted, and tossed in jail, and based on the seriousness of the infractions, corruption and theft, most likely for life.

Please note, most of the following came from reading YOUR paper:

...continued...