The above is exactly why the GOP in the US and (to a somewhat lesser extent) the Conservative Party in Canada spend so much of their time trying to provoke fear in the populace. In the U.S. the GOP seems to be shooting for a "fear based economy". As long as the populace lives in fear - fear for life, fear for safety, fear for liberty, fear for one's job, etc - they won't think about issues like the environment (or infectious disease for that matter) in a rational way. This allows politicians to ram bad ideas and policies through as people are too busy being afraid of demons (imaginary and real), to pay much attention to what is really going on. In countries where the group psychology isn't being as heavily manipulated, compassion is easier and it's easier to get sensible policies (such as environmental policies) in place.
The WAR on Science: Thursday, November 21, 2013, 7:00 pm Room 1900, SFU Harbour Ctr
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
- Status
http://www.straight.com/news/641941...ral-fire-stephen-harper-may-end-house-commons
Petition asking Governor General to fire Stephen Harper may end up in House of Commons
by CARLITO PABLO on MAY 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Share via Email
Printer Friendly Version
Comments57
STORY
Prime Minister Stephen Harper watches Governor General David Johnston grant royal assent to government bills in 2012.
PMO
BURNABY-DOUGLAS MP KENNEDY Stewart is willing to present a petition in the House of Commons asking Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
RELATED STORIES
Want the Governor General to fire Stephen Harper? There’s a petition for that
However, the New Democrat emphasized that he will do so only if the petition initiated by former Vancouver newspaper columnist Greg Felton meets parliamentary requirements.
“I do know that the Governor General can remove the prime minister, and that’s a very well-known fact because it’s there in the Constitution,” Stewart told the Straight in a phone interview. “But that’s about the extent of it at this point.”
The first-term MP has spoke with Felton by phone but has neither read the text of the online petition nor met Felton in person.
“I said that if it meets the formatting requirements, I would present the paper petition,” Stewart said of his phone conversation with Felton.
House procedural guidelines state that before an MP can present a petition, the document mustfirst be certified as correct in form and content by the clerk of petitions.
“A petition submitted for certification which does not meet the requirements as to form and content will be returned to the Member with an explanatory note,” the guidelines further state.
The Straight reported last year that the petition cites the October 1, 1947, letters patent signed by King George VI constituting the office of the governor general.
The letters patent empowers the monarch’s representative “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office within Canada”.
In the same piece last year, the Straight reported on the opinion of law professor Lorne Neudorf regarding the petition.
“Yes, the governor general does hold legally the power to dismiss the prime minister and the cabinet, but the question really here is the exercise of power and should that power be exercised,” Neudorf said in a phone interview on October 4. “And in modern Canada, it would be seen to breach long-standing constitutional conventions that we have developed in this country.
“One of those conventions is the idea that we have and this is the convention of responsible government,” the Thompson Rivers University professor also said. “And what this means is that the governor general will act only upon the advice of the prime minister and we have this so long as the prime minister continues to hold confidence in the House [of Commons], then his or her advice will be accepted by the governor general.”
Stewart, who is on leave as an associate professor at the SFU school of public policy, didn’t get into interpretations of the governor general’s power.
But the Burnaby-Douglas MP noted that he has presented many petitions in the House, including some he didn’t agree with, because that’s part of the duties of a member of the House.
As well, House rules do not allow MPs to say whether or not they support a petition they’re presenting, Stewart noted.
According to Stewart, the petition started by Felton is an indication of a “legitimacy crisis”.
“There is a growing dissatisfaction not just with the current government, but how our democracy works in general,” he said.
Stewart noted that this is a concern that is also shared by some Conservative MPs.
“There’s a number of Conservatives who have put bills that I have co-signed because they’re trying to also change our democracy for the better,” the New Democrat said.
Stewart also said that he agrees when “people say the system is broken and they’re trying to find different ways to fix it, and Mr. Felton’s frustration, I mean, I hear it everyday from all kinds of people”.
Follow Carlito Pablo on Twitter: @carlitopablo.
Petition asking Governor General to fire Stephen Harper may end up in House of Commons
by CARLITO PABLO on MAY 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Share via Email
Printer Friendly Version
Comments57
STORY
Prime Minister Stephen Harper watches Governor General David Johnston grant royal assent to government bills in 2012.
PMO
BURNABY-DOUGLAS MP KENNEDY Stewart is willing to present a petition in the House of Commons asking Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
RELATED STORIES
Want the Governor General to fire Stephen Harper? There’s a petition for that
However, the New Democrat emphasized that he will do so only if the petition initiated by former Vancouver newspaper columnist Greg Felton meets parliamentary requirements.
“I do know that the Governor General can remove the prime minister, and that’s a very well-known fact because it’s there in the Constitution,” Stewart told the Straight in a phone interview. “But that’s about the extent of it at this point.”
The first-term MP has spoke with Felton by phone but has neither read the text of the online petition nor met Felton in person.
“I said that if it meets the formatting requirements, I would present the paper petition,” Stewart said of his phone conversation with Felton.
House procedural guidelines state that before an MP can present a petition, the document mustfirst be certified as correct in form and content by the clerk of petitions.
“A petition submitted for certification which does not meet the requirements as to form and content will be returned to the Member with an explanatory note,” the guidelines further state.
The Straight reported last year that the petition cites the October 1, 1947, letters patent signed by King George VI constituting the office of the governor general.
The letters patent empowers the monarch’s representative “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office within Canada”.
In the same piece last year, the Straight reported on the opinion of law professor Lorne Neudorf regarding the petition.
“Yes, the governor general does hold legally the power to dismiss the prime minister and the cabinet, but the question really here is the exercise of power and should that power be exercised,” Neudorf said in a phone interview on October 4. “And in modern Canada, it would be seen to breach long-standing constitutional conventions that we have developed in this country.
“One of those conventions is the idea that we have and this is the convention of responsible government,” the Thompson Rivers University professor also said. “And what this means is that the governor general will act only upon the advice of the prime minister and we have this so long as the prime minister continues to hold confidence in the House [of Commons], then his or her advice will be accepted by the governor general.”
Stewart, who is on leave as an associate professor at the SFU school of public policy, didn’t get into interpretations of the governor general’s power.
But the Burnaby-Douglas MP noted that he has presented many petitions in the House, including some he didn’t agree with, because that’s part of the duties of a member of the House.
As well, House rules do not allow MPs to say whether or not they support a petition they’re presenting, Stewart noted.
According to Stewart, the petition started by Felton is an indication of a “legitimacy crisis”.
“There is a growing dissatisfaction not just with the current government, but how our democracy works in general,” he said.
Stewart noted that this is a concern that is also shared by some Conservative MPs.
“There’s a number of Conservatives who have put bills that I have co-signed because they’re trying to also change our democracy for the better,” the New Democrat said.
Stewart also said that he agrees when “people say the system is broken and they’re trying to find different ways to fix it, and Mr. Felton’s frustration, I mean, I hear it everyday from all kinds of people”.
Follow Carlito Pablo on Twitter: @carlitopablo.
http://www.straight.com/news/641941...ral-fire-stephen-harper-may-end-house-commons
Petition asking Governor General to fire Stephen Harper may end up in House of Commons
by CARLITO PABLO on MAY 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Share via Email
Printer Friendly Version
Comments57
STORY
Prime Minister Stephen Harper watches Governor General David Johnston grant royal assent to government bills in 2012.
PMO
BURNABY-DOUGLAS MP KENNEDY Stewart is willing to present a petition in the House of Commons asking Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
RELATED STORIES
Want the Governor General to fire Stephen Harper? There’s a petition for that
However, the New Democrat emphasized that he will do so only if the petition initiated by former Vancouver newspaper columnist Greg Felton meets parliamentary requirements.
“I do know that the Governor General can remove the prime minister, and that’s a very well-known fact because it’s there in the Constitution,” Stewart told the Straight in a phone interview. “But that’s about the extent of it at this point.”
The first-term MP has spoke with Felton by phone but has neither read the text of the online petition nor met Felton in person.
“I said that if it meets the formatting requirements, I would present the paper petition,” Stewart said of his phone conversation with Felton.
House procedural guidelines state that before an MP can present a petition, the document mustfirst be certified as correct in form and content by the clerk of petitions.
“A petition submitted for certification which does not meet the requirements as to form and content will be returned to the Member with an explanatory note,” the guidelines further state.
The Straight reported last year that the petition cites the October 1, 1947, letters patent signed by King George VI constituting the office of the governor general.
The letters patent empowers the monarch’s representative “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office within Canada”.
In the same piece last year, the Straight reported on the opinion of law professor Lorne Neudorf regarding the petition.
“Yes, the governor general does hold legally the power to dismiss the prime minister and the cabinet, but the question really here is the exercise of power and should that power be exercised,” Neudorf said in a phone interview on October 4. “And in modern Canada, it would be seen to breach long-standing constitutional conventions that we have developed in this country.
“One of those conventions is the idea that we have and this is the convention of responsible government,” the Thompson Rivers University professor also said. “And what this means is that the governor general will act only upon the advice of the prime minister and we have this so long as the prime minister continues to hold confidence in the House [of Commons], then his or her advice will be accepted by the governor general.”
Stewart, who is on leave as an associate professor at the SFU school of public policy, didn’t get into interpretations of the governor general’s power.
But the Burnaby-Douglas MP noted that he has presented many petitions in the House, including some he didn’t agree with, because that’s part of the duties of a member of the House.
As well, House rules do not allow MPs to say whether or not they support a petition they’re presenting, Stewart noted.
According to Stewart, the petition started by Felton is an indication of a “legitimacy crisis”.
“There is a growing dissatisfaction not just with the current government, but how our democracy works in general,” he said.
Stewart noted that this is a concern that is also shared by some Conservative MPs.
“There’s a number of Conservatives who have put bills that I have co-signed because they’re trying to also change our democracy for the better,” the New Democrat said.
Stewart also said that he agrees when “people say the system is broken and they’re trying to find different ways to fix it, and Mr. Felton’s frustration, I mean, I hear it everyday from all kinds of people”.
Follow Carlito Pablo on Twitter: @carlitopablo.
Petition asking Governor General to fire Stephen Harper may end up in House of Commons
by CARLITO PABLO on MAY 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Share via Email
Printer Friendly Version
Comments57
STORY
Prime Minister Stephen Harper watches Governor General David Johnston grant royal assent to government bills in 2012.
PMO
BURNABY-DOUGLAS MP KENNEDY Stewart is willing to present a petition in the House of Commons asking Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
RELATED STORIES
Want the Governor General to fire Stephen Harper? There’s a petition for that
However, the New Democrat emphasized that he will do so only if the petition initiated by former Vancouver newspaper columnist Greg Felton meets parliamentary requirements.
“I do know that the Governor General can remove the prime minister, and that’s a very well-known fact because it’s there in the Constitution,” Stewart told the Straight in a phone interview. “But that’s about the extent of it at this point.”
The first-term MP has spoke with Felton by phone but has neither read the text of the online petition nor met Felton in person.
“I said that if it meets the formatting requirements, I would present the paper petition,” Stewart said of his phone conversation with Felton.
House procedural guidelines state that before an MP can present a petition, the document mustfirst be certified as correct in form and content by the clerk of petitions.
“A petition submitted for certification which does not meet the requirements as to form and content will be returned to the Member with an explanatory note,” the guidelines further state.
The Straight reported last year that the petition cites the October 1, 1947, letters patent signed by King George VI constituting the office of the governor general.
The letters patent empowers the monarch’s representative “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office within Canada”.
In the same piece last year, the Straight reported on the opinion of law professor Lorne Neudorf regarding the petition.
“Yes, the governor general does hold legally the power to dismiss the prime minister and the cabinet, but the question really here is the exercise of power and should that power be exercised,” Neudorf said in a phone interview on October 4. “And in modern Canada, it would be seen to breach long-standing constitutional conventions that we have developed in this country.
“One of those conventions is the idea that we have and this is the convention of responsible government,” the Thompson Rivers University professor also said. “And what this means is that the governor general will act only upon the advice of the prime minister and we have this so long as the prime minister continues to hold confidence in the House [of Commons], then his or her advice will be accepted by the governor general.”
Stewart, who is on leave as an associate professor at the SFU school of public policy, didn’t get into interpretations of the governor general’s power.
But the Burnaby-Douglas MP noted that he has presented many petitions in the House, including some he didn’t agree with, because that’s part of the duties of a member of the House.
As well, House rules do not allow MPs to say whether or not they support a petition they’re presenting, Stewart noted.
According to Stewart, the petition started by Felton is an indication of a “legitimacy crisis”.
“There is a growing dissatisfaction not just with the current government, but how our democracy works in general,” he said.
Stewart noted that this is a concern that is also shared by some Conservative MPs.
“There’s a number of Conservatives who have put bills that I have co-signed because they’re trying to also change our democracy for the better,” the New Democrat said.
Stewart also said that he agrees when “people say the system is broken and they’re trying to find different ways to fix it, and Mr. Felton’s frustration, I mean, I hear it everyday from all kinds of people”.
Follow Carlito Pablo on Twitter: @carlitopablo.
http://www.gregfelton.com/Petition to remove Stephen Harper.pdf
Demand that Governor General David Johnston
Dismiss Stephen Harper
CANADIANS:
Stephen Harper is destroying the institutions and ideals that
made Canada a civilized country. He has violated the
Constitution, committed electoral fraud, misled Parliament,
obstructed justice in a Senate enquiry, and betrayed
Canada’s respect for international law. Worst of all, he has
treated Parliament and Canadians with contempt by giving his
political allegiance to foreign governments and corporations.
By any rational standard, this amounts to treason.
However, all is not lost. We could be rid of Harper and his
unconstitutional despotism in an instant. Canada could
again be a parliamentary democracy where civil rights and
the rule of law mean something. All that has to happen is
for Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Stephen
Harper and appoint a new prime minister, which he is
constitutionally empowered to do.
On Oct. 1, 1947, King George VI vested Canada’s royal
representative with full constitutional authority, among other
things, “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the
exercise of the same, any person exercising any office
within Canada.” It is the governor general, not the public,
that selects the government; the prime minister, who has no
constitutional standing, can be dismissed at any time.
However, Johnston has not yet exercised his
Constitutional powers. He may even be in a conflict of
interest because he was nominated by Harper and
rendered Harper a service in a legal matter.
We demand that David Johnston do his sovereign duty to
defend the integrity of Canada and the welfare of its
citizens by dismissing Stephen Harper as prime minister.
When a government does violence to the country and its
people, the Constitution is our democratic protection.
THE DISMISSAL OF STEPHEN HARPER IS THE
PROPER DEMOCRATIC, CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY.
Demand that Governor General David Johnston
Dismiss Stephen Harper
CANADIANS:
Stephen Harper is destroying the institutions and ideals that
made Canada a civilized country. He has violated the
Constitution, committed electoral fraud, misled Parliament,
obstructed justice in a Senate enquiry, and betrayed
Canada’s respect for international law. Worst of all, he has
treated Parliament and Canadians with contempt by giving his
political allegiance to foreign governments and corporations.
By any rational standard, this amounts to treason.
However, all is not lost. We could be rid of Harper and his
unconstitutional despotism in an instant. Canada could
again be a parliamentary democracy where civil rights and
the rule of law mean something. All that has to happen is
for Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Stephen
Harper and appoint a new prime minister, which he is
constitutionally empowered to do.
On Oct. 1, 1947, King George VI vested Canada’s royal
representative with full constitutional authority, among other
things, “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the
exercise of the same, any person exercising any office
within Canada.” It is the governor general, not the public,
that selects the government; the prime minister, who has no
constitutional standing, can be dismissed at any time.
However, Johnston has not yet exercised his
Constitutional powers. He may even be in a conflict of
interest because he was nominated by Harper and
rendered Harper a service in a legal matter.
We demand that David Johnston do his sovereign duty to
defend the integrity of Canada and the welfare of its
citizens by dismissing Stephen Harper as prime minister.
When a government does violence to the country and its
people, the Constitution is our democratic protection.
THE DISMISSAL OF STEPHEN HARPER IS THE
PROPER DEMOCRATIC, CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY.
Let's get serious...those constitutional powers will never get used. I don't like Harper either, but I think the proponent of the petition would have better luck getting a grizzly bear to eat with a fork and knife on the spawning grounds or plan a Stanley Cup parade for the Vancouver Canucks next year. Certainly doesn't help when he demands that the Governor General toss the Harper out then a little further down basically implies that the Governor General is on the take. ("Thud" as the petition hits the bottom of the waste paper basket in the Governor General's office)
Last edited by a moderator:
I wholeheartedly agree with you Shuswap. Just getting a petition accepted is quite a rigmarole. Any little discrepancy can invalidate it. Then the Governor General is under no obligation to act on the petition. Instead - I am looking at it as an indicator of popularity - or not. I can't remember any similar petitions - can you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/30/bill-c60-cbc-harper_n_3187821.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Bill C-60: Tories Quietly Taking Control Of CBC, Group Alleges
The Huffington Post Canada
Posted: 04/30/2013 4:35 pm EDT Updated: 03/03/2014 9:59 am EST TORIES CONTROL CBC
The Harper government is quietly seizing greater control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, while a public advocacy group accuses the Tories of stacking the CBC’s board with political allies.
Bill C-60, the Tories’ budget implementation bill, includes a clause that allows the prime minister’s cabinet to approve salaries, working conditions and collective bargaining positions for the CBC, The Hill Times reports.
The move, buried at the back of the 111-page bill, “appears to contradict a longstanding arm’s-length relationship between the independent CBC and any government in power,” the newspaper said.
The CBC would now be required to get approval from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Treasury Board Committee for any collective bargaining agreement the broadcaster reaches with its employees. The Treasury Board would also have the power to approve or deny pay and benefits for non-unionized employees.
The news comes as public interest group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting issued a statement accusing the Tories of “stacking the [CBC’s] board with Conservative supporters.”
Citing data from Elections Canada, Friends said eight of the board’s 11 current members have donated to the Conservative Party of Canada, which the group saw as a sign the government has taken greater control of the CBC.
The new powers over CBC pay and the heavy presence of Conservative Party donors “will further undermine the CBC’s independence from government,” Friends said.
The group identified only one of the reported donors: Remi Racine, the chair of CBC’s board, who Friends said donated $1,200 to the Conservative Party in 2012 “while sitting on the Board.”
According to the CBC’s website, all current members of the broadcaster's board began serving since the Conservatives took power in 2006.
The budget bill would also extend the same powers over the CBC to three other cultural and scientific agencies: the Canada Council for the Arts, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa.
Liberal MP Scott Brison told The Hill Times he was surprised the government would go this far in compromising the independence of the CBC and the three other institutions.
“These Crown agencies represent public broadcasting, culture and scientific research, three areas where the Conservatives have been antagonistic,” Brison said. “We will thoroughly scrutinize actions by this government towards these agencies.”
The CBC’s public mandate has long been questioned in conservative circles, with many criticizing the network for taking taxpayers’ money while competing with private-sector broadcasters for advertising revenue.
Sun News Network has famously championed the cause, as has its parent company, Quebecor, whose CEO, Pierre-Karl Peladeau, has attacked CBC’s $1 billion in public subsidies in 2011.
The CBC fought back, putting out statements declaring that Quebecor had itself received $500 million in various forms of subsidies from the government in the prior three years. Quebecor demanded the CBC remove the “defamatory” material, but the broadcaster refused.
Most recently, conservative bloggers attacked the CBC over allegations the network was running Liberal Party ads featuring Justin Trudeau while refusing to run Tory attack ads. Some pointed to statements from the CBC that it only airs political ads during elections.
But, as The Huffington Post Canada previously reported, the CBC changed its policy on that in 2009, and now allows political ads during non-election periods.
According to the CBC, the Conservative Party has not approached the network yet to run its current negative ad against Justin Trudeau.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money the CBC said Quebecor had received in government subsidies. The Huffintgon Post regrets the error.
Bill C-60: Tories Quietly Taking Control Of CBC, Group Alleges
The Huffington Post Canada
Posted: 04/30/2013 4:35 pm EDT Updated: 03/03/2014 9:59 am EST TORIES CONTROL CBC
The Harper government is quietly seizing greater control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, while a public advocacy group accuses the Tories of stacking the CBC’s board with political allies.
Bill C-60, the Tories’ budget implementation bill, includes a clause that allows the prime minister’s cabinet to approve salaries, working conditions and collective bargaining positions for the CBC, The Hill Times reports.
The move, buried at the back of the 111-page bill, “appears to contradict a longstanding arm’s-length relationship between the independent CBC and any government in power,” the newspaper said.
The CBC would now be required to get approval from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Treasury Board Committee for any collective bargaining agreement the broadcaster reaches with its employees. The Treasury Board would also have the power to approve or deny pay and benefits for non-unionized employees.
The news comes as public interest group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting issued a statement accusing the Tories of “stacking the [CBC’s] board with Conservative supporters.”
Citing data from Elections Canada, Friends said eight of the board’s 11 current members have donated to the Conservative Party of Canada, which the group saw as a sign the government has taken greater control of the CBC.
The new powers over CBC pay and the heavy presence of Conservative Party donors “will further undermine the CBC’s independence from government,” Friends said.
The group identified only one of the reported donors: Remi Racine, the chair of CBC’s board, who Friends said donated $1,200 to the Conservative Party in 2012 “while sitting on the Board.”
According to the CBC’s website, all current members of the broadcaster's board began serving since the Conservatives took power in 2006.
The budget bill would also extend the same powers over the CBC to three other cultural and scientific agencies: the Canada Council for the Arts, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa.
Liberal MP Scott Brison told The Hill Times he was surprised the government would go this far in compromising the independence of the CBC and the three other institutions.
“These Crown agencies represent public broadcasting, culture and scientific research, three areas where the Conservatives have been antagonistic,” Brison said. “We will thoroughly scrutinize actions by this government towards these agencies.”
The CBC’s public mandate has long been questioned in conservative circles, with many criticizing the network for taking taxpayers’ money while competing with private-sector broadcasters for advertising revenue.
Sun News Network has famously championed the cause, as has its parent company, Quebecor, whose CEO, Pierre-Karl Peladeau, has attacked CBC’s $1 billion in public subsidies in 2011.
The CBC fought back, putting out statements declaring that Quebecor had itself received $500 million in various forms of subsidies from the government in the prior three years. Quebecor demanded the CBC remove the “defamatory” material, but the broadcaster refused.
Most recently, conservative bloggers attacked the CBC over allegations the network was running Liberal Party ads featuring Justin Trudeau while refusing to run Tory attack ads. Some pointed to statements from the CBC that it only airs political ads during elections.
But, as The Huffington Post Canada previously reported, the CBC changed its policy on that in 2009, and now allows political ads during non-election periods.
According to the CBC, the Conservative Party has not approached the network yet to run its current negative ad against Justin Trudeau.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money the CBC said Quebecor had received in government subsidies. The Huffintgon Post regrets the error.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry I didn't mean you were leading the petition or didn't think of the issues with it. I was just talking out loud as if I was sitting across from you at the pub. I am not familiar with any petition effort like this before. Sadly to say but I'm pessimistic about a new PM to replace the one we have now.
No worries Shuswap. I didn't take it that way.
You do bring up an interesting question, though. Hopefully someone less....sociopathic?
tincan
Well-Known Member
listen to the 20-minute interview of Michael Harris and CBC's Anna Maria Tremonte at the link below.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episod...stephen-harper-is-profoundly-anti-democratic/
Stephen Harper may have said the public doesn't care about the maneouvres of parliament and the wording of motions but the author of a new book tracking his time in the PMO argues it's Stephen Harper who doesn't care. In "Party of One", Michael Harris documents changes brought by the Harper government and pronounces the PM undemocratic.
"We are intensely aware that we are and must be government of all Canadians including those that did not vote for us. And friends hear me on this, all the lessons of the past few years of holding to our principles, and listening, of caring, of adapting those lessons that come with a minority government we must continue as a majority government."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper after winning a majority government in May, 2011
Governing has not always been easy for the Conservatives. Some believe instead of representing all Canadians, the prime minister has been a secretive and destructive force.
Michael Harris is a writer, investigative journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of eight books. His latest is more than 500 pages and it takes direct aim at the Prime Minister. The book is called Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada's Radical Makeover.
We did ask the Prime Minister's Office if they wished to respond. It did not provide us with an interview or statement.
Gerry Nicholls knew Stephen Harper very well. He was the Vice President of the National Citizens Coalition during the time Stephen Harper was its president. Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episod...stephen-harper-is-profoundly-anti-democratic/
Stephen Harper may have said the public doesn't care about the maneouvres of parliament and the wording of motions but the author of a new book tracking his time in the PMO argues it's Stephen Harper who doesn't care. In "Party of One", Michael Harris documents changes brought by the Harper government and pronounces the PM undemocratic.
"We are intensely aware that we are and must be government of all Canadians including those that did not vote for us. And friends hear me on this, all the lessons of the past few years of holding to our principles, and listening, of caring, of adapting those lessons that come with a minority government we must continue as a majority government."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper after winning a majority government in May, 2011
Governing has not always been easy for the Conservatives. Some believe instead of representing all Canadians, the prime minister has been a secretive and destructive force.
Michael Harris is a writer, investigative journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of eight books. His latest is more than 500 pages and it takes direct aim at the Prime Minister. The book is called Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada's Radical Makeover.
We did ask the Prime Minister's Office if they wished to respond. It did not provide us with an interview or statement.
Gerry Nicholls knew Stephen Harper very well. He was the Vice President of the National Citizens Coalition during the time Stephen Harper was its president. Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/27/harpers-shameless-move-to-steal-away-more-freedoms/
Harper’s ‘shameless’ move to steal away more freedoms
By Michael Harris | Oct 27, 2014 4:00 am
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gen. Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, take part in a ceremony to return ceremonial guards to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the National War Memorial in Ottawa on Friday, Oct. 24, 2014. The sentries returned to their posts two days after Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, 24, a reservist from Hamilton, Ont., was killed by a gunman while guarding the tomb. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang
Sometimes happenstance produces rare moments.
And so it was on Saturday night in the nation’s capital.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald was in the auditorium of an downtown high school to talk about his remarkable partnership with American whistleblower Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who showed the world how things really work in our spy-democracies.
Their story, involving the theft and public release of damning information about what the United States and its allies are actually up to in the world of surveillance, is the cyberworld’s version of Watergate.
It so happened that Greenwald’s visit to Canada last week, which had been planned for months, coincided with the tragic shooting of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and the suicidal storming of parliament by his armed killer, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.
The country (and many in Greenwald’s audience) were deep in the emotional rituals that accompany such events. Would anyone be in the mood to better understand “terrorism” with fresh, innocent blood on the granite steps of the War Memorial — particularly when another soldier, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, had been killed in a targeted hit-and-run just two days earlier?
Would the “too-soon-to-talk-about-it” tactics of his vocal critics blight his speech, or even deter him from making it? No. It did neither.
In a way, as Greenwald explained, it was the proper moment to tell his and Snowden’s story. It was an example of the adage: It is always necessary to tell the truth in a democracy, but MOST necessary when it is MOST uncomfortable to do so.
Greenwald noted that the Harper government moved with “shameless” and “naked” speed to use the tragedies to announce a grab by his government for more surveillance and arrest powers that further undermine the core principles of justice in this country. This was accomplished by immediately and without proof connecting the events, including the shooting of Cpl. Cirillo, with terrorism.
As events would show, there was no evidence of a connection to ISIL or Syria, and more to suggest that the murder was the act of a deeply disturbed man. The shooter was not a jihadist so much as someone who thought the devil was after him and who was unhinged — not exactly a solid basis for new, draconian legislation.
Some profoundly troubling things were on the table.
If there was no connection to ISIL, did the government really need to give the authorities more powers of arrest? Did the government, which had already given CSIS more tools to fight terrorism in 2012, including the power of preventive arrest, really need to add even more extraordinary power to this already extraordinarily powerful agency? How do you lower the threshold for preventive arrest, which already lowers the threshold of basic civil rights protection? How much lowering is enough?
After all, with the huge resources the Harper government has spent on national security since 2006, including an obscenely expensive billion-dollar new home for CSEC, this crude attack was not stopped. As the Manchester Guardian noted, this was a spectacular failure of Canadian intelligence, despite all the additional powers that community has been given by Stephen Harper.
But the emotional waters had been whipped up to a frothing cauldron by the media. On the day of Cpl. Cirillo’s murder, there were a barrage of unconfirmed reports of multiple shooters and multiple shooting scenes in Ottawa. The effect was to foster public hysteria. The coverage of the event reached an irresponsible crescendo when it was mentioned on the CBC that this could be Canada’s 9/11. It was then gravely reported by the network that everything had now “changed.” The script could have been written by the Harper PMO.
It was reported by the RCMP that Zehaf-Bibeau wanted to go to Syria — surely a highly suggestive link to Islamist militants. But it was false. As his mother had told the RCMP in a taped interview, her son had wanted to go not to Syria but to Saudi Arabia — one of Canada’s coalition partners in the Iraq/ISIL bombing campaign.
It was also first reported that Bibeau was on the government’s terror watch list and had had his passport seized. In fact, Bibeau was not on any watch list and had applied for a renewal of both his Canadian and Libyan passports. He gave up the latter request when questioned by embassy officials, but the RCMP confirmed the Canadian passport application was still going through the usual process.
Greenwald reminded his listeners that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the dominant reaction of Americans was not anger, hatred or vengefulness; it was profound puzzlement over why anyone would want to perpetrate such monstrous violence on their country.”
There was no evidence connecting Bibeau and Martin Couture-Rouleau, the man who killed Warrant Officer Vincent earlier in the week. Yet the Harper government instantly linked the two tragedies. The Prime Minister reflexively politicized the storming of Parliament, describing it as a terrorist attack on all Canadians that was evidence he needed to deliver new powers for CSIS and a strengthened resolve to rout ISIL in Iraq. All of it was based on the shakiest of information.
Initial reports claimed that a picture of Zehaf-Bibeau holding his rifle was taken from an ISIL-related Twitter account. The public and the media immediately assumed that it was some kind of propaganda by the Islamic State to take credit for the Ottawa attack. Authorities later reported that the photo was taken from a tourism site in France.
Foreign minister John Baird admitted to the BBC that there was no Islamic State connection to the tragic murder of Cpl. Cirillo after all.
Into this maelstrom of overhyped coverage that was in part used to support the government’s self-interested overreaction, Greenwald interjected what some saw as a highly controversial element: reason.
In the wake of the hit-and-run attack in Quebec, Greenwald was struck by stories in the Canadian media that Canadians were surprised and shocked that such violence allegedly connected to terrorism could come to a peaceful country like Canada.
In an article published before the Ottawa murder, Greenwald wrote a piece reminding Canadians of an inconvenient truth: Whatever anyone might make of the attack in Quebec, assuming it was terrorist-related, no one should be surprised. Canada had been making war in Muslim countries for 13 years.
Although Canadians knew many of the personal details of Cpl. Cirillo’s young life that tragically cut short, they have no idea of the identities of the hundreds, likely thousands of innocent Muslim civilians who have died in military operations inside their countries by an alliance of which Canada is a key member. Greenwald said Canada itself might be a peaceful country but it did not have a peaceful foreign policy.
Greenwald drew the conclusion. When you visit death and destruction in Muslim countries on a daily basis for over a decade, the inevitable consequence is that “blowback” eventually comes.
When it does, Western government’s have to explain why to their citizens. Greenwald reminded his listeners that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the dominant reaction of Americans was not anger, hatred or vengefulness; it was profound puzzlement over why anyone would want to perpetrate such monstrous violence on their country.
The official answer was irrational, dishonest, and very politically useful. The root cause of 9/11 was that the Muslim world hated America’s freedoms. There was never a mention that it was possibly tied to U.S. militarism around the world (Nobel Peace Prize-winning President Barack Obama has ordered bombs dropped on no fewer than eight Muslim countries during his presidency), except to portray these missions as charitable exercises in nation-building.
The bare truth, Greenwald argued, is that the Muslim world doesn’t hate America’s freedoms, it hates America’s policies towards them.
He talked about a study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld in 2004, that concluded that the root cause of terrorism was U.S. military intervention in other countries. Whether it was boots on the ground in their holy places, a medical embargo that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, the toppling of elected governments, or the carte blanche extended to Israel in the region, there was a long and bloody list of grievances in the Muslim world that western governments, including Canada’s, didn’t want to acknowledge.
In Greenwald’s view, citizens in our surveillance states have not been informed as much as manipulated.
In 2006, the Harper government decided not to lower the flags on Parliament Hill in honour of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and to impose a media ban on showing the return of the flag-draped caskets of Canadian military personnel. It was not helpful, apparently, to the popularity of the war.
This week, though, the flags were lowered and there were cameras aplenty at Cpl. Cirillo’s funeral procession, recording many poignant images, including of his flag-draped casket.
The political requirements have apparently changed.
Harper’s ‘shameless’ move to steal away more freedoms
By Michael Harris | Oct 27, 2014 4:00 am
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gen. Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, take part in a ceremony to return ceremonial guards to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the National War Memorial in Ottawa on Friday, Oct. 24, 2014. The sentries returned to their posts two days after Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, 24, a reservist from Hamilton, Ont., was killed by a gunman while guarding the tomb. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang
Sometimes happenstance produces rare moments.
And so it was on Saturday night in the nation’s capital.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald was in the auditorium of an downtown high school to talk about his remarkable partnership with American whistleblower Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who showed the world how things really work in our spy-democracies.
Their story, involving the theft and public release of damning information about what the United States and its allies are actually up to in the world of surveillance, is the cyberworld’s version of Watergate.
It so happened that Greenwald’s visit to Canada last week, which had been planned for months, coincided with the tragic shooting of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and the suicidal storming of parliament by his armed killer, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.
The country (and many in Greenwald’s audience) were deep in the emotional rituals that accompany such events. Would anyone be in the mood to better understand “terrorism” with fresh, innocent blood on the granite steps of the War Memorial — particularly when another soldier, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, had been killed in a targeted hit-and-run just two days earlier?
Would the “too-soon-to-talk-about-it” tactics of his vocal critics blight his speech, or even deter him from making it? No. It did neither.
In a way, as Greenwald explained, it was the proper moment to tell his and Snowden’s story. It was an example of the adage: It is always necessary to tell the truth in a democracy, but MOST necessary when it is MOST uncomfortable to do so.
Greenwald noted that the Harper government moved with “shameless” and “naked” speed to use the tragedies to announce a grab by his government for more surveillance and arrest powers that further undermine the core principles of justice in this country. This was accomplished by immediately and without proof connecting the events, including the shooting of Cpl. Cirillo, with terrorism.
As events would show, there was no evidence of a connection to ISIL or Syria, and more to suggest that the murder was the act of a deeply disturbed man. The shooter was not a jihadist so much as someone who thought the devil was after him and who was unhinged — not exactly a solid basis for new, draconian legislation.
Some profoundly troubling things were on the table.
If there was no connection to ISIL, did the government really need to give the authorities more powers of arrest? Did the government, which had already given CSIS more tools to fight terrorism in 2012, including the power of preventive arrest, really need to add even more extraordinary power to this already extraordinarily powerful agency? How do you lower the threshold for preventive arrest, which already lowers the threshold of basic civil rights protection? How much lowering is enough?
After all, with the huge resources the Harper government has spent on national security since 2006, including an obscenely expensive billion-dollar new home for CSEC, this crude attack was not stopped. As the Manchester Guardian noted, this was a spectacular failure of Canadian intelligence, despite all the additional powers that community has been given by Stephen Harper.
But the emotional waters had been whipped up to a frothing cauldron by the media. On the day of Cpl. Cirillo’s murder, there were a barrage of unconfirmed reports of multiple shooters and multiple shooting scenes in Ottawa. The effect was to foster public hysteria. The coverage of the event reached an irresponsible crescendo when it was mentioned on the CBC that this could be Canada’s 9/11. It was then gravely reported by the network that everything had now “changed.” The script could have been written by the Harper PMO.
It was reported by the RCMP that Zehaf-Bibeau wanted to go to Syria — surely a highly suggestive link to Islamist militants. But it was false. As his mother had told the RCMP in a taped interview, her son had wanted to go not to Syria but to Saudi Arabia — one of Canada’s coalition partners in the Iraq/ISIL bombing campaign.
It was also first reported that Bibeau was on the government’s terror watch list and had had his passport seized. In fact, Bibeau was not on any watch list and had applied for a renewal of both his Canadian and Libyan passports. He gave up the latter request when questioned by embassy officials, but the RCMP confirmed the Canadian passport application was still going through the usual process.
Greenwald reminded his listeners that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the dominant reaction of Americans was not anger, hatred or vengefulness; it was profound puzzlement over why anyone would want to perpetrate such monstrous violence on their country.”
There was no evidence connecting Bibeau and Martin Couture-Rouleau, the man who killed Warrant Officer Vincent earlier in the week. Yet the Harper government instantly linked the two tragedies. The Prime Minister reflexively politicized the storming of Parliament, describing it as a terrorist attack on all Canadians that was evidence he needed to deliver new powers for CSIS and a strengthened resolve to rout ISIL in Iraq. All of it was based on the shakiest of information.
Initial reports claimed that a picture of Zehaf-Bibeau holding his rifle was taken from an ISIL-related Twitter account. The public and the media immediately assumed that it was some kind of propaganda by the Islamic State to take credit for the Ottawa attack. Authorities later reported that the photo was taken from a tourism site in France.
Foreign minister John Baird admitted to the BBC that there was no Islamic State connection to the tragic murder of Cpl. Cirillo after all.
Into this maelstrom of overhyped coverage that was in part used to support the government’s self-interested overreaction, Greenwald interjected what some saw as a highly controversial element: reason.
In the wake of the hit-and-run attack in Quebec, Greenwald was struck by stories in the Canadian media that Canadians were surprised and shocked that such violence allegedly connected to terrorism could come to a peaceful country like Canada.
In an article published before the Ottawa murder, Greenwald wrote a piece reminding Canadians of an inconvenient truth: Whatever anyone might make of the attack in Quebec, assuming it was terrorist-related, no one should be surprised. Canada had been making war in Muslim countries for 13 years.
Although Canadians knew many of the personal details of Cpl. Cirillo’s young life that tragically cut short, they have no idea of the identities of the hundreds, likely thousands of innocent Muslim civilians who have died in military operations inside their countries by an alliance of which Canada is a key member. Greenwald said Canada itself might be a peaceful country but it did not have a peaceful foreign policy.
Greenwald drew the conclusion. When you visit death and destruction in Muslim countries on a daily basis for over a decade, the inevitable consequence is that “blowback” eventually comes.
When it does, Western government’s have to explain why to their citizens. Greenwald reminded his listeners that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the dominant reaction of Americans was not anger, hatred or vengefulness; it was profound puzzlement over why anyone would want to perpetrate such monstrous violence on their country.
The official answer was irrational, dishonest, and very politically useful. The root cause of 9/11 was that the Muslim world hated America’s freedoms. There was never a mention that it was possibly tied to U.S. militarism around the world (Nobel Peace Prize-winning President Barack Obama has ordered bombs dropped on no fewer than eight Muslim countries during his presidency), except to portray these missions as charitable exercises in nation-building.
The bare truth, Greenwald argued, is that the Muslim world doesn’t hate America’s freedoms, it hates America’s policies towards them.
He talked about a study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld in 2004, that concluded that the root cause of terrorism was U.S. military intervention in other countries. Whether it was boots on the ground in their holy places, a medical embargo that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, the toppling of elected governments, or the carte blanche extended to Israel in the region, there was a long and bloody list of grievances in the Muslim world that western governments, including Canada’s, didn’t want to acknowledge.
In Greenwald’s view, citizens in our surveillance states have not been informed as much as manipulated.
In 2006, the Harper government decided not to lower the flags on Parliament Hill in honour of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and to impose a media ban on showing the return of the flag-draped caskets of Canadian military personnel. It was not helpful, apparently, to the popularity of the war.
This week, though, the flags were lowered and there were cameras aplenty at Cpl. Cirillo’s funeral procession, recording many poignant images, including of his flag-draped casket.
The political requirements have apparently changed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/30/bill-c60-cbc-harper_n_3187821.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Bill C-60: Tories Quietly Taking Control Of CBC, Group Alleges
The Huffington Post Canada
Posted: 04/30/2013 4:35 pm EDT Updated: 03/03/2014 9:59 am EST TORIES CONTROL CBC
The Harper government is quietly seizing greater control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, while a public advocacy group accuses the Tories of stacking the CBC’s board with political allies.
Bill C-60, the Tories’ budget implementation bill, includes a clause that allows the prime minister’s cabinet to approve salaries, working conditions and collective bargaining positions for the CBC, The Hill Times reports.
The move, buried at the back of the 111-page bill, “appears to contradict a longstanding arm’s-length relationship between the independent CBC and any government in power,” the newspaper said.
The CBC would now be required to get approval from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Treasury Board Committee for any collective bargaining agreement the broadcaster reaches with its employees. The Treasury Board would also have the power to approve or deny pay and benefits for non-unionized employees.
The news comes as public interest group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting issued a statement accusing the Tories of “stacking the [CBC’s] board with Conservative supporters.”
Citing data from Elections Canada, Friends said eight of the board’s 11 current members have donated to the Conservative Party of Canada, which the group saw as a sign the government has taken greater control of the CBC.
The new powers over CBC pay and the heavy presence of Conservative Party donors “will further undermine the CBC’s independence from government,” Friends said.
The group identified only one of the reported donors: Remi Racine, the chair of CBC’s board, who Friends said donated $1,200 to the Conservative Party in 2012 “while sitting on the Board.”
According to the CBC’s website, all current members of the broadcaster's board began serving since the Conservatives took power in 2006.
The budget bill would also extend the same powers over the CBC to three other cultural and scientific agencies: the Canada Council for the Arts, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa.
Liberal MP Scott Brison told The Hill Times he was surprised the government would go this far in compromising the independence of the CBC and the three other institutions.
“These Crown agencies represent public broadcasting, culture and scientific research, three areas where the Conservatives have been antagonistic,” Brison said. “We will thoroughly scrutinize actions by this government towards these agencies.”
The CBC’s public mandate has long been questioned in conservative circles, with many criticizing the network for taking taxpayers’ money while competing with private-sector broadcasters for advertising revenue.
Sun News Network has famously championed the cause, as has its parent company, Quebecor, whose CEO, Pierre-Karl Peladeau, has attacked CBC’s $1 billion in public subsidies in 2011.
The CBC fought back, putting out statements declaring that Quebecor had itself received $500 million in various forms of subsidies from the government in the prior three years. Quebecor demanded the CBC remove the “defamatory” material, but the broadcaster refused.
Most recently, conservative bloggers attacked the CBC over allegations the network was running Liberal Party ads featuring Justin Trudeau while refusing to run Tory attack ads. Some pointed to statements from the CBC that it only airs political ads during elections.
But, as The Huffington Post Canada previously reported, the CBC changed its policy on that in 2009, and now allows political ads during non-election periods.
According to the CBC, the Conservative Party has not approached the network yet to run its current negative ad against Justin Trudeau.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money the CBC said Quebecor had received in government subsidies. The Huffintgon Post regrets the error.
Bill C-60: Tories Quietly Taking Control Of CBC, Group Alleges
The Huffington Post Canada
Posted: 04/30/2013 4:35 pm EDT Updated: 03/03/2014 9:59 am EST TORIES CONTROL CBC
The Harper government is quietly seizing greater control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, while a public advocacy group accuses the Tories of stacking the CBC’s board with political allies.
Bill C-60, the Tories’ budget implementation bill, includes a clause that allows the prime minister’s cabinet to approve salaries, working conditions and collective bargaining positions for the CBC, The Hill Times reports.
The move, buried at the back of the 111-page bill, “appears to contradict a longstanding arm’s-length relationship between the independent CBC and any government in power,” the newspaper said.
The CBC would now be required to get approval from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Treasury Board Committee for any collective bargaining agreement the broadcaster reaches with its employees. The Treasury Board would also have the power to approve or deny pay and benefits for non-unionized employees.
The news comes as public interest group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting issued a statement accusing the Tories of “stacking the [CBC’s] board with Conservative supporters.”
Citing data from Elections Canada, Friends said eight of the board’s 11 current members have donated to the Conservative Party of Canada, which the group saw as a sign the government has taken greater control of the CBC.
The new powers over CBC pay and the heavy presence of Conservative Party donors “will further undermine the CBC’s independence from government,” Friends said.
The group identified only one of the reported donors: Remi Racine, the chair of CBC’s board, who Friends said donated $1,200 to the Conservative Party in 2012 “while sitting on the Board.”
According to the CBC’s website, all current members of the broadcaster's board began serving since the Conservatives took power in 2006.
The budget bill would also extend the same powers over the CBC to three other cultural and scientific agencies: the Canada Council for the Arts, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa.
Liberal MP Scott Brison told The Hill Times he was surprised the government would go this far in compromising the independence of the CBC and the three other institutions.
“These Crown agencies represent public broadcasting, culture and scientific research, three areas where the Conservatives have been antagonistic,” Brison said. “We will thoroughly scrutinize actions by this government towards these agencies.”
The CBC’s public mandate has long been questioned in conservative circles, with many criticizing the network for taking taxpayers’ money while competing with private-sector broadcasters for advertising revenue.
Sun News Network has famously championed the cause, as has its parent company, Quebecor, whose CEO, Pierre-Karl Peladeau, has attacked CBC’s $1 billion in public subsidies in 2011.
The CBC fought back, putting out statements declaring that Quebecor had itself received $500 million in various forms of subsidies from the government in the prior three years. Quebecor demanded the CBC remove the “defamatory” material, but the broadcaster refused.
Most recently, conservative bloggers attacked the CBC over allegations the network was running Liberal Party ads featuring Justin Trudeau while refusing to run Tory attack ads. Some pointed to statements from the CBC that it only airs political ads during elections.
But, as The Huffington Post Canada previously reported, the CBC changed its policy on that in 2009, and now allows political ads during non-election periods.
According to the CBC, the Conservative Party has not approached the network yet to run its current negative ad against Justin Trudeau.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money the CBC said Quebecor had received in government subsidies. The Huffintgon Post regrets the error.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/bre...ial-movement-groups-increases-under-harper-go
Surveillance of social movement groups increases under Harper government
BY BRENT PATTERSON | OCTOBER 29, 2014
Print
Write to editor
Support rabble
Corrections
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services
33
Photo: Iouri Goussev/flickr
The Council of Canadians is concerned by the increasing pattern of surveillance under the Harper government of social movement groups, including our own organization.
In June, we denounced the Harper government's order to federal departments to monitor all political demonstrations across the country. The Government Operations Centre is "compiling a list of all known demonstrations" that has included protests against fracking, a healing dance, a prayer ceremony and a fundraiser. More on this at Government Operations Centre to monitor all protests.
In November 2013, we expressed dismay that the National Energy Board's "security team" had coordinated intelligence gathering with the CSIS and the RCMP on opponents of the Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline. Those opponents included the Council of Canadians, Idle No More, the Sierra Club and the Dogwood Initiative. Furthermore, these agencies developed security plans with Enbridge and TransCanada for four public hearings on the pipeline in British Columbia. More at The NEB coordinated intelligence gathering on advocacy groups, including us.
In December 2011, we joined with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (now Unifor) to criticize an RCMP unit established in 2007 to monitor protests by First Nations that they believed could pose a threat to "critical infrastructure" like pipelines and railways. Even worse, that unit reportedly did (does) weekly briefings to "industry partners" in the energy and private sector. More at More RCMP spying and reporting to corporations.
In June 2011, we highlighted that G8/G20 documents revealed the RCMP and various Ontario police forces had spent months infiltrating anti-globalization groups with undercover officers prior to the June 2010 summits in Huntsville and Toronto. The Council of Canadians participated in the march in Toronto -- that was reportedly monitored by the Joint Intelligence Group formed by the RCMP-led ISU (Integrated Security Unit) -- and a canoe action against the G8 summit in Huntsville. More at Anti-G8/G20 groups were under police surveillance.
And also that June, we expressed concern that the Harper government had given the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs direction to increase surveillance of First Nations -- many of whom we work with -- just after the 2006 election, particularly of protests over land claims. More on that at Council condemns surveillance of First Nations.
Rather than this criminalization of social justice activism, we implore the Harper government to hear the concerns being expressed by numerous groups and individuals at protests including the need to protect water from fracking, the need to respect Indigenous rights, and to understand the threats posed by the reckless pursuit of oil and gas extraction. We are particularly concerned about the coordination and reporting by government agencies to energy companies.
Surveillance of social movement groups increases under Harper government
BY BRENT PATTERSON | OCTOBER 29, 2014
Write to editor
Support rabble
Corrections
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services
33
Photo: Iouri Goussev/flickr
The Council of Canadians is concerned by the increasing pattern of surveillance under the Harper government of social movement groups, including our own organization.
In June, we denounced the Harper government's order to federal departments to monitor all political demonstrations across the country. The Government Operations Centre is "compiling a list of all known demonstrations" that has included protests against fracking, a healing dance, a prayer ceremony and a fundraiser. More on this at Government Operations Centre to monitor all protests.
In November 2013, we expressed dismay that the National Energy Board's "security team" had coordinated intelligence gathering with the CSIS and the RCMP on opponents of the Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline. Those opponents included the Council of Canadians, Idle No More, the Sierra Club and the Dogwood Initiative. Furthermore, these agencies developed security plans with Enbridge and TransCanada for four public hearings on the pipeline in British Columbia. More at The NEB coordinated intelligence gathering on advocacy groups, including us.
In December 2011, we joined with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (now Unifor) to criticize an RCMP unit established in 2007 to monitor protests by First Nations that they believed could pose a threat to "critical infrastructure" like pipelines and railways. Even worse, that unit reportedly did (does) weekly briefings to "industry partners" in the energy and private sector. More at More RCMP spying and reporting to corporations.
In June 2011, we highlighted that G8/G20 documents revealed the RCMP and various Ontario police forces had spent months infiltrating anti-globalization groups with undercover officers prior to the June 2010 summits in Huntsville and Toronto. The Council of Canadians participated in the march in Toronto -- that was reportedly monitored by the Joint Intelligence Group formed by the RCMP-led ISU (Integrated Security Unit) -- and a canoe action against the G8 summit in Huntsville. More at Anti-G8/G20 groups were under police surveillance.
And also that June, we expressed concern that the Harper government had given the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs direction to increase surveillance of First Nations -- many of whom we work with -- just after the 2006 election, particularly of protests over land claims. More on that at Council condemns surveillance of First Nations.
Rather than this criminalization of social justice activism, we implore the Harper government to hear the concerns being expressed by numerous groups and individuals at protests including the need to protect water from fracking, the need to respect Indigenous rights, and to understand the threats posed by the reckless pursuit of oil and gas extraction. We are particularly concerned about the coordination and reporting by government agencies to energy companies.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csec-oversight-bill-garners-support-from-gun-owner-s-group-1.2818556
CSEC oversight bill garners support from gun owner's group
Liberal MP Joyce Murray's bid to increase transparency, parliamentary input hits House floor tonight
By Kady O'Malley, CBC News Posted: Oct 30, 2014 4:20 PM ET Last Updated: Oct 30, 2014 8:04 PM ET
A Liberal MP wants to lift the curtain on the inner workings of Canada's electronic spy service. (CBC)
The National Firearms Association — not a group that often finds itself aligned with the Liberal Party — went public with its endorsement of Liberal MP Joyce Murray's private members' bill earlier this week.
"We are very concerned about the lack of oversight of our intelligence gathering agencies’ activities and the potential for abuse of metadata collection," noted NFA president Sheldon Clare in a written statement posted to the association website.
NFA Supports Liberal MP’s Bill | NFA, National Firearms Association
"Firearm owners are already very familiar with how this sort of data collection can be abused to target individuals and groups of individuals for dubious purposes."
Murray's bill represents "a reasonable attempt to return the oversight of intelligence gathering activities to the elected representatives of the people," Clare added.
"We believe that this is the best way to go."
Bill to be debated on Thursday
On Thursday night, Murray will get her first opportunity to convince her Commons colleagues to back her proposal. Murray initially brought the bill forward last February following reports that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) had surreptitiously monitored internet traffic on publicly available WiFi services at Canadian airports.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden's impact on Canada
CSEC exoneration a 'mockery of public accountability'
One provision in Murray's bill may get additional focus in the wake of Public Safety Minister Steve Blaney's proposed police anti-terror power boost: namely, the creation of a new parliamentary committee to keep tabs on national security issues, including legislation, policy and agency operations.
CSIS powers beefed up under new bill tabled by Steven Blaney
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says new security laws must respect rights
Under Blaney's bill, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) would be given a freer hand to monitor and track suspected terrorists, as well as share information with its counterparts within the so-called "Five Eyes" countries: Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
That, in turn, has renewed calls to beef up the existing oversight mechanisms — which is precisely what Murray's bill would do.
ISIS threat could mute objections to expanded anti-terror laws, critics fear
New police power laws need 'evidence-based' approach, say watchdogs
Murray may also find her arguments for making CSEC share more details of its surveillance operations bolstered by the latest report from Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien. The report includes a legal and technical overview detailing potential concerns over the quantity of personal information that can be revealed through metadata.
"Government institutions that collect or are considering collecting such information should not underestimate what metadata can reveal about an individual," the report notes.
RCMP telecom subscriber data requests poorly tracked, says privacy czar
Metadata and Privacy - A Technical and Legal Overview - October 2014
"The same goes for private-sector organizations that are requested to disclose such data to government institutions, including law enforcement agencies."
As such, it concludes: "Given the ubiquitous nature of metadata and the powerful inferences that can be drawn about specific individuals, government institutions and private-sector organizations will have to govern their collection and disclosure activities according to appropriate processes and standards that are commensurate with the potential level of sensitivity of metadata in any given set of circumstances."
Bill could be blocked from final passage
Even if she's able to win a few converts on the Conservative side of the House, however, Murray may still need the official endorsement of the government — and, specifically, a ministerial co-sponsor — to see her bill passed at third reading.
Earlier this month, House of Commons Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton warned Murray that her bill could ultimately be blocked from a final House vote due to concerns that it might cost money to put it into effect.
Under House rules, a private members' bill can only impose an expenditure on the federal treasury if it has a Royal Recommendation, or ministerial endorsement, which doesn't appear to be forthcoming.
"There is robust oversight of national security agencies in Canada," Public Safety spokesman Jason Tamming told CBC News last week.
"We don't need to strike any new committees to create duplicative oversight."
Debate on the bill begins tonight, and will continue for a second hour later this fall, after which it will be put to a vote.
CSEC oversight bill garners support from gun owner's group
Liberal MP Joyce Murray's bid to increase transparency, parliamentary input hits House floor tonight
By Kady O'Malley, CBC News Posted: Oct 30, 2014 4:20 PM ET Last Updated: Oct 30, 2014 8:04 PM ET
A Liberal MP wants to lift the curtain on the inner workings of Canada's electronic spy service. (CBC)
The National Firearms Association — not a group that often finds itself aligned with the Liberal Party — went public with its endorsement of Liberal MP Joyce Murray's private members' bill earlier this week.
"We are very concerned about the lack of oversight of our intelligence gathering agencies’ activities and the potential for abuse of metadata collection," noted NFA president Sheldon Clare in a written statement posted to the association website.
NFA Supports Liberal MP’s Bill | NFA, National Firearms Association
"Firearm owners are already very familiar with how this sort of data collection can be abused to target individuals and groups of individuals for dubious purposes."
Murray's bill represents "a reasonable attempt to return the oversight of intelligence gathering activities to the elected representatives of the people," Clare added.
"We believe that this is the best way to go."
Bill to be debated on Thursday
On Thursday night, Murray will get her first opportunity to convince her Commons colleagues to back her proposal. Murray initially brought the bill forward last February following reports that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) had surreptitiously monitored internet traffic on publicly available WiFi services at Canadian airports.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden's impact on Canada
CSEC exoneration a 'mockery of public accountability'
One provision in Murray's bill may get additional focus in the wake of Public Safety Minister Steve Blaney's proposed police anti-terror power boost: namely, the creation of a new parliamentary committee to keep tabs on national security issues, including legislation, policy and agency operations.
CSIS powers beefed up under new bill tabled by Steven Blaney
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says new security laws must respect rights
Under Blaney's bill, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) would be given a freer hand to monitor and track suspected terrorists, as well as share information with its counterparts within the so-called "Five Eyes" countries: Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
That, in turn, has renewed calls to beef up the existing oversight mechanisms — which is precisely what Murray's bill would do.
ISIS threat could mute objections to expanded anti-terror laws, critics fear
New police power laws need 'evidence-based' approach, say watchdogs
Murray may also find her arguments for making CSEC share more details of its surveillance operations bolstered by the latest report from Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien. The report includes a legal and technical overview detailing potential concerns over the quantity of personal information that can be revealed through metadata.
"Government institutions that collect or are considering collecting such information should not underestimate what metadata can reveal about an individual," the report notes.
RCMP telecom subscriber data requests poorly tracked, says privacy czar
Metadata and Privacy - A Technical and Legal Overview - October 2014
"The same goes for private-sector organizations that are requested to disclose such data to government institutions, including law enforcement agencies."
As such, it concludes: "Given the ubiquitous nature of metadata and the powerful inferences that can be drawn about specific individuals, government institutions and private-sector organizations will have to govern their collection and disclosure activities according to appropriate processes and standards that are commensurate with the potential level of sensitivity of metadata in any given set of circumstances."
Bill could be blocked from final passage
Even if she's able to win a few converts on the Conservative side of the House, however, Murray may still need the official endorsement of the government — and, specifically, a ministerial co-sponsor — to see her bill passed at third reading.
Earlier this month, House of Commons Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton warned Murray that her bill could ultimately be blocked from a final House vote due to concerns that it might cost money to put it into effect.
Under House rules, a private members' bill can only impose an expenditure on the federal treasury if it has a Royal Recommendation, or ministerial endorsement, which doesn't appear to be forthcoming.
"There is robust oversight of national security agencies in Canada," Public Safety spokesman Jason Tamming told CBC News last week.
"We don't need to strike any new committees to create duplicative oversight."
Debate on the bill begins tonight, and will continue for a second hour later this fall, after which it will be put to a vote.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...rivacy_watchdogs_warn_federal_government.html
Police and security agencies have enough powers to combat terrorism: Therrien
Canada’s privacy watchdog, a former government national security lawyer, says Ottawa must make the case for any expansion of police powers.
Share on Facebook
Reddit this!
The public safety minister says Canadians seeking to join ISIL or other terrorist groups will face the 'full force of the law.' Steven Blaney says the government will bring forward new measures to watch suspected terrorists.
By: Alex Boutilier Staff Reporter, Published on Wed Oct 29 2014
OTTAWA—Canada’s privacy watchdog believes police and national security agencies have sufficient powers to deal with the threat of domestic and international terrorism.
Daniel Therrien, the federal Privacy Commissioner, told reporters Wednesday that he believes that, with recently proposed amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s mandate, police and national security agencies have a wide array of tools to tackle terrorist threats.
Therrien, who previously oversaw the public safety and national defence files at the Department of Justice, said police have been given a number of tools over the years since Sept. 11, 2001.
“I think already many tools were provided to the police, including preventative arrests,” Therrien said.
“I think when you look at the 2001 (anti-terrorism legislation) and the amendments made by C-44 (to expand CSIS powers), I think police and national security agencies have a wide range of tools to address these important problems.”
Before last week’s deadly attack on Parliament Hill, the Conservative government had already planned on expanding CSIS’s powers. Bill C-44, tabled Monday, would give the security agency explicit permission to conduct operations abroad, as well as give blanket anonymity to CSIS informants.
Federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien opposes giving security agenices any more power, as "I think already many tools were provided to the police, including preventative arrests."
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH / TORONTO STAR Order this photo
Federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien opposes giving security agenices any more power, as "I think already many tools were provided to the police, including preventative arrests."
The government has suggested that more measures to bolster national security agencies could be coming in the near future.
But Therrien, who was joined by his provincial and territorial counterparts in Ottawa on Wednesday, said the government must make the case for any expansion of authorities’ powers. The privacy watchdogs issued a joint statement, calling on the government to “adopt an evidence-based approach” to the need for new anti-terror laws.
Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault pointed to an “information asymmetry” when it comes to national security measures — the government has all the relevant information, and Canadians are asked to approve of new measures without that information.
“When we are faced with making decisions about what are the appropriate measures that we need to put in place to ensure security and at the same time protect our fundamental rights, we need to be able to have appropriate information to make the appropriate judgment call,” Legault said.
Legault also called for a complete review into the oversight of national security bodies — a sentiment echoed by opposition MPs in the House of Commons Wednesday.
Both NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to re-examine the question of civilian oversight into national security agencies’ operations.
But Harper said that the various oversight bodies tasked with monitoring spy agencies have found that their activities complied with Canadian laws.
“I do not think we should start from the assumption that everything our police and security agencies do are somehow a threat to the rights of Canadians,” Harper said. “On the contrary, more often than not, security and rights find themselves on the same side of the ledger and Canadians do not have effective rights unless we can ensure their security. And that is what we intend to do.”
Statement of information and privacy commissioners by torontostar https://www.scribd.com/doc/244876416/Statement-of-information-and-privacy-commissioners
Police and security agencies have enough powers to combat terrorism: Therrien
Canada’s privacy watchdog, a former government national security lawyer, says Ottawa must make the case for any expansion of police powers.
Share on Facebook
Reddit this!
The public safety minister says Canadians seeking to join ISIL or other terrorist groups will face the 'full force of the law.' Steven Blaney says the government will bring forward new measures to watch suspected terrorists.
By: Alex Boutilier Staff Reporter, Published on Wed Oct 29 2014
OTTAWA—Canada’s privacy watchdog believes police and national security agencies have sufficient powers to deal with the threat of domestic and international terrorism.
Daniel Therrien, the federal Privacy Commissioner, told reporters Wednesday that he believes that, with recently proposed amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s mandate, police and national security agencies have a wide array of tools to tackle terrorist threats.
Therrien, who previously oversaw the public safety and national defence files at the Department of Justice, said police have been given a number of tools over the years since Sept. 11, 2001.
“I think already many tools were provided to the police, including preventative arrests,” Therrien said.
“I think when you look at the 2001 (anti-terrorism legislation) and the amendments made by C-44 (to expand CSIS powers), I think police and national security agencies have a wide range of tools to address these important problems.”
Before last week’s deadly attack on Parliament Hill, the Conservative government had already planned on expanding CSIS’s powers. Bill C-44, tabled Monday, would give the security agency explicit permission to conduct operations abroad, as well as give blanket anonymity to CSIS informants.
Federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien opposes giving security agenices any more power, as "I think already many tools were provided to the police, including preventative arrests."
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH / TORONTO STAR Order this photo
Federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien opposes giving security agenices any more power, as "I think already many tools were provided to the police, including preventative arrests."
The government has suggested that more measures to bolster national security agencies could be coming in the near future.
But Therrien, who was joined by his provincial and territorial counterparts in Ottawa on Wednesday, said the government must make the case for any expansion of authorities’ powers. The privacy watchdogs issued a joint statement, calling on the government to “adopt an evidence-based approach” to the need for new anti-terror laws.
Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault pointed to an “information asymmetry” when it comes to national security measures — the government has all the relevant information, and Canadians are asked to approve of new measures without that information.
“When we are faced with making decisions about what are the appropriate measures that we need to put in place to ensure security and at the same time protect our fundamental rights, we need to be able to have appropriate information to make the appropriate judgment call,” Legault said.
Legault also called for a complete review into the oversight of national security bodies — a sentiment echoed by opposition MPs in the House of Commons Wednesday.
Both NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to re-examine the question of civilian oversight into national security agencies’ operations.
But Harper said that the various oversight bodies tasked with monitoring spy agencies have found that their activities complied with Canadian laws.
“I do not think we should start from the assumption that everything our police and security agencies do are somehow a threat to the rights of Canadians,” Harper said. “On the contrary, more often than not, security and rights find themselves on the same side of the ledger and Canadians do not have effective rights unless we can ensure their security. And that is what we intend to do.”
Statement of information and privacy commissioners by torontostar https://www.scribd.com/doc/244876416/Statement-of-information-and-privacy-commissioners
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dean-del-mastro-found-guilty-in-election-spending-case-1.2818920
Dean Del Mastro found guilty in election spending case
Former parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper could lose seat
By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Oct 31, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 31, 2014 11:06 AM ET
MP Dean Del Mastro arrives at court with wife Kelly in Peterborough, Ont., in June. Convicted today of failing to report a personal contribution of $21,000 to his own campaign and knowingly submitting a falsified document in the 2008 election, Del Mastro faces the loss of his seat, a prison term and a $2,000 fine. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
A judge has found Peterborough, Ont., MP Dean Del Mastro guilty of spending too much in the 2008 federal election and falsifying a document to cover it up.
Del Mastro now faces the prospect of losing his seat in the House of Commons and possibly being sentenced to up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.
Del Mastro campaign checked limit before stopping cheque
The prosecution had argued that Del Mastro ordered $21,000 in voter identification, voter contact and get-out-the-vote services from a now-defunct company called Holinshed, but claimed only $1,575 in services because the campaign realized that claiming the full amount would put them over the limit.
Del Mastro, however, said the $21,000 he paid out of his personal chequing account was for a separate set of services that Frank Hall, Holinshed's owner, never delivered.
In her verdict, Justice Lisa Cameron said that in her view, from the timing of the contract and its language, "is plainly a contract for election services."
She also said that she found Del Mastro wasn't credible, "frequently obfuscated" during his testimony and that there were a number of inconsistencies.
Del Mastro sat stonefaced until the judge accepted the testimony of Frank Hall, whom the defence sought to discredit, and discounted Del Mastro's own evidence. Then his face started to show some emotion at the pending verdict.
Del Mastro, who was elected under the Conservative Party banner and once served as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary, has been awaiting the verdict since closing arguments in early September. The MP has been in Ottawa regularly and has taken part in the daily question period.
He now sits as an Independent MP.
Del Mastro could lose seat
It will be up to the House of Commons to determine how to proceed.
"Anyone convicted of having committed an offence that is considered to be an illegal practice under the Act is not entitled to be elected or sit in the House of Commons for a period of five years from the date of conviction," Michelle Laliberte, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Commissioner of Elections, told CBC News.
Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy, who was Del Mastro's official agent in 2008, were charged with:
Spending more than the election expenses limit.
Under-reporting his expenses.
Turning in a campaign expense report that he "knew or ought reasonably to have known" was wrong.
Del Mastro was also charged with purposely exceeding the contribution limit for a candidate in his own election campaign.
The judge found Del Mastro and McCarthy guilty on all counts, although the fourth was stayed at the request of the Crown, as it was the same as the third.
Dean Del Mastro found guilty in election spending case
Former parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper could lose seat
By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Oct 31, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 31, 2014 11:06 AM ET
MP Dean Del Mastro arrives at court with wife Kelly in Peterborough, Ont., in June. Convicted today of failing to report a personal contribution of $21,000 to his own campaign and knowingly submitting a falsified document in the 2008 election, Del Mastro faces the loss of his seat, a prison term and a $2,000 fine. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
A judge has found Peterborough, Ont., MP Dean Del Mastro guilty of spending too much in the 2008 federal election and falsifying a document to cover it up.
Del Mastro now faces the prospect of losing his seat in the House of Commons and possibly being sentenced to up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.
Del Mastro campaign checked limit before stopping cheque
The prosecution had argued that Del Mastro ordered $21,000 in voter identification, voter contact and get-out-the-vote services from a now-defunct company called Holinshed, but claimed only $1,575 in services because the campaign realized that claiming the full amount would put them over the limit.
Del Mastro, however, said the $21,000 he paid out of his personal chequing account was for a separate set of services that Frank Hall, Holinshed's owner, never delivered.
In her verdict, Justice Lisa Cameron said that in her view, from the timing of the contract and its language, "is plainly a contract for election services."
She also said that she found Del Mastro wasn't credible, "frequently obfuscated" during his testimony and that there were a number of inconsistencies.
Del Mastro sat stonefaced until the judge accepted the testimony of Frank Hall, whom the defence sought to discredit, and discounted Del Mastro's own evidence. Then his face started to show some emotion at the pending verdict.
Del Mastro, who was elected under the Conservative Party banner and once served as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary, has been awaiting the verdict since closing arguments in early September. The MP has been in Ottawa regularly and has taken part in the daily question period.
He now sits as an Independent MP.
Del Mastro could lose seat
It will be up to the House of Commons to determine how to proceed.
"Anyone convicted of having committed an offence that is considered to be an illegal practice under the Act is not entitled to be elected or sit in the House of Commons for a period of five years from the date of conviction," Michelle Laliberte, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Commissioner of Elections, told CBC News.
Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy, who was Del Mastro's official agent in 2008, were charged with:
Spending more than the election expenses limit.
Under-reporting his expenses.
Turning in a campaign expense report that he "knew or ought reasonably to have known" was wrong.
Del Mastro was also charged with purposely exceeding the contribution limit for a candidate in his own election campaign.
The judge found Del Mastro and McCarthy guilty on all counts, although the fourth was stayed at the request of the Crown, as it was the same as the third.
Last edited by a moderator:
too BAD the federal Conservative Caucus wouldn't demonstrate that they have nuts also...maybe they don't
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...rom-premier-greg-selinger-s-cabinet-1.2821632
Live
Manitoba revolt: 5 ministers to resign from Premier Greg Selinger's cabinet
Cabinet shuffle expected today after ministers officially resign later this morning
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...rom-premier-greg-selinger-s-cabinet-1.2821632
Live
Manitoba revolt: 5 ministers to resign from Premier Greg Selinger's cabinet
Cabinet shuffle expected today after ministers officially resign later this morning
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/07/nafta-environmental-watchdog-dying_n_6123730.html
NAFTA's Commission On Environmental Cooperation 'Dying A Slow Death': Ex-Director
CP | By Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
Posted: 11/07/2014 3:54 pm EST Updated: 11/07/2014 4:59 pm EST
NAFTA's Commission on Environmental Cooperation has now been almost neutered by the governments that created it, said a former director.
Attempts by NAFTA's environmental watchdog to look into the Harper government's record on salmon farming and the oilsands are at an impasse after deadlines passed for member countries to vote on the investigations.
It's the latest blow to an organization formed to preserve environmental enforcement, but which has now been almost neutered by the governments that created it, said a former director of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation.
"This institution doesn't have the tools it needs to do anything effective," said Geoff Garver, who headed the organization's enforcement branch from 2000 to 2007 and served on its public advisory board until recently. "It's dying a slow death."
The commission was created in 1995 to win environmental support for the North American Free Trade Agreement by ensuring the deal wouldn't boost commerce at the expense of clean air, water or land. Commission staff investigate public complaints that Canada, the United States or Mexico aren't living up to their laws and recommend a "factual record" if they find enough grounds.
"That was a novel creation and a very hopeful provision," said Albert Koehl of Ecojustice, an environmental law firm that made seven submissions to the commission. "It was greeted with a very positive reaction at the time."
Two such submissions are behind the commission's current conflicts with Canada.
Environmental groups and individuals say Canada is breaking the Fisheries Act by allowing an unknown amount of tailings from the oilsands to seep into groundwater. Canada has also been accused of harming wild salmon stocks by allowing viruses from fish farms to spread.
The commission's legal staff found supporting evidence in both cases and recommended investigations. But Canada has refused to recognize those findings and has told the commission that it won't co-operate.
"The (investigators) have acted contrary to their authority," says a letter from Environment Canada to the commission in reference to the tailings pond concerns. "The current submission should be terminated."
About the salmon complaint, the government wrote: "We do not intend to engage in or recognize as valid ... any further consideration of this submission."
Canada says the commission is not allowed to investigate any issue that's before domestic courts and points to a legal action filed by a private citizen that levelled similar criticisms about the oilsands.
That action, however, was heard in February and the appeal period is over.
Any investigation must first be approved by a majority vote of environment ministers from the three NAFTA countries. Under the commission's timelines, the salmon vote was to occur by Aug. 12 and the deadline for the tailings ponds vote was Oct. 27.
Neither vote has been held.
"Canada is working with its counterparts towards preparing council resolutions to address the issues raised by the submissions on Alberta tailings ponds and B.C. salmon farms," said Environment Canada spokesman Danny Kingsberry. "We expect the council resolutions to be concluded in the coming weeks."
Kingsberry, in a series of emails, refused to say if a vote would be held at all.
"Canada is working with its partners from the U.S. and Mexico to conclude these matters as soon as possible, and is working with our partners to provide greater clarity on the process for future occasions such as these."
Garver, who called Environment Canada's responses to the commission "dismissive and condescending," said all three NAFTA countries share the blame for turning the watchdog into a lap cat.
"They just don't want this commission to do anything that pushes the envelope," he said. "They just didn't want anything of any interest coming out of that place."
Koehl said once submissions reached the political level, they were either delayed or watered down. In 2011, Ecojustice asked the commission to stop an investigation because it had been so politically compromised the group felt it would do more harm than good.
Ecojustice has written the commission off, said Koehl.
"Given how this has all played out over the last decade, we don't have any confidence in their petition process.
"Citizens often feel, in the face of these international agencies, that they have no power. This was supposed to right the ship and say, 'You actually have a serious and formal process to hold governments to account.'
"Unfortunately, because of the political interference by the ministers, citizens can't have that confidence."
NAFTA's Commission On Environmental Cooperation 'Dying A Slow Death': Ex-Director
CP | By Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
Posted: 11/07/2014 3:54 pm EST Updated: 11/07/2014 4:59 pm EST
NAFTA's Commission on Environmental Cooperation has now been almost neutered by the governments that created it, said a former director.
Attempts by NAFTA's environmental watchdog to look into the Harper government's record on salmon farming and the oilsands are at an impasse after deadlines passed for member countries to vote on the investigations.
It's the latest blow to an organization formed to preserve environmental enforcement, but which has now been almost neutered by the governments that created it, said a former director of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation.
"This institution doesn't have the tools it needs to do anything effective," said Geoff Garver, who headed the organization's enforcement branch from 2000 to 2007 and served on its public advisory board until recently. "It's dying a slow death."
The commission was created in 1995 to win environmental support for the North American Free Trade Agreement by ensuring the deal wouldn't boost commerce at the expense of clean air, water or land. Commission staff investigate public complaints that Canada, the United States or Mexico aren't living up to their laws and recommend a "factual record" if they find enough grounds.
"That was a novel creation and a very hopeful provision," said Albert Koehl of Ecojustice, an environmental law firm that made seven submissions to the commission. "It was greeted with a very positive reaction at the time."
Two such submissions are behind the commission's current conflicts with Canada.
Environmental groups and individuals say Canada is breaking the Fisheries Act by allowing an unknown amount of tailings from the oilsands to seep into groundwater. Canada has also been accused of harming wild salmon stocks by allowing viruses from fish farms to spread.
The commission's legal staff found supporting evidence in both cases and recommended investigations. But Canada has refused to recognize those findings and has told the commission that it won't co-operate.
"The (investigators) have acted contrary to their authority," says a letter from Environment Canada to the commission in reference to the tailings pond concerns. "The current submission should be terminated."
About the salmon complaint, the government wrote: "We do not intend to engage in or recognize as valid ... any further consideration of this submission."
Canada says the commission is not allowed to investigate any issue that's before domestic courts and points to a legal action filed by a private citizen that levelled similar criticisms about the oilsands.
That action, however, was heard in February and the appeal period is over.
Any investigation must first be approved by a majority vote of environment ministers from the three NAFTA countries. Under the commission's timelines, the salmon vote was to occur by Aug. 12 and the deadline for the tailings ponds vote was Oct. 27.
Neither vote has been held.
"Canada is working with its counterparts towards preparing council resolutions to address the issues raised by the submissions on Alberta tailings ponds and B.C. salmon farms," said Environment Canada spokesman Danny Kingsberry. "We expect the council resolutions to be concluded in the coming weeks."
Kingsberry, in a series of emails, refused to say if a vote would be held at all.
"Canada is working with its partners from the U.S. and Mexico to conclude these matters as soon as possible, and is working with our partners to provide greater clarity on the process for future occasions such as these."
Garver, who called Environment Canada's responses to the commission "dismissive and condescending," said all three NAFTA countries share the blame for turning the watchdog into a lap cat.
"They just don't want this commission to do anything that pushes the envelope," he said. "They just didn't want anything of any interest coming out of that place."
Koehl said once submissions reached the political level, they were either delayed or watered down. In 2011, Ecojustice asked the commission to stop an investigation because it had been so politically compromised the group felt it would do more harm than good.
Ecojustice has written the commission off, said Koehl.
"Given how this has all played out over the last decade, we don't have any confidence in their petition process.
"Citizens often feel, in the face of these international agencies, that they have no power. This was supposed to right the ship and say, 'You actually have a serious and formal process to hold governments to account.'
"Unfortunately, because of the political interference by the ministers, citizens can't have that confidence."
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.straight.com/news/641941...ral-fire-stephen-harper-may-end-house-commons
Petition asking Governor General to fire Stephen Harper may end up in House of Commons
by CARLITO PABLO on MAY 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Prime Minister Stephen Harper watches Governor General David Johnston grant royal assent to government bills in 2012.
PMO
BURNABY-DOUGLAS MP KENNEDY Stewart is willing to present a petition in the House of Commons asking Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
RELATED STORIES
Want the Governor General to fire Stephen Harper? There’s a petition for that
However, the New Democrat emphasized that he will do so only if the petition initiated by former Vancouver newspaper columnist Greg Felton meets parliamentary requirements.
“I do know that the Governor General can remove the prime minister, and that’s a very well-known fact because it’s there in the Constitution,” Stewart told the Straight in a phone interview. “But that’s about the extent of it at this point.”
The first-term MP has spoke with Felton by phone but has neither read the text of the online petition nor met Felton in person.
“I said that if it meets the formatting requirements, I would present the paper petition,” Stewart said of his phone conversation with Felton.
House procedural guidelines state that before an MP can present a petition, the document mustfirst be certified as correct in form and content by the clerk of petitions.
“A petition submitted for certification which does not meet the requirements as to form and content will be returned to the Member with an explanatory note,” the guidelines further state.
The Straight reported last year that the petition cites the October 1, 1947, letters patent signed by King George VI constituting the office of the governor general.
The letters patent empowers the monarch’s representative “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office within Canada”.
In the same piece last year, the Straight reported on the opinion of law professor Lorne Neudorf regarding the petition.
“Yes, the governor general does hold legally the power to dismiss the prime minister and the cabinet, but the question really here is the exercise of power and should that power be exercised,” Neudorf said in a phone interview on October 4. “And in modern Canada, it would be seen to breach long-standing constitutional conventions that we have developed in this country.
“One of those conventions is the idea that we have and this is the convention of responsible government,” the Thompson Rivers University professor also said. “And what this means is that the governor general will act only upon the advice of the prime minister and we have this so long as the prime minister continues to hold confidence in the House [of Commons], then his or her advice will be accepted by the governor general.”
Stewart, who is on leave as an associate professor at the SFU school of public policy, didn’t get into interpretations of the governor general’s power.
But the Burnaby-Douglas MP noted that he has presented many petitions in the House, including some he didn’t agree with, because that’s part of the duties of a member of the House.
As well, House rules do not allow MPs to say whether or not they support a petition they’re presenting, Stewart noted.
According to Stewart, the petition started by Felton is an indication of a “legitimacy crisis”.
“There is a growing dissatisfaction not just with the current government, but how our democracy works in general,” he said.
Stewart noted that this is a concern that is also shared by some Conservative MPs.
“There’s a number of Conservatives who have put bills that I have co-signed because they’re trying to also change our democracy for the better,” the New Democrat said.
Stewart also said that he agrees when “people say the system is broken and they’re trying to find different ways to fix it, and Mr. Felton’s frustration, I mean, I hear it everyday from all kinds of people”.
Follow Carlito Pablo on Twitter: @carlitopablo.
Petition asking Governor General to fire Stephen Harper may end up in House of Commons
by CARLITO PABLO on MAY 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Prime Minister Stephen Harper watches Governor General David Johnston grant royal assent to government bills in 2012.
PMO
BURNABY-DOUGLAS MP KENNEDY Stewart is willing to present a petition in the House of Commons asking Governor General David Johnston to dismiss Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
RELATED STORIES
Want the Governor General to fire Stephen Harper? There’s a petition for that
However, the New Democrat emphasized that he will do so only if the petition initiated by former Vancouver newspaper columnist Greg Felton meets parliamentary requirements.
“I do know that the Governor General can remove the prime minister, and that’s a very well-known fact because it’s there in the Constitution,” Stewart told the Straight in a phone interview. “But that’s about the extent of it at this point.”
The first-term MP has spoke with Felton by phone but has neither read the text of the online petition nor met Felton in person.
“I said that if it meets the formatting requirements, I would present the paper petition,” Stewart said of his phone conversation with Felton.
House procedural guidelines state that before an MP can present a petition, the document mustfirst be certified as correct in form and content by the clerk of petitions.
“A petition submitted for certification which does not meet the requirements as to form and content will be returned to the Member with an explanatory note,” the guidelines further state.
The Straight reported last year that the petition cites the October 1, 1947, letters patent signed by King George VI constituting the office of the governor general.
The letters patent empowers the monarch’s representative “to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office within Canada”.
In the same piece last year, the Straight reported on the opinion of law professor Lorne Neudorf regarding the petition.
“Yes, the governor general does hold legally the power to dismiss the prime minister and the cabinet, but the question really here is the exercise of power and should that power be exercised,” Neudorf said in a phone interview on October 4. “And in modern Canada, it would be seen to breach long-standing constitutional conventions that we have developed in this country.
“One of those conventions is the idea that we have and this is the convention of responsible government,” the Thompson Rivers University professor also said. “And what this means is that the governor general will act only upon the advice of the prime minister and we have this so long as the prime minister continues to hold confidence in the House [of Commons], then his or her advice will be accepted by the governor general.”
Stewart, who is on leave as an associate professor at the SFU school of public policy, didn’t get into interpretations of the governor general’s power.
But the Burnaby-Douglas MP noted that he has presented many petitions in the House, including some he didn’t agree with, because that’s part of the duties of a member of the House.
As well, House rules do not allow MPs to say whether or not they support a petition they’re presenting, Stewart noted.
According to Stewart, the petition started by Felton is an indication of a “legitimacy crisis”.
“There is a growing dissatisfaction not just with the current government, but how our democracy works in general,” he said.
Stewart noted that this is a concern that is also shared by some Conservative MPs.
“There’s a number of Conservatives who have put bills that I have co-signed because they’re trying to also change our democracy for the better,” the New Democrat said.
Stewart also said that he agrees when “people say the system is broken and they’re trying to find different ways to fix it, and Mr. Felton’s frustration, I mean, I hear it everyday from all kinds of people”.
Follow Carlito Pablo on Twitter: @carlitopablo.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status