The WAR on Science: Thursday, November 21, 2013, 7:00 pm Room 1900, SFU Harbour Ctr
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
- Status
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/12/nafta-oilsands-tar-sands-tailing-ponds_n_6454492.html
NAFTA Scrutiny Of Oilsands Tailings Ponds Opposed By Canada
CBC
Posted: 01/12/2015 5:00 am EST Updated: 01/12/2015 8:59 am EST TAILINGS POND ALBERTA
Canada is trying to stop NAFTA's environmental watchdog from taking a closer look at the environmental effects of the huge tailings ponds produced by Alberta's oilsands, and it appears Mexico and the U.S. will go along with efforts to stop a formal investigation.
If that happens, it would be the third time in a year Canada has stopped North American Free Trade Agreement scrutiny of its environmental record.
The tailings ponds are a touchy political issue for both the Alberta and Canadian governments. They've become a symbol of the environmental footprint of oilsands production. The ponds cover more than 176 square kilometres and contain a toxic mixture of water, clay and chemicals, what's left over when the oil is removed.
Evidence suggest the ponds are seeping into the nearby ground and water.
Two environmental groups and three private citizens from Alberta, Saskatchewan and the N.W.T. want the Commission on Environmental Co-operation to find out whether Canada is breaking its own Federal Fisheries Act by failing to prevent tailings from leaking into the Athabasca River and nearby creeks in northern Alberta.
"It was important for us know whether this was happening and whether environmental laws were being broken and whether the government is upholding those laws or ignoring them," said Dale Marshall of Environmental Defence, one of the groups that launched the complaint in 2010.
NAFTA Scrutiny Of Oilsands Tailings Ponds Opposed By Canada
CBC
Posted: 01/12/2015 5:00 am EST Updated: 01/12/2015 8:59 am EST TAILINGS POND ALBERTA
Canada is trying to stop NAFTA's environmental watchdog from taking a closer look at the environmental effects of the huge tailings ponds produced by Alberta's oilsands, and it appears Mexico and the U.S. will go along with efforts to stop a formal investigation.
If that happens, it would be the third time in a year Canada has stopped North American Free Trade Agreement scrutiny of its environmental record.
The tailings ponds are a touchy political issue for both the Alberta and Canadian governments. They've become a symbol of the environmental footprint of oilsands production. The ponds cover more than 176 square kilometres and contain a toxic mixture of water, clay and chemicals, what's left over when the oil is removed.
Evidence suggest the ponds are seeping into the nearby ground and water.
Two environmental groups and three private citizens from Alberta, Saskatchewan and the N.W.T. want the Commission on Environmental Co-operation to find out whether Canada is breaking its own Federal Fisheries Act by failing to prevent tailings from leaking into the Athabasca River and nearby creeks in northern Alberta.
"It was important for us know whether this was happening and whether environmental laws were being broken and whether the government is upholding those laws or ignoring them," said Dale Marshall of Environmental Defence, one of the groups that launched the complaint in 2010.
http://globalnews.ca/video/1770014/canada-accused-of-trying-to-prevent-oilsands-investigation
Mon, Jan 12: At least one environmental groups says millions of litres of toxic water are leaking from a tailings pond, in the Alberta oilsands, into the Athabasca river. But instead of looking into the allegation, Canada is trying to prevent NAFTA from investigating. Reid Fiest reports.
<iframe width='670' height='437' frameborder='0' allowfullscreen src='http://globalnews.ca/video/embed/1770014/'>Your browser does not support frames. <a href="http://globalnews.ca/video/1770014/canada-trying-to-prevent-oilsands-investigation">Click here to view the frameless video.</a>.</iframe>
Mon, Jan 12: At least one environmental groups says millions of litres of toxic water are leaking from a tailings pond, in the Alberta oilsands, into the Athabasca river. But instead of looking into the allegation, Canada is trying to prevent NAFTA from investigating. Reid Fiest reports.
<iframe width='670' height='437' frameborder='0' allowfullscreen src='http://globalnews.ca/video/embed/1770014/'>Your browser does not support frames. <a href="http://globalnews.ca/video/1770014/canada-trying-to-prevent-oilsands-investigation">Click here to view the frameless video.</a>.</iframe>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-c6Eo_UvI
Secret Government Exposed, Lobbyists, Toll Road Scam, Social Activism Tips | The Truth Talks
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Ps-c6Eo_UvI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Texan-based politics - but good insights into the lobbyist influence and mitigation. Some good advice on developing grass-roots support.
Secret Government Exposed, Lobbyists, Toll Road Scam, Social Activism Tips | The Truth Talks
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Ps-c6Eo_UvI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Texan-based politics - but good insights into the lobbyist influence and mitigation. Some good advice on developing grass-roots support.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...restoring_faith_in_our_democracy_hepburn.html
Stephen Harper and restoring faith in our democracy: Hepburn
Stephen Harper has displayed stunning disrespect for our democracy since becoming prime minister.
Since he became prime minister in 2006, Stephen Harper has approved decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions. Canadians are wondering how he gets away with it, Bob Hepburn writes.
ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO
Since he became prime minister in 2006, Stephen Harper has approved decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions. Canadians are wondering how he gets away with it, Bob Hepburn writes.
By: Bob Hepburn Politics, Published on Sat Jan 10 2015
“How does Stephen Harper get away with it?”
That’s what a reader wanted to know after watching a rerun of a Rick Mercer “rant” on CBC about the Harper government’s spending of millions of dollars on blatantly political TV ads to promote tax breaks before they had even been approved.
“Isn’t that illegal?” the reader asked. “Isn’t it undemocratic?”
How does Harper get away with it, indeed?
Since he became prime minister in 2006, Harper has displayed a stunning disrespect for democracy in Canada, either approving or turning a blind eye to decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions and our faith in democracy.
Worse, this attitude has deepened since the 2011 federal election when Harper and his Conservatives won a majority government.
At last, though, with a federal election campaign now fully underway — unofficially at least — Canadians will now get their chance to let Harper, and all political leaders, know just how deeply they feel about our democracy and how important it is to restore our faith in it.
Over the years, Harper has taken advantage of Canadians’ waning interest in federal politics to implement his anti-democratic initiatives and to run roughshod over Parliament and campaign rules and practices.
How does Harper get away with dismantling the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which promoted democracy and human rights around the world for 24 years?
How does Harper get away with cutting funding for organizations such as Kairos, a coalition of church groups that advocated for human rights?
How does Harper get away with introducing a fair elections act that was so unfair it should rightly have been called the anti-democratic elections act?
How does Harper get away with slapping gag orders on public servants and scientists, preventing them from speaking to the public?
How does Harper get away with letting cabinet ministers restrict freedom of speech and information tenets, withhold and alter documents, and launch personal attacks on whistleblowers?
How does Harper get away with slamming the chief electoral officer for doing his job?
How does Harper, who loves to tout federal-provincial relations, get away with openly snubbing the premier of Canada’s most populous province for more than a year?
How does Harper get away with blissfully ignoring Conservative election scandals, from the infamous anti-democratic robocall affair to voter fraud and election spending violations?
How does Harper get away with shutting down Parliament not once but twice for partisan political reasons?
How does Harper get away with spending more than $100 million in tax dollars on a series of TV ads about “Canada’s Action Plan,” with the newest ads boasting about tax breaks for families that had yet to be passed by Parliament?
How does Harper get away with praising a $200-million fund announced in 2013 to help struggling Ontario manufacturers for which not a dime had been spent nor a single job created by late last year?
How does Harper get away with unleashing $2.5 million in TV ads to champion a skills training program that didn’t exist at the time the ads appeared?
How does Harper get away with approving the spending of some $12 million to promote Canada’s 150th birthday — which will occur two years from now and for which no actual events have yet been planned.
Taken individually, all of these moves and decisions can be dismissed as one-off mistakes or transgressions.
Collectively, though, they point to a prime minister who doesn’t care much for democratic institutions and practices. Taken together, they also reinforce the reasons why there is a growing discontent and disconnect between citizens and the federal government.
While some pro-democracy groups have raised alarms in the past about Harper, most Canadians have just shrugged their shoulders, albeit in disgust. They are disengaged, discouraged by government scandals and believe politicians don’t listen to them and aren’t interested in the issues that are important to them.
But Canadians cannot take democracy for granted.
During the next 10 months leading up to the October election, voters can let Harper and other politicians know they they’ve had enough.
For all Canadians, the stakes are huge. That’s because this election may be the last real chance for years ahead to restore faith in our democracy.
Bob Hepburn’s column appears Thursday. bhepburn@thestar.ca
Stephen Harper and restoring faith in our democracy: Hepburn
Stephen Harper has displayed stunning disrespect for our democracy since becoming prime minister.
Since he became prime minister in 2006, Stephen Harper has approved decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions. Canadians are wondering how he gets away with it, Bob Hepburn writes.
ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO
Since he became prime minister in 2006, Stephen Harper has approved decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions. Canadians are wondering how he gets away with it, Bob Hepburn writes.
By: Bob Hepburn Politics, Published on Sat Jan 10 2015
“How does Stephen Harper get away with it?”
That’s what a reader wanted to know after watching a rerun of a Rick Mercer “rant” on CBC about the Harper government’s spending of millions of dollars on blatantly political TV ads to promote tax breaks before they had even been approved.
“Isn’t that illegal?” the reader asked. “Isn’t it undemocratic?”
How does Harper get away with it, indeed?
Since he became prime minister in 2006, Harper has displayed a stunning disrespect for democracy in Canada, either approving or turning a blind eye to decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions and our faith in democracy.
Worse, this attitude has deepened since the 2011 federal election when Harper and his Conservatives won a majority government.
At last, though, with a federal election campaign now fully underway — unofficially at least — Canadians will now get their chance to let Harper, and all political leaders, know just how deeply they feel about our democracy and how important it is to restore our faith in it.
Over the years, Harper has taken advantage of Canadians’ waning interest in federal politics to implement his anti-democratic initiatives and to run roughshod over Parliament and campaign rules and practices.
How does Harper get away with dismantling the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which promoted democracy and human rights around the world for 24 years?
How does Harper get away with cutting funding for organizations such as Kairos, a coalition of church groups that advocated for human rights?
How does Harper get away with introducing a fair elections act that was so unfair it should rightly have been called the anti-democratic elections act?
How does Harper get away with slapping gag orders on public servants and scientists, preventing them from speaking to the public?
How does Harper get away with letting cabinet ministers restrict freedom of speech and information tenets, withhold and alter documents, and launch personal attacks on whistleblowers?
How does Harper get away with slamming the chief electoral officer for doing his job?
How does Harper, who loves to tout federal-provincial relations, get away with openly snubbing the premier of Canada’s most populous province for more than a year?
How does Harper get away with blissfully ignoring Conservative election scandals, from the infamous anti-democratic robocall affair to voter fraud and election spending violations?
How does Harper get away with shutting down Parliament not once but twice for partisan political reasons?
How does Harper get away with spending more than $100 million in tax dollars on a series of TV ads about “Canada’s Action Plan,” with the newest ads boasting about tax breaks for families that had yet to be passed by Parliament?
How does Harper get away with praising a $200-million fund announced in 2013 to help struggling Ontario manufacturers for which not a dime had been spent nor a single job created by late last year?
How does Harper get away with unleashing $2.5 million in TV ads to champion a skills training program that didn’t exist at the time the ads appeared?
How does Harper get away with approving the spending of some $12 million to promote Canada’s 150th birthday — which will occur two years from now and for which no actual events have yet been planned.
Taken individually, all of these moves and decisions can be dismissed as one-off mistakes or transgressions.
Collectively, though, they point to a prime minister who doesn’t care much for democratic institutions and practices. Taken together, they also reinforce the reasons why there is a growing discontent and disconnect between citizens and the federal government.
While some pro-democracy groups have raised alarms in the past about Harper, most Canadians have just shrugged their shoulders, albeit in disgust. They are disengaged, discouraged by government scandals and believe politicians don’t listen to them and aren’t interested in the issues that are important to them.
But Canadians cannot take democracy for granted.
During the next 10 months leading up to the October election, voters can let Harper and other politicians know they they’ve had enough.
For all Canadians, the stakes are huge. That’s because this election may be the last real chance for years ahead to restore faith in our democracy.
Bob Hepburn’s column appears Thursday. bhepburn@thestar.ca
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/0...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=140115
It's Your Right to Know, but Government Won't Be Much Help
Fortunately, there are two guys who actually want to teach us how to access information.
By Sean Holman, Today, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
PaperStack_300px.jpg
For the government, the fewer Canadians who understand how to file freedom of information requests, the better. Information photo via Shutterstock.
Related
Veteran Muckrakers Write the Book on How to Access Gov't Secrets
After all, says duo McKie and Bronskill, it's 'Your Right to Know.'
Help Put the Spotlight on Government Secrecy
Enraged by redacted FOIs? Baffled by backroom deals? Hashtag it #cdnfoi.
BC Gov't Slow to Respond to Info Requests, Routinely Deletes Email
'I'm discouraged by what I found, not surprised,' says provincial commissioner.
Read more: Federal Politics
In their recently published book Your Right to Know, journalists Jim Bronskill and David McKie have done yeomans' work explaining how Canadians can use freedom of information requests to get government secrets. But, at the federal level, it's work they shouldn't have needed to do -- pointing to another problem with Canada's broken access to information laws.
Introduced in 1980 by Pierre Trudeau's Liberals, the Access to Information Act gave Canadians a limited right to request government records. The bureaucracy's filing cabinets could now metaphorically be opened by anyone -- unless the records in them included 75 different kinds of information that would still be considered secret.
But, even with those limits, the Trudeau administration seemed to have little interest in telling voters about their newfound rights or how to exercise them.
Just before the act came into force, the Globe and Mail told readers the government would be "placing posters in post offices and public libraries" to advertise the new program. But "it plans nothing else in the way of public information," a deficiency noted by information commissioner Inger Hansen in her first annual report.
At a news conference announcing the fees for access to information requests, then-Liberal cabinet minister Herb Gray seemed unconcerned about that lack of advertising, smiling when he told reporters, "That's why we invited you here."
Nor did the government give the information commissioner the power to aid journalists in the job of educating the public about their information rights, with Hansen writing her office had no mandate or funding to do so.
As a result, Hansen stated "the public appears unaware of the meaning of the act and the role of the information commissioner to mediate complaints and take proceedings to the Federal Court. Indeed, many who have tried to use the act soon gave up because they found procedures too complicated or too slow."
More than 30 years later, Hansen's successors still don't have that mandate, despite repeatedly requesting it. A spokesperson for the Treasury Board Secretariat, which administers the Access to Information Act, didn't provide a direct answer when asked why those requests hadn't been acted on.
Little promotion of your rights
By comparison, our country's privacy commissioner can "foster public understanding" about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by organizations outside government.
Spending on that mandate totalled more than $3 million in the past fiscal year, with past expenditures resulting in the publication of a graphic novel and cartoons about privacy issues, as well as presentation packages for teachers and a youth video contest.
The government doesn't currently publish anything comparable about Canadians' access rights.
The Treasury Board Secretariat spokesperson stated in an email that individual departments do have instructions on their websites about how to file an access request, as well as a legal requirement to assist applicants.
But the manual that bureaucrats use to interpret and often restrict Canadians' right to know dwarfs those brief instructions. The secretariat's access advice, for example, weighs in at just 389 words. But 57 of the manual's 133 pages are devoted to what kinds of information must or can be kept secret.
Moreover, the government currently doesn't spend any money advertising Canadians' information rights, instead relying on news releases, speeches and tweets to do that job.
Americans are beating us
As a result, responsibility for popularizing that right continues to be principally shouldered by journalists such as Bronskill and McKie, as well as the handful of non-governmental groups concerned with freedom of information issues.
So it's near miraculous that, according to government statistics, 59,947 access requests were filed in the past fiscal year. But that still means just 169 requests were filed per 100,000 persons in Canada.
By comparison, during 2012/13, 222 requests were filed per 100,000 persons in the United States. That means Americans, who have considerably greater access to government records without using freedom of information requests, are using their right to know law 31 per cent more than we are.
And that's probably just the way Canada's paternalistic public officials want it. After all, for them, the fewer Canadians who understand how to file freedom of information requests, the better.
At their best, the responses to those requests tell us what's really happening behind the closed doors and drawn curtains of government. And, at their worst, they remind us just how little the government cares about our right to know -- a secret parties of all stripes have been trying and failing to cover up for years.
It's Your Right to Know, but Government Won't Be Much Help
Fortunately, there are two guys who actually want to teach us how to access information.
By Sean Holman, Today, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
PaperStack_300px.jpg
For the government, the fewer Canadians who understand how to file freedom of information requests, the better. Information photo via Shutterstock.
Related
Veteran Muckrakers Write the Book on How to Access Gov't Secrets
After all, says duo McKie and Bronskill, it's 'Your Right to Know.'
Help Put the Spotlight on Government Secrecy
Enraged by redacted FOIs? Baffled by backroom deals? Hashtag it #cdnfoi.
BC Gov't Slow to Respond to Info Requests, Routinely Deletes Email
'I'm discouraged by what I found, not surprised,' says provincial commissioner.
Read more: Federal Politics
In their recently published book Your Right to Know, journalists Jim Bronskill and David McKie have done yeomans' work explaining how Canadians can use freedom of information requests to get government secrets. But, at the federal level, it's work they shouldn't have needed to do -- pointing to another problem with Canada's broken access to information laws.
Introduced in 1980 by Pierre Trudeau's Liberals, the Access to Information Act gave Canadians a limited right to request government records. The bureaucracy's filing cabinets could now metaphorically be opened by anyone -- unless the records in them included 75 different kinds of information that would still be considered secret.
But, even with those limits, the Trudeau administration seemed to have little interest in telling voters about their newfound rights or how to exercise them.
Just before the act came into force, the Globe and Mail told readers the government would be "placing posters in post offices and public libraries" to advertise the new program. But "it plans nothing else in the way of public information," a deficiency noted by information commissioner Inger Hansen in her first annual report.
At a news conference announcing the fees for access to information requests, then-Liberal cabinet minister Herb Gray seemed unconcerned about that lack of advertising, smiling when he told reporters, "That's why we invited you here."
Nor did the government give the information commissioner the power to aid journalists in the job of educating the public about their information rights, with Hansen writing her office had no mandate or funding to do so.
As a result, Hansen stated "the public appears unaware of the meaning of the act and the role of the information commissioner to mediate complaints and take proceedings to the Federal Court. Indeed, many who have tried to use the act soon gave up because they found procedures too complicated or too slow."
More than 30 years later, Hansen's successors still don't have that mandate, despite repeatedly requesting it. A spokesperson for the Treasury Board Secretariat, which administers the Access to Information Act, didn't provide a direct answer when asked why those requests hadn't been acted on.
Little promotion of your rights
By comparison, our country's privacy commissioner can "foster public understanding" about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by organizations outside government.
Spending on that mandate totalled more than $3 million in the past fiscal year, with past expenditures resulting in the publication of a graphic novel and cartoons about privacy issues, as well as presentation packages for teachers and a youth video contest.
The government doesn't currently publish anything comparable about Canadians' access rights.
The Treasury Board Secretariat spokesperson stated in an email that individual departments do have instructions on their websites about how to file an access request, as well as a legal requirement to assist applicants.
But the manual that bureaucrats use to interpret and often restrict Canadians' right to know dwarfs those brief instructions. The secretariat's access advice, for example, weighs in at just 389 words. But 57 of the manual's 133 pages are devoted to what kinds of information must or can be kept secret.
Moreover, the government currently doesn't spend any money advertising Canadians' information rights, instead relying on news releases, speeches and tweets to do that job.
Americans are beating us
As a result, responsibility for popularizing that right continues to be principally shouldered by journalists such as Bronskill and McKie, as well as the handful of non-governmental groups concerned with freedom of information issues.
So it's near miraculous that, according to government statistics, 59,947 access requests were filed in the past fiscal year. But that still means just 169 requests were filed per 100,000 persons in Canada.
By comparison, during 2012/13, 222 requests were filed per 100,000 persons in the United States. That means Americans, who have considerably greater access to government records without using freedom of information requests, are using their right to know law 31 per cent more than we are.
And that's probably just the way Canada's paternalistic public officials want it. After all, for them, the fewer Canadians who understand how to file freedom of information requests, the better.
At their best, the responses to those requests tell us what's really happening behind the closed doors and drawn curtains of government. And, at their worst, they remind us just how little the government cares about our right to know -- a secret parties of all stripes have been trying and failing to cover up for years.
http://niagaraatlarge.com/2015/01/1...reat-to-canadas-national-security/#more-13768
Harper Government Biggest Threat To Canada’s National Security
Posted on January 15, 2015 | 3 Comments
Mark Taliano
The biggest threat to Canada’s national security is internal.
It is the offshoot of an extraordinarily successful — because it remains largely undetected — coup that imposed itself on the country with the federal election of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) in 2006, and solidified its impacts with the election of a Conservative majority in 2011.
Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Author, poet, academic, and former Canadian diplomat Professor Peter Dale Scott recently disclosed a wikileaks cable indicating that the International Republican Institute (IRI), an off-shoot of the CIA, and a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) helped install Stephen Harper as Canada’s Prime Minister. This was the coup.
Point 12 of the cable explains that; “In addition to the campaign schools, IRI will be bringing in consultants who specialize in party renovation to discuss case studies of political parties in Germany, Spain, and Canada which successfully carried out the process”
The “party renovation” referenced in the cable is the “renovation” of Canada’s indigenous Progressive Conservative Party into a Republican-inspired Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) that is largely subservient to the U.S Empire south of the border.
A similar, but more violent “renovation” process occurred in 2009 when the democratically-elected government of Manuel Zelaya was overthrown in a U.S-orchestrated coup. It is also the same illegal “renovation” that is destabilizing Venezuela today, as the US interferes in the internal politics of that country, in what is often described as a “soft coup”.
Dr. Anthony James Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta Canada, explains the genesis of the Harper Conservative assault on the “Red Tory” traditions of Canada’s indigenous conservative party in Flanagan’s Last Stand? :
” The assault by the Harper-Flanagan juggernaut on the generally friendly orientation of Canadian conservatism towards the state, towards Indigenous peoples, and towards the institutions of Crown sovereignty helped clear aside obstacles to the importation from United States of the Republican Party’s jihad on managed capitalism. Flanagan and Harper took charge of the Canadian version of the Reagan Revolution aimed at transforming the social welfare state into the stock market state.”
The implications of this conservative “jihad” are a threat to our national security on many levels. Stephen Harper’s attacks on Canada’s knowledge base are foundational to what can only be described as an endorsement of man-made climate change, which is likely the foremost threat to both humanity and to Canada.
The Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stresses the urgency to act now to mitigate catastrophic climate change, and yet the Harper government is moving Canada in the opposite direction. Most recently, the Harper government ratified a bilateral agreement with China, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA), which all but guarantees further expansion of Canada’s Tar Sands, and an expansion of its carbon economy.
Canada’s warmongering also bodes poorly for our collective security. The Conservative government has exploited the collective shock of the murder of Corporal Cirillo at Ottawa’s National War Monument, and the subsequent shoot-out at the House of Commons, by falsely conflating the tragedy with “Islamic terrorism” and by using it as a pretext to wage illegal warfare against ISIS. Many Canadians, including Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s girlfriend, argue that we should be addressing the tragedy by improving Canada’s capacity to provide mental health care for all of its citizens, yet that is not part of the Harper government’s longstanding agenda.
Instead of working to stop the flow of money and arms to proxy mercenary armies – that are for the most part allied with the West to illegally topple the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad — Canada has instead chosen to use military options, all but guaranteeing prolonged and deadly warfare which will exact a horrendous toll on innocent civilians.
This militarism will likely be a threat to Canada’s security as well, since Canada will increasingly be associated with war crimes and imperial hegemony abroad, rather than peace-keeping.
The largely undetected coup, as revealed by the wikileaks cable, goes a long way towards explaining Canada’s current predicament. This secret intervention in Canada’s political landscape will continue to undermine our country’s prosperity and security, unless we become more conscious of its insidious impacts and choose instead trajectories towards peace and national security. The foundational (though suppressed) evidence is shouting that we’re on the wrong course, and that we need to make changes fast.
Mark Taliano is a Niagara, Ontario resident and regular contributor of news and analysis to Niagara At Large.
Harper Government Biggest Threat To Canada’s National Security
Posted on January 15, 2015 | 3 Comments
Mark Taliano
The biggest threat to Canada’s national security is internal.
It is the offshoot of an extraordinarily successful — because it remains largely undetected — coup that imposed itself on the country with the federal election of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) in 2006, and solidified its impacts with the election of a Conservative majority in 2011.
Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Author, poet, academic, and former Canadian diplomat Professor Peter Dale Scott recently disclosed a wikileaks cable indicating that the International Republican Institute (IRI), an off-shoot of the CIA, and a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) helped install Stephen Harper as Canada’s Prime Minister. This was the coup.
Point 12 of the cable explains that; “In addition to the campaign schools, IRI will be bringing in consultants who specialize in party renovation to discuss case studies of political parties in Germany, Spain, and Canada which successfully carried out the process”
The “party renovation” referenced in the cable is the “renovation” of Canada’s indigenous Progressive Conservative Party into a Republican-inspired Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) that is largely subservient to the U.S Empire south of the border.
A similar, but more violent “renovation” process occurred in 2009 when the democratically-elected government of Manuel Zelaya was overthrown in a U.S-orchestrated coup. It is also the same illegal “renovation” that is destabilizing Venezuela today, as the US interferes in the internal politics of that country, in what is often described as a “soft coup”.
Dr. Anthony James Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta Canada, explains the genesis of the Harper Conservative assault on the “Red Tory” traditions of Canada’s indigenous conservative party in Flanagan’s Last Stand? :
” The assault by the Harper-Flanagan juggernaut on the generally friendly orientation of Canadian conservatism towards the state, towards Indigenous peoples, and towards the institutions of Crown sovereignty helped clear aside obstacles to the importation from United States of the Republican Party’s jihad on managed capitalism. Flanagan and Harper took charge of the Canadian version of the Reagan Revolution aimed at transforming the social welfare state into the stock market state.”
The implications of this conservative “jihad” are a threat to our national security on many levels. Stephen Harper’s attacks on Canada’s knowledge base are foundational to what can only be described as an endorsement of man-made climate change, which is likely the foremost threat to both humanity and to Canada.
The Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stresses the urgency to act now to mitigate catastrophic climate change, and yet the Harper government is moving Canada in the opposite direction. Most recently, the Harper government ratified a bilateral agreement with China, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA), which all but guarantees further expansion of Canada’s Tar Sands, and an expansion of its carbon economy.
Canada’s warmongering also bodes poorly for our collective security. The Conservative government has exploited the collective shock of the murder of Corporal Cirillo at Ottawa’s National War Monument, and the subsequent shoot-out at the House of Commons, by falsely conflating the tragedy with “Islamic terrorism” and by using it as a pretext to wage illegal warfare against ISIS. Many Canadians, including Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s girlfriend, argue that we should be addressing the tragedy by improving Canada’s capacity to provide mental health care for all of its citizens, yet that is not part of the Harper government’s longstanding agenda.
Instead of working to stop the flow of money and arms to proxy mercenary armies – that are for the most part allied with the West to illegally topple the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad — Canada has instead chosen to use military options, all but guaranteeing prolonged and deadly warfare which will exact a horrendous toll on innocent civilians.
This militarism will likely be a threat to Canada’s security as well, since Canada will increasingly be associated with war crimes and imperial hegemony abroad, rather than peace-keeping.
The largely undetected coup, as revealed by the wikileaks cable, goes a long way towards explaining Canada’s current predicament. This secret intervention in Canada’s political landscape will continue to undermine our country’s prosperity and security, unless we become more conscious of its insidious impacts and choose instead trajectories towards peace and national security. The foundational (though suppressed) evidence is shouting that we’re on the wrong course, and that we need to make changes fast.
Mark Taliano is a Niagara, Ontario resident and regular contributor of news and analysis to Niagara At Large.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/23/flanagans-last-stand/#_edn3
Flanagan’s Last Stand?
Posted by Anthony Hall on March 23, 2013
by Anthony Hall
Flanagan’s Last Stand?
Posted by Anthony Hall on March 23, 2013
by Anthony Hall
Meet the real Stephen Harper
By Michael Harris | Jan 15, 2015 8:58 pm
Stephen Harper
In politics, as in baseball, the rule is simple: Three strikes and you’re out.
When Stephen Harper finally shambles towards the showers, head down, bat in hand, I’ll be thinking of Mighty Casey. For much of his career, Harper has umpired his own at-bats. But that role will soon — if briefly — fall to the people of Canada. Election Day is coming to Mudville.
Strike one against this government of oligarchs and corporate shills comes down to this: They have greedily championed oil and gas while doing nothing to protect air and water. Consider the piece of legislation with the Orwellian name — the Navigable Waters Protection Act. NDP house leader Nathan Cullen said it as well as anyone could:
“It means the removal of almost every lake and river we know from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. From one day to the next, we went from 2.5 million protected lakes and rivers in Canada to 159 lakes and rivers protected.”
On second thought, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May put it pretty well too: “In Bill C-38, Stephen Harper cancelled and gutted environmental laws brought in by Brian Mulroney. He’s now moved on to destroy environmental law brought in by Sir John A. MacDonald.”
And who gave the Conservatives the blueprint for gutting the Navigable Waters Protection Act? The pipeline industry. The new legislation gave them a big plum: Along with power lines, pipelines were removed from the legislation altogether.
After eight years in office, Harper’s promise to regulate the energy sector remains as empty as the look behind his eyes. There’s a reason the Green Party just enjoyed the best fundraising year in its short history. May, like most Canadians, sees the big picture: All Stephen Harper has done in office is play shortstop to big business.
Canada now has more corrupt companies on the World Bank’s blacklist than any other country in the world. A stunning 115 of those companies are comprised of disgraced engineering giant SNC-Lavalin and its subsidiaries — the same company that the Harper government supported with an $800 million loan guarantee to build the dubious Muskrat Falls power development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Big business keeps telling workers they can’t have defined benefit pensions. Yet 43 per cent of Canadian CEOs have reserved that option for themselves. The PM has nothing to say about the gulf between worker and CEO pay packets.
The Conservatives have ignored the great issue of the age — the environment — and have offered instead a robber-baron vision of Canada built on unsustainable development and inflated oil prices. The lion’s share of the benefits have gone to foreign corporations and speculators.
Albertans get a tenth of what Norwegians get from the sale of their non-renewables. Since the public owns those resources, this amounts to a form of theft.
The Harper government has sabotaged international efforts to set a bolder course on global warming. How badly has he betrayed the environment? We’re talking Benedict Arnold here: He has transformed Environment Canada into just another oilpatch stooge, violating the purpose for which it was created.
He will drag out the usual mantra to continue his reign of error — that only Steve can protect us from terrorists, only Steve can protect us from recession, and only Steve has the stuff of leadership. I don’t think it’s working this time.
And for the third time in a year, the Harper government is trying to stop an investigation into Canada’s environmental record. Although there is evidence that chemicals from toxic tailings ponds created by the tar sands are seeping into adjacent groundwater in Alberta, the Harper government is trying to terminate a proposed NAFTA probe into the environmental effects of tailings ponds. Poison leaching into the ground — and Harper doesn’t want a factual record.
Of course he doesn’t. He didn’t want a factual record on endangered polar bears or salmon farm pollution. And remember, this is the guy who didn’t mind selling asbestos to other countries when it was being treated as a deadly carcinogen here in Canada.
Strike two against Stephen Harper is his personal failure to give Canadians a more open, ethical and democratic government. That is, after all, what got him elected in 2006 (that and a little cheating during the campaign). So it was beyond hypocritical this past week for the PM to portray himself as a champion of democracy and free speech after the dreadful killings in Paris. He even politicizes tragedy.
Here is the real man … the one who dedicated his entire communications effort to smothering free speech, who undermined access to information, the life-blood of any democracy, with endless delays in handing over government documents that belong to us. In some cases, his government has simply — and unconstitutionally — refused to fork them over. He has also mused about charging $200 per access request — which would certainly suppress the urge to ask.
The real man has muzzled his own workers — even demanding loyalty oaths from them. He wanted the right to ask prospective government employees about their politics. He has viciously attacked any individual or institution that opposes him, from former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The real man repeatedly has tried to turn the Internet into a servant of the police state, disguising his intent with nonsense about child pornographers and “protection”.
The real man has starved the opposition of even the most basic information about the budget and deprived Parliament of the ability to debate legislation through the cynical use of enormous omnibus bills.
Sheila Fraser has named the disease. Laws are being passed in Stephen Harper’s Canada without scrutiny. (That didn’t seem to bother the dear host of CBC’s The Current when she interviewed on my new book. But it bothers me, and a lot of other people, a great deal.)
The real man doesn’t speak to his fellow premiers as a group, banishes journalists from public buildings and thinks Sun News is where it’s at.
It didn’t take a genius to work out that Harper’s reaction to the robocall scandal would be new legislation that will make it harder to catch cheaters the next time. And trust me, there will be a next time. So let it be said clearly: Stephen Harper is a champion of screwing free speech and democracy at every opportunity.
What’s strike three? Canada is not Harperland. Stephen Harper is not who we are.
Canadians don’t want to see medicare slowly reduced to a ghost of its former self by a prime minister who once headed an organization created to destroy it.
Despite the stunning selfishness of some of its stars, Canadians don’t want to see the CBC brought to its knees and “restructured” by a man who prefers public relations to journalism.
Finally, Canadians don’t want to save money on the backs of veterans who didn’t take to the closet in the face of clear and present danger — especially when Harper has so egregiously used the military for political gain. There has to be more for our soldiers than bullets and beans.
Stephen Harper will definitely come out swinging when he comes to the plate. He will drag out the usual mantra to continue his reign of error — that only Steve can protect us from terrorists, only Steve can protect us from recession, and only Steve has the stuff of leadership.
I don’t think it’s working this time. I suspect that when Mighty Steve strikes out, there will be joy in Mudville.
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 eight 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, recently hit number one on Maclean’s magazine’s top ten list for Canadian non fiction.
Readers can reach the author at michaelharris@ipolitics.ca. Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.
By Michael Harris | Jan 15, 2015 8:58 pm
Stephen Harper
In politics, as in baseball, the rule is simple: Three strikes and you’re out.
When Stephen Harper finally shambles towards the showers, head down, bat in hand, I’ll be thinking of Mighty Casey. For much of his career, Harper has umpired his own at-bats. But that role will soon — if briefly — fall to the people of Canada. Election Day is coming to Mudville.
Strike one against this government of oligarchs and corporate shills comes down to this: They have greedily championed oil and gas while doing nothing to protect air and water. Consider the piece of legislation with the Orwellian name — the Navigable Waters Protection Act. NDP house leader Nathan Cullen said it as well as anyone could:
“It means the removal of almost every lake and river we know from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. From one day to the next, we went from 2.5 million protected lakes and rivers in Canada to 159 lakes and rivers protected.”
On second thought, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May put it pretty well too: “In Bill C-38, Stephen Harper cancelled and gutted environmental laws brought in by Brian Mulroney. He’s now moved on to destroy environmental law brought in by Sir John A. MacDonald.”
And who gave the Conservatives the blueprint for gutting the Navigable Waters Protection Act? The pipeline industry. The new legislation gave them a big plum: Along with power lines, pipelines were removed from the legislation altogether.
After eight years in office, Harper’s promise to regulate the energy sector remains as empty as the look behind his eyes. There’s a reason the Green Party just enjoyed the best fundraising year in its short history. May, like most Canadians, sees the big picture: All Stephen Harper has done in office is play shortstop to big business.
Canada now has more corrupt companies on the World Bank’s blacklist than any other country in the world. A stunning 115 of those companies are comprised of disgraced engineering giant SNC-Lavalin and its subsidiaries — the same company that the Harper government supported with an $800 million loan guarantee to build the dubious Muskrat Falls power development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Big business keeps telling workers they can’t have defined benefit pensions. Yet 43 per cent of Canadian CEOs have reserved that option for themselves. The PM has nothing to say about the gulf between worker and CEO pay packets.
The Conservatives have ignored the great issue of the age — the environment — and have offered instead a robber-baron vision of Canada built on unsustainable development and inflated oil prices. The lion’s share of the benefits have gone to foreign corporations and speculators.
Albertans get a tenth of what Norwegians get from the sale of their non-renewables. Since the public owns those resources, this amounts to a form of theft.
The Harper government has sabotaged international efforts to set a bolder course on global warming. How badly has he betrayed the environment? We’re talking Benedict Arnold here: He has transformed Environment Canada into just another oilpatch stooge, violating the purpose for which it was created.
He will drag out the usual mantra to continue his reign of error — that only Steve can protect us from terrorists, only Steve can protect us from recession, and only Steve has the stuff of leadership. I don’t think it’s working this time.
And for the third time in a year, the Harper government is trying to stop an investigation into Canada’s environmental record. Although there is evidence that chemicals from toxic tailings ponds created by the tar sands are seeping into adjacent groundwater in Alberta, the Harper government is trying to terminate a proposed NAFTA probe into the environmental effects of tailings ponds. Poison leaching into the ground — and Harper doesn’t want a factual record.
Of course he doesn’t. He didn’t want a factual record on endangered polar bears or salmon farm pollution. And remember, this is the guy who didn’t mind selling asbestos to other countries when it was being treated as a deadly carcinogen here in Canada.
Strike two against Stephen Harper is his personal failure to give Canadians a more open, ethical and democratic government. That is, after all, what got him elected in 2006 (that and a little cheating during the campaign). So it was beyond hypocritical this past week for the PM to portray himself as a champion of democracy and free speech after the dreadful killings in Paris. He even politicizes tragedy.
Here is the real man … the one who dedicated his entire communications effort to smothering free speech, who undermined access to information, the life-blood of any democracy, with endless delays in handing over government documents that belong to us. In some cases, his government has simply — and unconstitutionally — refused to fork them over. He has also mused about charging $200 per access request — which would certainly suppress the urge to ask.
The real man has muzzled his own workers — even demanding loyalty oaths from them. He wanted the right to ask prospective government employees about their politics. He has viciously attacked any individual or institution that opposes him, from former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The real man repeatedly has tried to turn the Internet into a servant of the police state, disguising his intent with nonsense about child pornographers and “protection”.
The real man has starved the opposition of even the most basic information about the budget and deprived Parliament of the ability to debate legislation through the cynical use of enormous omnibus bills.
Sheila Fraser has named the disease. Laws are being passed in Stephen Harper’s Canada without scrutiny. (That didn’t seem to bother the dear host of CBC’s The Current when she interviewed on my new book. But it bothers me, and a lot of other people, a great deal.)
The real man doesn’t speak to his fellow premiers as a group, banishes journalists from public buildings and thinks Sun News is where it’s at.
It didn’t take a genius to work out that Harper’s reaction to the robocall scandal would be new legislation that will make it harder to catch cheaters the next time. And trust me, there will be a next time. So let it be said clearly: Stephen Harper is a champion of screwing free speech and democracy at every opportunity.
What’s strike three? Canada is not Harperland. Stephen Harper is not who we are.
Canadians don’t want to see medicare slowly reduced to a ghost of its former self by a prime minister who once headed an organization created to destroy it.
Despite the stunning selfishness of some of its stars, Canadians don’t want to see the CBC brought to its knees and “restructured” by a man who prefers public relations to journalism.
Finally, Canadians don’t want to save money on the backs of veterans who didn’t take to the closet in the face of clear and present danger — especially when Harper has so egregiously used the military for political gain. There has to be more for our soldiers than bullets and beans.
Stephen Harper will definitely come out swinging when he comes to the plate. He will drag out the usual mantra to continue his reign of error — that only Steve can protect us from terrorists, only Steve can protect us from recession, and only Steve has the stuff of leadership.
I don’t think it’s working this time. I suspect that when Mighty Steve strikes out, there will be joy in Mudville.
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 eight 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, recently hit number one on Maclean’s magazine’s top ten list for Canadian non fiction.
Readers can reach the author at michaelharris@ipolitics.ca. Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.trueactivist.com/what-ev...ut-the-new-european-american-trade-agreement/
What Everyone Should Know About The New European-American Trade Agreement: Fracking, Monsanto and Corporate Takeover
January 19, 2015 by Sophie McAdam
This could mean the end of Europe as we know it
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a bilateral ‘free trade’ agreement currently under secret negotiation by the EU, USA and powerful industry lobbies. Very few Europeans have heard of this deal, which will change the face of Europe forever.
They say the deal will create jobs and boost the economy, but after seven years of financial crisis we should have learned one thing: any extra cash made will be siphoned off to the 1%, while the rest of us get poorer and poorer.
Here’s what TTIP really means: threats to online privacy, American corporations suing European countries that don’t do as they are told, fracking rights, closure of public services, and Monsanto’s takeover of agriculture on our continent (as it has already done in Ukraine). It would mean that Monsanto could destroy a nation’s food supply and the people would be powerless to do anything about it. It would destroy free national health services, strip us of our civil liberties and ensure that American corporations have full control over the European parliament.
The most hideous thing about this top-secret trade deal is that over one million citizens signed a petition to stop it, and they were ignored. This might not seem so strange- public opinion is never an obstacle to corporate lobbyists- but in Europe we are supposedly granted protection from shady deals like this through ECIs, or European Citizen’s Initiatives. Petitions signed under an ECI must be considered by law, but in this case, it was ignored.
In addition to the informative cartoon above, more details on the consequences of TTIP by a speaker from the Gaia Foundation can be seen below. Please consider signing and sharing the petition against TTIP here.
Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/what-ev...ut-the-new-european-american-trade-agreement/
What Everyone Should Know About The New European-American Trade Agreement: Fracking, Monsanto and Corporate Takeover
January 19, 2015 by Sophie McAdam
This could mean the end of Europe as we know it
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a bilateral ‘free trade’ agreement currently under secret negotiation by the EU, USA and powerful industry lobbies. Very few Europeans have heard of this deal, which will change the face of Europe forever.
They say the deal will create jobs and boost the economy, but after seven years of financial crisis we should have learned one thing: any extra cash made will be siphoned off to the 1%, while the rest of us get poorer and poorer.
Here’s what TTIP really means: threats to online privacy, American corporations suing European countries that don’t do as they are told, fracking rights, closure of public services, and Monsanto’s takeover of agriculture on our continent (as it has already done in Ukraine). It would mean that Monsanto could destroy a nation’s food supply and the people would be powerless to do anything about it. It would destroy free national health services, strip us of our civil liberties and ensure that American corporations have full control over the European parliament.
The most hideous thing about this top-secret trade deal is that over one million citizens signed a petition to stop it, and they were ignored. This might not seem so strange- public opinion is never an obstacle to corporate lobbyists- but in Europe we are supposedly granted protection from shady deals like this through ECIs, or European Citizen’s Initiatives. Petitions signed under an ECI must be considered by law, but in this case, it was ignored.
In addition to the informative cartoon above, more details on the consequences of TTIP by a speaker from the Gaia Foundation can be seen below. Please consider signing and sharing the petition against TTIP here.
Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/what-ev...ut-the-new-european-american-trade-agreement/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sean-casey/harper-debt-economy_b_3976972.html
The Myth of Harper's Economic Competence
Posted: 09/23/2013 5:10 pm EDT Updated: 11/23/2013 5:12 am EST
The Harper government has managed to convince many Canadians that it is a "steady hand" when it comes to the economy. This, of course, is a falsehood.
The Conservatives have deployed a well-oiled communications plan using catch phrases like "we're focused on jobs, growth and long term prosperity" or branding the federal budget as the "Economic Action Plan."
The Conservatives spend tens of millions of dollars of your money each year on partisan advertising -- selling Canadians a very tall tale.
Here are actual facts you will never see in one of those Conservative "Economic Action Plan" ads this coming fall and beyond -- usually during a hockey game.
• Stephen Harper has managed to turn 10 consecutive federal budget surpluses of the Martin-Chretien era into 7 straight consecutive deficits.
• Stephen Harper has the worst record of economic growth of any Prime Minister since RB Bennett and the great depression.
• Under Stephen Harper, household debt has exploded. The average household debt-to-income ratio (i.e., the amount of debt the average Canadian household owes for every dollar of their annual disposable income) has risen from $1.31 to $1.64 -- which is where the United States was before the housing market crashed.
• A significant contributor to household debt can be traced to rising housing prices. Mr. Harper's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, helped fuel the housing bubble with his irresponsible introduction of 40-year mortgages with zero down-payment.
Although he has since reversed himself completely on this policy, it was too late to avoid the damage he caused.
Speaking of Debt
• Fact: Between 1996-97 and 2005-06, the Liberal government paid $81.4-billion against the national debt.
• Fact: The federal debt in the fiscal year 1996-97 was $562.9-billion. By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, it was reduced to $481.5-billion • In contrast, by the year 2014-15, the Conservatives will have added $176,400,000,000 to the national debt.
Let me say that again, Stephen Harper has added and will add $176,400,000,000 to our debt.
• Fact: The Conservative federal debt in 2008-09 = $457.6-billion.
• Fact: The expected Conservative debt in 2014-15 = $634.0-billion (forecasted).
• Fact: 24% of the total accumulated debt since Confederation was amassed under Stephen Harper, this just since 2008.
This is the real and true economic and fiscal record of the Harper era.
This fall and beyond, though, expect to see those false and misleading "Economic Action Plan" commercials to reappear, paid for by you -- just as you're enjoying that hockey game.
Those ads will sound good and likely be appealing to the eye. However, what Harper's trying to sell you is just like those trick emails from that long lost cousin in Mongolia telling you of your newly acquired fortune. Sounds good, but it's far from the truth.
This post originally appeared on Sean Casey's blog.
The Myth of Harper's Economic Competence
Posted: 09/23/2013 5:10 pm EDT Updated: 11/23/2013 5:12 am EST
The Harper government has managed to convince many Canadians that it is a "steady hand" when it comes to the economy. This, of course, is a falsehood.
The Conservatives have deployed a well-oiled communications plan using catch phrases like "we're focused on jobs, growth and long term prosperity" or branding the federal budget as the "Economic Action Plan."
The Conservatives spend tens of millions of dollars of your money each year on partisan advertising -- selling Canadians a very tall tale.
Here are actual facts you will never see in one of those Conservative "Economic Action Plan" ads this coming fall and beyond -- usually during a hockey game.
• Stephen Harper has managed to turn 10 consecutive federal budget surpluses of the Martin-Chretien era into 7 straight consecutive deficits.
• Stephen Harper has the worst record of economic growth of any Prime Minister since RB Bennett and the great depression.
• Under Stephen Harper, household debt has exploded. The average household debt-to-income ratio (i.e., the amount of debt the average Canadian household owes for every dollar of their annual disposable income) has risen from $1.31 to $1.64 -- which is where the United States was before the housing market crashed.
• A significant contributor to household debt can be traced to rising housing prices. Mr. Harper's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, helped fuel the housing bubble with his irresponsible introduction of 40-year mortgages with zero down-payment.
Although he has since reversed himself completely on this policy, it was too late to avoid the damage he caused.
Speaking of Debt
• Fact: Between 1996-97 and 2005-06, the Liberal government paid $81.4-billion against the national debt.
• Fact: The federal debt in the fiscal year 1996-97 was $562.9-billion. By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, it was reduced to $481.5-billion • In contrast, by the year 2014-15, the Conservatives will have added $176,400,000,000 to the national debt.
Let me say that again, Stephen Harper has added and will add $176,400,000,000 to our debt.
• Fact: The Conservative federal debt in 2008-09 = $457.6-billion.
• Fact: The expected Conservative debt in 2014-15 = $634.0-billion (forecasted).
• Fact: 24% of the total accumulated debt since Confederation was amassed under Stephen Harper, this just since 2008.
This is the real and true economic and fiscal record of the Harper era.
This fall and beyond, though, expect to see those false and misleading "Economic Action Plan" commercials to reappear, paid for by you -- just as you're enjoying that hockey game.
Those ads will sound good and likely be appealing to the eye. However, what Harper's trying to sell you is just like those trick emails from that long lost cousin in Mongolia telling you of your newly acquired fortune. Sounds good, but it's far from the truth.
This post originally appeared on Sean Casey's blog.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...china-canada-fipa-deal-coming-force-october-1
Harper OKs potentially unconstitutional China-Canada FIPA deal, coming into force October 1
Jenny Uechi
|Sep 12th, 2014
Prime Minister Harper and Xi Jinping, FIPA
It's official: Prime Minister Stephen Harper has approved the controversial Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) today.
In a short, two-paragraph news release, International Trade Minister Ed Fast said the deal was now ratified. It will come into force on October 1, 2014, and will be effective for 31 years, until 2045.
The original investment protection deal -- which treaty law expert Gus Van Harten said could be in violation of the Canadian Constitution -- was quietly signed in 2012 in Vladisvostok, Russia, but was delayed for two years due to public outcry.
Chinese companies can sue Canada
As FIPA comes into force, it would have a major impact on projects such as Enbridge Northern Gateway and potentially some LNG proposals. The deal would allow Chinese investors to sue British Columbia if it changed course on the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.
"It is true that Chinese investors can sue Canada for any actions by the federal government or the B.C. government (or legislature or courts) relating to Chinese assets connected to the [Enbridge] Northern Gateway pipeline," Van Harten said.
"More troubling, there is no requirement in the treaty for the federal government to make public the fact of a Chinese investor's lawsuit against Canada until an award has been issued by a tribunal. This means that the federal government could settle the lawsuit, including by varying its conduct in a way that many Canadians would oppose, or by paying out public money before an award is issued, and we would never know."
Too late for constitutional challenge now?
Van Harten said there was likely "little point" for constitutional challenges to the deal at this stage.
"Even if found unconstitutional by a court down the road...once the treaty has been ratified, none of the obligations assumed by Canada can be modified unless China agrees," he said.
Op-eds in publications such as The National Post said the China-Canada deal was too one-sided and gave too much power to China. Unlike NAFTA, the FIPA is not a trade deal and would not reduce tariffs for Canadian exports to the Chinese market.
Although proponents argue that the deal would protect Canadian businesses and create jobs, critics say FIPA would be inevitably skewed in China's favour because Chinese investment in Canada is much larger than Canadian ownership in China.
Chinese companies have invested over $30 billion in Canada's energy industry alone. Canadian direct investment in China in all sectors totalled $4.2 billion in 2012.
Canada's third-largest oil company, Nexen, was bought by Chinese state-owned CNOOC in October 2012.
Court decision on FIPA
First Nations argued that the deal was not valid, as it would violate section 35 of the Constitution requiring consultation over projects that could affect traditional territory. The Hupacasath First Nation in B.C. took the federal government to court last year over the FIPA deal, while citizen advocacy groups Leadnow and SumOfUs delivered 60,000 signatures from across Canada in opposition to the agreement. The court decision on the Hupacasath First Nation's legal appeal is still pending, despite the ratification.
“This is a truly sad day for Canada,” said Brenda Sayers, representative of the Hupacasath First Nation. “The people of Canada should be alarmed that our constitutional rights have been stolen from our hands.”
"A massive citizen response and the Hupacasath First Nation's legal challenge has delayed ratification of this secretive and extreme investor deal for two years longer than anyone thought possible," said Leadnow executive director Jamie Biggar.
"Today, Prime Minister Harper is showing his disrespect for the legal process by ratifying this agreement before the courts have finished reviewing the case."
Although the Prime Minister has been silent on the deal, Trade Minister Ed Fast said in the news release that FIPA would benefit Canadians.
“Investment agreements provide the protection and the confidence Canadian investors need to expand, grow and succeed abroad," Fast said. "This FIPA will create jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians in every region of the country.”
The NDP and Green Party have circulated an online petition to stop the investment agreement from going into effect.
Read the full text of FIPA here.
http://www.international.gc.ca/trad...pa-apie/china-text-chine.aspx?lang=eng&view=d
Harper OKs potentially unconstitutional China-Canada FIPA deal, coming into force October 1
Jenny Uechi
|Sep 12th, 2014
Prime Minister Harper and Xi Jinping, FIPA
It's official: Prime Minister Stephen Harper has approved the controversial Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) today.
In a short, two-paragraph news release, International Trade Minister Ed Fast said the deal was now ratified. It will come into force on October 1, 2014, and will be effective for 31 years, until 2045.
The original investment protection deal -- which treaty law expert Gus Van Harten said could be in violation of the Canadian Constitution -- was quietly signed in 2012 in Vladisvostok, Russia, but was delayed for two years due to public outcry.
Chinese companies can sue Canada
As FIPA comes into force, it would have a major impact on projects such as Enbridge Northern Gateway and potentially some LNG proposals. The deal would allow Chinese investors to sue British Columbia if it changed course on the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.
"It is true that Chinese investors can sue Canada for any actions by the federal government or the B.C. government (or legislature or courts) relating to Chinese assets connected to the [Enbridge] Northern Gateway pipeline," Van Harten said.
"More troubling, there is no requirement in the treaty for the federal government to make public the fact of a Chinese investor's lawsuit against Canada until an award has been issued by a tribunal. This means that the federal government could settle the lawsuit, including by varying its conduct in a way that many Canadians would oppose, or by paying out public money before an award is issued, and we would never know."
Too late for constitutional challenge now?
Van Harten said there was likely "little point" for constitutional challenges to the deal at this stage.
"Even if found unconstitutional by a court down the road...once the treaty has been ratified, none of the obligations assumed by Canada can be modified unless China agrees," he said.
Op-eds in publications such as The National Post said the China-Canada deal was too one-sided and gave too much power to China. Unlike NAFTA, the FIPA is not a trade deal and would not reduce tariffs for Canadian exports to the Chinese market.
Although proponents argue that the deal would protect Canadian businesses and create jobs, critics say FIPA would be inevitably skewed in China's favour because Chinese investment in Canada is much larger than Canadian ownership in China.
Chinese companies have invested over $30 billion in Canada's energy industry alone. Canadian direct investment in China in all sectors totalled $4.2 billion in 2012.
Canada's third-largest oil company, Nexen, was bought by Chinese state-owned CNOOC in October 2012.
Court decision on FIPA
First Nations argued that the deal was not valid, as it would violate section 35 of the Constitution requiring consultation over projects that could affect traditional territory. The Hupacasath First Nation in B.C. took the federal government to court last year over the FIPA deal, while citizen advocacy groups Leadnow and SumOfUs delivered 60,000 signatures from across Canada in opposition to the agreement. The court decision on the Hupacasath First Nation's legal appeal is still pending, despite the ratification.
“This is a truly sad day for Canada,” said Brenda Sayers, representative of the Hupacasath First Nation. “The people of Canada should be alarmed that our constitutional rights have been stolen from our hands.”
"A massive citizen response and the Hupacasath First Nation's legal challenge has delayed ratification of this secretive and extreme investor deal for two years longer than anyone thought possible," said Leadnow executive director Jamie Biggar.
"Today, Prime Minister Harper is showing his disrespect for the legal process by ratifying this agreement before the courts have finished reviewing the case."
Although the Prime Minister has been silent on the deal, Trade Minister Ed Fast said in the news release that FIPA would benefit Canadians.
“Investment agreements provide the protection and the confidence Canadian investors need to expand, grow and succeed abroad," Fast said. "This FIPA will create jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians in every region of the country.”
The NDP and Green Party have circulated an online petition to stop the investment agreement from going into effect.
Read the full text of FIPA here.
http://www.international.gc.ca/trad...pa-apie/china-text-chine.aspx?lang=eng&view=d
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ceo...rate-of-average-canadian-since-2008-1.2888117
Tax Season
CEO pay increased at twice the rate of average Canadian since 2008
Salaries are increasing for the 1% much faster than for everyone else, study suggests
The Canadian Press Posted: Jan 01, 2015 3:00 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 02, 2015 9:21 AM ET
Canada's richest 100 CEOs saw their salaries increase at twice the rate of the average Canadian since the recession. (iStock)
CEO pay in Canada soars
Canada's top-paid CEOs saw their compensation climb at double the rate of the average Canadian between the depths of the recession and 2013, a new study has found.
The country's 100 highest remunerated chief executive officers pulled down an average of $9.2 million in 2013, about 25 per cent more than the $7.35 million they amassed in 2008, said an analysis released Thursday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
By comparison, the average Canadian income in 2013 was $47,358, about 12 per cent more than the 2008 level.
"It's a sort of a highly visible manifestation of growing income inequality in Canada," said the study's author, Hugh Mackenzie, who crunched the numbers on the CEOs of 240 publicly listed Canadian corporations on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
CEO pay jumped 11% in Canada in 2013
"I just don't think it's sustainable. I think that sooner or later public concern about income inequality is going to start to matter politically and something will have to happen."
The last time compensation for the top 100 corporate chiefs reached such a height was 2007 — the year before the recession — when it peaked at an average of $10 million, said the report titled "Glory Days: CEO Pay in Canada Soaring to Pre-Recession Highs."
The think-tank's annual review of CEO pay comes amid much political debate over Canada's income gap and the economic health of the middle class. Federal politicians have already started sharpening their pitches on these issues ahead of October's national election.
The CEO calculations include salaries as well as earnings from bonuses, share grants and stock options.
By that measure, Gerald Schwartz of the private equity company Onex Corp. earned the most of any of the CEOs, pulling in $87.9 million for 2013. The sum included $61.4 million in options and a $25.2-million bonus.
'I get paid too much,' TD Bank CEO says
Next up was Nadir Mohamed of Rogers Communication Inc., who made $26.8 million, followed by Michael Wilson of the fertilizer producer Agrium Inc. at $23.8 million. Both men retired from their respective companies in 2013 and received large one-time payments related to their departures.
Mackenzie acknowledged that particularly large sums, like the one awarded to Schwartz, push the average upwards, but he noted that even the compensation of the 100th-ranked CEO on the list was about 30 per cent higher in 2013 compared with 2008.
In 2013, Thomas Simons of Canadian Energy Services & Technology Corp., who took home just over $4.1 million in compensation, earned the least on the Top 100 list.
Looking back even further, the study found the average 1998 compensation for the Top 100 CEO earners was 105 times more than the average Canadian's income. In 2013, it said the top CEOs raked in about 195 times more than the average Canadian's pay.
The report found the compensation divide even wider for women: the average CEO in the Top 100 made 237 times the income of the average woman in 2013.
"Given the fact that the stakes and the responsibilities of these corporate leaders really haven't changed that much, one has to look a little bit more closely at what it is that's driving the premium pay for these corporate decision-makers to be so much greater now than it was 15, 20, 25 years ago," Mackenzie said.
The problem with stock options
In addition, the risks of compensating CEOs with large amounts of stock options could lead corporate bosses to focus on short-term benefits rather than the long-term well-being of their company, he said.
His report recommends changes to the tax system to address what it calls the "problem of runaway CEO pay."
Mackenzie said the government could limit how much of a CEO's salary a company can deduct from its taxes.
The review also offers other suggestions including: the introduction of a more steeply graduated tax system and putting an end to the treatment of stock options as a capital gain, so they're no longer taxed at half the rate of ordinary income.
But even with so much attention paid to Canada's income gap, recently released data suggested the disparity shrunk somewhat between the country's biggest income earners and the other 99 per cent after the 2008-09 recession.
A November report by Statistics Canada found the highest-earning Canadians — the so-called top one per cent — saw their share of the country's overall income fall to 10.3 per cent in 2012. The drop followed a peak of 12.1 per cent six years earlier.
The agency said the six-year period marked the first "prolonged" stretch in 30 years when the income share of earners in the lower levels stabilized or grew.
To qualify for the one per cent club, the Statistics Canada study said an individual had to earn at least $215,700 in 2012 — a sum reached by 261,365 people who filed taxes that year.
© The Canadian Press, 2015
Tax Season
CEO pay increased at twice the rate of average Canadian since 2008
Salaries are increasing for the 1% much faster than for everyone else, study suggests
The Canadian Press Posted: Jan 01, 2015 3:00 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 02, 2015 9:21 AM ET
Canada's richest 100 CEOs saw their salaries increase at twice the rate of the average Canadian since the recession. (iStock)
CEO pay in Canada soars
Canada's top-paid CEOs saw their compensation climb at double the rate of the average Canadian between the depths of the recession and 2013, a new study has found.
The country's 100 highest remunerated chief executive officers pulled down an average of $9.2 million in 2013, about 25 per cent more than the $7.35 million they amassed in 2008, said an analysis released Thursday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
By comparison, the average Canadian income in 2013 was $47,358, about 12 per cent more than the 2008 level.
"It's a sort of a highly visible manifestation of growing income inequality in Canada," said the study's author, Hugh Mackenzie, who crunched the numbers on the CEOs of 240 publicly listed Canadian corporations on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
CEO pay jumped 11% in Canada in 2013
"I just don't think it's sustainable. I think that sooner or later public concern about income inequality is going to start to matter politically and something will have to happen."
The last time compensation for the top 100 corporate chiefs reached such a height was 2007 — the year before the recession — when it peaked at an average of $10 million, said the report titled "Glory Days: CEO Pay in Canada Soaring to Pre-Recession Highs."
The think-tank's annual review of CEO pay comes amid much political debate over Canada's income gap and the economic health of the middle class. Federal politicians have already started sharpening their pitches on these issues ahead of October's national election.
The CEO calculations include salaries as well as earnings from bonuses, share grants and stock options.
By that measure, Gerald Schwartz of the private equity company Onex Corp. earned the most of any of the CEOs, pulling in $87.9 million for 2013. The sum included $61.4 million in options and a $25.2-million bonus.
'I get paid too much,' TD Bank CEO says
Next up was Nadir Mohamed of Rogers Communication Inc., who made $26.8 million, followed by Michael Wilson of the fertilizer producer Agrium Inc. at $23.8 million. Both men retired from their respective companies in 2013 and received large one-time payments related to their departures.
Mackenzie acknowledged that particularly large sums, like the one awarded to Schwartz, push the average upwards, but he noted that even the compensation of the 100th-ranked CEO on the list was about 30 per cent higher in 2013 compared with 2008.
In 2013, Thomas Simons of Canadian Energy Services & Technology Corp., who took home just over $4.1 million in compensation, earned the least on the Top 100 list.
Looking back even further, the study found the average 1998 compensation for the Top 100 CEO earners was 105 times more than the average Canadian's income. In 2013, it said the top CEOs raked in about 195 times more than the average Canadian's pay.
The report found the compensation divide even wider for women: the average CEO in the Top 100 made 237 times the income of the average woman in 2013.
"Given the fact that the stakes and the responsibilities of these corporate leaders really haven't changed that much, one has to look a little bit more closely at what it is that's driving the premium pay for these corporate decision-makers to be so much greater now than it was 15, 20, 25 years ago," Mackenzie said.
The problem with stock options
In addition, the risks of compensating CEOs with large amounts of stock options could lead corporate bosses to focus on short-term benefits rather than the long-term well-being of their company, he said.
His report recommends changes to the tax system to address what it calls the "problem of runaway CEO pay."
Mackenzie said the government could limit how much of a CEO's salary a company can deduct from its taxes.
The review also offers other suggestions including: the introduction of a more steeply graduated tax system and putting an end to the treatment of stock options as a capital gain, so they're no longer taxed at half the rate of ordinary income.
But even with so much attention paid to Canada's income gap, recently released data suggested the disparity shrunk somewhat between the country's biggest income earners and the other 99 per cent after the 2008-09 recession.
A November report by Statistics Canada found the highest-earning Canadians — the so-called top one per cent — saw their share of the country's overall income fall to 10.3 per cent in 2012. The drop followed a peak of 12.1 per cent six years earlier.
The agency said the six-year period marked the first "prolonged" stretch in 30 years when the income share of earners in the lower levels stabilized or grew.
To qualify for the one per cent club, the Statistics Canada study said an individual had to earn at least $215,700 in 2012 — a sum reached by 261,365 people who filed taxes that year.
© The Canadian Press, 2015
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-ceo-pay-jumped-11-in-2013-1.2661889
Tax Season
Canadian CEO pay jumped 11% in 2013
Median CEO compensation was 115 times average industrial wage
CBC News Posted: Jun 02, 2014 12:08 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 02, 2014 5:52 PM ET
Onex Corp. chair, president and CEO Gerald Schwartz took home $87 million last year. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)
CEO compensation climbs
Total compensation for chief executives at Canada’s largest companies climbed 11 per cent in 2013, according to consulting firm Global Governance Advisors, marking four years of sharp increases in pay for CEOs.
According to Statistics Canada, the average industrial wage jumped 3.1 per cent from March 2012 to 2013, rising to about $932 a week, or $48,480 a year.
Median compensation for CEOs was $5.6 million, or 115 times the average industrial wage.
Top Canadian CEOs earn annual worker's salary by lunchtime on Jan. 2
Global Governance Advisors says Canada’s company chiefs are not yet earning as much as they were before the downturn – when median compensation was $5.8 million. Median pay had slipped as low as $4 million in 2009 in GGA’s annual review of CEO compensation.
"What our study found was, CEO levels in 2013 have now rebounded to what we saw in CEO pay levels pre-financial crisis," Paul Gryglewicz, managing partner at Global Governance Advisors, said in an interview with CBC News.
Last year, salaries and bonuses were up 18 per cent and equity compensation climbed 14 per cent, in part a result of the improvement in stock prices. Many CEOs get much of their compensation in share units and stock options.
Median pay levels on the GGA review can vary from year to year, because different companies are selected annually. This year, the top earner was Gerald Schwartz at Onex Corp., who took home more than $87 million because of a large package of stock options, followed by Nadir Mohamed at Rogers, who had total reported compensation of $26.7 million.
CEO pay is usually set by a company board and began rising rapidly in the 1990s when securities commissions mandated rules that top executives’ pay scales should be made public.
That led to many boards comparing their own executive compensation plan with what CEOs are paid at other companies, including companies in the U.S., which have even higher executive compensation.
"What we’re noticing in the data today is the probability of an executive getting these good pay levels has changed since the financial crisis, primarily in directors using performance share units," Gryglewicz said.
He said more directors are using long-term incentives such as stock options to reward executives as a means to tying compensation more tightly to performance.
"There’s a level of risk and a level of job hours and skill and knowledge that comes with taking an executive role," he added,
GGA said many Canadian companies – including Canadian Pacific Railway and Barrick Gold – saw a changeover in top management in the past year, which can lead to a large payout to the outgoing CEO and a jump in compensation as the company tries to attract new talent.
Shareholders’ rights and equality focused organizations have also begun pushing back on the issue of CEO pay, turning up at company annual general meetings to demand more accountability over the issue.
In the U.S., Dodd-Frank legislation could soon require U.S. companies to report on the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker, hoping it would lead to a moderation in CEO pay.
Gryglewicz said the issue of pay ratio of the CEO to the average worker is "on directors' radar" in Canada too.
"There is some preliminary research being done in some pockets in the governance world to evaluate that pay differential and what is the right balance," he added.
Top 10 Canadian CEOs by total compensation
Gerald Schwartz, Onex, $87.9M
Nadir Mohamed, Rogers, $26.7M
Michael Wilson, Agrium, $23.8M
Donald Walker, Magna, $19.6M
Gerald Nixon, RBC, $14M
Doug Suttles, Encana, $13.7M
Steve Williams, Suncor, $12.8M
Scott Saxberg, Crescent Point Energy, $12.7M
Donald Guloien, Manulife, $12.7M
Bradley Shaw, Shaw Communications, $12.4
Source: Global Governance Advisors
Tax Season
Canadian CEO pay jumped 11% in 2013
Median CEO compensation was 115 times average industrial wage
CBC News Posted: Jun 02, 2014 12:08 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 02, 2014 5:52 PM ET
Onex Corp. chair, president and CEO Gerald Schwartz took home $87 million last year. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)
CEO compensation climbs
Total compensation for chief executives at Canada’s largest companies climbed 11 per cent in 2013, according to consulting firm Global Governance Advisors, marking four years of sharp increases in pay for CEOs.
According to Statistics Canada, the average industrial wage jumped 3.1 per cent from March 2012 to 2013, rising to about $932 a week, or $48,480 a year.
Median compensation for CEOs was $5.6 million, or 115 times the average industrial wage.
Top Canadian CEOs earn annual worker's salary by lunchtime on Jan. 2
Global Governance Advisors says Canada’s company chiefs are not yet earning as much as they were before the downturn – when median compensation was $5.8 million. Median pay had slipped as low as $4 million in 2009 in GGA’s annual review of CEO compensation.
"What our study found was, CEO levels in 2013 have now rebounded to what we saw in CEO pay levels pre-financial crisis," Paul Gryglewicz, managing partner at Global Governance Advisors, said in an interview with CBC News.
Last year, salaries and bonuses were up 18 per cent and equity compensation climbed 14 per cent, in part a result of the improvement in stock prices. Many CEOs get much of their compensation in share units and stock options.
Median pay levels on the GGA review can vary from year to year, because different companies are selected annually. This year, the top earner was Gerald Schwartz at Onex Corp., who took home more than $87 million because of a large package of stock options, followed by Nadir Mohamed at Rogers, who had total reported compensation of $26.7 million.
CEO pay is usually set by a company board and began rising rapidly in the 1990s when securities commissions mandated rules that top executives’ pay scales should be made public.
That led to many boards comparing their own executive compensation plan with what CEOs are paid at other companies, including companies in the U.S., which have even higher executive compensation.
"What we’re noticing in the data today is the probability of an executive getting these good pay levels has changed since the financial crisis, primarily in directors using performance share units," Gryglewicz said.
He said more directors are using long-term incentives such as stock options to reward executives as a means to tying compensation more tightly to performance.
"There’s a level of risk and a level of job hours and skill and knowledge that comes with taking an executive role," he added,
GGA said many Canadian companies – including Canadian Pacific Railway and Barrick Gold – saw a changeover in top management in the past year, which can lead to a large payout to the outgoing CEO and a jump in compensation as the company tries to attract new talent.
Shareholders’ rights and equality focused organizations have also begun pushing back on the issue of CEO pay, turning up at company annual general meetings to demand more accountability over the issue.
In the U.S., Dodd-Frank legislation could soon require U.S. companies to report on the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker, hoping it would lead to a moderation in CEO pay.
Gryglewicz said the issue of pay ratio of the CEO to the average worker is "on directors' radar" in Canada too.
"There is some preliminary research being done in some pockets in the governance world to evaluate that pay differential and what is the right balance," he added.
Top 10 Canadian CEOs by total compensation
Gerald Schwartz, Onex, $87.9M
Nadir Mohamed, Rogers, $26.7M
Michael Wilson, Agrium, $23.8M
Donald Walker, Magna, $19.6M
Gerald Nixon, RBC, $14M
Doug Suttles, Encana, $13.7M
Steve Williams, Suncor, $12.8M
Scott Saxberg, Crescent Point Energy, $12.7M
Donald Guloien, Manulife, $12.7M
Bradley Shaw, Shaw Communications, $12.4
Source: Global Governance Advisors
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/01/2...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=240115
Conservative Scholar Helped Shape Stephen Harper's Worldview
Walter Berns inspired a generation of Alberta conservatives.
By Donald Gutstein, Today, TheTyee.ca
Berns
Walter Berns, a conservative American political scientist, died Jan. 10, 2015. Photo credit: walterberns.org.
Walter Berns, an American constitutional scholar, who once taught in Canada and helped shape a band of conservative disciples in Alberta -- including Stephen Harper -- has died at age 95. Berns died Jan. 10 at his home in Bethesda, Maryland.
One of Berns' most lasting legacies may have been to foment Harper's disdain for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When Harper turned his back on the charter's 25th and 30th anniversaries he was following in Berns' footsteps. Berns refused to accept the validity of any political rights not contained in the nation's founding documents.
Berns was a prominent student of Leo Strauss, (1899-1973) the German political philosopher whose writings rose in notoriety when it came to light that the neoconservatives in George W. Bush's administration used Strauss's intellectual philosophy to hoodwink Americans into invading Iraq. Among other things, Strauss argued that those in power have the right to lie to the masses to achieve their means.
Berns taught at the University of Toronto in the 1970s, where he mentored Rainer Knopff and Ted Morton, two conservative scholars who would lead the opposition to the Charter.
In the 1980s, the two newly minted PhDs moved to the University of Calgary where, along with Tom Flanagan, they helped form the so-called Calgary School, a loose band of like-minded conservatives who shared a disdain for what they perceived as Canada's eastern establishment.
The Calgary School shaped the political direction of the Reform Party, Reform Party and Conservative Party of Canada and dominated the thinking of Harper, who studied under Calgary School professors. Later, as prime minister, Harper selected Flanagan as a close adviser and Ian Brodie, a student of Morton's, as his first chief of staff.
Berns' conservatism and a Straussian belief in the right to deceive the public infused the Calgary School's work.
In his foundational opus, Taking the Constitution Seriously, Berns took a strictly limited view of government as a historical institution, an approach followed by Morton and Knopff.
For Berns, to ''take the constitution seriously'' meant to respect the legal, philosophical and rhetorical traditions that underlie the constitutional plan bequeathed to Americans by the constitutional framers.
We should be guided today by what a handful of aristocratic men thought 200 years ago is the book's message.
Knopff and Morton collaborated on three books in which they apply Berns' thinking to the Canadian legal system and most directly to the Charter. They dedicate their most provocative work, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party, to Berns. (Knopff wrote an appreciation after Berns died.)
The case against the Charter
Following in Berns' philosophical footsteps, both Morton and Knopff oppose the charter because, they contend, all the rights necessary for representative democracy are contained in Canada's founding documents.
In their book, Morton and Knopff argue that Berns relied on U.S. founding father Alexander Hamilton's claim, in Federalist Paper No. 84, that the proposed U.S. Constitution was ''itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights.''
For Canadians, who follow the Westminster parliamentary tradition, Morton and Knopff also argue that our rights are protected by the practise of parliamentary sovereignty. Partisan debate and public deliberation will inevitably produce sound public policy that respects rights. If rights are protected and respected, they ask, why do we need special legal instruments like the Charter?
They argue that the Charter's existence is the result of a plot by that perennial bogeyman of the right, special interest groups. Unable to achieve what they wanted by pressing legislators, Morton and Knopff argue, these groups ferociously lobbied the Trudeau government for an expansive charter and, once enacted, ''turned to the courts to advance their policy objectives.''
These special interests -- feminists, anti-poverty organizations, gay rights groups, prisoners' and refugees' rights groups -- use the courts to constitutionalize the preferences they could not achieve through the legislative process. Feminists and their ilk stand accused of using the courts, not to protect the fundamental core of existing rights, but to change public policy through the judicial creation of new rights.
Astonishingly, the Morton-Knopff analysis ignores two overarching influences on modern democracy: corporate power and corporate propaganda. As they see it, representative democracy works because coalitions of minorities form majority governments. In the real world, however, corporate power dominates other interests and, through the techniques of propaganda, can manipulate public opinion sufficiently to achieve the results it desires. Morton and Knopff use the phrase ''government by discussion'' approvingly, but that is naive or perhaps deceptive, as Leo Strauss might advise. Minorities could coalesce and discuss all they want, but still have little impact on most legislative outcomes without business support.
Business uses courts
The Calgary scholars also seem not to have noticed that business uses the courts to advance its interests to greater effect than all other interest groups combined. Strauss would alert us to this glaring omission. Morton and Knopff are sophisticated scholars, he might advise his students. They must know that business consistently uses the courts to create and expand its rights, rights that were not foreseen by the American founding fathers or the Lords of Westminster. The most devastating of these acquisitions was the corporate right to personhood, a development that would have horrified the founding fathers, be they in the U.S. or Canada. That Knopff and Morton chose not to discuss corporate power may be a Straussian signal that it must remain hidden from the masses. If corporate power became a public issue like so-called Islamic terror, the consequence could be great turmoil within the capitalist order. This cannot be allowed to happen.
So the Calgary School developed the dual strategy of obscuring corporate power and the possibility that it can be democracy's enemy and focusing instead on easily attacked targets like ''special interests.'' The strategy was adopted in whole cloth by Preston Manning, Stephen Harper and the Reform Party founders, perhaps during their discussions with Flanagan, Knopff, Morton and other members of the Calgary School.
Strauss recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would, in fact, restrict rights. Early populist parties railed against business elites -- bankers, eastern businessmen, the Canadian Pacific Railway. Reform was backed by the western business elite, so it couldn't target business. Special interests and government bureaucracies that support them had to be turned into the enemy.
Twenty-five years later, Harper still exhibits undisguised scorn for the charter and the ''special interests'' it allegedly supports. If we could only go back to the origins of Canada and the rights (or lack thereof) we had then. But wait! The 150th anniversary of Confederation is only two years away. All the more reason for Harper to want to be re-elected so that he can rejoice in the pre-charter world. [Tyee]
Donald Gutstein is an adjunct professor in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University. He is the author of Harperism: How Stephen Harper and His Think Tank Colleagues Have Transformed Canada.
Conservative Scholar Helped Shape Stephen Harper's Worldview
Walter Berns inspired a generation of Alberta conservatives.
By Donald Gutstein, Today, TheTyee.ca
Berns
Walter Berns, a conservative American political scientist, died Jan. 10, 2015. Photo credit: walterberns.org.
Walter Berns, an American constitutional scholar, who once taught in Canada and helped shape a band of conservative disciples in Alberta -- including Stephen Harper -- has died at age 95. Berns died Jan. 10 at his home in Bethesda, Maryland.
One of Berns' most lasting legacies may have been to foment Harper's disdain for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When Harper turned his back on the charter's 25th and 30th anniversaries he was following in Berns' footsteps. Berns refused to accept the validity of any political rights not contained in the nation's founding documents.
Berns was a prominent student of Leo Strauss, (1899-1973) the German political philosopher whose writings rose in notoriety when it came to light that the neoconservatives in George W. Bush's administration used Strauss's intellectual philosophy to hoodwink Americans into invading Iraq. Among other things, Strauss argued that those in power have the right to lie to the masses to achieve their means.
Berns taught at the University of Toronto in the 1970s, where he mentored Rainer Knopff and Ted Morton, two conservative scholars who would lead the opposition to the Charter.
In the 1980s, the two newly minted PhDs moved to the University of Calgary where, along with Tom Flanagan, they helped form the so-called Calgary School, a loose band of like-minded conservatives who shared a disdain for what they perceived as Canada's eastern establishment.
The Calgary School shaped the political direction of the Reform Party, Reform Party and Conservative Party of Canada and dominated the thinking of Harper, who studied under Calgary School professors. Later, as prime minister, Harper selected Flanagan as a close adviser and Ian Brodie, a student of Morton's, as his first chief of staff.
Berns' conservatism and a Straussian belief in the right to deceive the public infused the Calgary School's work.
In his foundational opus, Taking the Constitution Seriously, Berns took a strictly limited view of government as a historical institution, an approach followed by Morton and Knopff.
For Berns, to ''take the constitution seriously'' meant to respect the legal, philosophical and rhetorical traditions that underlie the constitutional plan bequeathed to Americans by the constitutional framers.
We should be guided today by what a handful of aristocratic men thought 200 years ago is the book's message.
Knopff and Morton collaborated on three books in which they apply Berns' thinking to the Canadian legal system and most directly to the Charter. They dedicate their most provocative work, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party, to Berns. (Knopff wrote an appreciation after Berns died.)
The case against the Charter
Following in Berns' philosophical footsteps, both Morton and Knopff oppose the charter because, they contend, all the rights necessary for representative democracy are contained in Canada's founding documents.
In their book, Morton and Knopff argue that Berns relied on U.S. founding father Alexander Hamilton's claim, in Federalist Paper No. 84, that the proposed U.S. Constitution was ''itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights.''
For Canadians, who follow the Westminster parliamentary tradition, Morton and Knopff also argue that our rights are protected by the practise of parliamentary sovereignty. Partisan debate and public deliberation will inevitably produce sound public policy that respects rights. If rights are protected and respected, they ask, why do we need special legal instruments like the Charter?
They argue that the Charter's existence is the result of a plot by that perennial bogeyman of the right, special interest groups. Unable to achieve what they wanted by pressing legislators, Morton and Knopff argue, these groups ferociously lobbied the Trudeau government for an expansive charter and, once enacted, ''turned to the courts to advance their policy objectives.''
These special interests -- feminists, anti-poverty organizations, gay rights groups, prisoners' and refugees' rights groups -- use the courts to constitutionalize the preferences they could not achieve through the legislative process. Feminists and their ilk stand accused of using the courts, not to protect the fundamental core of existing rights, but to change public policy through the judicial creation of new rights.
Astonishingly, the Morton-Knopff analysis ignores two overarching influences on modern democracy: corporate power and corporate propaganda. As they see it, representative democracy works because coalitions of minorities form majority governments. In the real world, however, corporate power dominates other interests and, through the techniques of propaganda, can manipulate public opinion sufficiently to achieve the results it desires. Morton and Knopff use the phrase ''government by discussion'' approvingly, but that is naive or perhaps deceptive, as Leo Strauss might advise. Minorities could coalesce and discuss all they want, but still have little impact on most legislative outcomes without business support.
Business uses courts
The Calgary scholars also seem not to have noticed that business uses the courts to advance its interests to greater effect than all other interest groups combined. Strauss would alert us to this glaring omission. Morton and Knopff are sophisticated scholars, he might advise his students. They must know that business consistently uses the courts to create and expand its rights, rights that were not foreseen by the American founding fathers or the Lords of Westminster. The most devastating of these acquisitions was the corporate right to personhood, a development that would have horrified the founding fathers, be they in the U.S. or Canada. That Knopff and Morton chose not to discuss corporate power may be a Straussian signal that it must remain hidden from the masses. If corporate power became a public issue like so-called Islamic terror, the consequence could be great turmoil within the capitalist order. This cannot be allowed to happen.
So the Calgary School developed the dual strategy of obscuring corporate power and the possibility that it can be democracy's enemy and focusing instead on easily attacked targets like ''special interests.'' The strategy was adopted in whole cloth by Preston Manning, Stephen Harper and the Reform Party founders, perhaps during their discussions with Flanagan, Knopff, Morton and other members of the Calgary School.
Strauss recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would, in fact, restrict rights. Early populist parties railed against business elites -- bankers, eastern businessmen, the Canadian Pacific Railway. Reform was backed by the western business elite, so it couldn't target business. Special interests and government bureaucracies that support them had to be turned into the enemy.
Twenty-five years later, Harper still exhibits undisguised scorn for the charter and the ''special interests'' it allegedly supports. If we could only go back to the origins of Canada and the rights (or lack thereof) we had then. But wait! The 150th anniversary of Confederation is only two years away. All the more reason for Harper to want to be re-elected so that he can rejoice in the pre-charter world. [Tyee]
Donald Gutstein is an adjunct professor in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University. He is the author of Harperism: How Stephen Harper and His Think Tank Colleagues Have Transformed Canada.
- Status