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

[agentaqua]

http://canadalandshow.com/article/global-news-kills-koch-brothers-story-fires-journalist

Global News Kills Koch Brothers Story, Fires Journalist

Bruce Livesey says he was fired for talking to CANADALAND

Jesse Brown's picture

Jesse Brown • April 13, 2015

Veteran investigative reporter Bruce Livesey was fired by Global News shortly after talking to CANADALAND about the fact that management had pulled his documentary, The Koch Connection, from their broadcast schedule.

As CANADALAND reported in February, Livesey's documentary about the billionaire Koch Brothers and their ties to Canada was set for broadcast on Global News' 16x9 investigative newsmagazine, only to be pulled from the broadcast schedule and scrubbed from Global's website shortly before it was set to air.

Global News manager Ron Waksman told CANADALAND at the time that the documentary was not "killed, cancelled or dropped" but was merely delayed as it was not yet ready for broadcast. Waksman told us it would likely air in the next season.

CANADALAND has since learned that this is not the case.

Journalist Bruce Livesey

Global News fired Livesey, killing his Koch piece along with two other investigations they had commissioned from him.

In an interview on this week's podcast, Livesey tells that the explicit reason given to him by Ron Waksman for his termination was the fact that he briefly spoke to CANADALAND, off-the-record, about the documentary's removal from broadcast.

Ron Waksman did not respond to our requests for comment, but Global News' communications department did issue a statement calling our questions "completely unfounded" and attributing their actions instead to "journalistic responsibility," as Livesey's work "didn't meet our standards for balance".

Bruce Livesey challenges this on two grounds:

1.At no point in the months he spent investigating and producing the documentary in close collaboration with Global's team was the issue of balance ever raised with him. The Koch Connection was, he says, approved for broadcast by 16x9 Executive Producer Laurie Few and signed-off on by Global's libel lawyer.

2. Global News claims that firing Livesey and cancelling his upcoming reports was what responsible journalists had to do when faced with his imbalanced journalism. Yet when they pulled The Koch Connection from broadcast, they re-ran a piece called The Man who Took on Putin, in its place. This documentary was also produced by Livesey.

Ultimately, this comes down to Livesey's word and reputation. In terms of his word, he says Ron Waksman directly cited his conversation with CANADALAND as the reason why he was being fired. Global denies this on behalf of Waksman, who won't comment.

As for his reputation, Bruce Livesey directs us to his bio, which describes his 30+ year career investigating corporations for dozens of major news orgs in print and television.

jesse@canadalandshow.com

http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadalan...led_a_documentary_about_the_Koch_brothers.mp3

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom...s-poor-politics-but-sound-economics-1.3028343

Tom Mulcair's 'Dutch disease' diagnosis was poor politics, but sound economics

Manufacturing jobs have declined to a new low, and won't bounce back easily

By James Fitz-Morris, CBC News Posted: Apr 14, 2015 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Apr 14, 2015 6:07 AM ET

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says the oilsands boom boosted the loonie and undermined manufacturing. 'It's by definition, Dutch disease.' (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Bank of Canada survey: Cheap oil hurts the whole economy - April 8, 2015 22:00

The latest national job numbers came as a great surprise.

Great because they were up — a surprise because analysts were predicting the numbers would be down.

The top-line numbers, however, mask the hollowing out of a portion of the Canadian economy.
■Is Canada suffering from 'Dutch disease'?
■Bank of Canada survey shows oil dimming corporate confidence
■Don Pittis: Why Stephen Poloz can't fix the economy

According to the Labour Force Survey, 1,688,300 Canadians were employed in the manufacturing sector in March, a drop of 1.8 per cent from the previous month.

That means there are currently fewer people working in that sector of the economy than at any time in the nearly 40-year history of the modern Labour Force Survey.

In January 1976, the first month of the new survey, Statistics Canada reported more than 1.8 million people were working in manufacturing.

To put those numbers in greater context — the entire labour force for all industries at the time numbered 9.6 million.

Today it stands at 17.9 million; an 86 per cent increase.

Manufacturing keeps shrinking

Manufacturing has shrunk over the same time period by more than a quarter.

Tom Mulcair attack ad
A screen capture shows an ad produced by the Conservative Party against NDP Leader Tom Mulcair. (YouTube)

Last fall, Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz said parts of the sector have lost 75 per cent of their output since 2000.

He pointed out this is more than just cancelling the third shift at a plant — that kind of decline represents factory closures and companies restructuring to slim down.

The closures and restructuring were made necessary because of declining demand from international clients, whose currency isn't going as far as it used to compared with the Canadian dollar.

The loonie was being driven largely by the power of strong oil prices.

"It's by definition, Dutch disease." opined Tom Mulcair in an interview with the CBC in May 2012.

Wilting tulips

The term was coined in 1977 to describe the downside of the discovery of natural gas fields off the coast of the Netherlands.

The ensuing economic boom boosted the country's currency, which was harmful to its other exports and — in the end — the overall economy after commodity prices slumped.

Sound familiar?

"The currency's appreciation of almost 60 per cent over the last 15 years has really hurt the manufacturing sector," is the assessment of Canada's economy by Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Emanuella Enenajor.

Poloz hasn't used the term (certainly not publicly), but did concede, "capacity in these subsectors has simply disappeared."

It might not come back

Just because low oil prices are reducing transportation and energy costs, and the floundering loonie is making Canadian exports attractive again — it doesn't mean the sector will bounce back immediately.

You can't just turn the lights back on in the factory and start sending the widgets out the door again.

When the energy sector started to lose steam, the old stalwarts of the economy weren't there to pick up the slack.

"The Dutch disease that Canada has experienced has been more than a decade in the making, and I think it has really hurt business confidence," added Enenajor.

Supporting that view is the Bank of Canada's latest survey of companies, which suggests that cheaper oil is reducing their expectations for the economy in the near term.

But that's just economics

It takes economists reams of research and data to offer evidence Canada suffered from, and continues to have the after effects of, Dutch disease.

Mulcair's 2012 diagnosis has merit, but the Conservatives use far fewer words to show that counts for very little in an election year.

"The leader of the NDP calls [the natural resources] sector a disease!" Pierre Poilievre sneered at Mulcair across the floor of the House of Commons last week.

A rebuke even economists have to admit will likely put what they call "downside pressure" on the NDP's vote in at least some parts of the country.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/another-conservative-law-struck-down-supreme-court-whats-next

14, 2015 by PressProgress

Oh rats! Another Conservative law ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court!

When, oh ever when, will Justice Minister Peter MacKay just catch a break?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down two of the Conservatives' mandatory sentencing rules for illegal possession of a firearm -- proving once again that the pesky Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't know how to be a team player and toe the line for this Conservative government.

And whether crafting new bad laws, defending existing bad laws, or outright ignoring what the evidence says makes effective laws, the Conservatives seem hell-bent on wasting tax dollars pushing cases that are doomed to be struck down by Canada's highest court.

Highlight reel losses:
•Canada's prostitution law back in 2013.
•A key section in the Abolition of Early Parole Act -- which retroactively took away accelerated parole review from existing prisoners -- was found, in March 2014, to violate a person's Charter right not be tried or punished twice for the same crime:

"Imposing this... by means or retrospective legislation triggers the protecting against double punishment."

•A ruling against parts of the Truth in Sentencing Act (a "centrepiece" of the Tory crime agenda, meant to curb a judge's ability to give an inmate extra credit for time spent behind bars before sentencing) last spring, which restored a judge's discretion to allow up to 1.5 days credit for time served.

•Assisted suicide ban in February.

Keep your eyes on the scoreboard:

•Bill C-51, if it becomes law, is ripe for Charter challenges, according to experts. Ron Atkey, former chair of Security Information Review Committee, even called the anti-terrorism bill a "constitutional mess." The question Atkey posed during recent House public safety committee hearings could easily be asked of much of the government's law-and-order agenda:

"Why provoke an avoidable constitutional challenge?"

•Both the cyber-bullying legislation (Bill C-13) and Digital Privacy Act could soon face challenges thanks to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling upholding the privacy of Internet users and determining that Internet service providers can't routinely provide subscriber data to the police.

•Bill C-53, the "life without parole bill," proposes mandatory life sentences for certain violent offenders while empowering the public safety minister to grant parole in rare cases. Experts predict legal challenges if it becomes law and say the Supreme Court could "chuck it out."

•The mandatory victim surcharge, which removed a judge's discretion to waive victims' services fees if an offender can't afford to pay the penalty, was struck down as unconstitutional by an Ontario Court justice in 2014. Experts believe it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. (In 2013, MacKay infamously said that homeless people should sell off "a bit of property" to come up with the cash to pay the surcharge if they're convicted of an offence.)

Speaking of, MacKay recently defended the government's law-making abilities:

"As we do with every bill, there’s a thorough and vigorous vetting of the legislation to see that it’s Charter-compliant, that it is consistent with the Constitution."

Tell that to Department of Justice whistle-blower, Edgar Schmidt, who sued his own ministry for being in violation of current legislation that requires the government to thoroughly vet all bills to ensure they comply with the Charter.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/na...-government-launched-federal-attack-charities

CORRECTED, UPDATED: Diaries reveal Duffy spoke with Krause as government launched federal attack on charities

"Vivian Krause appears before Commons Energy Committee," says an entry in Duffy's journal on February 9, 2012. On that day, Krause testified before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that U.S. foundations were donating money to Canadian environmental charities. Right after Krause’s testimony, Duffy's diary reads: "Lunch - Vivian Krause."

Danny Kresnyak

Jenny Uechi |Apr 10th, 2015

She had tears in her eyes as she told the Senate National Finance Committee she had sold her house to support herself as she did research on environmental charities.

On June 8, 2012, writer and researcher Vivian Krause alleged a conspiracy between American financial interests and Canadian environmental groups. She said the collusion was meant to ensure Canadian energy resources would remain destined for American markets rather than exported to meet the growing demand in China.

Mike Duffy, then a Harper-appointed Senator and prominent character in fundraiser videos for the Conservative Party of Canada, was not a regular member of the finance committee but was present to hear Krause's testimony. His day planner — now popularly known as the "Duffy diaries" — has a note on June 6, 2012 that reads "MD fills in for Doug Finley @ National Finance, Vivian Krause."

Reached by phone on Saturday, Krause said Duffy joined a lunch she was having with Duffy's assistant in Ottawa, and that she spoke to him again in the lobby of a hotel. She said she was supposed to have had lunch with another senator who was sick and not Duffy.

Krause said she had just testified to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and that Duffy had questions about the research she had done. She strongly objected to suggestions that she had been in communication with the federal government beyond her visits to Ottawa to testify about environmental charities. She said she did this as part of her duty as a good citizen.

The document, admitted as evidence before the court in Duffy’s trial, indicates that subsequent to a January 8 diary entry that says Duffy made an email exchange and telephone call with ex-Sun News personality Ezra Levant "re: Vivian Krause," he met with Krause on three occasions and had two telephone conversations.

Levant, reached on Sunday, said he did not recall details of his conversation with Duffy, but that the call was not substantive. He also said he could not find emails that mentioned both "Duffy" and "Krause."

"Vivian Krause appears before Commons Energy Committee," says an entry in Duffy's journal on February 9, 2012. On that day Krause testified before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that U.S. foundations were donating money to Canadian environmental charities. Right after Krause’s testimony, Duffy's diary reads: "Lunch - Vivian Krause."

On March 20, two entries state:

"1:30 p.m. - 1:35 p.m. Parking - Vivian Krause"

"Update from Viv Krause at Holiday Inn Cooper St. + Call NB Telegraph Journal on energy issues + Chris Morris on Senate Reform"

On March 22, an article ran in The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, quoting Krause questioning where U.S. funding of Canadian environmental organizations was going. The article is now offline in the Telegraph, but is referenced in the Financial Post.

In the same time frame, Krause received significant funding from the oil, gas and mining industries and has admitted 90 per cent of her income in 2012, 2013 and 2014 was drawn from speaking fees and honorariums funded by energy industry giants.

Krause said the "90 per cent" comment was out of context, because she had "zero" income aside from her speaking arrangements. Krause said she earned money by working part-time as a piano teacher, among other things. She said her two most recent speaking gigs were not paid.

Krause’s work has received traction in the National Post, Financial Post and on social media. Her website, Fairquestions.com, also become a favourite resource of the now-defunct Sun News Network.

Krause said she has "no coordination with Ezra Levant or Sun News," and said she found his website "distasteful" and "baseless." She said she disagreed with Levant's notion that charities were "puppets" of foreign companies, and said she was inaccurately quoted by Levant in The Winnipeg Free Press.

Assertions made by Krause have sparked audits of environmental charities by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), a fact she has included in her resume. All complaints filed with the CRA were done by a group called Ethical Oil through their legal team.

At the same time, on Ezra Levant's now defunct program The Source, he echoed Krause's talking points and added allegations of environmental charities receiving money for political special interests.

Meanwhile, Ethical Oil authored the Our Choice campaign to advocate the approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline and energy trade with the Asian market. Ethical Oil was incorporated by Edmonton law firm McLennan Ross, a company which represents a self-reported 63 per cent of the the major players in the oil sands industry.

Levant said his activism on environmental charities was not related to Mike Duffy.

Krause's research has been cited as the inspiration for articles from Conservative party caucus members Peter Kent, Vic Toews and Joe Oliver. Oliver echoed the conspiracy accusation when he wrote on his website that British Columbia-based environmental activists funded by foreign special interests “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda."

Asked if she had met with Joe Oliver, she said she met him very briefly once after a Vancouver Board of Trade talk, but that she did not have any discussion with him about his writings and that she had no ties to the federal Conservative Party.

Peter Kent also spoke of claims of alleged money-laundering amongst environmental charities and then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty used the stories to justify audits of Tides Canada and other associations. Vic Toews included environmental action groups on a list of groups linked to extremism and a possible source of terror attacks in Canada.

According to Vancouver Observer contributor Sandy Garossino, Krause’s accusations left out the fact that "the majority of the $425 million that U.S. foundations donated to Canada in the last 15 years went toward habitat conservation in the Great Bear Rainforest and Boreal Forest Initiatives projects."

Krause criticized the Vancouver Observer for not calling her prior to publishing this story (one of the phone numbers listed online was not in service), and said she disagreed with the way she was being linked to the Conservative Party's attack on charities. She said her research was being "misused" by people like Ezra Levant.

She said she paid her own air fare to go to Ottawa and did not claim any expenses for reimbursement. Krause stressed that she had no ties to any organization or any political party.

This article was updated with corrections on Saturday April 11 and on Tuesday April 14. We apologize to Ms. Krause for the errors.

Full disclosure: Vancouver Observer publisher Linda Solomon Wood is a sibling of Tides Canada founder, Joel Solomon. Tides Canada is one of seven environmental charities which submitted to a CRA audit after the Harper government allocated $8 million to closely monitor their political activities. Neither the Vancouver Observer nor Linda Solomon Wood has a financial relationship with Tides Canada.

Part 5 of Mike Duffy's diaries below. See here for the full PDFs (parts 1 - 6). http://www.hilltimes.com/2015/04/08/duffy-trial-exhibits/41706

Sen. Duffy's Schedules_Part5 https://www.scribd.com/doc/261409410/Sen-Duffy-s-Schedules-Part5

 

[agentaqua]

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...nister-is-not-responsible-for-almost-anything

Andrew Coyne: To recap, the prime minister is not responsible for almost anything

Andrew Coyne | October 30, 2013 8:38 PM ET
More from Andrew Coyne | @acoyne
.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper responds to a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, October 30, 2013.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean KilpatrickPrime Minister Stephen Harper responds to a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, October 30, 2013..

To recap, the prime minister is not responsible. He is not responsible for appointing Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau to the Senate. He is not responsible for appointing senators from provinces in which they were not resident, and he is not responsible for their subsequent activities shilling for the Tories across the country at public expense.

And he is most certainly not responsible for the clandestine campaign, involving officials in his office, the chairman of the Conservative Fund Canada, and several leading Conservative senators, to repay Senator Duffy’s falsely claimed expenses on his behalf and conceal his misdeeds from the public. He is not responsible for his spokesman’s statements, even after the plot had been exposed, praising Mr. Duffy for “doing the right thing” and vouching confidence in his chief of staff, Nigel Wright.

On the other hand, he is responsible, by his own account, for telling Mr. Duffy to repay his expenses, though he had for months denied having any involvement with the file, and he was briefly responsible for “dismissing” Mr. Wright, though he had earlier claimed he resigned, and though he now seems unwilling to say which version is operable.

But he is not responsible for the current campaign to suspend the three senators two years without pay for “gross negligence” — a made-up penalty for a made-up offence, meted out by a process that seems to change by the day. He is not responsible because, as everybody knows, the Senate is wholly independent of the prime minister — as independent as his own office.

He is not even responsible for answering questions about his responsibility in this affair. He does not answer questions from the media, and when called upon to answer questions in Parliament as often as not passes them off to his parliamentary secretary. Even when he does answer questions, he doesn’t answer them.

The notion that Stephen Harper should bear any responsibility for the actions of his staff, or indeed his own, is one of those quaint relics of a bygone age, like outdoor showers or honesty. There was a time when public office holders were expected to take responsibility for these things, as a matter of personal honour if nothing else. But conventions last only as long as they are observed. Today, the prime minister clings to his position — I was the victim of a conspiracy involving everyone around me — as tightly as Senator Duffy clings to his paycheque.

Indeed, the notion that conventions matter is itself a convention. In recent years they have been discarded by the dozen, and the faster they fall the less any of them are missed. A glance at the headlines is enough to see how little remains.

It used to be a convention that bills of differing purposes would be introduced and voted upon separately, not packed into a single omnibus bill. The first time this was attempted it was shocking. The second was tedious. The third, now before Parliament, is not even news.

That debate on the bill itself has been cut off — the government’s entire fall agenda, pushed through in a matter of days — adds to the sense of vertigo. Once, invoking closure — or its politer form, time allocation — was the stuff of epic parliamentary battles. Now it is more the convention to shut off debate than to allow it. And it is the convention not to mind.

Wait, as Senator Duffy might say: there’s more. The minister of intergovernmental affairs, with responsibility for matters such as national unity, publicly repudiates the stated policy of the government in which he serves on the most important matter it is ever likely to face — namely, that a “clear majority,” and not a mere 50% plus one, in any referendum on secession is one of the conditions for any subsequent negotiations. He does so, what is more, not as a matter of idle speculation, but just as the government is in court to defend its position.

Once, it was a convention that members of the cabinet were bound to uphold the policies of the government, and to be accountable for them, and that if they could not support those policies, they could not serve in that government. That, too, has long since ceased to apply.

There does not seem to be much that does bind the government: not convention, not its own promises, not even basic facts. It issues deficit projections at the beginning of the fiscal year that bear no resemblance to the figures that go into the books at the end. It claims to be on track to meet its greenhouse gas targets even as its environment commissioner issues reports showing that it is not even half-way there. It continues to defend its costing of major defence purchases even after the auditor-general has found them to be fraudulent.

So the revelations of how far senior government officials were willing to go to lie and cover up in the matter of Senator Duffy’s expenses should be no more shocking to us than it apparently is to the prime minister. I don’t want to say there was ever a convention that people in politics shouldn’t lie, but there were once some limits of decency: you could lie, but you couldn’t lie.

But these days it seems the only expectation is that you should not actually break the law. What once were honest lies have been rechristened “spin,” a term that is itself the best example of what it describes: even the liars can’t tell when they are lying any more. Should we be surprised that, in all this spinning about, they get a little giddy — that the closer they spin to the edges of legality, the greater the likelihood they will fall off?

But then, it is only a convention that we obey the law.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/09/why-stephen-harper-should-be-in-court-under-oath/

Why Stephen Harper should be in court — under oath

By Michael Harris | Apr 9, 2015 8:59 pm

Stephen Harper
More from Michael Harris available here.
The prime minister of Canada likes to hold everyone to account but himself. It’s a dictator thing.

Stephen Harper says he won’t be called to testify at Senator Mike Duffy’s criminal trial. Usually lawyers get to decide that, not prospective witnesses. Still, he’s probably right.

Harper also says the reason he won’t be called is that he doesn’t know anything about the alleged criminal matters now before the court. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The prime minister effectively created and then destroyed Duffy as a politician. He appointed him to the Senate, then ran him out of the Red Chamber on a rail — but not before turning him into a human cash register for the party, as a cursory glance through Duffy’s personal diaries will confirm.

Forget for a moment the question of Duffy’s ‘primary residence'; his real home was an Airbus in the days when his fame still opened all the right doors in Harperland, and he could drop into 24 Sussex for pizza with Laureen and Ezra Levant.

More than anyone else, Harper set in motion the chain of events that led to the Ottawa criminal court where this senator from somewhere will be judged. This is a political trial every bit as much as it is a serious criminal proceeding.

Duffy’s lawyer, Donald Bayne, read into the record a new wrinkle, yet to be laid down in testimony: Nigel Wright apparently told the RCMP that he advised the prime minister that Duffy’s housing allowance might be acceptable under the Senate’s rules.

“I was aware of the fact that I was pushing very hard to have a caucus member repay a significant amount of money to which he may have been legally entitled,” Wright told police. “I needed the PM to know this just in case it ever came up with someone else who wouldn’t repay, then you have to get kicked out of caucus, whatever, that we are basically forcing someone to repay money that they probably didn’t owe, and I wanted the prime minister to know that and be comfortable with that.”

So according to this, Stephen Harper knew and was comfortable with the distinct possibility that he was punishing an innocent man. If that’s so, the question becomes why the issue of legality ultimately didn’t matter in the dusting of Duffy.

The idea at the heart of Donald Bayne’s defence is that the whole thing was driven by the political calculus rolling around in the PM’s tactical brain: Duffy was wallowing in the public trough, and his expenses would offend the sensibilities of the Conservative base if the details became public.

If a cabinet minister could drown in a $16 glass of orange juice, a prime minister might be swamped completely by a senator in his caucus charging meals served in his own house to the public, fudging per diems and paying people to hand out money for dubious services. For this leader, perception is reality.

open quote 761b1bDuffy had asked to be appointed from Ontario, where he had lived for decades. It was the prime minister who apparently insisted that Duffy be appointed from P.E.I., allegedly telling his appointee that his critics ‘would get over it’.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the senator is where he is today because of a decision to force the repayment of housing expenses Duffy may not have owed — however decrepit the rules that allowed them in the first place may be. Consider the freight train of improprieties the Auditor General has found in the spending records of other senators.

In fact, a strong case can be made that the whole housing expenses dilemma was created by the prime minister from the get-go. Sources say that at the time of his appointment to the Senate, Duffy had asked to be appointed from Ontario, where he had lived for decades. He was worried about blowback if he was appointed from Prince Edward Island, which was little more than the nostalgic homestead of his childhood days — though he did own a cottage and had family ties there. It was the prime minister who apparently insisted that Duffy be appointed from P.E.I., allegedly telling his appointee that his critics “would get over it.”

It calls to mind Harper’s attempt to place an ineligible candidate on the Supreme Court of Canada — after being cautioned by the Chief Justice that Marc Nadon did not qualify. Spurning the constitutional realities, Harper went forward with the appointment. The Supreme Court didn’t “get over it” and rejected Nadon. Harper went for Beverly McLachlin’s throat.

The PMO also vetted the appointment of Chuck Strahl as chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, only to see him resign in an obvious conflict of interest with his lobbying business less than a year into the job.

Even the Crown prosecutor said that Duffy probably didn’t qualify to be a senator from Prince Edward Island due to the fact that he is, and has been for a very long time, a resident of Ontario. Since the PMO vetted Duffy’s appointment, and the PM personally chose him, Stephen Harper can hardly claim that he didn’t know where Duffy lived, or what entitlements went with the appointment he offered.

It should also be remembered that the prime minister had the final say on whether to proceed with the secret deal to pay back housing expenses claimed by Duffy that the PM found so politically objectionable. The prime minister has never personally explained the basis for his endorsement of the initial plan to deal with his Duffy dilemma.

It’s important to note that when Harper gave Wright the green light to do that — a point in time when Duffy’s tab was $32,000 — Wright had arranged with Senator Irving Gerstein to use Conservative party funds to do so. Other senior PMO and Conservative players were aware of the arrangement and were OK with using party donations to subsidize expense excesses that the PM said his political base would find deplorable.

The record shows that less than an hour passed between Wright arranging all the elements of the original deal and his writing the now famous “good to go from the PM” email. In the interim, he met with the prime minister, to brief him on the arrangement and get his approval.

What was discussed at that February 22, 2013 meeting between Harper and his chief of staff? Is it plausible to suggest that Wright never mentioned how the expenses would be paid back — given the possibility that the story could leak and the PM would be left flat-footed if he didn’t know? Former Harper advisor Bruce Carson made a point of saying that, no matter how bad the news, the boss always had to know so that he would be prepared for anything.

At a public event at Lac-Megantic, the prime minister was specifically asked whether he knew at that time that party funds were going to be used to pay off Duffy’s expenses of $32,000. He was also asked when he first learned that party funds were involved in the proposed deal. The PM avoided a direct response to both questions.

Then the Duffygate universe imploded. The senator’s expenses expanded to $90,000 and he told Nigel Wright that he couldn’t afford to pay back the money. Wright ultimately made what he called a “gift” of the money to Duffy. CTV’s Bob Fife broke the story of the clandestine deal, and the prime minister began offering a series of highly dubious accounts of what had happened.

Nigel Wright swiftly went from enjoying the confidence of the prime minister to being a liar who was fired for deceiving his boss and the Canadian public. So why didn’t Harper fire all the others who knew about the disgraceful deal, and were even willing to enable it, but also did not tell him? And why did the PM say that no one else in his office knew when that was patently untrue? His own in-house lawyer was intimately involved in the negotiations with Duffy’s lawyer.

Mike Duffy is facing jail time, ejection from the Senate, financial ruin and permanent disgrace if he is found guilty of fraud and breach of trust. Everyone who can confirm the facts or any part of them in this case should be in court and under oath — and that includes the man who ordered Mike Duffy to repay the expenses in the first place.

Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His nine books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. His new book on the Harper majority government, Party of One, is a number one best-seller.

Readers can reach the author at michaelharris@ipolitics.ca. Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

 

[agentaqua]

http://democracywatch.ca/pmoprosecutionfund/

Harper PMO Prosecution Fund

Democracy Watch is taking Prime Minister Harper’s Office to court for bribing Senator Mike Duffy because government lawyers won’t.

Please help by making your donation now to the Harper PMO Prosecution Fund, and by sharing and tweeting this page.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/93eYr4kEbgI?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Incredibly, Senator Duffy has been charged with taking a bribe, but no one from Prime Minister Harper’s Office or the Conservative Party has been charged with bribing him.

Democracy Watch needs to raise $75,000 to cover the costs of prosecuting everyone in Prime Minister Harper’s Office and in the Conservative Party who took part in the bribing of Senator Mike Duffy, and to keep the campaign going to ensure they are all held accountable.

You can help hold these Harper Conservatives accountable for their wrongdoing by donating now!

Thank you for your support,
Duff, Tyler, Josephine, Brad
and the entire Democracy Watch team

Latest News on the Case and Campaign

News Release — Democracy Watch again calls for Nigel Wright, and PMO and Conservative Party officials who aided him, to be prosecuted for bribing Senator Mike Duffy

Ottawa Citizen — RCMP and government lawyers prosecute Senator Mike Duffy for taking a bribe, but won’t prosecute Harper PMO staff for giving the bribe, so Democracy Watch will

CBC TV’s Power and Politics show interview — RCMP and government lawyers prosecute Senator Mike Duffy, but not Nigel Wright and other PMO and Conservative officials, so Democracy Watch will prosecute them

Background

When the story about the $90,000 payment Nigel Wright, then Prime Minister Harper’s Chief of Staff, made to Senator Mike Duffy first became public in April 2013, Democracy Watch was the first to call for charges to be laid under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Democracy Watch called for these charges because Nigel Wright required Senator Duffy to do three things in return for the money, and so Democracy Watch’s opinion was that the payment violated section 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada which prohibits offering or giving money or any other benefit to a senator or any other politician in respect of any action by the senator in their job.

Democracy Watch launched a national letter-writing campaign calling for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to oversee the investigation and make prosecution decisions, and more than 30,000 Canadians sent a letter to the federal party leaders and RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson.

Democracy Watch is the only organization in Canada that has consistently pushed since April 2013 for accountability for all the wrongdoers in this situation.

Incredibly, despite the evidence, the RCMP decided on their own in April 2014 not to charge Nigel Wright or anyone else from Prime Minister Harper’s Office.

Then, in July 2014, Ontario provincial prosecutors also incredibly decided to charge Senator Duffy with taking a bribe, but not to charge Nigel Wright or anyone else.

The Criminal Code allows anyone to launch a private prosecution for certain offences, and Democracy Watch continues to gather evidence and legal support to take those responsible in Prime Minister Harper’s Office to court for bribing Senator Mike Duffy because government lawyers won’t.

Please help hold these Harper Conservatives accountable for their wrongdoing by making your donation now to the Harper PMO Prosecution Fund.

 

[GLG]

[nUWvzcHlN-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUWvzcHlN-A

 

[agentaqua]

alright - a few funnies for you guys:

Pet peeve: Reality - kinds says it all

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mik...former-sun-news-host-set-to-testify-1.3036708
Mike Duffy trial: Ezra Levant, former Sun News host, set to testify
CBC News Posted: Apr 17, 2015 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Apr 17, 2015 9:34 AM ET

Ezra Levant, the provocative political commentator formerly of Sun News, has been called to testify at suspended Senator Mike Duffy's fraud, breach of trust and bribery trial. (Pawel Dwulit/Canadian Press)

Who's Really on Trial: Duffy or the Senate? | At Issue 13:39

Former Sun News host Ezra Levant is scheduled to be a witness on Friday in the Mike Duffy Senate expenses trial.

Levant, who has said he wrote some speeches for Duffy five or six years ago, will testify via video conference.
■$10K for consulting sessions that included fitness training
■Expenses 'administratively irregular' but appropriate: Bayne
■No oversight over Senate work contracts, defence argues
■Crown subpoenas former Sun News host Ezra Levant

Duffy has pleaded not guilty in provincial court in Ottawa to 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery related to expenses he claimed as a senator and later repaid with money provided by the prime minister's former chief of staff.

Levant's testimony comes on the ninth day of the trial and a day after three new witnesses offered testimony about services they provided that were paid for through companies then owned by Duffy's friend Gerald Donohue.

The suspended senator awarded contracts valued at around $65,000 to Donohue, The Crown alleges that Donohue, through his own companies, paid for inappropriate or non-parliamentary services expensed by Duffy.

On Thursday, the court heard from Mike Croskery, a personal fitness trainer, who said Duffy expensed more than $10,000 over a three-year period for what he claimed were consulting services that also included workout sessions.

Earlier in the day, makeup artist Jacqueline Lambert, who applied makeup for both Duffy and Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a 2010 youth event, testified she believed the $300 payment she received was for the makeup services of both men.

Jacqueline Lambert and Ashley Cain
Makeup artist Jacqueline Lambert, left, testified at the trial of Mike Duffy April 16 that she charged her standard minimum rate for a 2010 event at which both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Duffy appeared. Ashley Cain, right, said Duffy paid her $500 for volunteer work in 2010. (Greg Banning court sketches)

And Ashley Cain, a former volunteer in Duffy's Senate office, testified she was paid $500 for volunteering for around six months beginning in February 2010. She said Duffy had offered to pay her for doing good work.

All three said they were paid for their services through Donohue's companies — Maple Ridge Media or ICF, its successor.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bil...ted-by-margaret-atwood-sarah-harmer-1.3037944

Bill C-51 opposition tweeted by Margaret Atwood, Sarah Harmer

Liberals say they'll vote in favour of Bill C-51, despite hoping for changes

By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Apr 17, 2015 3:50 PM ET| Last Updated: Apr 17, 2015 6:00 PM ET

Singer-songwriter Sarah Harmer, above, and author Margaret Atwood are asking Liberal MPs from their communities to vote against the Tories' anti-terrorism bill. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)

Canadian author Margaret Atwood and singer-songwriter Sarah Harmer are voicing complaints about the Conservatives' proposed anti-terrorism bill, asking Liberal MPs from their communities to vote against it.

In particular, Harmer and Atwood have got their backs up over the Liberals' pledge to support the bill, despite saying they would change it if they win power in next fall's election.

"[Prime Minister Stephen Harper] is attacking our rights & freedoms," Atwood tweeted at Toronto MP Adam Vaughan, a Liberal.

"Please do the right thing and #voteagainstC51."

Harmer retweeted Atwood's message, tagging Kingston, Ont., Liberal MP Ted Hsu.

The NDP and the Green Party oppose C-51, which has gone through the committee stage in the House of Commons and is set to return to the floor of the House next week.

The legislation is a late-bloomer in this session, having been tabled less than a year before the 2015 election.

The NDP is using procedural tactics to delay the bill and has tabled 66 deletion motions which could, depending on how the votes are grouped, slow the House agenda. The party is also asking its supporters to go directly to Liberal MPs to tell them to vote against the bill.

Sweeping powers

Opponents argue the pendulum has swung too far toward security and away from civil liberties.

Bill C-51 would grant sweeping police powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the country's spy agency, without increasing oversight. The government says some measures would require a judge to sign off, but critics point out that only happens if a CSIS agent feels it is necessary.
■C-51: What's in the legislation?

The bill would lower the threshold of evidence for arrests: it would let law enforcement agencies arrest somebody if they think a terrorist act "may be carried out," instead of the current standard of "will be carried out." It would also increase the period of preventive detention from three days to seven and make it illegal to promote terrorism.

The NDP and the Liberals proposed a number of amendments at the committee stage, but the Conservatives voted them down.

After public protests and extensive criticism, the government allowed a handful of changes to the bill that:
■Removed the word "lawful" from the section listing exemptions to the new counterterror measures addressing protests. Many had feared peaceful protesters engaged in civil disobedience could be caught up in the law, arguing it could just be moral disorder that leads to unlawful but peaceful protests.
■Clarified that CSIS agents, while newly empowered to "disrupt" potential threats, will not be able to make arrests.
■Established limits on inter-agency information sharing.
■Adjusted a provision that would have given the public safety minister the power to direct airlines to do "anything" that, in his or her view, is "reasonably necessary" to prevent a terrorist act.

Other measures would allow CSIS agents to disrupt activities they believe are related to terrorism, subject only to limits such as a ban on causing bodily harm or violating a subject's sexual integrity.

'Minds are changing'

Opponents of the bill held a day of action in March that in some cities drew hundreds, and plan another day of protests this weekend.

NDP candidate Jennifer Hollett, who is nominated to run in Toronto's University-Rosedale riding next fall, said she's pleasantly surprised at how mainstream an issue C-51 has become.

"It's become a larger issue of human rights and freedoms, and a look at who we are as a country," she said.

Hollett said the NDP hopes the Liberals will change their minds and oppose C-51, adding that if the opposition could convince a handful of Conservative MPs to oppose their own government's legislation, the opponents could block the bill.

"Public opinion is shifting — we've seen that in the polls. I know that that does matter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as well as [Liberal Leader] Justin Trudeau. Minds are changing."

Hsu, Vaughan and the Liberal Party declined to comment.

 

[agentaqua]

http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/its-time-budget-environment

It's Time to Budget for the Environment

16 April, 2015

It’s budget season, and federal government departments are releasing reports on their spending for 2014-15 and projections for what they plan to spent in 2015-16. Public Works and Government Services Canada’s annual report on federal advertising activities, released April 2nd, is making headlines across the country. According to the report, in the 2013-14 fiscal year the federal government spent over $75 million on advertising, up from $69 million in 2012-13.

As an environmental organization, we wondered where the environment falls in order of federal funding priorities. We looked first at which ads $75 million bought taxpayers, then compared that to funding of key environmental protection programs.

So what did Canada get for $75 million?

Some advertising expenses appear intended to achieve program goals, like Health Canada’s efforts to convey “information on product safety and recalls, safe food handling, injury prevention, immunization and positive steps for a healthy pregnancy.”

Other spending however, looks more like propaganda than a genuine attempt to provide assistance to the taxpayers who paid for it: for example, the $10.5 million spent to promote the government’s Economic Action Plan and over $5 million for natural resources advertising that included communicating “the importance of the natural resources sector to Canada’s economy and to highlight improvements to the regulatory system to safeguard the environment.”

What did the environment get?

Context is important. To understand what $75 million looks like in federal budget terms, we compared it to federal spending on select key environment protection and management programs from that same period, as well as to the government’s stated intentions. In his 2013 budget speech, then Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty committed to not spending recklessly and to fiscal responsibility “above all.” In the 2013 budget itself, the government claimed to be committed to “responsible resource development,” the sustainable management of resources like fisheries, and promoting “a clean and sustainable environment” for families and communities.

In the wake of the 2012 omnibus bills C-38 and C-45 that gutted most of Canada’s oldest and most important environmental laws, we may be forgiven for asking how committed to sustainability, responsible management of activities and protection of the environment is this federal government, really?

Just how do its expenditures on environmental protection compare, say, to the $75 million the federal government spent on ads about itself in 2013/14? That same year:

•The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's expenses were $32.6 million. In other words, the federal government spent less than half on identifying, avoiding, or mitigating the adverse impacts of industrial development than it did on self-promotion. (This fiscal, CEAA’s estimated expenses have been pared down to $17.4 million.)

•The federal government spent only $61.5 million on DFO's Fisheries Protection Program, which was $3 million over budget.

•It spent $51.2 million on terrestrial species at risk, while aquatic at-risk species got just under $23.3 million, a combined total of $74.5 million, still less than it spent on advertising.

•DFO’s Climate Change Adaptation expenses were just $2.7 million.

•Environment Canada spent $44.66 million on compliance and enforcement of pollution, which is expected to be cut to $37.56 million this fiscal – under half of what it spent in 2013 on self-promotion.

•Natural Resources Canada spent $65.5 million to protect Canadians from the risks of natural resource activities (which is projected to be reduced this fiscal to $58.67 million).

•The government spent $72.63 million on an Environment Canada program to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems health and meet its obligations under various federal laws, including the watered-down Fisheries Act.

Not all programs related to the environment have been cut, of course. Budget estimate increases in 2015 include an additional $231.5 million for the Coast Guard’s “Fleet Operational Readiness,” although the government’s announcement that it intends to close three of BC’s five marine traffic communications centres, it is unclear how that money will be used to protect BC’s coast from threats like oil spills, such as the spill that occurred in Vancouver’s English Bay on April 10th, or the inevitable spill that would occur if Kinder Morgan’s proposal to increase tanker traffic in those waters sevenfold were approved.

Perhaps to achieve the aspirational goal of a “balanced budget,” some of that money will come from the nearly $180 million cut from Natural Resource Canada’s programs geared to the environmental responsibility of natural resource sectors and consumers.

How do you think taxpayer money should be spent? Protection of species at risk? Clean water and aquatic habitats? Auditing charities? Take our survey on federal spending priorities today!

By Anna Johnston, Staff Counsel

 

[agentaqua]

STOP BILL C-51 [Vancouver] - United We Stand, A Canada-Wide Rally
Public · Hosted by Dan Jenneson and 3 others

Today at 1:00pm

***************************
WHY ANOTHER RALLY?
***************************
Join in solidarity with Canadians (and residents of Canada) across Canada against Bill C-51 at a family friendly, peaceful democratic demonstration against the government's proposed "Anti-Terrorism" Legislation - A legislation that threatens the rights and freedoms of all in Canada. This will be an opportunity for another HUGE PUSH to demonstrate opposition against the bill before Parliament begins its third (and final) vote on the legislation.

SUSTAINED PRESSURE IS CRITICAL as we come up to the final couple of weeks before the 'deal is done'. Show our MPs that we have NOT forgotten how awful this Bill is and that the amendments accepted are NOT enough to quell our opposition.

***********************
PROGRAM DETAILS
***********************
Opening musician, Zach Gray (The Zolas)
Speakers include: Audrey Siegl, Hasan Alam, Kai Nagata, John Gray, Ershad Fawcette, and more TBC.

For biographies and full details, visit: www.stopbillc51.ca/vancouver.html

At the rally you will find volunteers collecting signatures on formal parliamentary petitions as well as tents to help the public write letters to their MPs on "instant" pre-printed forms. The Letter-Writing Campaign is very important to helping us pressure key MPs to change their stance on Bill C-51: www.stopbillc51.ca/letter-writing-campaign.html

Program will conclude with a march through downtown. Pamphlets will be available for distribution to the public by those participating.

***Bring your signs, banners, and noisemakers***

*****************
SUPPORTERS
*****************
The Dogwood Initiative, BCGEU, Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Vancouver District Labour Council, and many more. Full details available at www.stopbillc51.ca/vancouver.html

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.stopbillc51.ca/locations.html

April 18 Canada-Wide Actions to Stop Bill C-51

All concerned Canadians, residents of Canada, and groups are called upon to culminate this week with another show of solidarity in opposition against Bill C-51 on April 18, 2015. It is extremely important to understand that this is not a single group’s rally. This site and its organizers intend to facilitate the gather of various organizations - not an attempt to label ownership on this movement. This is your rally.

Location

Details

Contact

Additional Information

Barrie
11am @ Georgian Mall Barrie corner of Livingston and Bayfield
barriestopc51@gmail.com

Brantford
1pm @ Victoria Park
stephanie_dearing@yahoo.ca

Calgary
12:30pm @ Calgary City Hall
meliss_paqs@live.ca
Click Here for More Info

Chatham-Kent
11am @ 48 Centre Street
joanne37@sympatico.ca

Edmonton
1pm @ Sir Winston Churchill Square
dougyearwood@gmail.com

Elliot Lake
1pm @ Lester B Pearson Civic Centre
acommunistcanada@outlook.com

Fredericton
12pm @ Officers Square
dane_a16@hotmail.com

Guelph
1PM Old City Hall, Guelph
guelphagainstc51@gmail.com

Halifax
1pm @ Victoria Park at Spring Garden Rd
krista.simon72@gmail.com

Hamilton
12pm @ Federal Building
info@uswa1005.ca

Kamloops
12 pm @ 979 Victoria St, MP Cathy McLeod's
Office, Kamloops, BC

Panel discussion @ TRU Clocktower Theatre from 7pm - 9pm peterkerek@shaw.ca

Kingston
2pm @ Springer Market Square
tyler.flint1977@gmail.com

Kitchener
11:00am @ Kitchener City Hall
Julianichim@hotmail.com

Lethbridge
1pm @ Galt Gardens (3 Ave and 7th St South)
Haileymullen@live.ca

London
2pm @ Victoria Park
cabl3.cable@gmail.com

Moncton
12pm @ 655 Main Street
pr.nb.ca@gmail.com

Montreal
11:30am @ Monument George-Étienne Cartier, Mont-Royal
Opc51@riseup.net
Click Here for More Info

Newfoundland
1:00pm @ Confederation Hill
ghunter9@hotmail.com

New Glasgow
TBC
engagedemocracy@gmail.com

Newmarket
2pm @ Peter McKay's Office
marham581@gmail.com

Ottawa
1:00pm @ Langevin Block
akishek@gmail.com

Peterborough
1:00pm across from the Peterbough City hall
boadica@live.ca

Prince George
12:00pm @ Prince George Civic Centre
michaeldallaire@outlook.com

Regina
12:00pm @ City Square Plaza - Victoria Park
punkfan_76@hotmail.com

Sarnia
10:15 am @ Sarnia City Hall
teampalerider@hotmail.com

Sudbury
1pm @ Rainbow Center Mall Downtown
hottmess12.ap@gmail.com

Toronto
Toronto & GTA
veronica@youthvote.ca

Vancouver
1pm @ Vancouver Art Gallery (Georgia St)
vancouver.stopbillc51@gmail.com

Victoria
12pm @ Millie's Lane (On Yates St, between Douglas/Blanchard) stop.c51.victoria@gmail.com

Vernon
1pm @ 3105 29th Street
itsjaye@hotmail.com

Windsor
1pm @ Art Gallery of Windsor
L_shepley@hotmail.com

Winnipeg
1pm @ City Hall
candabest@hotmail.com

Toronto Picket
9am @ St. Lawrence Market - Please note, these events are put on by a federal party
ghunter9@hotmail.com
NDP Stop Bill C-51 Events
Various Locations - Please note, this event is put on by a registered federal party and may involve activities outside of Stopping Bill C-51
info@mlpc.ca

Other Do you have a party or organization-affiliated event
to share? We will post all events occurring on April 18 to Stop Bill C-51!

 

[agentaqua]

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/oversight-cant-sanitize-abusive-powers

Gormley: Oversight can't sanitize inherently abusive powers

Shannon Gormley
More from Shannon Gormley
Published on: April 6, 2015
Last Updated: April 6, 2015

Frances Scholten from Hammond, Ont., said he is against Bill C-51 because it threatens his right to protest. Over 300 people gathered by the PM's office in Ottawa in opposition of Bill C-51 on Saturday March 14, 2015 as part of a nation wide protest.
Emanuela Campanella / Ottawa Citizen ​

The greatest pleasure and privilege of a totalitarian government is that it may luxuriate in its own insanity: flaunting it, codifying it, and setting controlled madness as the standard by which sanity is measured. Democratic governments, on the other hand, must keep their political peculiarities more carefully under wraps.

One borderline-psychopathic tendency of at least nominally democratic governments, then, is to deliberately phrase legislation in such ambiguous language that officials could conceivably — but not necessarily — exploit the powers enshrined in it, possibly — but not certainly — violating constitutional rights in the process. Well-adjusted critics have developed some solid coping mechanisms for this type of pathology. They may request more narrow language from the government, say, or stronger oversight of its departments. Usually through a combination of a government’s own behaviour-modification and its critics’ boundary-setting, the madness stays more or less in check.

But every once in a while, a government becomes remorseless enough and reckless enough that it isn’t content to merely push the boundaries of some basic constitutional rights. It takes a hacksaw to them. On these rare occasions, the problem is not that a government may eventually abuse its new powers. The problem is that a government is giving itself inherently abusive powers.

In the event of such a manic power-grab, it is hardly sufficient to suggest that some government agencies submit to increased oversight (although they must), or that the government pick and choose its words more carefully (although it should) or slow down (although it has no excuse to proceed quickly). When elected representatives explicitly seek to undermine some core principles of the democracy that they govern, the most appropriate response is to demand that if the offending legislation isn’t rewritten beyond all recognition, it be thrown out.

In Bill C-51, the Conservative government has remorselessly and recklessly attacked several basic rights: the right to privacy, to free expression, to be innocent until proven guilty, and practically any other right deemed bothersome. Rights violations aren’t merely incidental to the bill; they’re explicitly written into much of it.

The biggest indication that Bill C-51 fundamentally contravenes rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be found where the bill stipulates that government agents can take action that “will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Generously, the bill shares that power with the secret court that may authorize violations — normally confined to their basic responsibility to protect the Charter, judges would now be complicit in grave transgressions against it. The bill is similarly contemptuous of the presumption of innocence. People could be detained for seven days without being charged, for no reason more concrete than the possibility that they “may” carry out a terrorist attack. And — though this particular insanity is so endemic to the modern state that it now comes as little surprise — it’s openly contemptuous of privacy rights too, allowing our personal information to land on any number of desks, for any number of non-reasons.

These and other issues run too deep in the psyche that animates Bill C-51 to be resolved with better definitions, stronger committees and time. Clearly articulated laws, strong oversight and good process are all necessary features of a democracy, but they’re not sufficient protectors of a democracy whose constitutional rights are under explicit attack from a major piece of legislation.

The rights that Bill C-51 violates are among the most fundamental, and it does so flagrantly. The most reasonable response to such a ruthless act of legislative lunacy is to fully dispose of it. And if the government won’t acknowledge that it has erred grievously, it will only be reasonable to dispose of it as well.

Shannon Gormley is a Canadian journalist.

 

[agentaqua]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/duffy-dependence-more-70-conservative-mps-leaned-suspended-160648653.html

Duffy dependence: More than 70 Conservative MPs leaned on suspended senator
The Canadian PressBy Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press

Suspended Senator Mike Duffy arrives at the courthouse for his trial in Ottawa, Friday, April 17, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld.
The Canadian Press - Suspended Senator Mike Duffy arrives at the courthouse for his trial in Ottawa, Friday, April 17, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

Canada News ».

OTTAWA - It seems everyone wanted a piece of Sen. Mike Duffy.

At least 74 former and current Conservative members of Parliament leaned on Duffy at one point or another to appear at their events, record messages for supporters or stump for them on the campaign trail, documents released at the suspended senator's trial indicate.

Duffy also did work for Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island Tories, and several unsuccessful federal Conservative candidates.

The former broadcaster's daily diaries for 2009-2012, now a courtroom exhibit, illustrate the full extent of Duffy's celebrity status when he was still in the party's good graces.

Duffy is facing 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. Eighteen of those charges deal with travel expenses claimed by Duffy, some of which involved travel to partisan events.

His defence has made the case that such partisan activities are an integral part of a senator's parliamentary functions, as stated in the Senate's administrative rules. Lawyer Donald Bayne has also emphasized how much the party leadership bought in to what he was doing.

"To Duff, a great journalist and a great senator," reads one photo entered into evidence, inscribed by none other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that shows the two of them together at an event.

"Thanks for being one of my best, hardest-working appointments ever."

During one stretch in the summer of 2009, Duffy went to 10 political events in 18 days in two provinces and one territory.

"Duff's Tough Talk — Current Events and our Government," was the title of one of his stops, hosted by B.C. MP Ron Cannan's riding association.

The amount of time Duffy spent travelling and working for his colleagues and the party brass might explain the lengths that the Prime Minister's Office initially went to in order to shield his living expense claims from scrutiny.

At an early stage in the Senate expense scandal, the party paid for the services of his lawyer.

His history of partisan work might also explain the sense of betrayal Duffy felt when he was ejected from the Conservative caucus in May 2013 and suspended from the upper chamber — a move instigated by his own party — that fall.

"I never received a single note from Senate Finance or the leadership that suggested anything in my travels was amiss," Duffy said in the Senate in October 2013.

"In fact, those on the other side will remember how often I was lauded by the prime minister, in a weekly meeting, for all of the travelling I was doing..."

Some of the duties that Duffy performed for the party included:

— Participating in "tele-town hall" calls, in which MPs speak to large numbers of constituents at once by phone;

— Visits to Conservative riding association meetings, picnics, barbecues, cocktails, breakfasts and dinners;

— Recording "daemon dialler" calls, where Conservative donors or supporters are alerted to events or voting in a riding;

— Shooting videos and messages for the Conservative party;

— Appearing in photographs;

At one point, even NDP MP Niki Ashton had her photo taken with Duffy and two farmers visiting from Manitoba, according to his diary. Ottawa MP Pierre Poilievre, now a cabinet minister, drew on Duffy's time at least five times.

While some ministers and MPs sprang to the defence of Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright for secretly paying off Duffy's $90,000 in disputed living expenses, they have kept their distance from the senator himself.

A former caucus colleague of Duffy's, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said MPs are likely biting their tongues lest they be swept up in the controversy.

"I think there's a lot of people that appreciate the fact that Mike worked the circuit, he worked hard, he did what he thought he was supposed to be doing, as far as helping out other MPs," said the colleague.

"He was quite gracious in terms of his time."

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sig...deaths-flagged-by-military-chaplain-1.3035683

'Significant number' of Canadian Ranger deaths flagged by military chaplain

Documents raise concern about stresses on Rangers and soldiers in the North

By Kristen Everson, CBC News Posted: Apr 20, 2015 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Apr 20, 2015 7:59 AM ET

Members of the Canadian Rangers pose with the prime minister at a camp near the Arctic community of Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, during Stephen Harper's 2014 northern tour. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

A "significant number" of Canadian Rangers in the Arctic have died in recent years, a trend that is causing concern about the strains on those tasked with being Canada's "eyes and ears" in the North, according to documents obtained by CBC News.

The concern about the Canadian Rangers and Junior Rangers was raised by the military chaplain responsible for the North and is found in a report prepared for the chief of defence staff and chief of military personnel by the chaplain general's office.

The report, obtained through the Access to Information Act, contains an overview of issues deemed significant by military chaplains across the Canadian Forces and covers the period November 2013 to January 2014.

cp-arctic-patrol080328
A Ranger scout looks for an easier route through rough sea ice between Canadian Forces Station Alert and the Eureka Weather Station. (Bob Weber/Canadian Press)

In the report, the chaplain for Joint Task Force North notes there has been "a significant number of deaths of Rangers and Junior Rangers over the past three years. These deaths have affected both the Ranger community and 1 CRPG (Canadian Ranger Patrol Group)."

The report does not indicate how many Rangers and Junior Rangers have died, or the circumstances of their deaths.

The chaplain also identified problems with military personnel at 1 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group.
■CBC News Investigates: More stories, videos, photos

"Due to accumulation of stress and other health issues, nine of 19 instructors of 1 CRPG are unable to go on patrol," the chaplain writes, noting this means that other instructors are left to pick up the slack, which could lead to "potential burnout and frustration."

The report goes on to note that it has been identified that the "pyscho-screening process for isolated posting like JTF-N, needs to be enhanced to meet the needs of this posting."

Eyes and ears of Canada's North

The Rangers are part of the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve, but are not considered reservists. Generally they are part-time volunteers from the remote community where they serve. Often called the "eyes and ears of Canada's North" they are responsible for reporting unusual activities, collecting data to support military operations and conducting surveillance when required.

There are approximately 5,000 current Rangers. The 1 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group is the largest Ranger group. It covers Nunavut, Yukon, Northwest Territories and the community of Atlin, B.C., which together accounts for about 40 per cent of Canada's land mass.

During his annual trips to the North, Prime Minister Stephen Harper generally observes and sometimes even participates in exercises with the Rangers. During a trip to the North in 2013, Harper said in a statement the Rangers "serve a critical role in safeguarding Canadian sovereignty."

Stephen Harper takes aim
Prime Minister Stephen Harper shoots a rifle while taking part in a demonstration by the Canadian Rangers at a camp near the Arctic community of Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, in August 2013. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Many of Canada's Rangers are aboriginal. They do not have the same access to services, including medical services, as regular forces members and reservists — unless they are injured on active duty, in which case they would have access to benefits provided by the Canadian Forces.

The Rangers are critical to Arctic security and are an "invaluable source of information for being able to allow southern military forces to actually be deployed northward," according to Rob Huebert, senior research fellow at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

"When the Canadian Forces, southern forces, resumed activities in the Canadian North in 2002, without the type of knowledge that they [the Rangers] are able to provide us with, there would have been fatalities," Huebert said.

Military silent on deaths

CBC News requested an interview with the commanding officer of the 1 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, but after weeks of deliberation that request was denied.

operation nunalivut
A Canadian Ranger navigates rough ice in Nunavut on April 7, 2014. An alarm has been raised about the number of Rangers who have died in recent years. (Master Seaman Peter Reed/CFB Shearwater, N.S.)

The military also blocked CBC from speaking to historian Whitney Lackenbauer, who has written a book on the Rangers. Lackenbauer is also the honorary lieutenant colonel of 1 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group. In an email, the military said Lackenbauer was "not familiar with the whole story."

CBC also requested information from the military regarding deaths of Canadian Rangers, but after more than a week the military still had not sent a response.

In a statement, Associate Minister of National Defence Julian Fantino said "our government is extremely proud of the Canadian Rangers, and understands how critically important they are to our Arctic sovereignty."

He said the government has increased the number of Rangers, adding that as interest and activity in the North has increased "we have come to rely on them even more to provide key insight as we monitor the region and respond to any threats."

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/0...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=200415

Harper Brings CBC to Heel

Squeezed by the throat, our public broadcaster is beginning to resemble a state-controlled network.

By Antonia Zerbisias, Today, TheTyee.ca

CBCWall_610px.jpg

The thing about public broadcasters is that governments too often get confused between "publicly-owned" and "state-owned."

Technically, of course, there is no difference. Both are funded with tax dollars.

But the former suggests that citizens get a public good like, say, when they fund public transit or public roads. Public broadcasting should, as a result, serve the public interest. That translates to journalism and programming of social and cultural benefit, with as much good as possible for as many people as possible.

Unlike private broadcasting, which essentially sells eyeballs to advertisers -- and the more eyeballs the better -- public broadcasting should venture where private broadcasters are reluctant to tread, out of fear of offending. Hence, private broadcasters will more often go along to get along, producing if-it-bleeds-it-leads newscasts and primetime schedules of Procter & Gamble-approved programming.

As for "state-owned" broadcasters, at worst they conjure up images of dictators hijacking the airwaves to deliver lengthy self-aggrandizing speeches and, at best, they simply never present any programming that may rile the powers that be, be that government, military or corporate.

It would appear that Stephen Harper's government not only sees the CBC as "state-owned," it is also attempting to make it "state-controlled," bringing it to heel by stacking the board with Conservative bagmen who would never bite the hand that appointed them as well as by squeezing it by the budgetary throat.

Recall that, on the day after the Conservatives won the 2011 election, then-heritage minister James Moore told CBC News Vancouver, "We believe in the national public broadcaster. We have said that we will maintain or increase support for the CBC. That is our platform and we have said that before and we will commit to that."

Just 10 months later, CBC's budget was whacked by 10 per cent, some $115 million over three years.

On Thursday, another 241 people were cut, most of them in news, many of them videographers. These are people who are just as journalistic as the people who look into their lenses. Losing them will make it that much harder for reporters to get to locations, set up, get their images and interviews and put together coherent and comprehensive stories that go beyond the quick and easy.

Might as well shoot traffic pile-ups instead.

And how clever to slip the announcement of those cuts under the Jian Ghomeshi rug, when most media would be focused on the release that day of the heavily redacted report on the abusive behaviour of the fallen CBC radio star.

With this latest cut, the job losses since 2012 total just under 1400, with local TV newscasts hardest hit -- and local TV news is what CBC is mandated by law to produce. But, this coming fall, the supper hour shows across Canada will be slashed down to as few as 30 minutes in most markets.

Slow, steady slide

Admittedly, the biggest cuts to CBC were wielded in the mid-1990s by the deficit-slaying duo of former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin. But CBC was relatively fat then and could withstand to lose a few hundred, even a couple of thousand, employees. That said, the budget cuts meant less foreign travel, bureaux closings, fewer in-depth documentaries, shorter seasons for programs such as The Nature of Things and The Fifth Estate. But all that was somewhat offset by the independent production sector and the CRTC-created cable fund, which were helping to support dramatic programming on both CBC and private networks.

Still, the slide was slow but steady, and it didn't much help that a series of heads of CBC-TV were at the top of the ladder pushing the programming down into the lowest common denominator dumps.

Politically aware Canadians -- and many of them watch or listen to CBC programming -- know that Harper's economic management style has been to rob Peter to pay Paul. Cuts to science and safety inspection programs, for example, have been channelled to bribe taxpayers with their own money with beefed-up childcare cheques and the like. Meanwhile, the recent sale of the publicly owned GM stocks cost taxpayers, as the Globe and Mail reported, $3.5 billion.

But that's peanuts compared with the $7 billion combined haul the government made with the sale, last year and last month, of public spectrum -- public spectrum -- to wireless providers. That public spectrum is made up of the airwaves freed up as broadcasters shifted to digital transmitting. So you'd think that some of it would be reinvested in CBC, a public broadcaster or the public airwaves. 
But no, it has been channelled into the government's "Consolidated Revenue Fund." In short, it will help the Conservatives look good when they present their pre-election budget on Tuesday.

How convenient for them that CBC's ability to report on how the Harper government came up with its numbers, and who will benefit, is increasingly being compromised.

In Canada, the line between state broadcasting and public broadcasting is getter thinner all the time.

 

[tincan]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion...ill+taking+responsibility/10926382/story.html

Paul Russell is starting to feel extremely responsible after receiving a huge grant to research moral responsibility.

The University of B.C. philosophy professor will devote much of the next decade to fulfilling the expectations associated with an 80-million-kronor grant from the Swedish Research Council, worth $12 million.

In contrast to many Canadian politicians, Russell says, the Swedish government places high value on the humanities, specifically ethics. It believes rational minds are needed to work out the grave moral crises into which the world is descending.

The Canadian philosopher will spend about half of each year in Scandinavia building a team of scholars to investigate the nature of human responsibility as it’s exercised in areas such as climate change, war crimes, gender equity, crime, surveillance and censorship, and connections to religion and political correctness.

con't.... at link above

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/canadi...ession/bill-c51-charter-rights_b_7086948.html

Bill C-51 Would Jeopardize the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On April 17, 1982, the rights and freedoms essential to a "free and democratic society" were entrenched into Canada's Constitution by the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Queen Elizabeth II, at a ceremony on Parliament Hill. Much of the time, most of us are able to take these guarantees for granted -- we are fortunate to be able to do so.

But Bill C-51, dubbed the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, should cause Canadians deep concern. Its provisions, if passed into law, would jeopardize many of our most basic rights and liberties and would only serve to undermine the health of our democracy. On the 33rd anniversary of the signing of the Charter, we should demand that Parliament scrap Bill C-51 altogether.

The guarantees of the Charter are not absolute. The Charter itself is clear on this point. However, any limits imposed by Parliament on our basic rights and fundamental freedoms must be "reasonable"; they must not be overly broad; and they must be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

As many commentators have pointed out, Bill C-51 fails on all of these counts. Below, we highlight some of the most troubling aspects of the proposed legislation.

The proposed new Criminal Code offence of "promoting terrorism" is vastly overbroad and would capture innocent speech made for innocent purposes, including private conversations. In prohibiting the perceived promotion of "terrorism offences in general," its scope goes well beyond that of the already-existing, terrorism-related offences -- including the prohibition on counselling someone to commit a terrorist attack -- and would unduly and unnecessarily limit Canadians' freedom of expression and ability to engage in proper democratic debate.

Similarly, in proposing to amend existing provisions that allow for preventive arrest and detention, Bill C-51 is unreasonable and dangerous. The new law would not only allow police to detain people for seven days as opposed to the current three days, it would do so based only on the peace officer's suspicion that a terrorist activity may be carried out and that the arrest is likely to prevent it. The current Criminal Code standard requires the police officer to show a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be carried out and that the arrest is necessary to prevent it. The proposed amendments grant far too much latitude and discretion to law enforcement and are contrary to Charter values and the rule of law.

As has been pointed out by privacy commissioners and advocates across the country, Bill C-51 would also allow and direct a large number of government departments and agencies to share individuals' private information without any of the oversight necessary to ensure that this power is not abused. Granting bureaucrats this unfettered power to share confidential information without any oversight will almost inevitably result in an overuse and abuse of this power.

Finally, Bill C-51 would increase the powers of CSIS in ways that are ill-defined and contrary to a basic understanding of what constitutes a "free and democratic society." Instead of being confined to its role in gathering intelligence -- the mandate for which it was created in 1984 -- under the new law, CSIS would be authorized to "take measures" to reduce a perceived "threat to the security of Canada." We take no comfort in the fact that Bill C-51 would constrain CSIS from intentionally causing death or violating sexual integrity. This proposed expansion of powers is especially concerning because the legislation would do nothing to bolster oversight mechanisms that are already clearly insufficient.

Further, if CSIS believed that it needed to "take measures" that would contravene any Charter guarantee, Bill C-51 would allow a judge to authorize, in advance, that infringement in a hearing held in secret. This fundamentally misunderstands the role of judges in our democratic system and the nature of constitutionally-entrenched rights. A judge's role is to prevent Charter infringements and to adjudicate alleged breaches by another branch of government in open court, not to authorize them behind closed doors.

Proponents of Bill C-51 claim that terrorists want to attack Canada and Canadians because they hate our society and its values. The solution Bill C-51 offers is not more effective protections against terrorists, but an unnecessary and dangerous dilution of the rights and freedoms essential to a free and democratic society -- the very values terrorists are said to hate.

Canadian society and its values require that security laws respect the individual liberty, dignity and privacy the Charter is aimed at protecting. Bill C-51 does not meet this test.

By Peter Jacobsen and Andrew MacDonald

Peter Jacobsen is a Founding partner at Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, and CJFE Board member. He chairs CJFE's Canadian Issues Committee.

Andrew MacDonald is an Associate at Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP.