The entire study is available through the link listed at the bottom. The data are not surprising. The labor movement is declining in strength and global competition puts downward pressure on wages in developed countries with higher wages. This is exactly how global capital wants it and why stock markets are still doing well for now.
Press Release
Canadian workers’ paycheques in 30-year holding pattern : Study
June 28, 2007 | National Office | Topic(s): Economy & economic indicators, Employment & labour | Publication Type: Press Release
OTTAWA – Canadians are working harder and smarter, contributing to a growing economy, but their paycheques have been stagnant for the past 30 years, says a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
Rising Profit Shares, Falling Wage Shares finds that Canada’s economy grew steadily and workers’ productivity improved by 51 per cent in the past 30 years, but workers’ average real wages have been stuck in a holding pattern all this time.
“Canadians are constantly being told they need to improve their productivity and grow the economy – which is exactly what they’ve done, but their paycheques aren’t growing to reflect their work effort,” says study co-author Ellen Russell, CCPA senior economist.
The study finds that Canadian workers’ wage share of national income is the lowest it’s been in 40 years. If workers’ real wages had increased to reflect improved productivity and economic growth, they could be earning an average of $10,000 more each year on their paycheques (in 2005 dollars).
Instead, corporations – not workers – have been banking the lion’s share of the benefits of economic growth and improved productivity.
“Corporate profit shares are the highest they’ve been in 40 years – and we’re not talking peanuts here,” says Russell. “In 2005, corporations banked $130 billion more in gross profits than they would have if the profit share had remained at 1991 levels. Sharing those earnings with workers could have gone a long way to reducing Canada’s growing income gap.”
The full study, co-authored by Ellen Russell and Mathieu Dufour is available at www.growinggap.ca and www.policyalternatives.ca.
-30-
For more information contact: Trish Hennessy, CCPA, (416) 263-9896.
.
Download the Report/Study:
Rising Profit Shares, Falling Wage Shares - PDF File, 301 Kb
Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.
CCPA National Office | Suite 410, 75 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON, K1P 5E7
tel: 613-563-1341 fax: 613-233-1458 | e-mail: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca
Provincial Offices | Search | Site Map | Home
Website by Pencilneck Software Corp. Design by Raised Eyebrow Web Studio
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Mel Watkins on Foreign Investment in Canada
Mel Watkins was a key member of the Waffle group as well as author of the Watkins report. This article strikes me as quite weak, accurate enough on many points but completely idealistic and out of touch. The present global capitalism is hardly laissez faire. The world is replete with agricultural subsidies and and intellectual property rights that are meant to prevent competition and ensure profits. The hegemon's (US) economy is best described as crony capitalism in which success depends as much on connections to the elite as free trade and entrepreneurial skills.
There is tremendous regulation most of it in the interests of larger corporations.
When Mel Watkins talks of the real economy being one where efficient resource development benefits local areas-he must mean ideal! Of course resource development does usually in some ways benefit local areas but as in the Tar Sands it will also cause negative effects for others such as aboriginal people or any who depend upon water resources etc. that may be negatively affected by development. And where does efficiency come in? If all the environmental costs of oil development in the Tar Sands were figured in there might not be even a net benefit even in conventional economic terms. But this is irrelevant. The whole development is tied in to the needs of the US hegemon and political goals of becoming less dependent on "unreliable" oil. That is the real economy.
Watkins in the end does not even seem to call for public ownership. National ownership by which he means Canadian private ownership he sees as a necessary first step. THe reasons why Canadian capitalists are better than international capitalists is not clear to me. Historically many Canadian owned companies such as the now defunct Eaton's have been reactionary to the bone. The idea of a democratic socialist Canada seems to be banned from the discourse of this champion of the Waffle Manifesto. Maybe it is still there but just banned from being mentioned as too radical!
Laissez-faire isn't working
Canada's non-policy on foreign takeovers is sheer folly -- we need to act in our own interests, and those of the world
Mel Watkins
Citizen Special
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Forty years ago, in Canada's centennial year, eight economists laboured in Ottawa to produce a report for the Pearson government on foreign ownership and what to do about it, this being a matter much on the public's mind. Though it was disowned by the government when it was published in early 1968 and, by default, named the Watkins Report after its chief author, a young and little-known economist, in the subsequent decade its key recommendations, to create the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the Canada Development Corporation, were implemented.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney meant the death and undoing of such interventionism in Canada and elsewhere, in the name of laissez-faire and globalization and the fuller reign of the market.
But if you live long enough, the wheel turns full circle and the old becomes new again. So it is that the business press is now dominated by stories about takeovers and mergers and rising foreign ownership in Canada. What is to be done?
There are, as always in such matters, two answers: do nothing and do something. With Stephen Harper at the helm, do nothing is the policy of choice. But as policy goes, it seems to miss the point of what is happening.
Canadian economic development has from the outset been dominated by resource development for export. There is a logic to Canadian capital finding its strength in those sectors where Canada has its comparative advantage. It would seem to make sense, if the Canadian business class and the Canadian state are serious about playing the capitalist game, that it would create and nurture national champions in its resource sector.
But, as York University political economist Daniel Drache puts it, Canada is a careless country. Rather than creating national champions, if one emerges anyway, like Inco slowly over the years, we stand idly by and actually invite its takeover. In the 21st century, with resources such as oil and gas and uranium and nickel becoming the jewels of the global economy, Canada's non-policy is sheer folly. The great liquidity created by escalating commodity prices is being used to deprive Canada of ownership of its own resource industries. Somehow, this does not compute.
Companies themselves have become mere commodities to be bought and sold on a day-to-day basis. The relationship between that casino economy and the real economy of efficient resource development creating local benefit is obscure. Forty years ago the concern was with American ownership. Now our companies are targeted by Brazil, Russia, India and China, but our corporate and government elites remain passive.
It so happens that all of these countries have state-owned companies in the petroleum sector. Once upon a time we had PetroCanada but it was privatized. Now the response of the Harper government is not to reconsider state ownership but to worry that other countries' state enterprises may not be "neutral." This does rather miss the thrust of what is now happening in the world.
We now know something else that we didn't know before, and that is that the exploitation of resources, notably oil, can spell the end of the world at least as we know it. The fact is that the history of Canadian resource development is also the history of environmental degradation. What was once a local issue, a matter of national shame, is now a global matter in which everyone has a stake.
Countries that are resource-rich, it might be thought, have a special obligation to control development in the name of the global good. Alienating resources into the hands of giant corporations run from elsewhere and, in the last resort, accountable to no one, is unlikely to be helpful.
As mergers and the increasing concentration of capital sweep the world, it may just make sense not to embrace globalization yet more tightly but to contemplate some de-linking, some loosening of the ties. National ownership is a necessary first step. It builds a better base for Canadian companies to go outside Canada but, frankly, given what such companies are already doing to aboriginal rights within Canada and human rights abroad, this should not be seen as a priority.
It turns out that managing Canadian resources wisely in the interest of Canadians may be the best way to serve the good of humanity.
Mel Watkins is professor emeritus at University of Toronto and adjunct professor at Carleton University. He headed the federal government's Task Force on Foreign Ownership in the 1960s.
There is tremendous regulation most of it in the interests of larger corporations.
When Mel Watkins talks of the real economy being one where efficient resource development benefits local areas-he must mean ideal! Of course resource development does usually in some ways benefit local areas but as in the Tar Sands it will also cause negative effects for others such as aboriginal people or any who depend upon water resources etc. that may be negatively affected by development. And where does efficiency come in? If all the environmental costs of oil development in the Tar Sands were figured in there might not be even a net benefit even in conventional economic terms. But this is irrelevant. The whole development is tied in to the needs of the US hegemon and political goals of becoming less dependent on "unreliable" oil. That is the real economy.
Watkins in the end does not even seem to call for public ownership. National ownership by which he means Canadian private ownership he sees as a necessary first step. THe reasons why Canadian capitalists are better than international capitalists is not clear to me. Historically many Canadian owned companies such as the now defunct Eaton's have been reactionary to the bone. The idea of a democratic socialist Canada seems to be banned from the discourse of this champion of the Waffle Manifesto. Maybe it is still there but just banned from being mentioned as too radical!
Laissez-faire isn't working
Canada's non-policy on foreign takeovers is sheer folly -- we need to act in our own interests, and those of the world
Mel Watkins
Citizen Special
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Forty years ago, in Canada's centennial year, eight economists laboured in Ottawa to produce a report for the Pearson government on foreign ownership and what to do about it, this being a matter much on the public's mind. Though it was disowned by the government when it was published in early 1968 and, by default, named the Watkins Report after its chief author, a young and little-known economist, in the subsequent decade its key recommendations, to create the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the Canada Development Corporation, were implemented.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney meant the death and undoing of such interventionism in Canada and elsewhere, in the name of laissez-faire and globalization and the fuller reign of the market.
But if you live long enough, the wheel turns full circle and the old becomes new again. So it is that the business press is now dominated by stories about takeovers and mergers and rising foreign ownership in Canada. What is to be done?
There are, as always in such matters, two answers: do nothing and do something. With Stephen Harper at the helm, do nothing is the policy of choice. But as policy goes, it seems to miss the point of what is happening.
Canadian economic development has from the outset been dominated by resource development for export. There is a logic to Canadian capital finding its strength in those sectors where Canada has its comparative advantage. It would seem to make sense, if the Canadian business class and the Canadian state are serious about playing the capitalist game, that it would create and nurture national champions in its resource sector.
But, as York University political economist Daniel Drache puts it, Canada is a careless country. Rather than creating national champions, if one emerges anyway, like Inco slowly over the years, we stand idly by and actually invite its takeover. In the 21st century, with resources such as oil and gas and uranium and nickel becoming the jewels of the global economy, Canada's non-policy is sheer folly. The great liquidity created by escalating commodity prices is being used to deprive Canada of ownership of its own resource industries. Somehow, this does not compute.
Companies themselves have become mere commodities to be bought and sold on a day-to-day basis. The relationship between that casino economy and the real economy of efficient resource development creating local benefit is obscure. Forty years ago the concern was with American ownership. Now our companies are targeted by Brazil, Russia, India and China, but our corporate and government elites remain passive.
It so happens that all of these countries have state-owned companies in the petroleum sector. Once upon a time we had PetroCanada but it was privatized. Now the response of the Harper government is not to reconsider state ownership but to worry that other countries' state enterprises may not be "neutral." This does rather miss the thrust of what is now happening in the world.
We now know something else that we didn't know before, and that is that the exploitation of resources, notably oil, can spell the end of the world at least as we know it. The fact is that the history of Canadian resource development is also the history of environmental degradation. What was once a local issue, a matter of national shame, is now a global matter in which everyone has a stake.
Countries that are resource-rich, it might be thought, have a special obligation to control development in the name of the global good. Alienating resources into the hands of giant corporations run from elsewhere and, in the last resort, accountable to no one, is unlikely to be helpful.
As mergers and the increasing concentration of capital sweep the world, it may just make sense not to embrace globalization yet more tightly but to contemplate some de-linking, some loosening of the ties. National ownership is a necessary first step. It builds a better base for Canadian companies to go outside Canada but, frankly, given what such companies are already doing to aboriginal rights within Canada and human rights abroad, this should not be seen as a priority.
It turns out that managing Canadian resources wisely in the interest of Canadians may be the best way to serve the good of humanity.
Mel Watkins is professor emeritus at University of Toronto and adjunct professor at Carleton University. He headed the federal government's Task Force on Foreign Ownership in the 1960s.
BC govt. ignoring court ruling?
For those who don't know, HEU is the Hospital Employees Union-part of CUPE the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Victoria is short for the British Columbia provincial govt. locate in Victoria BC. It sounds as if the BC govt. is going ahead with plans that depend upon a bill that has been declared unconstitutional.
News Release
Victoria gambles by ignoring high court and pushing ahead with plan to lay off Okanagan health workers
HEU demands public disclosure of any commitments given to foreign banks about the future of Bill 29
June 27, 2007
Printer Friendly Version
The provincial government today issued a list of qualified bidders for hospital projects in the Okanagan that could include firing hundreds of health care workers using legislation ruled unconstitutional by the country’s highest court earlier this month.
The Hospital Employees’ Union says that the province is exposing taxpayers to future liability if it pushes ahead with plans to turn over hospital cleaning and maintenance to the three foreign banks that are backing bids to expand hospitals in Kelowna and Vernon.
More than 300 hospital employees could lose their jobs as a result.
On June 8, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down key sections of Bill 29, the 2002 legislation that removed contracting out protections from health care collective agreements.
HEU assistant secretary-business manager Zorica Bosancic says it would be “prudent” for the provincial government to consider the full ramifications of using the unconstitutional legislation to turn over public services to for-profit companies.
“Victoria is in total denial about the court’s ruling,” says Bosancic.
“The court gave them one year to deal with the repercussions of the ruling. But they did not hand this government a free pass to continue to fire workers or make long-term business deals based on an unconstitutional law.”
Bosancic adds that if government has provided any commitments concerning the future of Bill 29 to the three foreign banks backing the approved consortiums, it must disclose that information to the public immediately.
RSS
News Release
Victoria gambles by ignoring high court and pushing ahead with plan to lay off Okanagan health workers
HEU demands public disclosure of any commitments given to foreign banks about the future of Bill 29
June 27, 2007
Printer Friendly Version
The provincial government today issued a list of qualified bidders for hospital projects in the Okanagan that could include firing hundreds of health care workers using legislation ruled unconstitutional by the country’s highest court earlier this month.
The Hospital Employees’ Union says that the province is exposing taxpayers to future liability if it pushes ahead with plans to turn over hospital cleaning and maintenance to the three foreign banks that are backing bids to expand hospitals in Kelowna and Vernon.
More than 300 hospital employees could lose their jobs as a result.
On June 8, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down key sections of Bill 29, the 2002 legislation that removed contracting out protections from health care collective agreements.
HEU assistant secretary-business manager Zorica Bosancic says it would be “prudent” for the provincial government to consider the full ramifications of using the unconstitutional legislation to turn over public services to for-profit companies.
“Victoria is in total denial about the court’s ruling,” says Bosancic.
“The court gave them one year to deal with the repercussions of the ruling. But they did not hand this government a free pass to continue to fire workers or make long-term business deals based on an unconstitutional law.”
Bosancic adds that if government has provided any commitments concerning the future of Bill 29 to the three foreign banks backing the approved consortiums, it must disclose that information to the public immediately.
RSS
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
First Union of foreign farm workers in Canada
There are no details given but I am a bit surprised that the 43 who said they were misled by the union and did not want to join were simply ignored it seems. I guess if you sign on that is it. I wonder if the 43 were encouraged by their employer to sign the statement about being misled etc. Something must have prompted them.
Manitoba decision certifies migrant farm workers union
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 | 5:46 PM CT
CBC News
A group of migrant farm workers in Portage la Prairie, Man., has become unionized following a Manitoba Labour Board decision released Tuesday.
The certification means that dozens of workers at Mayfair Farms, a fruit and vegetable farm, are the first unionized group of foreign farm workers in Canada.
The United Food and Commercial Workers applied for certification at Mayfair Farms in September 2006.
The union said it had signed up more than 65 per cent of the 59 workers, which under Manitoba law entitles the group to automatic union certification.
The company argued the workers were not legally employees under the Labour Relations Act, so collective bargaining rights would not apply to them.
In October, 43 of the workers signed statements saying they were misled by the union and did not want to join.
In its decision, the Labour Relations Board said their objections were "untimely" and "did not allege misconduct," so they had no further standing at the hearing.
The five-page decision says the board determined the act did apply to the workers and Mayfair Farms was their employer.
UFCW officials said Tuesday the union will now begin bargaining for a collective agreement for the workers, most of whom are from Mexico.
About 18,000 foreign agricultural workers come to Canada every year under the federal Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. About 1,000 work in Manitoba.
Manitoba decision certifies migrant farm workers union
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 | 5:46 PM CT
CBC News
A group of migrant farm workers in Portage la Prairie, Man., has become unionized following a Manitoba Labour Board decision released Tuesday.
The certification means that dozens of workers at Mayfair Farms, a fruit and vegetable farm, are the first unionized group of foreign farm workers in Canada.
The United Food and Commercial Workers applied for certification at Mayfair Farms in September 2006.
The union said it had signed up more than 65 per cent of the 59 workers, which under Manitoba law entitles the group to automatic union certification.
The company argued the workers were not legally employees under the Labour Relations Act, so collective bargaining rights would not apply to them.
In October, 43 of the workers signed statements saying they were misled by the union and did not want to join.
In its decision, the Labour Relations Board said their objections were "untimely" and "did not allege misconduct," so they had no further standing at the hearing.
The five-page decision says the board determined the act did apply to the workers and Mayfair Farms was their employer.
UFCW officials said Tuesday the union will now begin bargaining for a collective agreement for the workers, most of whom are from Mexico.
About 18,000 foreign agricultural workers come to Canada every year under the federal Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. About 1,000 work in Manitoba.
What did the IMF say?
I read the speech as well and found nothing about inter-provincial trade barriers. This gives new meaning to the phrase "reading between the lines".
What Did the IMF Say?
Posted by Erin Weir under federalism, TILMA, financial markets.
June 22nd, 2007
Comments: 1
Under the headline “IMF Admonishes Canada,” the Financial Post reported on Wednesday:
The IMF added its voice yesterday to the growing chorus of observers urging Canada to undertake a 21st-century overhaul of its financial system, saying it should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and tear down interprovincial trade barriers.
. . .
Rodrigo de Rato’s three suggestions to improve Canada’s financial systems: 1.Create a single securities regulator 2.Open the banking system to more foreign competition 3. Tear down interprovincial trade barriers
I cannot find any mention of “interprovincial trade barriers” in the published text of Rodrigo de Rato’s speech, nor does the National Post outline what he said on this topic. I can think of two possible explanations:
1. Mr. Rato said something that was not in his written text, in which case it would be interesting to know what it was.
2. The Harper government and others have been so successful in conflating the sensible notion of a national securities regulator with the hazy rhetoric about “interprovincial trade barriers” that a speech on the former prompts reporters to reflexively mention the latter.
UPDATE (June 25): The Financial Post has run another story (FP2 in today’s paper) containing the following statement:
Visiting Canada last week, Rodrigo de Rato said Canada should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and dissolve interprovincial trade barriers.
All of the story’s quotes relate to the first two topics. Again, there are no specifics on “interprovincial trade barriers” or what Mr. Rato said about them.
What Did the IMF Say?
Posted by Erin Weir under federalism, TILMA, financial markets.
June 22nd, 2007
Comments: 1
Under the headline “IMF Admonishes Canada,” the Financial Post reported on Wednesday:
The IMF added its voice yesterday to the growing chorus of observers urging Canada to undertake a 21st-century overhaul of its financial system, saying it should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and tear down interprovincial trade barriers.
. . .
Rodrigo de Rato’s three suggestions to improve Canada’s financial systems: 1.Create a single securities regulator 2.Open the banking system to more foreign competition 3. Tear down interprovincial trade barriers
I cannot find any mention of “interprovincial trade barriers” in the published text of Rodrigo de Rato’s speech, nor does the National Post outline what he said on this topic. I can think of two possible explanations:
1. Mr. Rato said something that was not in his written text, in which case it would be interesting to know what it was.
2. The Harper government and others have been so successful in conflating the sensible notion of a national securities regulator with the hazy rhetoric about “interprovincial trade barriers” that a speech on the former prompts reporters to reflexively mention the latter.
UPDATE (June 25): The Financial Post has run another story (FP2 in today’s paper) containing the following statement:
Visiting Canada last week, Rodrigo de Rato said Canada should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and dissolve interprovincial trade barriers.
All of the story’s quotes relate to the first two topics. Again, there are no specifics on “interprovincial trade barriers” or what Mr. Rato said about them.
Manufacturing and Construction Jobs in Canada
Seems to me that the growth in service industry jobs might help erode job quality. Even though construction wages may be lower than manufacturing Macjobs a probably less than half the wages per hour of construction jobs. Weir is right that construction jobs tend to be temporary and move from area to area but nowadays manufacturing jobs may b e temporary too!
Manufacturing and Construction
Posted by Erin Weir under labour market, free trade.
June 26th, 2007
Comments: 1
Recent commentaries from CIBC and Export Development Canada argue that the manufacturing crisis is not eroding job quality. Both note that a surge in construction employment, added to the relatively few new jobs in non-renewable resource extraction, nearly equals the number of manufacturing jobs lost in recent years.
As emphasized on the front page of yesterday’s Financial Post, this argument contradicts what the Canadian Labour Congress has been saying. It also contradicts a previous CIBC study that linked an overall decline in job quality to reduced manufacturing employment.
The more recent CIBC document and Export Development Canada’s document overlook a critical fact: average hourly wages (for hourly-paid employees) are more than 10% higher in manufacturing than in construction. Including overtime, manufacturing paid $23.61/hour and construction paid $21.20/hour in May 2007. Excluding overtime, these figures were $22.90 and $20.46 respectively.
Certainly, increased construction employment is good news. The building-trades unions, supported by the labour movement in general, are working to improve construction wages. However, the fact remains that replacing manufacturing jobs with construction jobs tends to reduce average wages.
Another important difference is that, whereas manufacturing employment is rooted in particular communities, construction employment is temporary because it is tied to particular projects. Construction and non-renewable resources are notoriously volatile. Canada’s current position at or near a cyclical peak in these sectors does not compensate for the underlying loss of stable manufacturing jobs.
One must also ask why Export Development Canada would seek to downplay the manufacturing crisis. Could it be because the federal government is currently negotiating a “free trade” agreement with Korea that would eliminate even more Canadian manufacturing jobs?
The loss of jobs in manufacturing, an industry heavily engaged in international trade, reflects poorly on Canadian trade policy. It seems odd that Export Development Canada’s countervailing success story is construction, the classic non-tradeable industry.
Manufacturing and Construction
Posted by Erin Weir under labour market, free trade.
June 26th, 2007
Comments: 1
Recent commentaries from CIBC and Export Development Canada argue that the manufacturing crisis is not eroding job quality. Both note that a surge in construction employment, added to the relatively few new jobs in non-renewable resource extraction, nearly equals the number of manufacturing jobs lost in recent years.
As emphasized on the front page of yesterday’s Financial Post, this argument contradicts what the Canadian Labour Congress has been saying. It also contradicts a previous CIBC study that linked an overall decline in job quality to reduced manufacturing employment.
The more recent CIBC document and Export Development Canada’s document overlook a critical fact: average hourly wages (for hourly-paid employees) are more than 10% higher in manufacturing than in construction. Including overtime, manufacturing paid $23.61/hour and construction paid $21.20/hour in May 2007. Excluding overtime, these figures were $22.90 and $20.46 respectively.
Certainly, increased construction employment is good news. The building-trades unions, supported by the labour movement in general, are working to improve construction wages. However, the fact remains that replacing manufacturing jobs with construction jobs tends to reduce average wages.
Another important difference is that, whereas manufacturing employment is rooted in particular communities, construction employment is temporary because it is tied to particular projects. Construction and non-renewable resources are notoriously volatile. Canada’s current position at or near a cyclical peak in these sectors does not compensate for the underlying loss of stable manufacturing jobs.
One must also ask why Export Development Canada would seek to downplay the manufacturing crisis. Could it be because the federal government is currently negotiating a “free trade” agreement with Korea that would eliminate even more Canadian manufacturing jobs?
The loss of jobs in manufacturing, an industry heavily engaged in international trade, reflects poorly on Canadian trade policy. It seems odd that Export Development Canada’s countervailing success story is construction, the classic non-tradeable industry.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Relaxed gun rules for foreign police.
This is another example of deep integration through harmonising our rules with those of the US. It is done on the quiet. It is interesting that Bush appointee and former ambassador Paul Celucci is sought out for commentary. He was notorious for his obnoxious remarks as amabassador. Here is an example.
Sent to a meeting of Canadian businessmen (the Bush White House is always more comfortable in the company of businessmen), Celucci excoriated the Chretien government for its position on the US-Iraq war (let us please call it what it actually is), and, curiously, called on Chretien to "muzzle" the Canadian press.
There is no need to muzzle the Canadian press since most of the time it is sleeping anyway. Just let sleeping dogs lie while things are quietly changed.
Relaxed gun rules eyed for foreign police here
Jun 26, 2007 04:30 AM
OTTAWA–The federal government is quietly proposing to relax rules for foreign law enforcement officers who carry weapons into Canada, CTV News reported last night.
The network reported that the proposal was posted on the government's official publication, the Canada Gazette.
The posting says, "In a reciprocal agreement with the U.S., the regulation would exempt officers – including police and air marshals – from a `foreign state' from having to obtain permits for sidearms."
The major benefit of the proposal would be that both domestic and foreign officers could enter and exit Canada with their weapons – without the requirement of an import and export permit.
CTV says critics of the plan argue that it could have wider implications for sovereignty and gun control in the country. Canadian government officials would not comment on the report.
Among the critics is NDP MP Joe Comartin, who says the plan would give "carte blanche'' to foreign police officers. The plan was also criticized by Dan McTeague, Liberal MP and opposition critic for consular affairs.
But the network quoted Paul Celucci, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, as saying the regulation would make the border safer. That view, it said, is shared by Canadian Police Association President Tony Cannavino, who says it will make it simpler for police to investigate cross border crime.
Sent to a meeting of Canadian businessmen (the Bush White House is always more comfortable in the company of businessmen), Celucci excoriated the Chretien government for its position on the US-Iraq war (let us please call it what it actually is), and, curiously, called on Chretien to "muzzle" the Canadian press.
There is no need to muzzle the Canadian press since most of the time it is sleeping anyway. Just let sleeping dogs lie while things are quietly changed.
Relaxed gun rules eyed for foreign police here
Jun 26, 2007 04:30 AM
OTTAWA–The federal government is quietly proposing to relax rules for foreign law enforcement officers who carry weapons into Canada, CTV News reported last night.
The network reported that the proposal was posted on the government's official publication, the Canada Gazette.
The posting says, "In a reciprocal agreement with the U.S., the regulation would exempt officers – including police and air marshals – from a `foreign state' from having to obtain permits for sidearms."
The major benefit of the proposal would be that both domestic and foreign officers could enter and exit Canada with their weapons – without the requirement of an import and export permit.
CTV says critics of the plan argue that it could have wider implications for sovereignty and gun control in the country. Canadian government officials would not comment on the report.
Among the critics is NDP MP Joe Comartin, who says the plan would give "carte blanche'' to foreign police officers. The plan was also criticized by Dan McTeague, Liberal MP and opposition critic for consular affairs.
But the network quoted Paul Celucci, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, as saying the regulation would make the border safer. That view, it said, is shared by Canadian Police Association President Tony Cannavino, who says it will make it simpler for police to investigate cross border crime.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Waffle Manifesto
I managed to find the text of the Waffle Manifesto as it was brought before an NDP Federal Convention by the Waffle group. James Laxer was a prominent member of the group and Ed Broadbent signed the Manifesto among others. I worked in the group as well although I was always a bit sceptical of trying to use the NDP as a vehicle for promoting the policies of the Manifesto. The NDP now would no doubt never allow the Manifesto near any federal convention!
Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada
From Wikisource
Waffle Resolution 133
1. Our aim as democratic socialists is to build an independent socialist Canada. Our aim as supporters of the New Democratic Party is to make it a truly socialist party.
2. The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists, in factories and offices, on farms and campuses. The development of socialist consciousness, on which can be built a socialist base, must be the first priority of the New Democratic Party.
3. The New Democratic Party must be seen as the parliamentary wing of a movement dedicated to fundamental social change. It must be radicalized from within and it must be radicalized from without.
4. The MOST urgent issue for Canadians is the very survival of Canada. Anxiety is pervasive and the goal of greater economic independence receives widespread support. But economic independence without socialism is a sham, and neither are meaningful without true participatory democracy.
5. The major threat to Canadian survival today is American control of the Canadian economy. The major issue of our times is not national unity but national survival, and the fundamental threat is external, not internal.
6. American corporate capitalism is the dominant factor shaping Canadian society. In Canada, American economic control operates throughout the formidable medium of the multi-national corporation. The Canadian corporate elite has opted for a junior partnership with these American enterprises. Canada has been reduced to a resource base and consumer market within the American Empire.
7. The American Empire is the central reality for Canadians. It is an empire characterized by militarism abroad and racism at home. Canadian resources and diplomacy have been enlisted in the support of the empire. In the barbarous war in Vietnam, Canada has supported the United States through its membership on the International Control Commission and through sales of arms and strategic resources to the American military industrial complex.
8. The American empire is held together through worldwide military alliances and giant monopoly corporations. Canada's membership in the American alliance system and the ownership of the Canadian economy by American corporations precludes Canada's playing an independent role in the world. These bonds must be cut if corporate capitalism and the social priorities it creates are to be effectively challenged.
9. Canadian development is distorted by a corporate capitalist economy. Corporate investment creates and fosters superfluous individual consumption at the expense of social needs. Corporate decision-making concentrates investment in a few major urban areas, which become increasingly uninhabitable while the rest of the country sinks in underdevelopment.
10. The criterion that the most profitable pursuits are the most important ones causes the neglect of activities whose value cannot be measured be the standards of profitability. It is not accidental that housing, education, medical care, and public transportation are inadequately provided for by the present social system.
11. The problem of regional disparities is rooted in the profit orientation of capitalism. The social costs of stagnant areas are irrelevant to the corporations. For Canada, the problem is compounded by the reduction of Canada to the position of an economic colony of the United States. The foreign capitalist has even less concern for balanced development of the country than the Canadian capitalist with roots in a particular region.
12. An independent movement based on substituting Canadian capitalists for American capitalists, or on public policy to make foreign corporations behave as if they were Canadian corporations, cannot be our final objective. There is not now an independent Canadian capitalism and any lingering pretensions on the part on Canadian businessmen to independence lack credibility. Without a strong national capitalist class behind them, Canadian governments, Liberal and Conservative, have functioned in the interests of international and particularly American capitalism, and have lacked the will to pursue even a modest strategy of economic independence.
13. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of production in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. Canadian nationalism is a relevant force on which to build to the extent that it is anti-imperialist. On the road to socialism, such aspirations for independence must be taken into account. For to pursue independence seriously is to make visible the necessity of socialism in Canada.
14. THOSE WHO desire socialism and independence for Canada have often been baffled and mystified by the problem of internal divisions within Canada. While the essential fact of the Canadian history in the past century is the reduction of Canada to a colony of the United States, with a consequent increase in regional inequalities, there is no denying the existence of two nations within Canada, each with its own language, culture, and aspirations. This reality must be incorporated into the strategy of the New Democratic Party.
15. English Canada and Quebec can share common institutions to the extent that they share common purposes. So long as Canada is governed by those who believe that the national policy should be limited to the passive function of maintaining a peaceful and secure climate for foreign investment, there can be no meaningful unity between English and French Canadians. So long as the federal government refuses to protect the country from economic and cultural domination, English Canada is bound to appear to French Canadians simply as part of the United States. An English Canada concerned with its own national survival would create common aspirations that would help to tie the two nations together once more.
16. Nor can the present treatment of the constitutional issue in isolation from economic and social forces that transcend the two nations be anything but irrelevant. Politicians committed to the values and structure of a capitalist society drafted our present constitution a century ago. Constitutional change relevant to socialists must be based on the needs of the people rather than the corporations and must reflect the power of classes and groups excluded from effective decision-making by the present system.
17. A united Canada is of critical importance in pursuing a successful strategy against the reality of American imperialism. Quebec's history and aspirations must be allowed full expression and implementation in the conviction that new ties will emerge from the common perception of "two nations, one struggle". Socialists in English Canada must ally themselves with socialists in Quebec in this common cause.
18. CENTRAL TO the creation of an independent socialist Canada is the strength and tradition of the Canadian working class and the trade union movement. The revitalization and extension of the labor movement would involve a fundamental democratization of our society.
19. Corporate capitalism is characterized by the predominant power of the corporate elite aided and abetted by the political elite. A central objective of Canadian socialists must be to further the democratization process in industry. The Canadian trade union movement throughout its history has waged a democratic battle against the so-called rights or prerogatives of ownership and management. It has achieved the important moral and legal victory of providing for working men an affective say in what their wages will be. At present management's "right" to control technological change is being challenged. The New Democratic Party must provide leadership in the struggle to extend working men's influence into every area of industrial decision-making. Those who work must have effective control in the determination of working conditions, and substantial power in determining the nature of the product, prices and so on. Democracy and socialism require nothing less.
20. Trade unionists and New Democrats have led in extending the welfare state in Canada. Much remains to be done: more and better housing, a really progressive tax structure, a guaranteed annual income. However, these are no longer enough. A socialist society must be one in which there is democratic control of all institutions, which have a major effect on men's lives and where there is equal opportunity for creative non-exploitative self-development. It is now time to go beyond the welfare state.
21. New Democrats must begin now to insist on the redistribution of power, and not simply welfare, in a socialist direction. The struggle for worker participation in industrial decision-making and against management "rights" is such a move toward economic and social democracy.
22. By strengthening the Canadian labor movement, New Democrats will further the pursuit of Canadian independence. So long as the corporate elite dominates Canadian economic activity, and so long as worker's rights are confined within their present limits, corporate requirements for profit will continue to take precedence over human needs.
23. BY BRINGING men together primarily as buyers and sellers of each other, by enshrining profitability and material gain in place of humanity and spiritual growth, capitalism has always been inherently alienating. Today, sheer size combined with modern technology further exaggerates man's sense of insignificance and impotence. A socialist transformation of society will return to man his sense of humanity, to replace his sense of being a commodity. But a socialist democracy implies man's control of his immediate environment as well, and in any strategy for building socialism, community democracy is as vital as the struggle for electoral success. To that end, socialists must strive for democracy at those levels that most directly affect us all - in our neighborhoods, our schools, and our places of work. Tenants' unions, consumers' and producers' cooperatives are examples of areas in which socialist must lead in efforts to involve people directly in the struggle to control their own destinies.
24. SOCIALISM is a process and a program. The process is the raising of socialist consciousness, the building of a mass base of socialists, and a strategy to make visible the limits of liberal capitalism.
25. While the program must evolve out of the process, its leading features seem clear. Relevant instruments for bringing the Canadian economy under Canadian ownership and control and for altering the priorities established by corporate capitalism are to hand. They include extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the essential resources industries, finance and credit, and industries strategic to planning our economy. Within that program, workers' participation in all institutions promises to release creative energies, promote decentralization, and restore human and social priorities.
26. The struggle to build a democratic socialist Canada must proceed at all levels of Canadian society. The New Democratic Party is the organization suited to bringing these activities into a common focus. The New Democratic Party has grown out of a movement for democratic socialism that has deep roots in Canadian history. It is the core around which should be mobilized the social and political movement necessary for building an independent socialist Canada. The New Democratic Party must rise to that challenge or become irrelevant. Victory lies in joining the struggle.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_for_an_Independent_Socialist_Canada"
Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada
From Wikisource
Waffle Resolution 133
1. Our aim as democratic socialists is to build an independent socialist Canada. Our aim as supporters of the New Democratic Party is to make it a truly socialist party.
2. The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists, in factories and offices, on farms and campuses. The development of socialist consciousness, on which can be built a socialist base, must be the first priority of the New Democratic Party.
3. The New Democratic Party must be seen as the parliamentary wing of a movement dedicated to fundamental social change. It must be radicalized from within and it must be radicalized from without.
4. The MOST urgent issue for Canadians is the very survival of Canada. Anxiety is pervasive and the goal of greater economic independence receives widespread support. But economic independence without socialism is a sham, and neither are meaningful without true participatory democracy.
5. The major threat to Canadian survival today is American control of the Canadian economy. The major issue of our times is not national unity but national survival, and the fundamental threat is external, not internal.
6. American corporate capitalism is the dominant factor shaping Canadian society. In Canada, American economic control operates throughout the formidable medium of the multi-national corporation. The Canadian corporate elite has opted for a junior partnership with these American enterprises. Canada has been reduced to a resource base and consumer market within the American Empire.
7. The American Empire is the central reality for Canadians. It is an empire characterized by militarism abroad and racism at home. Canadian resources and diplomacy have been enlisted in the support of the empire. In the barbarous war in Vietnam, Canada has supported the United States through its membership on the International Control Commission and through sales of arms and strategic resources to the American military industrial complex.
8. The American empire is held together through worldwide military alliances and giant monopoly corporations. Canada's membership in the American alliance system and the ownership of the Canadian economy by American corporations precludes Canada's playing an independent role in the world. These bonds must be cut if corporate capitalism and the social priorities it creates are to be effectively challenged.
9. Canadian development is distorted by a corporate capitalist economy. Corporate investment creates and fosters superfluous individual consumption at the expense of social needs. Corporate decision-making concentrates investment in a few major urban areas, which become increasingly uninhabitable while the rest of the country sinks in underdevelopment.
10. The criterion that the most profitable pursuits are the most important ones causes the neglect of activities whose value cannot be measured be the standards of profitability. It is not accidental that housing, education, medical care, and public transportation are inadequately provided for by the present social system.
11. The problem of regional disparities is rooted in the profit orientation of capitalism. The social costs of stagnant areas are irrelevant to the corporations. For Canada, the problem is compounded by the reduction of Canada to the position of an economic colony of the United States. The foreign capitalist has even less concern for balanced development of the country than the Canadian capitalist with roots in a particular region.
12. An independent movement based on substituting Canadian capitalists for American capitalists, or on public policy to make foreign corporations behave as if they were Canadian corporations, cannot be our final objective. There is not now an independent Canadian capitalism and any lingering pretensions on the part on Canadian businessmen to independence lack credibility. Without a strong national capitalist class behind them, Canadian governments, Liberal and Conservative, have functioned in the interests of international and particularly American capitalism, and have lacked the will to pursue even a modest strategy of economic independence.
13. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of production in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. Canadian nationalism is a relevant force on which to build to the extent that it is anti-imperialist. On the road to socialism, such aspirations for independence must be taken into account. For to pursue independence seriously is to make visible the necessity of socialism in Canada.
14. THOSE WHO desire socialism and independence for Canada have often been baffled and mystified by the problem of internal divisions within Canada. While the essential fact of the Canadian history in the past century is the reduction of Canada to a colony of the United States, with a consequent increase in regional inequalities, there is no denying the existence of two nations within Canada, each with its own language, culture, and aspirations. This reality must be incorporated into the strategy of the New Democratic Party.
15. English Canada and Quebec can share common institutions to the extent that they share common purposes. So long as Canada is governed by those who believe that the national policy should be limited to the passive function of maintaining a peaceful and secure climate for foreign investment, there can be no meaningful unity between English and French Canadians. So long as the federal government refuses to protect the country from economic and cultural domination, English Canada is bound to appear to French Canadians simply as part of the United States. An English Canada concerned with its own national survival would create common aspirations that would help to tie the two nations together once more.
16. Nor can the present treatment of the constitutional issue in isolation from economic and social forces that transcend the two nations be anything but irrelevant. Politicians committed to the values and structure of a capitalist society drafted our present constitution a century ago. Constitutional change relevant to socialists must be based on the needs of the people rather than the corporations and must reflect the power of classes and groups excluded from effective decision-making by the present system.
17. A united Canada is of critical importance in pursuing a successful strategy against the reality of American imperialism. Quebec's history and aspirations must be allowed full expression and implementation in the conviction that new ties will emerge from the common perception of "two nations, one struggle". Socialists in English Canada must ally themselves with socialists in Quebec in this common cause.
18. CENTRAL TO the creation of an independent socialist Canada is the strength and tradition of the Canadian working class and the trade union movement. The revitalization and extension of the labor movement would involve a fundamental democratization of our society.
19. Corporate capitalism is characterized by the predominant power of the corporate elite aided and abetted by the political elite. A central objective of Canadian socialists must be to further the democratization process in industry. The Canadian trade union movement throughout its history has waged a democratic battle against the so-called rights or prerogatives of ownership and management. It has achieved the important moral and legal victory of providing for working men an affective say in what their wages will be. At present management's "right" to control technological change is being challenged. The New Democratic Party must provide leadership in the struggle to extend working men's influence into every area of industrial decision-making. Those who work must have effective control in the determination of working conditions, and substantial power in determining the nature of the product, prices and so on. Democracy and socialism require nothing less.
20. Trade unionists and New Democrats have led in extending the welfare state in Canada. Much remains to be done: more and better housing, a really progressive tax structure, a guaranteed annual income. However, these are no longer enough. A socialist society must be one in which there is democratic control of all institutions, which have a major effect on men's lives and where there is equal opportunity for creative non-exploitative self-development. It is now time to go beyond the welfare state.
21. New Democrats must begin now to insist on the redistribution of power, and not simply welfare, in a socialist direction. The struggle for worker participation in industrial decision-making and against management "rights" is such a move toward economic and social democracy.
22. By strengthening the Canadian labor movement, New Democrats will further the pursuit of Canadian independence. So long as the corporate elite dominates Canadian economic activity, and so long as worker's rights are confined within their present limits, corporate requirements for profit will continue to take precedence over human needs.
23. BY BRINGING men together primarily as buyers and sellers of each other, by enshrining profitability and material gain in place of humanity and spiritual growth, capitalism has always been inherently alienating. Today, sheer size combined with modern technology further exaggerates man's sense of insignificance and impotence. A socialist transformation of society will return to man his sense of humanity, to replace his sense of being a commodity. But a socialist democracy implies man's control of his immediate environment as well, and in any strategy for building socialism, community democracy is as vital as the struggle for electoral success. To that end, socialists must strive for democracy at those levels that most directly affect us all - in our neighborhoods, our schools, and our places of work. Tenants' unions, consumers' and producers' cooperatives are examples of areas in which socialist must lead in efforts to involve people directly in the struggle to control their own destinies.
24. SOCIALISM is a process and a program. The process is the raising of socialist consciousness, the building of a mass base of socialists, and a strategy to make visible the limits of liberal capitalism.
25. While the program must evolve out of the process, its leading features seem clear. Relevant instruments for bringing the Canadian economy under Canadian ownership and control and for altering the priorities established by corporate capitalism are to hand. They include extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the essential resources industries, finance and credit, and industries strategic to planning our economy. Within that program, workers' participation in all institutions promises to release creative energies, promote decentralization, and restore human and social priorities.
26. The struggle to build a democratic socialist Canada must proceed at all levels of Canadian society. The New Democratic Party is the organization suited to bringing these activities into a common focus. The New Democratic Party has grown out of a movement for democratic socialism that has deep roots in Canadian history. It is the core around which should be mobilized the social and political movement necessary for building an independent socialist Canada. The New Democratic Party must rise to that challenge or become irrelevant. Victory lies in joining the struggle.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_for_an_Independent_Socialist_Canada"
James Laxer: Toward a New Canadian Foreign Policy
Laxer was one of the key figures in the Waffle movement in the NDP years ago. The Waffle Manifesto was also quite nationalist but there was much more socialism than anything here in this article. Although Laxer's analysis and criticism of continentalism seems quite convincing his positive Canadian alternative seems quite undeveloped. Perhaps in his next article he will flesh it out more.
Afghanistan: Toward a new Canadian foreign policy
Nationalist conservatism has remained a significant sentiment in Canada, but as neo-conservatism grew, it lost its place in the Progressive Conservative Party. Today's Conservative Party of Canada is firmly locked within the logic of the Continentalist School of Canadian Foreign policy.
>by James Laxer
June 22, 2007
(Mission of Folly: Part ten — 1) For Canadians, the Afghanistan operation has been a mission of folly. Canada blindly followed the United States into a war that is not winnable, a war from which no positive results can be anticipated. Now that American public opinion has turned sharply against the war in Iraq, U.S. involvement in Afghanistan will not long endure. Americans will move on to other engagements, other power struggles and new priorities. By the time the Bush administration is out of office, the chances are that the Afghanistan mission, if not finished, will be on its last legs.
As Americans pursue a modified foreign policy, the opportunity opens for Canada to chart its own course in the world. In recent years, it has become commonplace for critics on the political right to decry Canada's waning global influence. Those critics have called on Canada to rearm and to reassert itself alongside its military allies.
What these critics really wanted was for Canada to line up solidly with the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia to make a fourth in the “Anglo-Sphere.” In Afghanistan, these critics got their way. Canada took its place in the Anglo-Sphere in a shooting war and Canadians suffered their most serious military casualties since the Korean conflict. For Stephen Harper, who observed that these casualties were the price of greater global influence, this made sense.
In truth, however, Canada's global influence has not been increasing. If anything, it has been diminishing. In Afghanistan, Canada has been engaged in a hopeless American adventure. In the Middle East, Canada has aligned itself so closely with Israel as to strip our country of whatever small influence it formerly had. The pursuit of influence in the military adventures of the Anglo-Sphere has proved to be a dead end for Canada.
Canadians need to think through the principles on which a new Canadian foreign policy should rest. Although discussions of Canadian foreign policy often skirt around this, the starting point for any foreign policy needs to be the furtherance of Canadian domestic interests in the international sphere. And while there is no necessary contradiction between the two, the second goal of Canadian foreign policy should be to advance the principles to which Canada is committed in the wider world.
Canada's vital national interests have always been much easier to spell out than to realize. That's what comes of living in a unique neighbourhood in which an otherwise potentially influential country is left feeling quite impotent because it is located next door to the world's only superpower. The power imbalance between Canada and its puissant neighbour has always made Canadian foreign policy a peculiar amalgam of resignation and utopianism.
On the resignation side, a species of lobbyists whom I would call “continentalists in realist clothing” have argued that Canada cannot challenge the wishes of the United States on fundamental issues and that its best course of action is to accommodate to the direction America is determined to take and to obtain the greatest influence and the best bargain in the process.
In 1964, a former U.S. ambassador to Ottawa and a former Canadian ambassador to Washington collaborated to write a report (the Merchant-Heeney Report) that set out this approach. The report called on Canada to negotiate vigorously with the United States on bilateral issues, but to recognize the special global role of the U.S.
On wider international questions, therefore, where Canada disagreed with American policies, Ottawa ought to pursue what the report called “quiet diplomacy.” Canada ought to refrain from public disagreements with the United States on global issues that did not directly concern Canadian interests. The Merchant-Heeney Report quickly became notorious because it recommended what most people saw as an unacceptable abandonment of Canadian sovereignty, an unnecessary acceptance of American suzerainty on global issues.
While the Report was not adopted by Ottawa, the approach it advocated has been advanced repeatedly in one form or another, by pro-American lobby groups over the past four decades. The C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the Business Council on National Issues) have tirelessly promoted the notion that Canadian foreign and defence policies should be closely coordinated with those of Washington.
In his maiden speech in the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition in 2003, Stephen Harper, then leader of the Canadian Alliance, excoriated the record of the Liberal government on the issue of Canadian-American relations. He accused the Liberals of having undermined the relationship with Washington by taking holier-than-thou positions on issues such as the treaty banning the use of land mines. He concluded that anything that substantially harmed the United States would devastate Canada.
Adherents of this school of thought make the case that on important military questions Canada has no choice but to align itself with the United States. In a study for the C.D. Howe Institute several years ago, historian Jack Granatstein advanced this argument.
We can label this the Continentalist School of Canadian foreign policy. The essential tenet of this school is that Canada is an economic, political, cultural and military extension of the United States, a lesser power whose larger fate is bound up with that of its neighbour. This school of thought was enormously influential in its advocacy of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the 1980s and NAFTA in the 1990s. The members of the Continentalist School have been the most consistent advocates of a coherent approach to Canadian foreign policy in recent decades.
Over the course of Canadian history, there have been other coherent approaches. From the time of Confederation in 1867 until the Second World War, the dominant school of Canadian foreign policy could be called Imperial-Nationalist. At the beginning of this historical period, of course, Canadian foreign and military policies were legally in the hands of Westminster, although Canada had control of its domestic affairs.
This makes the term foreign policy premature and indeed, for decades the Canadian foreign ministry was called the Department of External Affairs. The great architect of the Imperial-Nationalist school was John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, whose tory-nationalism was the ideology that suffused the Canadian state and its economic policies for many decades.
The Imperial-Nationalist approach to foreign or external affairs grew out of the proposition that the supreme threat to Canadian nationhood arose not from Canada's colonial relationship with Britain, but from Canada's uneasy position vis-a-vis the United States. Macdonald believed that Canada needed Britain to offset the threat from the south. During the Second World War, Winston Churchill's policy was to call on the power of the New World to redress the balance in the Old. Macdonald's policy was the reverse of that: he called on the power of the Old World to redress the balance in the New.
The Second World War destroyed the power relations in the North Atlantic on which the Imperial-Nationalist school was based. The British Empire disintegrated in the years following the war and the American Empire took its place. Canada could no longer seek a balance in its relationships with two great English speaking powers. Britain's decline spelt the end of the Imperial-Nationalist school of Canadian foreign policy. The sentiments on which the school had rested outlived the disappearance of the geo-political basis for the implementation of its policies, however.
Nationalist conservatism has remained a significant sentiment in Canada, but as neo-conservatism grew, it lost its place in the Progressive Conservative Party. Today's Conservative Party of Canada is firmly locked within the logic of the Continentalist School of Canadian Foreign policy.
Over the past four decades, as political and cultural movements have arisen to contest the degree of American domination of Canada, the basis for a new school of Canadian foreign policy has emerged. We can call it the Canadian School.
The Canadian School seeks to achieve two large goals. The first is to promote the survival of Canada as a sovereign power in North America. The second is to promote the values to which Canadians are committed in the wider world. The first goal grows directly out of Canadian domestic policies. As is appreciated by all Canadians who have embraced their country's potential as something far greater than the quest for immediate material gratification, Canada has the capacity to enlarge itself in human terms over the course of this century.
Americans in the 19th century perceived their country's potential to achieve more in the future than it had in the past. Canadians, who are not bounded by the limiting confines of neo-conservatism and the subservience of the Continentalist School of Canadian Foreign Policy, realize that they are creating a country that will be greater in the future than it is today. That gives the present generation of Canadians an immense responsibility to realistically pursue the interests of Canada today in such a way as not to foreclose on the potential of the country for the future.
For the present, Canada needs a foreign policy with one eye on the long-term future, and the other on the present. The mixture that is needed is one that combines realism with a dose of utopianism. The Canada to come over the course of this century can expect to play as large a role in the world as the United Kingdom or France.
Consider the course of the past century. At the beginning of the 20th century, with a population of five million, Canada was five per cent as populous as the United States. When the century closed, Canada was more than ten per cent as populous as its southern neighbour. Laurier's boast that the “20th century belongs to Canada” has always seemed more than a little over the top, but he was not entirely wrong.
Not only did Canada's population more than double relative to that of the U.S., its economy more than doubled in size in relation to that of the United States during the 20th century. Reluctant and non-visionary though the country's leadership has often been, Canada has thrived over the course of the past hundred years.
Like the British Empire of the 19th century, Canada has grown in a fit of absence of mind. For our good fortune to continue, however, a more concerted approach is needed. The Canadian School needs to drive home the point that the Continentalist School is guilty of taking an extremely short-term approach and not even doing a good job of that.
The curious thing about the Canadian business lobbyists, for whom the Continentalist School speaks, is how lacking in serious ambition they are. Living as they do on a piece of real estate that is among the greatest on earth, and that is inhabited by a population that is highly motivated and well educated, you would think that Canadian business lobbyists would aspire to more than playing second fiddle to the Americans. One might imagine that Canadian business would want real power for itself, willing to engage in commerce with whomever, but always realizing that they could occupy a larger place in the global scheme of things.
In the 19th century, American business moguls had that sense of themselves. John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, and the world's first billionaire, built his global petroleum empire through a peculiar combination of cutthroat competition and Christian piety. He was seriously religious and believed in a social Darwinist business ethic in which the stronger prevailed and the weak perished. Standard Oil set its sights on the domination, not only on the American petroleum market, but the global market.
The Rockefeller story has been repeated many times over in the annals of American business, right down to the present epics of the Waltons and Bill Gates. By contrast, Canadian business moguls have usually been full of bluster, but highly derivative in their ambitions, wanting little more for themselves than acceptance from their British and American counterparts. The consequence is that they have been quite prepared to concede the genuine power that could have been theirs in return for a comfortable seat in someone else's vehicle.
Under the circumstances, an alternative vision of Canada's place in world and its foreign policy will have to be based on other social forces. At first glance, this may seem to be a rather dim prospect. There are reasons for hope, however. For several decades, Canada has been that odd case, a country whose population has grown ever more committed to its survival in the face of business spokespersons who have largely abandoned this cause.
The collapse of the Bush administration's strategy in the Middle East and Central Asia makes the prospects for a shift in Canadian foreign policy brighter. Those who have been most inclined to follow the Bush line in Canada — the Harper Conservatives and the business lobbyists — have damaged their cause immeasurably in their stolid adherence to the lost cause. Theirs will be the fate of spear carriers through the ages who have wound up on the wrong side.
The new Canadian foreign policy should aim at preserving Canadian sovereignty and on lending Canada's weight in the world to greater political and economic justice and environmental sustainability. Canadians need to recognize that in the world of the 21st century national sovereignty is an immeasurably valuable asset.
The American novelist Mark Twain once advised people to buy land on the grounds that “they're not making any more of that.” The same thing is basically true when it comes to sovereign nations. It is true that a rash of them became sovereign in the great age of decolonization in the several decades following the Second World War. Then there was a second rash that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union. And Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were severed into pieces.
But the point stands. Not many new sovereign states will be created over the course of the present century. Those that exist will prize their sovereignty as an asset that gives them admission to international decision making bodies and that allows them to shape affairs on their own territory to a considerable extent.
These assertions fly in the face of much received wisdom in the so-called age of globalization. With the fall of the Soviet Empire, the world entered the brief era of the supposed End of History and the Borderless World. The curtain rang down on that brief epoch on September 11, 2001.
The terror attacks were followed by the rediscovery of the state — in fact, it had never gone away. The American state, which presided over the greatest empire of our time, under the direction of the Bush administration, staked its claim to remaining the world's paramount military power in permanence. The contradiction at the heart of the American Empire was that while it was able to shape the course of politics, the economy and society in many countries, it relied on the state in each country to administer affairs locally.
The great fact of our age is that we live in a world dominated by the American Empire, but a world in which the sovereign state is increasingly valued as a priceless asset by peoples everywhere. Empire and nationalism co-exist today as they co-existed in the age of the great European empires.
James Laxer is a professor of political science at York University in Toronto. This is part 10.1 of a 10.2-part series that has run regularly on rabble.ca.
Afghanistan: Toward a new Canadian foreign policy
Nationalist conservatism has remained a significant sentiment in Canada, but as neo-conservatism grew, it lost its place in the Progressive Conservative Party. Today's Conservative Party of Canada is firmly locked within the logic of the Continentalist School of Canadian Foreign policy.
>by James Laxer
June 22, 2007
(Mission of Folly: Part ten — 1) For Canadians, the Afghanistan operation has been a mission of folly. Canada blindly followed the United States into a war that is not winnable, a war from which no positive results can be anticipated. Now that American public opinion has turned sharply against the war in Iraq, U.S. involvement in Afghanistan will not long endure. Americans will move on to other engagements, other power struggles and new priorities. By the time the Bush administration is out of office, the chances are that the Afghanistan mission, if not finished, will be on its last legs.
As Americans pursue a modified foreign policy, the opportunity opens for Canada to chart its own course in the world. In recent years, it has become commonplace for critics on the political right to decry Canada's waning global influence. Those critics have called on Canada to rearm and to reassert itself alongside its military allies.
What these critics really wanted was for Canada to line up solidly with the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia to make a fourth in the “Anglo-Sphere.” In Afghanistan, these critics got their way. Canada took its place in the Anglo-Sphere in a shooting war and Canadians suffered their most serious military casualties since the Korean conflict. For Stephen Harper, who observed that these casualties were the price of greater global influence, this made sense.
In truth, however, Canada's global influence has not been increasing. If anything, it has been diminishing. In Afghanistan, Canada has been engaged in a hopeless American adventure. In the Middle East, Canada has aligned itself so closely with Israel as to strip our country of whatever small influence it formerly had. The pursuit of influence in the military adventures of the Anglo-Sphere has proved to be a dead end for Canada.
Canadians need to think through the principles on which a new Canadian foreign policy should rest. Although discussions of Canadian foreign policy often skirt around this, the starting point for any foreign policy needs to be the furtherance of Canadian domestic interests in the international sphere. And while there is no necessary contradiction between the two, the second goal of Canadian foreign policy should be to advance the principles to which Canada is committed in the wider world.
Canada's vital national interests have always been much easier to spell out than to realize. That's what comes of living in a unique neighbourhood in which an otherwise potentially influential country is left feeling quite impotent because it is located next door to the world's only superpower. The power imbalance between Canada and its puissant neighbour has always made Canadian foreign policy a peculiar amalgam of resignation and utopianism.
On the resignation side, a species of lobbyists whom I would call “continentalists in realist clothing” have argued that Canada cannot challenge the wishes of the United States on fundamental issues and that its best course of action is to accommodate to the direction America is determined to take and to obtain the greatest influence and the best bargain in the process.
In 1964, a former U.S. ambassador to Ottawa and a former Canadian ambassador to Washington collaborated to write a report (the Merchant-Heeney Report) that set out this approach. The report called on Canada to negotiate vigorously with the United States on bilateral issues, but to recognize the special global role of the U.S.
On wider international questions, therefore, where Canada disagreed with American policies, Ottawa ought to pursue what the report called “quiet diplomacy.” Canada ought to refrain from public disagreements with the United States on global issues that did not directly concern Canadian interests. The Merchant-Heeney Report quickly became notorious because it recommended what most people saw as an unacceptable abandonment of Canadian sovereignty, an unnecessary acceptance of American suzerainty on global issues.
While the Report was not adopted by Ottawa, the approach it advocated has been advanced repeatedly in one form or another, by pro-American lobby groups over the past four decades. The C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the Business Council on National Issues) have tirelessly promoted the notion that Canadian foreign and defence policies should be closely coordinated with those of Washington.
In his maiden speech in the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition in 2003, Stephen Harper, then leader of the Canadian Alliance, excoriated the record of the Liberal government on the issue of Canadian-American relations. He accused the Liberals of having undermined the relationship with Washington by taking holier-than-thou positions on issues such as the treaty banning the use of land mines. He concluded that anything that substantially harmed the United States would devastate Canada.
Adherents of this school of thought make the case that on important military questions Canada has no choice but to align itself with the United States. In a study for the C.D. Howe Institute several years ago, historian Jack Granatstein advanced this argument.
We can label this the Continentalist School of Canadian foreign policy. The essential tenet of this school is that Canada is an economic, political, cultural and military extension of the United States, a lesser power whose larger fate is bound up with that of its neighbour. This school of thought was enormously influential in its advocacy of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the 1980s and NAFTA in the 1990s. The members of the Continentalist School have been the most consistent advocates of a coherent approach to Canadian foreign policy in recent decades.
Over the course of Canadian history, there have been other coherent approaches. From the time of Confederation in 1867 until the Second World War, the dominant school of Canadian foreign policy could be called Imperial-Nationalist. At the beginning of this historical period, of course, Canadian foreign and military policies were legally in the hands of Westminster, although Canada had control of its domestic affairs.
This makes the term foreign policy premature and indeed, for decades the Canadian foreign ministry was called the Department of External Affairs. The great architect of the Imperial-Nationalist school was John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, whose tory-nationalism was the ideology that suffused the Canadian state and its economic policies for many decades.
The Imperial-Nationalist approach to foreign or external affairs grew out of the proposition that the supreme threat to Canadian nationhood arose not from Canada's colonial relationship with Britain, but from Canada's uneasy position vis-a-vis the United States. Macdonald believed that Canada needed Britain to offset the threat from the south. During the Second World War, Winston Churchill's policy was to call on the power of the New World to redress the balance in the Old. Macdonald's policy was the reverse of that: he called on the power of the Old World to redress the balance in the New.
The Second World War destroyed the power relations in the North Atlantic on which the Imperial-Nationalist school was based. The British Empire disintegrated in the years following the war and the American Empire took its place. Canada could no longer seek a balance in its relationships with two great English speaking powers. Britain's decline spelt the end of the Imperial-Nationalist school of Canadian foreign policy. The sentiments on which the school had rested outlived the disappearance of the geo-political basis for the implementation of its policies, however.
Nationalist conservatism has remained a significant sentiment in Canada, but as neo-conservatism grew, it lost its place in the Progressive Conservative Party. Today's Conservative Party of Canada is firmly locked within the logic of the Continentalist School of Canadian Foreign policy.
Over the past four decades, as political and cultural movements have arisen to contest the degree of American domination of Canada, the basis for a new school of Canadian foreign policy has emerged. We can call it the Canadian School.
The Canadian School seeks to achieve two large goals. The first is to promote the survival of Canada as a sovereign power in North America. The second is to promote the values to which Canadians are committed in the wider world. The first goal grows directly out of Canadian domestic policies. As is appreciated by all Canadians who have embraced their country's potential as something far greater than the quest for immediate material gratification, Canada has the capacity to enlarge itself in human terms over the course of this century.
Americans in the 19th century perceived their country's potential to achieve more in the future than it had in the past. Canadians, who are not bounded by the limiting confines of neo-conservatism and the subservience of the Continentalist School of Canadian Foreign Policy, realize that they are creating a country that will be greater in the future than it is today. That gives the present generation of Canadians an immense responsibility to realistically pursue the interests of Canada today in such a way as not to foreclose on the potential of the country for the future.
For the present, Canada needs a foreign policy with one eye on the long-term future, and the other on the present. The mixture that is needed is one that combines realism with a dose of utopianism. The Canada to come over the course of this century can expect to play as large a role in the world as the United Kingdom or France.
Consider the course of the past century. At the beginning of the 20th century, with a population of five million, Canada was five per cent as populous as the United States. When the century closed, Canada was more than ten per cent as populous as its southern neighbour. Laurier's boast that the “20th century belongs to Canada” has always seemed more than a little over the top, but he was not entirely wrong.
Not only did Canada's population more than double relative to that of the U.S., its economy more than doubled in size in relation to that of the United States during the 20th century. Reluctant and non-visionary though the country's leadership has often been, Canada has thrived over the course of the past hundred years.
Like the British Empire of the 19th century, Canada has grown in a fit of absence of mind. For our good fortune to continue, however, a more concerted approach is needed. The Canadian School needs to drive home the point that the Continentalist School is guilty of taking an extremely short-term approach and not even doing a good job of that.
The curious thing about the Canadian business lobbyists, for whom the Continentalist School speaks, is how lacking in serious ambition they are. Living as they do on a piece of real estate that is among the greatest on earth, and that is inhabited by a population that is highly motivated and well educated, you would think that Canadian business lobbyists would aspire to more than playing second fiddle to the Americans. One might imagine that Canadian business would want real power for itself, willing to engage in commerce with whomever, but always realizing that they could occupy a larger place in the global scheme of things.
In the 19th century, American business moguls had that sense of themselves. John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, and the world's first billionaire, built his global petroleum empire through a peculiar combination of cutthroat competition and Christian piety. He was seriously religious and believed in a social Darwinist business ethic in which the stronger prevailed and the weak perished. Standard Oil set its sights on the domination, not only on the American petroleum market, but the global market.
The Rockefeller story has been repeated many times over in the annals of American business, right down to the present epics of the Waltons and Bill Gates. By contrast, Canadian business moguls have usually been full of bluster, but highly derivative in their ambitions, wanting little more for themselves than acceptance from their British and American counterparts. The consequence is that they have been quite prepared to concede the genuine power that could have been theirs in return for a comfortable seat in someone else's vehicle.
Under the circumstances, an alternative vision of Canada's place in world and its foreign policy will have to be based on other social forces. At first glance, this may seem to be a rather dim prospect. There are reasons for hope, however. For several decades, Canada has been that odd case, a country whose population has grown ever more committed to its survival in the face of business spokespersons who have largely abandoned this cause.
The collapse of the Bush administration's strategy in the Middle East and Central Asia makes the prospects for a shift in Canadian foreign policy brighter. Those who have been most inclined to follow the Bush line in Canada — the Harper Conservatives and the business lobbyists — have damaged their cause immeasurably in their stolid adherence to the lost cause. Theirs will be the fate of spear carriers through the ages who have wound up on the wrong side.
The new Canadian foreign policy should aim at preserving Canadian sovereignty and on lending Canada's weight in the world to greater political and economic justice and environmental sustainability. Canadians need to recognize that in the world of the 21st century national sovereignty is an immeasurably valuable asset.
The American novelist Mark Twain once advised people to buy land on the grounds that “they're not making any more of that.” The same thing is basically true when it comes to sovereign nations. It is true that a rash of them became sovereign in the great age of decolonization in the several decades following the Second World War. Then there was a second rash that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union. And Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were severed into pieces.
But the point stands. Not many new sovereign states will be created over the course of the present century. Those that exist will prize their sovereignty as an asset that gives them admission to international decision making bodies and that allows them to shape affairs on their own territory to a considerable extent.
These assertions fly in the face of much received wisdom in the so-called age of globalization. With the fall of the Soviet Empire, the world entered the brief era of the supposed End of History and the Borderless World. The curtain rang down on that brief epoch on September 11, 2001.
The terror attacks were followed by the rediscovery of the state — in fact, it had never gone away. The American state, which presided over the greatest empire of our time, under the direction of the Bush administration, staked its claim to remaining the world's paramount military power in permanence. The contradiction at the heart of the American Empire was that while it was able to shape the course of politics, the economy and society in many countries, it relied on the state in each country to administer affairs locally.
The great fact of our age is that we live in a world dominated by the American Empire, but a world in which the sovereign state is increasingly valued as a priceless asset by peoples everywhere. Empire and nationalism co-exist today as they co-existed in the age of the great European empires.
James Laxer is a professor of political science at York University in Toronto. This is part 10.1 of a 10.2-part series that has run regularly on rabble.ca.
Harper says consensus needed to extend Afghan mission.
I wonder what Harper is up to? Is it a face saving tactic or does he really think that he will gain support from the Liberals or BQ great enough to claim a consensus. It will be a strange consensus if some parties oppose any extension at all as the NDP might unless the role is solely aid for reconstruction.
'Consensus' needed to extend Afghan mission: PM
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 2:25 PM ET
CBC News
The Conservative government will not extend Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 without a consensus in Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.
"I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians on how we move forward on that," Harper told reporters Friday in Ottawa.
"I don't want to send people on a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work they're doing in the field."
The 2009 deadline was set in May 2006, when the Conservatives announced a vote on a two-year extension for the mission and, a few days later, squeezed it through Parliament in a vote of 149-145.
But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has since made it clear that his party will oppose any extension of the mission beyond February 2009.
'He wants to stay': Dion
Dion accused Harper on Friday of deliberately creating ambiguity over Canada's future role in Afghanistan.
"If he were responsible, he would tell the Afghan government and our allies that the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar would end in February 2009 and they should prepare themselves on that basis," Dion told reporters after Harper spoke.
"To keep saying these ambiguous things, it's because he wants to stay."
Harper said Friday that he didn't believe Canadians wanted "simply to abandon" the democratically elected Afghan government and said he hoped for a "meeting of minds" in determining Canada's role beyond the deadline.
His comments came a day after NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer appealed for Canada to remain with the fighting and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan beyond 2009.
Since Canada started its Afghan mission in 2002, it has lost one diplomat and 60 soldiers, including three soldiers who were killed this week by an improvised explosive device.
'Consensus' needed to extend Afghan mission: PM
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 2:25 PM ET
CBC News
The Conservative government will not extend Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 without a consensus in Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.
"I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians on how we move forward on that," Harper told reporters Friday in Ottawa.
"I don't want to send people on a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work they're doing in the field."
The 2009 deadline was set in May 2006, when the Conservatives announced a vote on a two-year extension for the mission and, a few days later, squeezed it through Parliament in a vote of 149-145.
But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has since made it clear that his party will oppose any extension of the mission beyond February 2009.
'He wants to stay': Dion
Dion accused Harper on Friday of deliberately creating ambiguity over Canada's future role in Afghanistan.
"If he were responsible, he would tell the Afghan government and our allies that the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar would end in February 2009 and they should prepare themselves on that basis," Dion told reporters after Harper spoke.
"To keep saying these ambiguous things, it's because he wants to stay."
Harper said Friday that he didn't believe Canadians wanted "simply to abandon" the democratically elected Afghan government and said he hoped for a "meeting of minds" in determining Canada's role beyond the deadline.
His comments came a day after NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer appealed for Canada to remain with the fighting and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan beyond 2009.
Since Canada started its Afghan mission in 2002, it has lost one diplomat and 60 soldiers, including three soldiers who were killed this week by an improvised explosive device.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
RCMP "tightens" the intelligence standard.
This is unadulterated rhetorical garbage. The tightening is simply applying the norms that were already in place but that were not followed in the Arar case because the RCMP thought that the rules about vetting and placing caveats on the use of data were not in play. At least that is what the RCMP claimed but CSIS claimed otherwise. How the RCMP can be assured that the FBI always follows the rules about caveats is anyone's guess. It is again just saying the right thing.
NATIONAL SECURITY
RCMP tightens intelligence standard
COLIN FREEZE
June 20, 2007
The RCMP is assuring Parliament that it has officially entered a post-Arar world.
Senators asked a top Mountie this week whether dubious intelligence from Canada could ever again be used by the United States to deport a suspect to a third country to face torture.
It was precisely this scenario, in 2002, that appears to have led to the Maher Arar affair and its fallout.
Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell testified that terrorism investigations are now highly centralized within his office, where he and his officials carefully examine all information input and output. He says the national security criminal investigations squad runs on discipline.
More National Stories
"We are very careful about staying within our mandate," the official repeatedly stressed to the Senate committee on national security. He added that he can even ensure international partners don't cross lines either.
"I am satisfied that in my dealings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, my information will be protected and that I will be notified and consulted before any action is taken with respect to the information I provide to the bureau," Mr. McDonell testified.
"I am satisfied that, if I said the information could not be used in a certain way, we could work through that."
Five years ago, there was confusion about how information was gathered and how it was treated.
In 2002, Syrian-Canadian engineer Maher Arar was flagged as an "Islamic extremist" on an international no-fly list after the Mounties spotted him while monitoring another suspect.
When Mr. Arar passed through a New York airport, authorities there labelled him an al-Qaeda member and flew him in shackles to Syria, where he was detained for nearly a year.
A Canadian judge who spent years looking into this found that inaccurate information from Canada likely led to the engineer's ordeal.
Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor also found that Mr. Arar was tortured in Syria, though he had never represented any threat to Canadian national security.
Mr. McDonell says that today, the Mounties have "gotten out" of strategic intelligence work and left that job entirely to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
"We take our strategic national security priorities from the service," he told the Senate committee. "We do not produce them."
He added that most of Judge O'Connor's recommendations related to the Arar affair have been "fully implemented" by the Mounties.
In fact, "we were well on our way to that before the recommendations came out" last winter, he said.
NATIONAL SECURITY
RCMP tightens intelligence standard
COLIN FREEZE
June 20, 2007
The RCMP is assuring Parliament that it has officially entered a post-Arar world.
Senators asked a top Mountie this week whether dubious intelligence from Canada could ever again be used by the United States to deport a suspect to a third country to face torture.
It was precisely this scenario, in 2002, that appears to have led to the Maher Arar affair and its fallout.
Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell testified that terrorism investigations are now highly centralized within his office, where he and his officials carefully examine all information input and output. He says the national security criminal investigations squad runs on discipline.
More National Stories
"We are very careful about staying within our mandate," the official repeatedly stressed to the Senate committee on national security. He added that he can even ensure international partners don't cross lines either.
"I am satisfied that in my dealings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, my information will be protected and that I will be notified and consulted before any action is taken with respect to the information I provide to the bureau," Mr. McDonell testified.
"I am satisfied that, if I said the information could not be used in a certain way, we could work through that."
Five years ago, there was confusion about how information was gathered and how it was treated.
In 2002, Syrian-Canadian engineer Maher Arar was flagged as an "Islamic extremist" on an international no-fly list after the Mounties spotted him while monitoring another suspect.
When Mr. Arar passed through a New York airport, authorities there labelled him an al-Qaeda member and flew him in shackles to Syria, where he was detained for nearly a year.
A Canadian judge who spent years looking into this found that inaccurate information from Canada likely led to the engineer's ordeal.
Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor also found that Mr. Arar was tortured in Syria, though he had never represented any threat to Canadian national security.
Mr. McDonell says that today, the Mounties have "gotten out" of strategic intelligence work and left that job entirely to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
"We take our strategic national security priorities from the service," he told the Senate committee. "We do not produce them."
He added that most of Judge O'Connor's recommendations related to the Arar affair have been "fully implemented" by the Mounties.
In fact, "we were well on our way to that before the recommendations came out" last winter, he said.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Scheffer claims Canada fighting to preserve universal values in Afghanistan.
The entire article is at the Globe and Mail.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, standing before the Vandoos's red-coated honour guard in Quebec City's historic Citadel, told the soldiers they were fighting to preserve universal values.
Scheffer does not say what the universal values are. In Afghanistan we are preserving the war lords, the religious police, the death penalty for converting from Islam to any other religion etc.etc. Perhaps one of the universal values is US global hegemony.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, standing before the Vandoos's red-coated honour guard in Quebec City's historic Citadel, told the soldiers they were fighting to preserve universal values.
Scheffer does not say what the universal values are. In Afghanistan we are preserving the war lords, the religious police, the death penalty for converting from Islam to any other religion etc.etc. Perhaps one of the universal values is US global hegemony.
Deputy Commissioner of RCMP steps down.
I wonder if there is any salary reduction in his new position. The position itself is a bit strange for a person who is in effect being forced out of his position because of his lack of proper oversight. Perhaps it is just a position manufactured to enable a lateral transfer out of the hot spot.
RCMP deputy commissioner steps down amid controversy
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 9:19 PM ET
CBC News
A deputy commissioner at the RCMP has stepped down, one week after he was criticized in an investigation into the police force's pension fund scandal.
Paul Gauvin announced Friday that he is leaving his position, but not the RCMP. He will serve as the force's special adviser on major capital projects.
Gauvin, a former public servant who joined the RCMP as a civilian member in 1999, was singled out in a report released June 15 by federal investigator David Brown.
Brown was appointed by the Conservative government to investigate allegations that senior RCMP officers covered up problems in the administration of the force's $12-billion pension and insurance fund.
The alleged problems included doubtful expense-account claims, improper contracts and nepotism in hiring.
Brown, in his report, said Gauvin didn't take any responsibility for the problems, even though he was deputy commissioner of corporate management and comptrollership, which meant he was the top official in charge of RCMP finances.
Continue Article
"He has consistently refused to accept accountability for problems exposed in the administration of the pension and insurance plans," Brown wrote in the report.
"I do understand [Gauvin's] point when he says that the RCMP is a large organization and that he cannot be expected to be aware of every transaction. However the chief financial officer of any organization must accept accountability for failures in the finance and comptrollership functions."
Brown compiled his report after reviewing multiple investigations and inquiries into RCMP management that had been conducted since 2003. Brown also hired forensic accountants to study 400,000 documents and e-mails and interviewed about 25 witnesses.
In his report, Brown did not call for a public inquiry but did recommend that a task force of police, government officials and private-sector experts examine RCMP culture and governance. Brown said there needs to be major changes to the way the organization is managed.
He strongly criticized the management style of former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, saying officers who came forward with concerns about the management of the pension fund were treated poorly.
Some of the officers testified earlier this spring to a parliamentary committee, claiming that when they unearthed irregularities, their senior managers responded by punishing them or blocking investigations.
RCMP deputy commissioner steps down amid controversy
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 9:19 PM ET
CBC News
A deputy commissioner at the RCMP has stepped down, one week after he was criticized in an investigation into the police force's pension fund scandal.
Paul Gauvin announced Friday that he is leaving his position, but not the RCMP. He will serve as the force's special adviser on major capital projects.
Gauvin, a former public servant who joined the RCMP as a civilian member in 1999, was singled out in a report released June 15 by federal investigator David Brown.
Brown was appointed by the Conservative government to investigate allegations that senior RCMP officers covered up problems in the administration of the force's $12-billion pension and insurance fund.
The alleged problems included doubtful expense-account claims, improper contracts and nepotism in hiring.
Brown, in his report, said Gauvin didn't take any responsibility for the problems, even though he was deputy commissioner of corporate management and comptrollership, which meant he was the top official in charge of RCMP finances.
Continue Article
"He has consistently refused to accept accountability for problems exposed in the administration of the pension and insurance plans," Brown wrote in the report.
"I do understand [Gauvin's] point when he says that the RCMP is a large organization and that he cannot be expected to be aware of every transaction. However the chief financial officer of any organization must accept accountability for failures in the finance and comptrollership functions."
Brown compiled his report after reviewing multiple investigations and inquiries into RCMP management that had been conducted since 2003. Brown also hired forensic accountants to study 400,000 documents and e-mails and interviewed about 25 witnesses.
In his report, Brown did not call for a public inquiry but did recommend that a task force of police, government officials and private-sector experts examine RCMP culture and governance. Brown said there needs to be major changes to the way the organization is managed.
He strongly criticized the management style of former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, saying officers who came forward with concerns about the management of the pension fund were treated poorly.
Some of the officers testified earlier this spring to a parliamentary committee, claiming that when they unearthed irregularities, their senior managers responded by punishing them or blocking investigations.
Day and the RCMP scandals
Wow! If I were Day I would be a bit paranoid about the media after reading articles like this. I think maybe Day has caused our rainy weather out here too and the tornadoes that touched down near Winnipeg! Of course Day must bear some responsibility for the mess in the RCMP but it is successive governments not just the Tories or Day who have not cleaned things up. Maybe I have low expectations of Day! Day did after all refuse to tag along with the US when it came to agreeing that Arar should be on the US no fly list. He even said that the secret evidence he saw did not change his mind clearly implying that there was nothing of significance that the US had on Arar. Surely Day deserves some credit for his stand on Arar.
Having said on this it certainly would be a better idea to have a full inquiry into the RCMP than to follow the Day policy.
POLITICS AND POLICE
TheStar.com - comment - Day the one inescapable constant in RCMP mess
Day the one inescapable constant in RCMP mess
Jun 21, 2007 04:30 AM
Andrew Mitrovica
Stockwell Day is a fortunate man. He has so far escaped being held to even a semblance of account over a cascading series of scandals that have debilitated this nation's federal police force. The outrages are fuelled by deceit, incompetence and rot deep inside the RCMP.
Here is a synopsis of the force's recent travails:
A damning verdict by Ontario's former associate chief justice detailed the central and disastrous role the RCMP played in Maher Arar's illegal deportation and torture.
Charges from within the force's ranks pointed to corruption, cronyism and cover-up by top Mounties in connection to millions of dollars in an employee pension fund.
A disgraced commissioner resigned after offering contradictory accounts of his role in the Arar affair and a deputy commissioner was suspended after allegations of perjury before a parliamentary committee.
And now a report that lays bare the dictatorial character of the RCMP's most senior officers and their petty, vindictive response to internal dissent.
It is a portrait of a police force nearing implosion. The RCMP's dysfunctional state is an indictment of a government that routinely warns us that we are vulnerable to attacks from amorphous enemies at home and abroad. The implications of this disaster for Canadians' safety and security are incalculable. The one inescapable constant throughout this mess has been Day.
But the only thing Canada's public safety minister seems to be busy safeguarding these days is his refurbished reputation with much of the Ottawa press corps. If you are inclined to believe Day's recent press clippings, you would likely surmise that the minister is a quietly competent action man who is determined to rapidly right the sinking ship called the RCMP.
Day promoted this disingenuous image by commissioning David Brown, the former head of the notoriously limp Ontario Securities Commission, to produce a report containing a conclusion that anyone with a functioning pair of eyes and even a mild interest in our national security infrastructure knew long ago – the RCMP is dangerously adrift.
In the aftermath of Brown's headline grabbing finding that the RCMP is "broken," the minister has, once again, apparently seized the day. He has opted to strike a task force of eminent persons, rather than a full-fledged public inquiry, to determine how best to repair the RCMP because, Day says, "we've got to take action now."
This Pablum masquerading as "action" is, of course, classic crisis management. Day and his advisers have plucked the ready and predictable tricks from their public relations grab bag to get out "in front" of a damaging story.
They have constructed an exculpatory narrative of a minister who is in command, marshalling the resources of his department and government to quickly rehabilitate the RCMP's tarnished reputation in a belated effort to reassure you and me.
For the most part, the media have parroted the story line tailored by Day and company. He has, as a result, avoided uncomfortable questions concerning his whereabouts while the RCMP has been disintegrating so publicly.
There are other questions that demand answers. Why did Day turn to a Bay Street investigator to do his job? Isn't it the public safety minister's responsibility to probe the causes of the malignancy inside the RCMP? Why is the impatient minister content to wait until the end of the year, when the task force is expected to issue its findings, before overhauling the RCMP?
It is has been quite a metamorphosis for the former leader of the now deceased Canadian Alliance. During his tumultuous tenure as Opposition leader, he earned a reputation as a barely competent politician, who often exercised questionable judgment.
He was dethroned by a caucus mutiny triggered by a string of embarrassing faux pas, culminating in his party's hiring (and firing) of a former undercover agent linked to the Hells Angels biker club to "get the goods" on Jean Chrétien's Liberal government.
At the time, Day was described by one columnist as "a disaster waiting to happen."
She was right.
Having said on this it certainly would be a better idea to have a full inquiry into the RCMP than to follow the Day policy.
POLITICS AND POLICE
TheStar.com - comment - Day the one inescapable constant in RCMP mess
Day the one inescapable constant in RCMP mess
Jun 21, 2007 04:30 AM
Andrew Mitrovica
Stockwell Day is a fortunate man. He has so far escaped being held to even a semblance of account over a cascading series of scandals that have debilitated this nation's federal police force. The outrages are fuelled by deceit, incompetence and rot deep inside the RCMP.
Here is a synopsis of the force's recent travails:
A damning verdict by Ontario's former associate chief justice detailed the central and disastrous role the RCMP played in Maher Arar's illegal deportation and torture.
Charges from within the force's ranks pointed to corruption, cronyism and cover-up by top Mounties in connection to millions of dollars in an employee pension fund.
A disgraced commissioner resigned after offering contradictory accounts of his role in the Arar affair and a deputy commissioner was suspended after allegations of perjury before a parliamentary committee.
And now a report that lays bare the dictatorial character of the RCMP's most senior officers and their petty, vindictive response to internal dissent.
It is a portrait of a police force nearing implosion. The RCMP's dysfunctional state is an indictment of a government that routinely warns us that we are vulnerable to attacks from amorphous enemies at home and abroad. The implications of this disaster for Canadians' safety and security are incalculable. The one inescapable constant throughout this mess has been Day.
But the only thing Canada's public safety minister seems to be busy safeguarding these days is his refurbished reputation with much of the Ottawa press corps. If you are inclined to believe Day's recent press clippings, you would likely surmise that the minister is a quietly competent action man who is determined to rapidly right the sinking ship called the RCMP.
Day promoted this disingenuous image by commissioning David Brown, the former head of the notoriously limp Ontario Securities Commission, to produce a report containing a conclusion that anyone with a functioning pair of eyes and even a mild interest in our national security infrastructure knew long ago – the RCMP is dangerously adrift.
In the aftermath of Brown's headline grabbing finding that the RCMP is "broken," the minister has, once again, apparently seized the day. He has opted to strike a task force of eminent persons, rather than a full-fledged public inquiry, to determine how best to repair the RCMP because, Day says, "we've got to take action now."
This Pablum masquerading as "action" is, of course, classic crisis management. Day and his advisers have plucked the ready and predictable tricks from their public relations grab bag to get out "in front" of a damaging story.
They have constructed an exculpatory narrative of a minister who is in command, marshalling the resources of his department and government to quickly rehabilitate the RCMP's tarnished reputation in a belated effort to reassure you and me.
For the most part, the media have parroted the story line tailored by Day and company. He has, as a result, avoided uncomfortable questions concerning his whereabouts while the RCMP has been disintegrating so publicly.
There are other questions that demand answers. Why did Day turn to a Bay Street investigator to do his job? Isn't it the public safety minister's responsibility to probe the causes of the malignancy inside the RCMP? Why is the impatient minister content to wait until the end of the year, when the task force is expected to issue its findings, before overhauling the RCMP?
It is has been quite a metamorphosis for the former leader of the now deceased Canadian Alliance. During his tumultuous tenure as Opposition leader, he earned a reputation as a barely competent politician, who often exercised questionable judgment.
He was dethroned by a caucus mutiny triggered by a string of embarrassing faux pas, culminating in his party's hiring (and firing) of a former undercover agent linked to the Hells Angels biker club to "get the goods" on Jean Chrétien's Liberal government.
At the time, Day was described by one columnist as "a disaster waiting to happen."
She was right.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Charkaoui meets CSIS dept. of dirty tricks.
Here we go again. This is the same pattern as happened with Maher Arar. Documents are leaked to the news media that show someone is a terrorist. These are classified documents. This technique seems to be a common underhand method for CSIS to justify itself. There is no way of verifying the truth of the documents. In the case of Arar the inquiry did show that the documents leaked to the press in his case involved confessions obtained through torture in Syria among other things. Although it is a criminal offence to reveal classified documents in this way no one has ever been found guilty of doing so in the Arar case and no doubt the same will be true in this case. The RCMP burned barns. The CSIS burns people's reputations.
Charkaoui denies talking about terrorist plot
Moroccan-born Montrealer demands federal inquiry into his security certificate
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 2:14 PM ET
CBC News
A Moroccan-born Montreal man accused of being a terrorist denies new reports alleging he was part of a plot to hijack a plane and fly it into a building in Europe.
Adil Charkaoui, who has been accused of being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, said Thursday he has never been involved in a terrorist plot.
( Charkaoui is calling for a federal and police inquiry into allegations against him, and has demanded the outstanding security certificate in his name be revoked. "A line has been crossed," he said on Friday.
The French teacher, 33, was responding to a report in the Montreal newspaper La Presse. It cited a Canadian Security Intelligence Service document that alleges Charkaoui followed two Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and in 2000 talked about plans to fly a plane into a building in Europe with another man, Hisham Tahir.
The document, called Former Terrorist Training Camps in Afghanistan: Major Sites and Assessment, was the basis for a security certificate issued against Charkaoui in 2003. The certificate brought about his arrest and detention for nearly two years without him being charged with anything.
Charkaoui accused the federal government of leading a smear campaign against him by leaking classified information even his lawyers haven't seen.
While he admits he did know Tahir, who attends the same Montreal mosque and once worked at his pizzeria, Charkaoui insisted in all their conversations they never talked about a plot to crash a plane.
"These are pure lies. And I think the context is really surprising," he said in French. "I cannot trust [federal Public Safety Minister] Stockwell Day."
Charkaoui is asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to launch an inquiry to investigate how CSIS handled the security certificates, and also wants the police to intervene.
On Friday, Harper said he wouldn't comment on Charkaoui's concerns.
"This is a case in front of the courts. The government does not make comments. But it is a serious case," he said in French.
Document 'supposed to be secret': lawyer
Charkaoui's lawyer, Johanne Doyon, said the publication of the document violates federal law.
"This is a document that is supposed to be secret," she said. "We are flabbergasted that there was a CSIS leak. And we wonder what the real objective of this leak actually is."
Charkaoui's lawyers have not been able to access the document despite their lengthy court battle against the security certificate.
The Supreme Court agreed last winter to hear an appeal from Charkaoui, who wants to contest the security certificate proceedings launched against him by Ottawa on the grounds CSIS tainted evidence used to detain him.
The country's top court has already struck down the security certificates in a groundbreaking decision released in February 2007 that determined they violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the court suspended the ruling for 12 months, to allow the government enough time to rewrite security laws, effectively meaning the security certificates are valid until further notice.
Charkaoui's Supreme Court of Canada case is expected to be heard sometime next year.
Charkaoui denies talking about terrorist plot
Moroccan-born Montrealer demands federal inquiry into his security certificate
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 2:14 PM ET
CBC News
A Moroccan-born Montreal man accused of being a terrorist denies new reports alleging he was part of a plot to hijack a plane and fly it into a building in Europe.
Adil Charkaoui, who has been accused of being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, said Thursday he has never been involved in a terrorist plot.
( Charkaoui is calling for a federal and police inquiry into allegations against him, and has demanded the outstanding security certificate in his name be revoked. "A line has been crossed," he said on Friday.
The French teacher, 33, was responding to a report in the Montreal newspaper La Presse. It cited a Canadian Security Intelligence Service document that alleges Charkaoui followed two Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and in 2000 talked about plans to fly a plane into a building in Europe with another man, Hisham Tahir.
The document, called Former Terrorist Training Camps in Afghanistan: Major Sites and Assessment, was the basis for a security certificate issued against Charkaoui in 2003. The certificate brought about his arrest and detention for nearly two years without him being charged with anything.
Charkaoui accused the federal government of leading a smear campaign against him by leaking classified information even his lawyers haven't seen.
While he admits he did know Tahir, who attends the same Montreal mosque and once worked at his pizzeria, Charkaoui insisted in all their conversations they never talked about a plot to crash a plane.
"These are pure lies. And I think the context is really surprising," he said in French. "I cannot trust [federal Public Safety Minister] Stockwell Day."
Charkaoui is asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to launch an inquiry to investigate how CSIS handled the security certificates, and also wants the police to intervene.
On Friday, Harper said he wouldn't comment on Charkaoui's concerns.
"This is a case in front of the courts. The government does not make comments. But it is a serious case," he said in French.
Document 'supposed to be secret': lawyer
Charkaoui's lawyer, Johanne Doyon, said the publication of the document violates federal law.
"This is a document that is supposed to be secret," she said. "We are flabbergasted that there was a CSIS leak. And we wonder what the real objective of this leak actually is."
Charkaoui's lawyers have not been able to access the document despite their lengthy court battle against the security certificate.
The Supreme Court agreed last winter to hear an appeal from Charkaoui, who wants to contest the security certificate proceedings launched against him by Ottawa on the grounds CSIS tainted evidence used to detain him.
The country's top court has already struck down the security certificates in a groundbreaking decision released in February 2007 that determined they violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the court suspended the ruling for 12 months, to allow the government enough time to rewrite security laws, effectively meaning the security certificates are valid until further notice.
Charkaoui's Supreme Court of Canada case is expected to be heard sometime next year.
Harper: Govt. can't comply with Kyoto law.
Lets see. Harper will not ignore the law but then he won't comply with the law either. So he might as well have ignored it. Liberals are not very good horsetraders. They traded passing the Conservative budget for passing a Liberal law that means nothing it seems.
Government can't comply with Kyoto law: PM
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 4:15 PM ET
CBC News
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will not ignore a law passed Friday that requires the government to meet Kyoto's emission-reduction targets — but warned that he has no constitutional authority to implement it.
The bill — which gives the government 60 days to table a detailed plan outlining how Canada will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions — was introduced by Liberal backbencher MP Pablo Rodriguez and passed in the House of Commons in February, despite Conservative opposition.
The Liberal-dominated Senate passed the bill on Friday.
"I'm not saying I'm going to ignore it at all," the prime minister told reporters on Friday.
"But I don't believe that either the House of Commons or the Senate would want to force the government to do something that it doesn't have the constitutional authority to do."
Since the Conservatives came to power in January 2006, Harper has repeatedly said Canada's commitments under Kyoto — signed under a previous Liberal government — are not achievable by the 2012 deadline because it would devastate the economy.
Harper said Friday that the Speaker of the House has ruled the legislation is not a money bill — one that lays out government spending — so there are strict constitutional limitations in terms of what can be achieved.
"The bill cannot impose billions of dollars of costs on the government or on the Canadian economy," he told reporters.
Under the international Kyoto protocol, which was signed by Canada in 1998 and ratified in 2002, the country agreed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.
In an interview with the Canadian Press before the vote, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan also played down the significance of the Kyoto legislation.
"It's a very odd piece of legislation," he said, noting that it commits the government to achieving emission-reduction goals without spending a dime.
He added "there's some similarity" between the bill and a toothless motion passed years ago by Parliament to eliminate child poverty by 2000.
"Abstract goals like that are a tough thing to enforce as a law."
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Harper should respect the legislation said he won't bring down the Conservative government over the issue.
"There are many, many things that I find wrong in this government. It's not a reason for me to say because these things are wrong, I'm ready to call an election," Dion said.
"At the end of the day this law will be helpful to see how the government is not doing the right thing."
Government can't comply with Kyoto law: PM
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 | 4:15 PM ET
CBC News
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will not ignore a law passed Friday that requires the government to meet Kyoto's emission-reduction targets — but warned that he has no constitutional authority to implement it.
The bill — which gives the government 60 days to table a detailed plan outlining how Canada will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions — was introduced by Liberal backbencher MP Pablo Rodriguez and passed in the House of Commons in February, despite Conservative opposition.
The Liberal-dominated Senate passed the bill on Friday.
"I'm not saying I'm going to ignore it at all," the prime minister told reporters on Friday.
"But I don't believe that either the House of Commons or the Senate would want to force the government to do something that it doesn't have the constitutional authority to do."
Since the Conservatives came to power in January 2006, Harper has repeatedly said Canada's commitments under Kyoto — signed under a previous Liberal government — are not achievable by the 2012 deadline because it would devastate the economy.
Harper said Friday that the Speaker of the House has ruled the legislation is not a money bill — one that lays out government spending — so there are strict constitutional limitations in terms of what can be achieved.
"The bill cannot impose billions of dollars of costs on the government or on the Canadian economy," he told reporters.
Under the international Kyoto protocol, which was signed by Canada in 1998 and ratified in 2002, the country agreed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.
In an interview with the Canadian Press before the vote, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan also played down the significance of the Kyoto legislation.
"It's a very odd piece of legislation," he said, noting that it commits the government to achieving emission-reduction goals without spending a dime.
He added "there's some similarity" between the bill and a toothless motion passed years ago by Parliament to eliminate child poverty by 2000.
"Abstract goals like that are a tough thing to enforce as a law."
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Harper should respect the legislation said he won't bring down the Conservative government over the issue.
"There are many, many things that I find wrong in this government. It's not a reason for me to say because these things are wrong, I'm ready to call an election," Dion said.
"At the end of the day this law will be helpful to see how the government is not doing the right thing."
James Laxer comments on the no-fly list
This is an excellent analysis of some of the shortcomings of the no-fly list. He could have noted that some suspected of immediate plots and being monitored are not on the list because agencies do not want them to be alerted to that fact.
No Fly List, Other Spook Lists, and the Court of Star Chamber
The federal government’s No Fly list came into effect this morning. Ottawa’s list includes the name, date of birth, and gender of persons who supposedly could pose a threat to aviation safety, if they were to board a flight.
The No Fly list is being provided to all airlines that fly within Canada or in and out of Canada. The list is administered by Transport Canada. It has been compiled secretly, no one will say by whom, and no one will tell us how many names are on the list.
According to a Globe and Mail story, the Canadian No Fly list is expected to contain fewer than one thousand names. The Globe provides no source for this.
The United States has a similar No Fly list and one of the reasons Ottawa is drawing up its own list is to reassure Washington that we are doing all in our power to aid in the War on Terror. The American list, which contained as many as 70,000 names at one point, has been the cause of numerous “false positives”---people with the same name or similar names to those on the list---being barred from taking a flight. Among those caught in the net have been Senator Edward Kennedy, and Edmonton Conservative MP John Williams.
The way the Canadian system works is as follows. All passengers when they are at the airline counter to pick up their boarding passes will have their names checked against the No Fly list. If the passenger’s name is on the list, the airline employee hands the person a printed form that explains that he or she is on the No Fly list. Instructions are included about how to contact Transport Canada and how to appeal for the removal of one’s name from the list. Once the printout has been handed to the rejected passenger, the airline ceases to be involved.
You could be in Toronto, Tokyo, Cairo or Washington when this administrative fiat comes down on you. That’s tough. There’s no way to find out before you plan your trip whether you’re on the list. And just because you’ve been allowed to fly to Paris doesn’t mean that your name won’t be added to the list before your return flight home. You can, of course, take a passenger ship home if one is available. That is unless the security forces in the airport pick you up when they see that you haven’t been allowed to board your flight. That might not happen in Moncton, but I’d be less happy-go-lucky about this in Beijing or New York.
What about the rights of other passengers to board their flights in the most secure possible circumstances, you were about to ask? Don’t their rights trump those of the people whose names were put on the No Fly list for a very good reason? People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, the old saying goes.
We’ll return to the rights issue, but first the security question. Any sensible person will agree that people are entitled to the best possible security protection when they board an aircraft. Few who have examined the matter would claim that Canada’s procedures provide the best possible security. The major hole in this country’s arrangements---from the time of the bombing of Air India in 1985 to the present---has been the failure to X Ray all baggage being loaded onto aircraft, and where there have been specific warnings, to use other measures as well, such as the use of sniffer dogs. This costs money. Let’s spend it.
The American experience with a No Fly list has done nothing useful except to provide jokes for late night comics. Almost no one thinks that future terrorists who board a plane will carry ID that will show up on the No Fly list.
This takes us back to the rights question.
The idea of drawing up a secret list and asking airlines to administer it is frightening. Foreign airlines and governments will get to know your name is on the list..
People on the list are presumed to pose a terror threat. If this is true they ought to be arrested and charged with a criminal offence. Instead, we’ve cooked up a new category of person----someone too innocent to be charged with an offensive, but too guilty to be allowed to board an aircraft.
Those who are on the list are not permitted to face those who have accused them in a transparent judicial proceeding.
Those on the No Fly list are not allowed to fly inside Canada. Worse still, they have had their right to travel internationally effectively removed. One of the rights guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution is that of mobility. Section 6: 1 reads: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.”
This is not the first time that “spook lists” have been drawn up to harass citizens. I have had some personal experience with this.
In the late 1980s, when they were in their late seventies, my parents who had quit the Communist Party of Canada in 1956, were flying back to Toronto from Europe. Their flight was re-routed to Chicago due to bad weather. When the passengers deplaned in Chicago, my parents were taken aside and held by a U.S. government agent in a special holding room. When there was a flight available to Toronto, they were escorted onto the plane by an agent. Three decades after they had left a legal political party, they were still not allowed to enter the Land of the Free.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I was involved in the Waffle Movement in the NDP, an open and democratic political movement. In March 1971, the Security Service of the RCMP, in a brief on the Waffle group submitted to the Solicitor General of Canada Jean-Pierre Goyer, noted that:
The prime aim of the Waffle Group within the NDP is the establishment of an independent socialist Canada to be achieved through the existing structure of the New Democratic Party. The Waffle group hope to change the NDP from within and radicalize the NDP socialist policies. Considering the Waffle group as a whole, it is felt they will be a viable political force within the NDP.
Apart from their assessment of the political viability of the Waffle, the spooks got the story right. What matters is that the Waffle was neither the first nor the last political movement to be spied on by the security forces of the Canadian government. Trade unionists, student activists, socialists, anarchists, and Quebec sovereignists have had their phones bugged and their names entered onto spook lists.
The idea that we would allow the government of Canada to ask its thoroughly discredited security agencies to draw up a new spook list---the No Fly list---is appalling. On the list will undoubtedly be some who are being profiled because of their religion or their ethnicity. In addition, the list could contain the names of political activists, writers, odd balls or people not to the liking of the current government. The point is that we can’t find out what criteria have been used to draw up this list.
Truly worrying is the creation of categories of citizens whose rights are removed in the absence of any judicial process. By judicial proceeding, I mean a criminal trial, of course. But I also mean an administrative hearing in which a non-criminal complaint could be made. In both of these cases, the accused person would have the right to a defence.
The No Fly list is the kind of secret, arbitrary injustice that was meted out by the Stuart monarchs in England by the infamous Court of Star Chamber. The horrors committed by the Court of Star Chamber motivated England and later Canada to embrace the principle that no one should be secretly charged with an offence and that everyone has a right to hear the charges against him or her and to a defence in a transparent proceeding.
It won’t be long before outraged people complain about the ways the No Fly list has negatively affected them. Let’s hope that we are not serving up another Maher Arar to some arbitrary government when some hapless Canadian citizen tries to fly home from a less than civil libertarian foreign city.
No Fly List, Other Spook Lists, and the Court of Star Chamber
The federal government’s No Fly list came into effect this morning. Ottawa’s list includes the name, date of birth, and gender of persons who supposedly could pose a threat to aviation safety, if they were to board a flight.
The No Fly list is being provided to all airlines that fly within Canada or in and out of Canada. The list is administered by Transport Canada. It has been compiled secretly, no one will say by whom, and no one will tell us how many names are on the list.
According to a Globe and Mail story, the Canadian No Fly list is expected to contain fewer than one thousand names. The Globe provides no source for this.
The United States has a similar No Fly list and one of the reasons Ottawa is drawing up its own list is to reassure Washington that we are doing all in our power to aid in the War on Terror. The American list, which contained as many as 70,000 names at one point, has been the cause of numerous “false positives”---people with the same name or similar names to those on the list---being barred from taking a flight. Among those caught in the net have been Senator Edward Kennedy, and Edmonton Conservative MP John Williams.
The way the Canadian system works is as follows. All passengers when they are at the airline counter to pick up their boarding passes will have their names checked against the No Fly list. If the passenger’s name is on the list, the airline employee hands the person a printed form that explains that he or she is on the No Fly list. Instructions are included about how to contact Transport Canada and how to appeal for the removal of one’s name from the list. Once the printout has been handed to the rejected passenger, the airline ceases to be involved.
You could be in Toronto, Tokyo, Cairo or Washington when this administrative fiat comes down on you. That’s tough. There’s no way to find out before you plan your trip whether you’re on the list. And just because you’ve been allowed to fly to Paris doesn’t mean that your name won’t be added to the list before your return flight home. You can, of course, take a passenger ship home if one is available. That is unless the security forces in the airport pick you up when they see that you haven’t been allowed to board your flight. That might not happen in Moncton, but I’d be less happy-go-lucky about this in Beijing or New York.
What about the rights of other passengers to board their flights in the most secure possible circumstances, you were about to ask? Don’t their rights trump those of the people whose names were put on the No Fly list for a very good reason? People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, the old saying goes.
We’ll return to the rights issue, but first the security question. Any sensible person will agree that people are entitled to the best possible security protection when they board an aircraft. Few who have examined the matter would claim that Canada’s procedures provide the best possible security. The major hole in this country’s arrangements---from the time of the bombing of Air India in 1985 to the present---has been the failure to X Ray all baggage being loaded onto aircraft, and where there have been specific warnings, to use other measures as well, such as the use of sniffer dogs. This costs money. Let’s spend it.
The American experience with a No Fly list has done nothing useful except to provide jokes for late night comics. Almost no one thinks that future terrorists who board a plane will carry ID that will show up on the No Fly list.
This takes us back to the rights question.
The idea of drawing up a secret list and asking airlines to administer it is frightening. Foreign airlines and governments will get to know your name is on the list..
People on the list are presumed to pose a terror threat. If this is true they ought to be arrested and charged with a criminal offence. Instead, we’ve cooked up a new category of person----someone too innocent to be charged with an offensive, but too guilty to be allowed to board an aircraft.
Those who are on the list are not permitted to face those who have accused them in a transparent judicial proceeding.
Those on the No Fly list are not allowed to fly inside Canada. Worse still, they have had their right to travel internationally effectively removed. One of the rights guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution is that of mobility. Section 6: 1 reads: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.”
This is not the first time that “spook lists” have been drawn up to harass citizens. I have had some personal experience with this.
In the late 1980s, when they were in their late seventies, my parents who had quit the Communist Party of Canada in 1956, were flying back to Toronto from Europe. Their flight was re-routed to Chicago due to bad weather. When the passengers deplaned in Chicago, my parents were taken aside and held by a U.S. government agent in a special holding room. When there was a flight available to Toronto, they were escorted onto the plane by an agent. Three decades after they had left a legal political party, they were still not allowed to enter the Land of the Free.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I was involved in the Waffle Movement in the NDP, an open and democratic political movement. In March 1971, the Security Service of the RCMP, in a brief on the Waffle group submitted to the Solicitor General of Canada Jean-Pierre Goyer, noted that:
The prime aim of the Waffle Group within the NDP is the establishment of an independent socialist Canada to be achieved through the existing structure of the New Democratic Party. The Waffle group hope to change the NDP from within and radicalize the NDP socialist policies. Considering the Waffle group as a whole, it is felt they will be a viable political force within the NDP.
Apart from their assessment of the political viability of the Waffle, the spooks got the story right. What matters is that the Waffle was neither the first nor the last political movement to be spied on by the security forces of the Canadian government. Trade unionists, student activists, socialists, anarchists, and Quebec sovereignists have had their phones bugged and their names entered onto spook lists.
The idea that we would allow the government of Canada to ask its thoroughly discredited security agencies to draw up a new spook list---the No Fly list---is appalling. On the list will undoubtedly be some who are being profiled because of their religion or their ethnicity. In addition, the list could contain the names of political activists, writers, odd balls or people not to the liking of the current government. The point is that we can’t find out what criteria have been used to draw up this list.
Truly worrying is the creation of categories of citizens whose rights are removed in the absence of any judicial process. By judicial proceeding, I mean a criminal trial, of course. But I also mean an administrative hearing in which a non-criminal complaint could be made. In both of these cases, the accused person would have the right to a defence.
The No Fly list is the kind of secret, arbitrary injustice that was meted out by the Stuart monarchs in England by the infamous Court of Star Chamber. The horrors committed by the Court of Star Chamber motivated England and later Canada to embrace the principle that no one should be secretly charged with an offence and that everyone has a right to hear the charges against him or her and to a defence in a transparent proceeding.
It won’t be long before outraged people complain about the ways the No Fly list has negatively affected them. Let’s hope that we are not serving up another Maher Arar to some arbitrary government when some hapless Canadian citizen tries to fly home from a less than civil libertarian foreign city.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Afghanistan: The Dept. for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice
A little less than a year ago this progressive step towards democracy was taken in Afghanistan to lure the fundamentalists into supporting the Karzai government.
Of course this did not lead the western occupiers to cut off aid or indeed do anything but grumble a bit and carry on with building the new free and democratic Afghanistan. Of course these departments are also found in other countries such as Saudi Arabia another shining example of democracy, freedom and human rights.
The Return of Afghanistan's Vice Squad?
Thursday, Jul. 20, 2006 By RACHEL MORARJEE/KABUL Under the Taliban, officials from the Department for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue struck fear into women's hearts, beating those who let a glimpse of wrist or ankle peek out from beneath their burqas. The hated religious police were disbanded when the hard-line Islamic regime fell in 2001. But President Hamid Karzai is planning to resurrect them, much to the alarm of human rights groups, parliamentarians and Western diplomats.
During the Taliban's reign, the religious police would beat women who were seen on the street without a male relative — an impossible demand to meet for the millions of women widowed by the civil war — and would thrash men who did not pray five times a day or keep their beard at the proper length. Afghan officials have said the new department — which was approved by the cabinet last month and is pending approval by parliament — would be a kinder, softer version of its Taliban predecessor and would not enforce such harsh penalties for moral transgressions. Instead, the organization would mirror those in other Islamic countries that aim to "promote morality in society," Presidential spokesman Mohammad Karim Rahimi said.
However, many fear it could open the door for conservative clerics to abuse women and ethnic minorities and to quash free speech using loose definitions of virtue. Hard-liner clerics have been flexing their muscles in recent months. In March, an Afghan man charged with converting from Islam to Christianity was forced to flee the country after he faced a possible death penalty in the Afghan court system. Sam Zia Zarifi, director of research of the Asia division of New York-based Human Rights Watch, warns that the new vice and virtue cops could be "an instrument for politically oppressing critical voices and vulnerable groups under the guise of protecting poorly defined ideas of virtue." Zarifi said this would be especially true of women, who often find their basic human rights infringed in Afghanistan under the cover of morality.
Indeed, it remains murky what the department's powers would be, and where the money would come from to fund its workings. Nematullah Shahrani, the minister of Haj and Religious offices, has said it would focus on alcohol, drugs, crime and corruption, but those issues are already addressed by the country's criminal laws.
Many in the country's fledgling parliament are also up in arms and say President Karzai has resurrected the department to placate conservative mujahedin warlords and fundamentalist clerics. With a violent insurgency in the south and riots in Kabul highlighting the government's unpopularity, Karzai is seeking to shore up his support base by courting conservative Islamists. Most girls' schools have already closed in the south and southeast under spiraling threats, and groups like Human Rights Watch are concerned that policing public morals could divert attention from the bigger battle to stem unrest in the volatile southern provinces.
Shukria Barakzai, a Member of Parliament and analyst, said the new department is a "symbol of the past" and worries that even if it is staffed by competent people, it would be difficult to monitor in coming years. "The president could appoint people who are good today, but what about tomorrow?" she said. "It could be the same as the Taliban, and allow people to deliver violence against women, against freedom of speech."
Of course this did not lead the western occupiers to cut off aid or indeed do anything but grumble a bit and carry on with building the new free and democratic Afghanistan. Of course these departments are also found in other countries such as Saudi Arabia another shining example of democracy, freedom and human rights.
The Return of Afghanistan's Vice Squad?
Thursday, Jul. 20, 2006 By RACHEL MORARJEE/KABUL Under the Taliban, officials from the Department for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue struck fear into women's hearts, beating those who let a glimpse of wrist or ankle peek out from beneath their burqas. The hated religious police were disbanded when the hard-line Islamic regime fell in 2001. But President Hamid Karzai is planning to resurrect them, much to the alarm of human rights groups, parliamentarians and Western diplomats.
During the Taliban's reign, the religious police would beat women who were seen on the street without a male relative — an impossible demand to meet for the millions of women widowed by the civil war — and would thrash men who did not pray five times a day or keep their beard at the proper length. Afghan officials have said the new department — which was approved by the cabinet last month and is pending approval by parliament — would be a kinder, softer version of its Taliban predecessor and would not enforce such harsh penalties for moral transgressions. Instead, the organization would mirror those in other Islamic countries that aim to "promote morality in society," Presidential spokesman Mohammad Karim Rahimi said.
However, many fear it could open the door for conservative clerics to abuse women and ethnic minorities and to quash free speech using loose definitions of virtue. Hard-liner clerics have been flexing their muscles in recent months. In March, an Afghan man charged with converting from Islam to Christianity was forced to flee the country after he faced a possible death penalty in the Afghan court system. Sam Zia Zarifi, director of research of the Asia division of New York-based Human Rights Watch, warns that the new vice and virtue cops could be "an instrument for politically oppressing critical voices and vulnerable groups under the guise of protecting poorly defined ideas of virtue." Zarifi said this would be especially true of women, who often find their basic human rights infringed in Afghanistan under the cover of morality.
Indeed, it remains murky what the department's powers would be, and where the money would come from to fund its workings. Nematullah Shahrani, the minister of Haj and Religious offices, has said it would focus on alcohol, drugs, crime and corruption, but those issues are already addressed by the country's criminal laws.
Many in the country's fledgling parliament are also up in arms and say President Karzai has resurrected the department to placate conservative mujahedin warlords and fundamentalist clerics. With a violent insurgency in the south and riots in Kabul highlighting the government's unpopularity, Karzai is seeking to shore up his support base by courting conservative Islamists. Most girls' schools have already closed in the south and southeast under spiraling threats, and groups like Human Rights Watch are concerned that policing public morals could divert attention from the bigger battle to stem unrest in the volatile southern provinces.
Shukria Barakzai, a Member of Parliament and analyst, said the new department is a "symbol of the past" and worries that even if it is staffed by competent people, it would be difficult to monitor in coming years. "The president could appoint people who are good today, but what about tomorrow?" she said. "It could be the same as the Taliban, and allow people to deliver violence against women, against freedom of speech."
Abdul Rahman and the rule of law in Afghanistan
A longer entry on Rahman is at Wikipedia. Although a limited religious freedom is granted by the Afghan constitution in this case the courts applied a type of Sharia law that demands the death penalty for apostasy. That this type of law is obviously at loggerheads with anything one might consider as falling under the rubric Canadian values one wonders why we are defending such a law. This is the sort of law that the Taliban could applaud. Officials who blather on about democracy and the rule of law of course ignore these matters. Recognising them might cause cognitive dissonance.
Abdul Rahman (Persian: عبدالرØمن) (born 1965) is an Afghan citizen who was arrested in February 2006 and threatened with the death penalty for Apostasy from Islam when he converted to Christianity. [2] On March 26, 2006, under heavy pressure from foreign governments, the court returned his case to prosecutors, citing "investigative gaps."[3] He was released from prison to his family on the night of March 27.[4] On March 29, Abdul Rahman arrived in Italy after the Italian government offered him asylum.[5]
Abdul Rahman's arrest and trial brought international attention to an apparent contradiction in the Constitution of Afghanistan, which recognizes both a limited form of freedom of religion and the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence, which mandates the death penalty for an apostate. The case attracted widespread international condemnation, notably from the United Kingdom and the United States, both of whom led the campaign to remove the fundamentalist Taliban regime in 2001 and are the main donors to Afghanistan.[6]
[edit] Arrest and trial
In February 2006, after a custody dispute concerning Abdul Rahman's daughters, members of his family reported him to the police.[12] He was arrested after police discovered that he possessed a Bible.[13]
Legal experts say Abdul Rahman's case existed because of contradictory laws in the Afghan Constitution recognizing both freedom of religion and the Hanafi school of sharia law. Article 130 of the Constitution of Afghanistan enables prosecutors to charge him for apostasy "in accordance with the Hanafi jurisprudence." The text of the article says:
In cases under consideration, the courts shall apply provisions of this Constitution as well as other laws. If there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws about a case, the courts shall, in pursuance of Hanafi jurisprudence, and, within the limits set by this Constitution, rule in a way that attains justice in the best manner.[14]
Prosecutors asked for the death penalty for Abdul Rahman, calling him a "microbe."[12] Prosecutor Abdul Wasi demanded his repentance and called him a traitor: "He should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed." The Afghan Attorney General was quoted as saying that Abdul Rahman should be hanged.[15]
Afghan judge Ansarullah Mawlawizadah holds the Bible found with Abdul Rahman.Abdul Rahman's judicial proceedings, which began on March 16 and became widely known in the international press on March 19, were overseen by three judges in the public security tribunal of Kabul's primary court. Ansarullah Mawlawizadah, the chief judge in the case, said that Abdul Rahman would be asked to reconsider his conversion: "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him." [16]
Ansarullah Mawlafizada also said "the Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back, Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him".[17]
The judge added more: "If [he] does not repent, you will all be witness to the sort of punishment he will face."[18]
When facing a possible death sentence, Abdul Rahman held firm to his convictions: "They want to sentence me to death and I accept it… I am a Christian, which means I believe in the Trinity… I believe in Jesus Christ." [19]
After his arrest, authorities barred attempts by the Associated Press news agency to see him, and he was unable to find a lawyer in Kabul willing to represent him.[8]
Abdul Rahman (Persian: عبدالرØمن) (born 1965) is an Afghan citizen who was arrested in February 2006 and threatened with the death penalty for Apostasy from Islam when he converted to Christianity. [2] On March 26, 2006, under heavy pressure from foreign governments, the court returned his case to prosecutors, citing "investigative gaps."[3] He was released from prison to his family on the night of March 27.[4] On March 29, Abdul Rahman arrived in Italy after the Italian government offered him asylum.[5]
Abdul Rahman's arrest and trial brought international attention to an apparent contradiction in the Constitution of Afghanistan, which recognizes both a limited form of freedom of religion and the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence, which mandates the death penalty for an apostate. The case attracted widespread international condemnation, notably from the United Kingdom and the United States, both of whom led the campaign to remove the fundamentalist Taliban regime in 2001 and are the main donors to Afghanistan.[6]
[edit] Arrest and trial
In February 2006, after a custody dispute concerning Abdul Rahman's daughters, members of his family reported him to the police.[12] He was arrested after police discovered that he possessed a Bible.[13]
Legal experts say Abdul Rahman's case existed because of contradictory laws in the Afghan Constitution recognizing both freedom of religion and the Hanafi school of sharia law. Article 130 of the Constitution of Afghanistan enables prosecutors to charge him for apostasy "in accordance with the Hanafi jurisprudence." The text of the article says:
In cases under consideration, the courts shall apply provisions of this Constitution as well as other laws. If there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws about a case, the courts shall, in pursuance of Hanafi jurisprudence, and, within the limits set by this Constitution, rule in a way that attains justice in the best manner.[14]
Prosecutors asked for the death penalty for Abdul Rahman, calling him a "microbe."[12] Prosecutor Abdul Wasi demanded his repentance and called him a traitor: "He should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed." The Afghan Attorney General was quoted as saying that Abdul Rahman should be hanged.[15]
Afghan judge Ansarullah Mawlawizadah holds the Bible found with Abdul Rahman.Abdul Rahman's judicial proceedings, which began on March 16 and became widely known in the international press on March 19, were overseen by three judges in the public security tribunal of Kabul's primary court. Ansarullah Mawlawizadah, the chief judge in the case, said that Abdul Rahman would be asked to reconsider his conversion: "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him." [16]
Ansarullah Mawlafizada also said "the Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back, Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him".[17]
The judge added more: "If [he] does not repent, you will all be witness to the sort of punishment he will face."[18]
When facing a possible death sentence, Abdul Rahman held firm to his convictions: "They want to sentence me to death and I accept it… I am a Christian, which means I believe in the Trinity… I believe in Jesus Christ." [19]
After his arrest, authorities barred attempts by the Associated Press news agency to see him, and he was unable to find a lawyer in Kabul willing to represent him.[8]
Dewmonstrations Against Suspension of Female Legislator
Parliament's rules prohibit legislators from criticising one another! What sort of idiotic rule is that! If Canada's legislators were suspended each time they criticised another legislator then parliament would be empty!
New protest against suspension of Afghan female MP
May 30, 2007
KABUL -- About 300 people marched through the Afghan capital Kabul Wednesday in the latest in a series of countrywide demonstrations against parliament's removal this month of an outspoken woman legislator.
Men and women, a handful of them hidden beneath blue burqas, shouted slogans in support of Malalai Joya and praised her criticism of fellow MPs who played a role in the 1992-96 civil war that left 80,000 dead in Kabul alone.
Marchers chanted "Down with fundamentalists, down with criminals who are in parliament" as they marched past offices of the United Nations and government ministries.
"She is the only person who is fighting against the warlords - these people who had killed Afghan people during their war," said one protestor, a bearded and elderly farmer named Shah Hussein, from the southern province of Kandahar.
The lower house of parliament suspended Joya, 28, May 21 until parliament is dissolved before the 2010 parliamentary elections after she was shown in a television interview comparing parliament to a stable.
Human Rights Watch said days later that while parliament's rules forbid lawmakers from criticizing one another, MPs had regularly done so without anyone else having been suspended.
Many seats of the parliament elected in 2005 are filled by former heroes of the anti-Soviet resistance accused of rights abuses and war crimes in the subsequent civil war. They are still powerful.
"Some people in parliament are against peace in Afghanistan," said a young teacher, Aria Ahmad. "She says things as they are."
A declaration distributed by organizers of the march said that parliament's "unjust action" had caused "nationwide anger."
Joya, who was elected in her home province of Farah in the 2005 parliamentary polls, was "the rightful representative of her people and no person or organization has the right to suspend her," it said.
There have been a series of small demonstrations in support of Joya in a handful of towns across the country.
New protest against suspension of Afghan female MP
May 30, 2007
KABUL -- About 300 people marched through the Afghan capital Kabul Wednesday in the latest in a series of countrywide demonstrations against parliament's removal this month of an outspoken woman legislator.
Men and women, a handful of them hidden beneath blue burqas, shouted slogans in support of Malalai Joya and praised her criticism of fellow MPs who played a role in the 1992-96 civil war that left 80,000 dead in Kabul alone.
Marchers chanted "Down with fundamentalists, down with criminals who are in parliament" as they marched past offices of the United Nations and government ministries.
"She is the only person who is fighting against the warlords - these people who had killed Afghan people during their war," said one protestor, a bearded and elderly farmer named Shah Hussein, from the southern province of Kandahar.
The lower house of parliament suspended Joya, 28, May 21 until parliament is dissolved before the 2010 parliamentary elections after she was shown in a television interview comparing parliament to a stable.
Human Rights Watch said days later that while parliament's rules forbid lawmakers from criticizing one another, MPs had regularly done so without anyone else having been suspended.
Many seats of the parliament elected in 2005 are filled by former heroes of the anti-Soviet resistance accused of rights abuses and war crimes in the subsequent civil war. They are still powerful.
"Some people in parliament are against peace in Afghanistan," said a young teacher, Aria Ahmad. "She says things as they are."
A declaration distributed by organizers of the march said that parliament's "unjust action" had caused "nationwide anger."
Joya, who was elected in her home province of Farah in the 2005 parliamentary polls, was "the rightful representative of her people and no person or organization has the right to suspend her," it said.
There have been a series of small demonstrations in support of Joya in a handful of towns across the country.
NATO asks Canada to extend Afghan mission
Canada is in Afghanistan defending basic values such as the rule of law. Of course the rule of law in Afghanistan is Sharia law and among its provisions are that if you convert from being a Muslim to Christianity you are to be sentenced to death. This happened a while ago as this article illustrates.Fortunately the person sentenced was able to escape out of Afghanistan and this avoided an embarassing spectacle.
Recently the democratic legislature suspended a woman legislator for comparing the legislature to a stable and complaining about the number of warlords accused of human rights violation who were members of that body. See the following article. I have reprinted the article in the next post.
So we are defending a government whose idea of freedom of religion is to condemn converts from Islam to other religions to death. Whose idea of freedom is to suspend a member for crticising the legislature.
It the West's intervention in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq that is fueling the global jihadists project. It has less to do with the Taliban as a global terrorist threat than with the US project using NATO as its helper to establish global hegemony.
Canada should stay in Afghanistan past 2009, NATO chief says
Last Updated: Thursday, June 21, 2007 | 8:32 PM ET
CBC News
Despite mounting Canadian casualties, NATO's secretary general urged Canada to continue its military mission in Afghanistan past its 2009 withdrawal deadline.
"I think more time is necessary to create those conditions for reconstruction and development to go on," said Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who visited Montreal Thursday.
The visit by de Hoop Scheffer came a day after three Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and the same day a poll was released suggesting 70 per cent of Quebecers oppose the Afghan mission.
"I know how dramatic it is if Canadian soldiers pay the highest price," de Hoop Scheffer said an economic conference in Montreal. "But I still say, you are there for a good cause."
De Hoop Scheffer said he wanted Quebecers to understand the importance of the Afghan mission.
"Please do realize in a nation like Canada, with such an enormous tradition of peacekeeping in the framework of the United Nations … [that] helping Afghanistan, participating in what is the threat of a global form of terrorism, making reconstruction possible — you are there for a good cause," he said.
Defending "basic values" such as democracy, the rule of law and independence of the media are paramount concerns, de Hoop Scheffer said, and Canadians should remember that NATO is "still supported by the large majority of the Afghan people."
Getting the alliance of 26 nations to stay the course in Afghanistan "is a message to the Canadians as much as it is to the Dutch or to the Danes or to the Norwegians," he said. "It's a message I have for all of my allied friends in the alliance and the partners alike."
De Hoop Scheffer's pitch comes as the federal government has been under pressure in the House of Commons to define the length of Canada's commitment to the mission and make its intentions in Afghanistan clear.
In a number of speeches and public comments, both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor have signalled Canada is willing to consider an extended commitment. But they have said no final decision has been made and Parliament will have an opportunity to debate an extension.
The Valcartier base is expected to send 2,000 soldiers to Afghanistan this summer. To date, 60 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.
De Hoop Scheffer later met with Harper in Ottawa.
With files from the Canadian
Recently the democratic legislature suspended a woman legislator for comparing the legislature to a stable and complaining about the number of warlords accused of human rights violation who were members of that body. See the following article. I have reprinted the article in the next post.
So we are defending a government whose idea of freedom of religion is to condemn converts from Islam to other religions to death. Whose idea of freedom is to suspend a member for crticising the legislature.
It the West's intervention in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq that is fueling the global jihadists project. It has less to do with the Taliban as a global terrorist threat than with the US project using NATO as its helper to establish global hegemony.
Canada should stay in Afghanistan past 2009, NATO chief says
Last Updated: Thursday, June 21, 2007 | 8:32 PM ET
CBC News
Despite mounting Canadian casualties, NATO's secretary general urged Canada to continue its military mission in Afghanistan past its 2009 withdrawal deadline.
"I think more time is necessary to create those conditions for reconstruction and development to go on," said Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who visited Montreal Thursday.
The visit by de Hoop Scheffer came a day after three Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and the same day a poll was released suggesting 70 per cent of Quebecers oppose the Afghan mission.
"I know how dramatic it is if Canadian soldiers pay the highest price," de Hoop Scheffer said an economic conference in Montreal. "But I still say, you are there for a good cause."
De Hoop Scheffer said he wanted Quebecers to understand the importance of the Afghan mission.
"Please do realize in a nation like Canada, with such an enormous tradition of peacekeeping in the framework of the United Nations … [that] helping Afghanistan, participating in what is the threat of a global form of terrorism, making reconstruction possible — you are there for a good cause," he said.
Defending "basic values" such as democracy, the rule of law and independence of the media are paramount concerns, de Hoop Scheffer said, and Canadians should remember that NATO is "still supported by the large majority of the Afghan people."
Getting the alliance of 26 nations to stay the course in Afghanistan "is a message to the Canadians as much as it is to the Dutch or to the Danes or to the Norwegians," he said. "It's a message I have for all of my allied friends in the alliance and the partners alike."
De Hoop Scheffer's pitch comes as the federal government has been under pressure in the House of Commons to define the length of Canada's commitment to the mission and make its intentions in Afghanistan clear.
In a number of speeches and public comments, both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor have signalled Canada is willing to consider an extended commitment. But they have said no final decision has been made and Parliament will have an opportunity to debate an extension.
The Valcartier base is expected to send 2,000 soldiers to Afghanistan this summer. To date, 60 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.
De Hoop Scheffer later met with Harper in Ottawa.
With files from the Canadian
Generous U I systems raise productivity
But capitalists are not interested in increased productivity if it does not mean more profitability. A weak labor force that is unable to bargain for better wages or better UI is probably more important than any small increase in productivity as far as profitability is concerned. This is from this site.
Generous Unemployment Insurance Systems Raise Productivity
Posted by Andrew Jackson under Employment Insurance, labour market.
June 20th, 2007
The annual OECD Employment Outlook - the product of the Directorate for Employment. Labour and Social Affairs (DELSA) can usually be relied upon to provide a well-reasoned counter point to the extreme neo liberalism of the Economics Directorate (ECO) — and the 2007 issue is no exception.)
For a summary and details on how to access the report (full document not available on line ) see here.
Chapter 2 of this year’s report looks at the impact of labour market policies on productivity. One of the key findings is that “Reforms that reduce the generosity of unemployment benefits are likely to reduce the aggregate level of measured productivity.” (p.57)
The study finds (p.76) that there is no link between UI generosity and GDP per capita among OECD countries, suggesting that any negative impacts on employment are offset fully by positive impacts on productivity. (p.76.)
Two key reasons to expect a positive impact of UI generosity on productivity are developed with supporting evidence.
First, more generous benefit systems allow unemployed workers the time and resources to find a new job which better matches their skills and experience, resulting in a better matching of the unemployed and available job vacancies. Better matching increases overall economic efficiency. The OECD cites studies which finds that more generous Unemployment Insurance systems are associated with longer-lasting, better-paid jobs for workers once they find a new job. (p.77.) In short, forcing workers to take the first available job rather than engage in a longer job search is not good for productivity.
Second, lack of income security may dissuade workers from leaving a relatively secure but not very productive job for a new, higher productivity but more insecure job. A study undertaken by the OECD finds that countries with more generous UI systems have significantly higher levels of productivity and productivity growth in “risky” sectors where a high proportion of firms fail.
In Canada, there has been a huge focus in policy research on the supposed employment disincentives of EI generosity, and very little emphasis on the positive impacts of EI generosity on economic efficiency. This should be redressed.
Generous Unemployment Insurance Systems Raise Productivity
Posted by Andrew Jackson under Employment Insurance, labour market.
June 20th, 2007
The annual OECD Employment Outlook - the product of the Directorate for Employment. Labour and Social Affairs (DELSA) can usually be relied upon to provide a well-reasoned counter point to the extreme neo liberalism of the Economics Directorate (ECO) — and the 2007 issue is no exception.)
For a summary and details on how to access the report (full document not available on line ) see here.
Chapter 2 of this year’s report looks at the impact of labour market policies on productivity. One of the key findings is that “Reforms that reduce the generosity of unemployment benefits are likely to reduce the aggregate level of measured productivity.” (p.57)
The study finds (p.76) that there is no link between UI generosity and GDP per capita among OECD countries, suggesting that any negative impacts on employment are offset fully by positive impacts on productivity. (p.76.)
Two key reasons to expect a positive impact of UI generosity on productivity are developed with supporting evidence.
First, more generous benefit systems allow unemployed workers the time and resources to find a new job which better matches their skills and experience, resulting in a better matching of the unemployed and available job vacancies. Better matching increases overall economic efficiency. The OECD cites studies which finds that more generous Unemployment Insurance systems are associated with longer-lasting, better-paid jobs for workers once they find a new job. (p.77.) In short, forcing workers to take the first available job rather than engage in a longer job search is not good for productivity.
Second, lack of income security may dissuade workers from leaving a relatively secure but not very productive job for a new, higher productivity but more insecure job. A study undertaken by the OECD finds that countries with more generous UI systems have significantly higher levels of productivity and productivity growth in “risky” sectors where a high proportion of firms fail.
In Canada, there has been a huge focus in policy research on the supposed employment disincentives of EI generosity, and very little emphasis on the positive impacts of EI generosity on economic efficiency. This should be redressed.
Tories urged to define Afghanistan commitment
Why ask the Tories for more rhetorical garbage. The main point is to force them to withdraw as soon as possible. There is more and more nauseating patriotic stuff. Just as our TV programs often imitate the Americans so does our support the troops apparatus with ribbons etc., although we seem to delight in covering funerals whereas the US discourages this on the national scene it would seem --although I do not watch US TV much. The idea that our entire intervention was against international law and that we through NATO are just furthering the neo-conservative US agenda seems to escape most Canadians. Of course it is forgotten that even the present Afghan govt. has a department of Virtue and VIce. It is also forgotten that not long ago a Muslim converted to Christianity was sentenced to death and only escaped his demise by being allowed refuge in Italy. It is also forgotten that the allied invasion finished off the work of the worst warlords associated with the Northern Alliance. Well we must be happy with new "democratic" Afghan government with the US puppet Karzai defended by a US private security firm.
Tories urged to define Afghanistan commitment
Last Updated: Thursday, June 21, 2007 | 5:48 AM ET
CBC News
The federal government is facing more pressure to make a decision on the future of the Afghan mission as Canada mourns the loss of three more soldiers.
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will meet Thursday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay in Ottawa to discuss the mission.
"I think what we're going to have is a very frank discussion about the mission itself," MacKay said outside the House of Commons Wednesday.
De Hoop Scheffer's visit comes after three Canadian Forces soldiers were killed in Afghanistan Wednesday when their unarmoured supply vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.
The deaths of Cpl. Stephen Frederick Bouzane, Pte. Joel Vincent Wiebe and Sgt. Christos Karigiannis bring the total number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the mission started in 2002 to 60.
Harper's government has been under pressure in the House of Commons to define the length of Canada's commitment to the mission and make its intentions in Afghanistan clear.
Canada has committed troops to the war-torn country until February 2009. But its allies in southern Afghanistan are starting to ask questions about Canada's combat commitment, and whether it will last beyond that deadline.
"Will he now clearly say to the House how long this combat mission will last?" Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff demanded during question period Wednesday. "Canadians deserve to know. Isn't it time for the truth?"
Canada has sustained the bulk of its casualties in and around Kandahar, where it is looking for some help from its allies, MacKay said. Some NATO countries have insisted on caveats that limit their how their troops can be deployed in the mission.
NATO chief's Quebec visit questioned
De Hoop Scheffer is also wading into the the unfavourable political climate in Quebec. He is scheduled to meet soldiers from the province's famed Royal 22nd Regiment — better known as the Van Doos — who are slated to take over operations in Afghanistan in August.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the Harper government has it wrong on Afghanistan and expressed his displeasure with the military organizing a rally and parade on Friday through Quebec City, which de Hoop Scheffer is scheduled to attend.
"We're supporting men and women for whom we've got of admiration — those in the Canadian Forces," Duceppe said. "But we are not supporting the policy of the government and we think that they're using the soldiers for their own purposes."
Quebecers' support for Canada's mission in Afghanistan is the lowest in the country, but MacKay said people in the province have a strong interest in hearing directly from de Hoop Scheffer about the mission.
"Let's not forget the Van Doos regiment — some are already deployed, more will be going. So they will want to hear about the mission and how it impacts on their sons and daughters," he said.
Tories urged to define Afghanistan commitment
Last Updated: Thursday, June 21, 2007 | 5:48 AM ET
CBC News
The federal government is facing more pressure to make a decision on the future of the Afghan mission as Canada mourns the loss of three more soldiers.
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will meet Thursday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay in Ottawa to discuss the mission.
"I think what we're going to have is a very frank discussion about the mission itself," MacKay said outside the House of Commons Wednesday.
De Hoop Scheffer's visit comes after three Canadian Forces soldiers were killed in Afghanistan Wednesday when their unarmoured supply vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.
The deaths of Cpl. Stephen Frederick Bouzane, Pte. Joel Vincent Wiebe and Sgt. Christos Karigiannis bring the total number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the mission started in 2002 to 60.
Harper's government has been under pressure in the House of Commons to define the length of Canada's commitment to the mission and make its intentions in Afghanistan clear.
Canada has committed troops to the war-torn country until February 2009. But its allies in southern Afghanistan are starting to ask questions about Canada's combat commitment, and whether it will last beyond that deadline.
"Will he now clearly say to the House how long this combat mission will last?" Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff demanded during question period Wednesday. "Canadians deserve to know. Isn't it time for the truth?"
Canada has sustained the bulk of its casualties in and around Kandahar, where it is looking for some help from its allies, MacKay said. Some NATO countries have insisted on caveats that limit their how their troops can be deployed in the mission.
NATO chief's Quebec visit questioned
De Hoop Scheffer is also wading into the the unfavourable political climate in Quebec. He is scheduled to meet soldiers from the province's famed Royal 22nd Regiment — better known as the Van Doos — who are slated to take over operations in Afghanistan in August.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the Harper government has it wrong on Afghanistan and expressed his displeasure with the military organizing a rally and parade on Friday through Quebec City, which de Hoop Scheffer is scheduled to attend.
"We're supporting men and women for whom we've got of admiration — those in the Canadian Forces," Duceppe said. "But we are not supporting the policy of the government and we think that they're using the soldiers for their own purposes."
Quebecers' support for Canada's mission in Afghanistan is the lowest in the country, but MacKay said people in the province have a strong interest in hearing directly from de Hoop Scheffer about the mission.
"Let's not forget the Van Doos regiment — some are already deployed, more will be going. So they will want to hear about the mission and how it impacts on their sons and daughters," he said.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Fewer trips in and out of Canada in April
It is rather surprising that Canadian trips to the US dipped in April. Perhaps it is the passport requirements but that is now waived for a while. The stronger Canadian dollar should attract Canadians to the US. US travel to Canada did not drop all that much.
Fewer trips being made to Canada, Statistics Canada says
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 | 4:06 PM ET
CBC News
Travel in and out of Canada dipped in April, Statistics Canada said in its monthly survey released Wednesday.
Canadians made 597,000 trips to overseas countries in April, a decrease of one per cent from the record-high numbers recorded in March.
Travel to the U.S. dropped by 0.4 per cent in April to to 3.3 million trips, Statistics Canada reports.
(CBC) Travel to the U.S. also fell 0.4 per cent lower than the previous month to 3.3 million trips, the federal agency said.
As the dollar continued to gain steam in April, nearing the 90-cent level by the end of April, the number of Americans crossing into Canada dipped modestly. Americans made a total of 2.1 million trips — a decline of 0.2 per cent below the previous month.
New passport rules for American travellers may have contributed to the decline. In January, new requirements made it mandatory for American citizens to show a passport when returning the country by air from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. U.S. passport offices struggled to meet the demand for passports as Americans complained of a 12-week backlog.
A larger drop was recorded in travel from overseas tourists, who made 389,000 trips in April — a drop of 2.8 per cent from March.
Of Canada's top 12 markets, travel from Italy showed the largest gain, at 9.7 per cent, while travel from Mexico fell significantly, by 12.7 per cent.
Fewer trips being made to Canada, Statistics Canada says
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 | 4:06 PM ET
CBC News
Travel in and out of Canada dipped in April, Statistics Canada said in its monthly survey released Wednesday.
Canadians made 597,000 trips to overseas countries in April, a decrease of one per cent from the record-high numbers recorded in March.
Travel to the U.S. dropped by 0.4 per cent in April to to 3.3 million trips, Statistics Canada reports.
(CBC) Travel to the U.S. also fell 0.4 per cent lower than the previous month to 3.3 million trips, the federal agency said.
As the dollar continued to gain steam in April, nearing the 90-cent level by the end of April, the number of Americans crossing into Canada dipped modestly. Americans made a total of 2.1 million trips — a decline of 0.2 per cent below the previous month.
New passport rules for American travellers may have contributed to the decline. In January, new requirements made it mandatory for American citizens to show a passport when returning the country by air from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. U.S. passport offices struggled to meet the demand for passports as Americans complained of a 12-week backlog.
A larger drop was recorded in travel from overseas tourists, who made 389,000 trips in April — a drop of 2.8 per cent from March.
Of Canada's top 12 markets, travel from Italy showed the largest gain, at 9.7 per cent, while travel from Mexico fell significantly, by 12.7 per cent.
Keep out those Chinese communist commerce ministers!
This is an old post from Global Politician Global Politician seems to copy all of the stuff from Canadian Coalition for Democracies. Harris represents this group at the Iacobucci inquiry. I posted his very complimentary article about Iacobucci's ruling that the inquiry should be held in secret. Harris shows little concern for the rights of the three Muslim's involved to clear their name. He shows little concern for Guantanamo as far as I can discern. He is rabidly pro-Israel and anti- Syria, Iran, and China too it seems. As trade between China and Canada increases even Harper is not likely to heed Harris' advice. Harris used to work as a strategist for CSIS! Harris supports a US attack against Iran and has an article outlining the reasons why Iran should be attacked and Canada should support the attack. Harris does not give any sources for his accusations against Bo Xilai.
Visit To Canada By China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai
David Harris - 5/28/2007
Ottawa, Canada - The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is concerned about the entry into Canada of China's Commerce Minister, Bo Xilai on Monday May 28th, 2007. There are serious allegations about Bo Xilai regarding torture and crimes against humanity. These concerns have been brought to the attention of Canadian government officials, the RCMP and the Department of Justice's Interdepartmental Operations Group of Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Program.
As a global leader and supporter of international law, including laws dealing with crimes against humanity and torture, Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that those credibly accused of such crimes be brought before the appropriate legal bodies to face justice.
CCD notes that Prime Minister Harper has acted with conviction and compassion when it comes to respecting human rights.
We trust that the Prime Minister will maintain his record by keeping Bo Xilai out of Canada, and by supporting the efforts of victims and their family members, together with those of reputable human rights organizations, to see that justice is done.
David Harris is the Senior Fellow for National Security at the Canadian Coalition for Democracies.
Visit To Canada By China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai
David Harris - 5/28/2007
Ottawa, Canada - The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is concerned about the entry into Canada of China's Commerce Minister, Bo Xilai on Monday May 28th, 2007. There are serious allegations about Bo Xilai regarding torture and crimes against humanity. These concerns have been brought to the attention of Canadian government officials, the RCMP and the Department of Justice's Interdepartmental Operations Group of Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Program.
As a global leader and supporter of international law, including laws dealing with crimes against humanity and torture, Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that those credibly accused of such crimes be brought before the appropriate legal bodies to face justice.
CCD notes that Prime Minister Harper has acted with conviction and compassion when it comes to respecting human rights.
We trust that the Prime Minister will maintain his record by keeping Bo Xilai out of Canada, and by supporting the efforts of victims and their family members, together with those of reputable human rights organizations, to see that justice is done.
David Harris is the Senior Fellow for National Security at the Canadian Coalition for Democracies.
Accord fight continues in Senate
I am having difficulty sorting this accord mess out. It does seem certain that Harper broke his promise but on the other hand there seems to be some truth that the original agreement was less fair than the present one and to a certain extent it is true that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland want to have their cake and eat it too. There is so much rhetoric around the issue though that perhaps I have misunderstood.
Premier takes accord fight to Senate
By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau
ADVERTISEMENT
OTTAWA — Premier Rodney Mac-Donald made Nova Scotia’s case before a Senate committee on Tuesday, arguing forcefully that Ottawa has broken the offshore accord.
Mr. MacDonald, who has in the past appeared to be a reluctant warrior on this issue, cast aside diplomacy, accusing the federal government of double-dealing, breaking a promise and misrepresenting the facts.
The premier urged senators to "restore the honour of the Crown" by amending budget legislation that changes the Atlantic accord.
"The federal government’s efforts to tear up the 2005 Canada-Nova Scotia accord are not only extremely harmful to Nova Scotia," Mr. MacDonald said.
"They do great damage to the reputation of the Parliament of Canada, fuel public cynicism, create regional divides and cast a dark shadow on the future of our federation."
The appeal Tuesday put Mr. MacDonald at odds with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, both of whom agree that the unelected upper house does not have the moral legitimacy to change or defeat a budget adopted by the House of Commons.
The accord guarantees that Ottawa will send the province a cheque every year — separate from the equalization system — to compensate it for offshore revenue clawed back from the equalization system.
In the federal budget in March, a bit more than two years into the agreement, Ottawa presented the province with a choice. If Nova Scotia sticks with the old equalization system, it can continue to get those cheques, but if it wants a piece of a more generous new equalization system, which is available to all other provinces, it must accept a cap on offshore payments, based on the fiscal capacity of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald said the budget was "intended to appeal to rich parts of the country by rendering null and void signed agreements with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, agreements that are not widely popular within the federal Finance Department or with those who mistakenly believe Atlantic Canada got something special."
Mr. MacDonald said the structure of the "ultimatum" the province faces is a "deliberate attempt by the federal government to confuse and confound Canadians about the facts of the offshore accord and the effects of the 2007 budget."
The premier was critical of Mr. Harper.
"The prime minister has repeatedly said Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are asking him to sign side deals," he said. "Not true. We’re asking the prime minister to honour an agreement that is already in place, an agreement he didn’t just tacitly support but actively campaigned on while in opposition."
Mr. MacDonald said Mr. Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are not being honest.
"Both Prime Minister Harper and Minister Flaherty have repeatedly stated that not one comma of the accord has been changed and it remains in its original pristine form. Again, absolutely not true, and they know it. The federal government has unilaterally wiped out an entire clause of the agreement."
Ottawa says the choice Nova Scotia faces does not violate the accords, since the province can keep all of its offshore revenue if it sticks with the old equalization formula. Mr. Flaherty has been critical of the offshore accords as distorting the national equalization system, since other provinces’ resources are not excluded from the system, as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland’s are under the accords, so it was necessary to revamp equalization to base it on a "principled, long-term, predictable formula."
When campaigning for the accords, Mr. Harper, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and then-Nova Scotia premier John Hamm framed the debate as a struggle for control of resources.
On Tuesday, the premier repeatedly referred to the accord as an economic development agreement, no different from Ottawa’s large investments in aerospace in Quebec, the auto industry in Ontario, grain programs for western farmers or the Pacific Gateway in British Columbia.
"The 2005 accord is the only transfer in federal history that we are aware of that is clawed back," Mr. MacDonald said.
In testimony before the same committee earlier in the day, Mr. Flaherty said he did not believe the accord is an economic development agreement.
As evidence that it is, Mr. MacDonald and Finance Minister Michael Baker pointed to a federal Finance Department website that stipulates that the accord is separate from the equalization system.
"Nova Scotians know that our accord presented a rare window of opportunity to achieve greater prosperity, to provide a better future for our children and contribute to a stronger Canada," the premier said. "Today they feel betrayed and so do I."
Although Mr. Harper campaigned against an Ontario cap on the accords, the Tories now insist it’s necessary to prevent taxpayers in that province from continuing to send cheques east if the fiscal capacity of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland surpasses that province’s.
Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Baker were handled gently by East Coast Liberal senators, but several Tories and one Ontario Liberal suggested that Nova Scotia is asking for too much.
"In a lot of cases, this is not based on principles, this is based on the principle that we need more in Atlantic Canada," Manitoba Tory Senator Terry Stratton said.
Liberal Senator Art Eggleton of Toronto posed skeptical questions to Mr. MacDonald and suggested during Mr. Flaherty’s testimony that the government may have done the right thing.
After the presentation, Mr. Mac-Donald said he doesn’t know what he’ll do if, as seems almost certain, the majority of Liberal senators ignore his plea and pass the budget legislation unamended.
When he was in Ottawa last week to call on East Coast Tory MPs to vote against the budget, Mr. MacDonald presented a proposal to Mr. Harper to resolve the dispute. He said Tuesday the federal response has not been good enough.
"We did have some discussions but I’ve seen nothing that’s satisfactory to the people of my province."
( smaher@herald.ca)
Premier takes accord fight to Senate
By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau
ADVERTISEMENT
OTTAWA — Premier Rodney Mac-Donald made Nova Scotia’s case before a Senate committee on Tuesday, arguing forcefully that Ottawa has broken the offshore accord.
Mr. MacDonald, who has in the past appeared to be a reluctant warrior on this issue, cast aside diplomacy, accusing the federal government of double-dealing, breaking a promise and misrepresenting the facts.
The premier urged senators to "restore the honour of the Crown" by amending budget legislation that changes the Atlantic accord.
"The federal government’s efforts to tear up the 2005 Canada-Nova Scotia accord are not only extremely harmful to Nova Scotia," Mr. MacDonald said.
"They do great damage to the reputation of the Parliament of Canada, fuel public cynicism, create regional divides and cast a dark shadow on the future of our federation."
The appeal Tuesday put Mr. MacDonald at odds with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, both of whom agree that the unelected upper house does not have the moral legitimacy to change or defeat a budget adopted by the House of Commons.
The accord guarantees that Ottawa will send the province a cheque every year — separate from the equalization system — to compensate it for offshore revenue clawed back from the equalization system.
In the federal budget in March, a bit more than two years into the agreement, Ottawa presented the province with a choice. If Nova Scotia sticks with the old equalization system, it can continue to get those cheques, but if it wants a piece of a more generous new equalization system, which is available to all other provinces, it must accept a cap on offshore payments, based on the fiscal capacity of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald said the budget was "intended to appeal to rich parts of the country by rendering null and void signed agreements with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, agreements that are not widely popular within the federal Finance Department or with those who mistakenly believe Atlantic Canada got something special."
Mr. MacDonald said the structure of the "ultimatum" the province faces is a "deliberate attempt by the federal government to confuse and confound Canadians about the facts of the offshore accord and the effects of the 2007 budget."
The premier was critical of Mr. Harper.
"The prime minister has repeatedly said Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are asking him to sign side deals," he said. "Not true. We’re asking the prime minister to honour an agreement that is already in place, an agreement he didn’t just tacitly support but actively campaigned on while in opposition."
Mr. MacDonald said Mr. Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are not being honest.
"Both Prime Minister Harper and Minister Flaherty have repeatedly stated that not one comma of the accord has been changed and it remains in its original pristine form. Again, absolutely not true, and they know it. The federal government has unilaterally wiped out an entire clause of the agreement."
Ottawa says the choice Nova Scotia faces does not violate the accords, since the province can keep all of its offshore revenue if it sticks with the old equalization formula. Mr. Flaherty has been critical of the offshore accords as distorting the national equalization system, since other provinces’ resources are not excluded from the system, as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland’s are under the accords, so it was necessary to revamp equalization to base it on a "principled, long-term, predictable formula."
When campaigning for the accords, Mr. Harper, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and then-Nova Scotia premier John Hamm framed the debate as a struggle for control of resources.
On Tuesday, the premier repeatedly referred to the accord as an economic development agreement, no different from Ottawa’s large investments in aerospace in Quebec, the auto industry in Ontario, grain programs for western farmers or the Pacific Gateway in British Columbia.
"The 2005 accord is the only transfer in federal history that we are aware of that is clawed back," Mr. MacDonald said.
In testimony before the same committee earlier in the day, Mr. Flaherty said he did not believe the accord is an economic development agreement.
As evidence that it is, Mr. MacDonald and Finance Minister Michael Baker pointed to a federal Finance Department website that stipulates that the accord is separate from the equalization system.
"Nova Scotians know that our accord presented a rare window of opportunity to achieve greater prosperity, to provide a better future for our children and contribute to a stronger Canada," the premier said. "Today they feel betrayed and so do I."
Although Mr. Harper campaigned against an Ontario cap on the accords, the Tories now insist it’s necessary to prevent taxpayers in that province from continuing to send cheques east if the fiscal capacity of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland surpasses that province’s.
Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Baker were handled gently by East Coast Liberal senators, but several Tories and one Ontario Liberal suggested that Nova Scotia is asking for too much.
"In a lot of cases, this is not based on principles, this is based on the principle that we need more in Atlantic Canada," Manitoba Tory Senator Terry Stratton said.
Liberal Senator Art Eggleton of Toronto posed skeptical questions to Mr. MacDonald and suggested during Mr. Flaherty’s testimony that the government may have done the right thing.
After the presentation, Mr. Mac-Donald said he doesn’t know what he’ll do if, as seems almost certain, the majority of Liberal senators ignore his plea and pass the budget legislation unamended.
When he was in Ottawa last week to call on East Coast Tory MPs to vote against the budget, Mr. MacDonald presented a proposal to Mr. Harper to resolve the dispute. He said Tuesday the federal response has not been good enough.
"We did have some discussions but I’ve seen nothing that’s satisfactory to the people of my province."
( smaher@herald.ca)
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Arar and wife give scholarship to BC university
I believe that Mazigh taught at the university. The couple were apparently well received in Kamloops. It is nice to see them thank the community in this way.
Maher Arar gives scholarship to B.C. university
KAMLOOPS, B.C. (CP) - A Canadian man once deported to Syria under false terrorist claims is leaving a legacy at a B.C. university.
Maher Arar and his wife Monia Mozigh are providing a $20,000 scholarship to Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, where they lived for about a year. Mozigh says it's a way to thank the community and help students to be more involved in social justice issues.
She says the scholarship will encourage students to be socially responsible while maintaining a high academic standing.
Arar was awarded $11 million in compensation by Ottawa after faulty information provided by the RCMP resulted in the U.S. deporting him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year.
The couple now live in Ottawa.
Maher Arar gives scholarship to B.C. university
KAMLOOPS, B.C. (CP) - A Canadian man once deported to Syria under false terrorist claims is leaving a legacy at a B.C. university.
Maher Arar and his wife Monia Mozigh are providing a $20,000 scholarship to Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, where they lived for about a year. Mozigh says it's a way to thank the community and help students to be more involved in social justice issues.
She says the scholarship will encourage students to be socially responsible while maintaining a high academic standing.
Arar was awarded $11 million in compensation by Ottawa after faulty information provided by the RCMP resulted in the U.S. deporting him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year.
The couple now live in Ottawa.
Wages and Inflation by Province
It is rather surprising that Alberta should actually experience a decline in real wages during its boom!
Wages and Inflation by Province, May 2006 - May 2007
Posted by Erin Weir under labour market, inflation, Alberta.
June 19th, 2007
Comments: none
Relative to inflation, Albertans are being paid less per hour than they were a year ago. Today, Statistics Canada released Consumer Price Index figures for May 2007. Comparing these figures with the latest Labour Force Survey reveals that Canadian wages grew only 0.8% more than Canadian prices from May 2006 through May 2007.
As always, the national figure masks significant regional variations. Although Alberta was the only province in which real wages fell, Quebec’s wages barely kept pace with inflation. Real wages apparently rose more strongly in Atlantic Canada, especially in New Brunswick. However, monthly survey data for the smaller provinces must be taken with a grain of salt.
Average Hourly Wages and CPI Inflation, May 2006 - May 2007
Wages Inflation Real Wages
Canada 3.0% 2.2% 0.8%
Newfoundland 4.1% 0.7% 3.4%
PEI 4.6% 1.2% 3.4%
Nova Scotia 5.5% 1.7% 3.8%
New Brunswick 7.3% 1.4% 5.9%
Quebec 1.7% 1.6% 0.1%
Ontario 2.5% 1.9% 0.6%
Manitoba 5.0% 2.3% 2.7%
Saskatchewan 3.6% 2.7% 0.9%
Alberta 4.9% 5.0% (0.1%)
British Columbia 3.6% 1.7% 1.9%
Declining real wages in Alberta undermine the conventional wisdom of insurmountable labour shortages and significant barriers to labour mobility between provinces. If supposed labour shortages were not being addressed by inter-provincial migration, the result would presumably have been a large increase in Alberta’s wages.
Wages and Inflation by Province, May 2006 - May 2007
Posted by Erin Weir under labour market, inflation, Alberta.
June 19th, 2007
Comments: none
Relative to inflation, Albertans are being paid less per hour than they were a year ago. Today, Statistics Canada released Consumer Price Index figures for May 2007. Comparing these figures with the latest Labour Force Survey reveals that Canadian wages grew only 0.8% more than Canadian prices from May 2006 through May 2007.
As always, the national figure masks significant regional variations. Although Alberta was the only province in which real wages fell, Quebec’s wages barely kept pace with inflation. Real wages apparently rose more strongly in Atlantic Canada, especially in New Brunswick. However, monthly survey data for the smaller provinces must be taken with a grain of salt.
Average Hourly Wages and CPI Inflation, May 2006 - May 2007
Wages Inflation Real Wages
Canada 3.0% 2.2% 0.8%
Newfoundland 4.1% 0.7% 3.4%
PEI 4.6% 1.2% 3.4%
Nova Scotia 5.5% 1.7% 3.8%
New Brunswick 7.3% 1.4% 5.9%
Quebec 1.7% 1.6% 0.1%
Ontario 2.5% 1.9% 0.6%
Manitoba 5.0% 2.3% 2.7%
Saskatchewan 3.6% 2.7% 0.9%
Alberta 4.9% 5.0% (0.1%)
British Columbia 3.6% 1.7% 1.9%
Declining real wages in Alberta undermine the conventional wisdom of insurmountable labour shortages and significant barriers to labour mobility between provinces. If supposed labour shortages were not being addressed by inter-provincial migration, the result would presumably have been a large increase in Alberta’s wages.
Welcome to the Blame Game
Of course the ex-Mountie doesn't seem to blame the RCMP at all. CSIS does seem to have been very negligent in the case but then the seeming lack of co-operation and communication between CSIS and the RCMP was no doubt the fault of both parties. The two seem to act as if they were rival gangs fighting over their turf rather than agencies that were united in fighting terrorism. Taking the old security service away from the RCMP in the light of their ridiculous and bizarre dirty tricks and coverups seems like a reasonable move rather than trying to reform the service! It was later response that gave some aspects back to the RCMP that is questionable.
Politicians, CSIS criticized by ex-Mountie at Air India inquiry
Last Updated: Monday, June 18, 2007 | 10:43 PM ET
The Canadian Press
The 1985 Air India bombing represented an intelligence failure of massive proportions and could have been averted by better investigative work, says the man who was second-in-command at the time for the RCMP.
Henry Jensen, the former deputy commissioner of operations for the Mounties, shouldered little of the blame Monday at an ongoing public inquiry that is studying the bombing that killed 329 people on a flight from Canada to India.
Instead, he pointed the finger at politicians who he said "gutted" the national police force by taking away its security service. He also blamed the new civilian spy agency CSIS that took over the job just a year before the tragedy on June 23, 1985.
"I've always carried the view that this is the biggest and most disastrous civil intelligence failure that Canada has faced," Jensen told the Ottawa-based inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major.
"I firmly believe that. I, for one, feel that somehow, somewhere, there were some dots that could have been linked and should have been linked. And had that been done, then who knows, it might have been prevented."
As he did in a previous appearance at the inquiry last spring, Jensen took issue with the decision by the Liberal government of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau to abolish the old RCMP security service and replace it with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The move was sparked by an earlier royal commission that found the Mounties had committed arson, theft and a variety of other illegal acts in the name of fighting Quebec separatism.
Jensen, who is now chairman of the Ottawa Police Services Board, said the reform left an "enormous gap" in the RCMP's ability to detect terrorist plots and head them off before they could come to fruition.
He said he wouldn't have objected to hiving off some intelligence functions to a separate agency — such as background checks on civil servants and counter-espionage operations — but he insisted anything related to terrorism was a criminal matter that the RCMP should have handled.
"I think that was a gross error on the part of government to make that change," he said.
Turf battles between RCMP, CSIS
Critics have long blamed turf battles between the RCMP and CSIS for the failure to head off the bombing, and for hampering the criminal investigation that followed the attack.
Documents tabled at the inquiry show the infighting reached to the very top of both organizations, with Ted Finn, then director of CSIS, complaining to Robert Simmonds, then commissioner of the RCMP, that the Mounties were trying to undercut the civilian spy agency and set up a parallel intelligence branch to replace the old security service they had lost.
Flight 182 stopped in Montreal after leaving Toronto, en route to London's Heathrow Airport and then India.
The explosives — allegedly planted by Sikh extremists in luggage that was loaded in Vancouver — exploded off the west coast of Ireland and killed everyone on board, mostly Canadians. A bomb also killed two baggage handlers at a Tokyo airport.
The inquiry, which started in 2006, was called because the Air India investigation and prosecution was the costliest and one of the longest in Canadian history — yet led to no murder convictions.
Investigators believe extremists who wanted India to create an independent Sikh homeland carried out the bombings.
Only one person was ever convicted in the plot. Inderjit Singh Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2003 and received a five-year sentence.
The suspected ringleader, Talwinder Singh Parmar, died in India in 1992 and the RCMP's two main surviving suspects were both acquitted in March 2005, after a 19-month trial.
Politicians, CSIS criticized by ex-Mountie at Air India inquiry
Last Updated: Monday, June 18, 2007 | 10:43 PM ET
The Canadian Press
The 1985 Air India bombing represented an intelligence failure of massive proportions and could have been averted by better investigative work, says the man who was second-in-command at the time for the RCMP.
Henry Jensen, the former deputy commissioner of operations for the Mounties, shouldered little of the blame Monday at an ongoing public inquiry that is studying the bombing that killed 329 people on a flight from Canada to India.
Instead, he pointed the finger at politicians who he said "gutted" the national police force by taking away its security service. He also blamed the new civilian spy agency CSIS that took over the job just a year before the tragedy on June 23, 1985.
"I've always carried the view that this is the biggest and most disastrous civil intelligence failure that Canada has faced," Jensen told the Ottawa-based inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major.
"I firmly believe that. I, for one, feel that somehow, somewhere, there were some dots that could have been linked and should have been linked. And had that been done, then who knows, it might have been prevented."
As he did in a previous appearance at the inquiry last spring, Jensen took issue with the decision by the Liberal government of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau to abolish the old RCMP security service and replace it with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The move was sparked by an earlier royal commission that found the Mounties had committed arson, theft and a variety of other illegal acts in the name of fighting Quebec separatism.
Jensen, who is now chairman of the Ottawa Police Services Board, said the reform left an "enormous gap" in the RCMP's ability to detect terrorist plots and head them off before they could come to fruition.
He said he wouldn't have objected to hiving off some intelligence functions to a separate agency — such as background checks on civil servants and counter-espionage operations — but he insisted anything related to terrorism was a criminal matter that the RCMP should have handled.
"I think that was a gross error on the part of government to make that change," he said.
Turf battles between RCMP, CSIS
Critics have long blamed turf battles between the RCMP and CSIS for the failure to head off the bombing, and for hampering the criminal investigation that followed the attack.
Documents tabled at the inquiry show the infighting reached to the very top of both organizations, with Ted Finn, then director of CSIS, complaining to Robert Simmonds, then commissioner of the RCMP, that the Mounties were trying to undercut the civilian spy agency and set up a parallel intelligence branch to replace the old security service they had lost.
Flight 182 stopped in Montreal after leaving Toronto, en route to London's Heathrow Airport and then India.
The explosives — allegedly planted by Sikh extremists in luggage that was loaded in Vancouver — exploded off the west coast of Ireland and killed everyone on board, mostly Canadians. A bomb also killed two baggage handlers at a Tokyo airport.
The inquiry, which started in 2006, was called because the Air India investigation and prosecution was the costliest and one of the longest in Canadian history — yet led to no murder convictions.
Investigators believe extremists who wanted India to create an independent Sikh homeland carried out the bombings.
Only one person was ever convicted in the plot. Inderjit Singh Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2003 and received a five-year sentence.
The suspected ringleader, Talwinder Singh Parmar, died in India in 1992 and the RCMP's two main surviving suspects were both acquitted in March 2005, after a 19-month trial.
Monday, June 18, 2007
TV Terrorism: Jack Bauer
I don't get the TV channel with Jack Bauer on it. In fact if it were not for my wife I would not even bother with satellite TV. While there are some good documentaries and other programs much of cable and satellite TV seems like a cornucupia of bread and circuses for the masses. It certainly does sound from what I have heard and the article that Jack Bauer is a fine example of the sort of psychological conditioning appropriate for the masses and supreme courts justices as well in an age in which the dangers of terrorism are hyped up.
TV TERRORISM
What would Jack Bauer do?
Canadian jurist prompts international justice panel to debate TV drama 24's use of torture
COLIN FREEZE
June 16, 2007
OTTAWA -- Justice Antonin Scalia is one of the most powerful judges on the planet.
The job of the veteran U.S. Supreme Court judge is to ensure that the superpower lives up to its Constitution. But in his free time, he is a fan of 24, the popular TV drama where the maverick federal agent Jack Bauer routinely tortures terrorists to save American lives. This much was made clear at a legal conference in Ottawa this week.
Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.
The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.
"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."
What happened next was like watching the National Security Judges International All-Star Team set into a high-minded version of a conversation that has raged across countless bars and dinner tables, ever since 24 began broadcasting six seasons ago.
Jack Bauer, played by Canadian Kiefer Sutherland, gets meaner as he lurches from crisis to crisis, acting under few legal constraints. "You are going to tell me what I want to know, it's just a matter of how much you want it to hurt," is one of his catchphrases. Every episode poses an implicit question to its viewers: Does the end justify the means if national security is at stake? On 24, the answer is, invariably, yes.
But sometimes this message proves a little too persuasive. Last November, a U.S. Army brigadier-general, Patrick Finnegan, of West Point, went to California to meet with the show's producers. He asked if the writers would consider reining in Agent Bauer. "The kids see it, and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about 24?" he told The New Yorker in February.
He argued that "they should do a show where torture backfires." It's not just the military that's watching 24. It turns out that the judges who struggle to square the Guantanamo Bay prison camp experiment with the British Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 are watching the show, too. It was Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada who inadvertently started the debate, with his derogatory drive-by slight against Jack Bauer, the one that so provoked Judge Scalia.
In his day job, the Canadian judge wrestles with the implications of torture. Last winter, for example, Judge Mosley ordered an Osama bin Laden associate freed from seven years prison and into strict house arrest in Toronto.
Judge Mosley told the panel that rights-respecting governments can't take part in torture or encourage it in any way. "The agents of the state, and the agents of the Canadian state, under the Criminal Code, are very much subject to severe criminal sanction if they would engage in torture," he said.
But the U.S. Supreme Court judge choked on that position, saying it would be folly for laws to dictate that counterterrorism agents must wear kid gloves all the time. While Judge Scalia argued that doomsday scenarios may well lead to the reconsideration of rights, in his legal decisions he has also said that catastrophic attacks and intelligence imperatives do not automatically give the U.S. president a blank cheque - the people have to decide. "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion through an opinion of this court," he dissented in a 2004 decision. The judicial majority ruled that a presidential order meant that an American "enemy combatant" wasn't entitled to challenge the conditions of his detention, which happened to be aboard a naval brig.
As they discussed torture in Ottawa, the judicial panelists from outside the United States argued that any implicit or explicit sanction of torture is a slippery slope.
Some said that legal systems might do well to enforce anti-torture laws, even if it meant prosecuting rogue agents. "What if the guy is not the guy who's going to blow up Los Angeles? But some kind of innocent?" asked Lord Carlile of Berriew, a Welshman who acts as the independent reviewer of Britain's terrorism laws.
Torture can lead to false confessions, he said. "How do you protect that person's civil rights from the risk of very serious wrongful conviction?" But Lord Carlile, a barrister by training, added that he was also concerned with Jack Bauer's rights. "I'm sure I could get him off," he said.
One panelist deadpanned that saving Los Angeles from a nuke would likely be a mitigating factor during any sentencing of Jack Bauer.
When the panel opened to questions and commentary from the floor, a senior Canadian government lawyer said: "Maybe saving L.A. is an easy question. How many people are we going to torture to save L.A.?" asked Stanley Cohen, a senior counsel for the Justice Department, who specializes in human rights law. "How much certainty do we get to have that we have the right person in front of us?" Then Lorne Waldman, the lawyer for the famously wronged engineer Maher Arar, emerged from the crowd to say that very little of the conversation sounded hypothetical to him.
Mr. Arar was among a series of Canadian Arabs who emerged from lengthy ordeals in Syrian jails to complain of torture. Their common complaint is that Syrian torture - including beatings with electric cables - flowed from a wrongly premised Canadian investigation after 9/11.
A host of security agents, Mr. Waldman argued, acted with utmost urgency against innocents, after wrongly fearing a bomb plot was afoot.
Generally, the jurists in the room agreed that coerced confessions carry little weight, given that they might be false and almost never accepted into evidence. But the U.S. Supreme Court judge stressed that he was not speaking about putting together pristine prosecutions, but rather, about allowing agents the freedom to thwart immediate attacks.
"I don't care about holding people. I really don't," Judge Scalia said.
Even if a real terrorist who suffered mistreatment is released because of complaints of abuse, Judge Scalia said, the interruption to the terrorist's plot would have ensured "in Los Angeles everyone is safe." During a break from the panel, Judge Scalia specifically mentioned the segment in Season 2 when Jack Bauer finally figures out how to break the die-hard terrorist intent on nuking L.A. The real genius, the judge said, is that this is primarily done with mental leverage. "There's a great scene where he told a guy that he was going to have his family killed," Judge Scalia said. "They had it on closed circuit television - and it was all staged. ... They really didn't kill the family."
Gospel according to Jack
"Tell me where the bomb is or I will kill your son."
"I don't want to bypass the Constitution, but these are extraordinary circumstances."
"I need to use every advantage I've got."
"If we want to procure any information from this suspect, we're going to have to do it behind closed doors."
"I'm talking about doing what's necessary to stop this warhead from being used against us."
"When I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish that you felt this good again."
"You don't have any more useful information, do you?"
Sources: New Yorker, IMDB
TV TERRORISM
What would Jack Bauer do?
Canadian jurist prompts international justice panel to debate TV drama 24's use of torture
COLIN FREEZE
June 16, 2007
OTTAWA -- Justice Antonin Scalia is one of the most powerful judges on the planet.
The job of the veteran U.S. Supreme Court judge is to ensure that the superpower lives up to its Constitution. But in his free time, he is a fan of 24, the popular TV drama where the maverick federal agent Jack Bauer routinely tortures terrorists to save American lives. This much was made clear at a legal conference in Ottawa this week.
Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.
The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.
"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."
What happened next was like watching the National Security Judges International All-Star Team set into a high-minded version of a conversation that has raged across countless bars and dinner tables, ever since 24 began broadcasting six seasons ago.
Jack Bauer, played by Canadian Kiefer Sutherland, gets meaner as he lurches from crisis to crisis, acting under few legal constraints. "You are going to tell me what I want to know, it's just a matter of how much you want it to hurt," is one of his catchphrases. Every episode poses an implicit question to its viewers: Does the end justify the means if national security is at stake? On 24, the answer is, invariably, yes.
But sometimes this message proves a little too persuasive. Last November, a U.S. Army brigadier-general, Patrick Finnegan, of West Point, went to California to meet with the show's producers. He asked if the writers would consider reining in Agent Bauer. "The kids see it, and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about 24?" he told The New Yorker in February.
He argued that "they should do a show where torture backfires." It's not just the military that's watching 24. It turns out that the judges who struggle to square the Guantanamo Bay prison camp experiment with the British Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 are watching the show, too. It was Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada who inadvertently started the debate, with his derogatory drive-by slight against Jack Bauer, the one that so provoked Judge Scalia.
In his day job, the Canadian judge wrestles with the implications of torture. Last winter, for example, Judge Mosley ordered an Osama bin Laden associate freed from seven years prison and into strict house arrest in Toronto.
Judge Mosley told the panel that rights-respecting governments can't take part in torture or encourage it in any way. "The agents of the state, and the agents of the Canadian state, under the Criminal Code, are very much subject to severe criminal sanction if they would engage in torture," he said.
But the U.S. Supreme Court judge choked on that position, saying it would be folly for laws to dictate that counterterrorism agents must wear kid gloves all the time. While Judge Scalia argued that doomsday scenarios may well lead to the reconsideration of rights, in his legal decisions he has also said that catastrophic attacks and intelligence imperatives do not automatically give the U.S. president a blank cheque - the people have to decide. "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion through an opinion of this court," he dissented in a 2004 decision. The judicial majority ruled that a presidential order meant that an American "enemy combatant" wasn't entitled to challenge the conditions of his detention, which happened to be aboard a naval brig.
As they discussed torture in Ottawa, the judicial panelists from outside the United States argued that any implicit or explicit sanction of torture is a slippery slope.
Some said that legal systems might do well to enforce anti-torture laws, even if it meant prosecuting rogue agents. "What if the guy is not the guy who's going to blow up Los Angeles? But some kind of innocent?" asked Lord Carlile of Berriew, a Welshman who acts as the independent reviewer of Britain's terrorism laws.
Torture can lead to false confessions, he said. "How do you protect that person's civil rights from the risk of very serious wrongful conviction?" But Lord Carlile, a barrister by training, added that he was also concerned with Jack Bauer's rights. "I'm sure I could get him off," he said.
One panelist deadpanned that saving Los Angeles from a nuke would likely be a mitigating factor during any sentencing of Jack Bauer.
When the panel opened to questions and commentary from the floor, a senior Canadian government lawyer said: "Maybe saving L.A. is an easy question. How many people are we going to torture to save L.A.?" asked Stanley Cohen, a senior counsel for the Justice Department, who specializes in human rights law. "How much certainty do we get to have that we have the right person in front of us?" Then Lorne Waldman, the lawyer for the famously wronged engineer Maher Arar, emerged from the crowd to say that very little of the conversation sounded hypothetical to him.
Mr. Arar was among a series of Canadian Arabs who emerged from lengthy ordeals in Syrian jails to complain of torture. Their common complaint is that Syrian torture - including beatings with electric cables - flowed from a wrongly premised Canadian investigation after 9/11.
A host of security agents, Mr. Waldman argued, acted with utmost urgency against innocents, after wrongly fearing a bomb plot was afoot.
Generally, the jurists in the room agreed that coerced confessions carry little weight, given that they might be false and almost never accepted into evidence. But the U.S. Supreme Court judge stressed that he was not speaking about putting together pristine prosecutions, but rather, about allowing agents the freedom to thwart immediate attacks.
"I don't care about holding people. I really don't," Judge Scalia said.
Even if a real terrorist who suffered mistreatment is released because of complaints of abuse, Judge Scalia said, the interruption to the terrorist's plot would have ensured "in Los Angeles everyone is safe." During a break from the panel, Judge Scalia specifically mentioned the segment in Season 2 when Jack Bauer finally figures out how to break the die-hard terrorist intent on nuking L.A. The real genius, the judge said, is that this is primarily done with mental leverage. "There's a great scene where he told a guy that he was going to have his family killed," Judge Scalia said. "They had it on closed circuit television - and it was all staged. ... They really didn't kill the family."
Gospel according to Jack
"Tell me where the bomb is or I will kill your son."
"I don't want to bypass the Constitution, but these are extraordinary circumstances."
"I need to use every advantage I've got."
"If we want to procure any information from this suspect, we're going to have to do it behind closed doors."
"I'm talking about doing what's necessary to stop this warhead from being used against us."
"When I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish that you felt this good again."
"You don't have any more useful information, do you?"
Sources: New Yorker, IMDB
Full Inquiry into RCMP needed
I am not sure that we need to reconstruct an icon. Part of the problem in the first place is the iconic status of the RCMP. This makes it a sin to criticise or attack the RCMP. What we need is accountability for errors or wrongs by RCMP members no matter what their rank. I think that it is really hopeless to try and attack the blue veil culture. It is natural for police forces, indeed almost all organisations to adopt something of this sort. The medical profession does it too, and governments, it is part of survival when outside attacks threaten them. What is needed is external oversight that is able to force its way behind the veil. If corruption is bad enough and rank and file mad enough then the veil will be peirced at least temporarily. As the article notes the Canadian public has already had some glimpses behind the RCMP veil. Travers summarises quite well some of the reasons why a full inquiry would be a good idea. Protection for RCMP whistleblowers is a must although I doubt that anything can completely protect rank and file from punishment for revealing dirty linen at least such legislation would help.
Full inquiry into RCMP is needed
Jun 16, 2007 04:30 AM
James Travers
OTTAWA
Stockwell Day is a politician of curious beliefs. Famously confused about evolution and the Niagara River's northerly flow, the public safety minister is currently convinced a public inquiry isn't needed to put the RCMP back on its horse after nasty falls.
Of those three assumptions, the third, predictably endorsed yesterday by David Brown's fast study of the pension mess, is most wrong-headed. One of the country's few remaining icons is broken and can only be painstakingly repaired in the full glare of daylight.
A replacement for defrocked commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli – too superficially wounded by Brown as a weak and arrogant manager – is a start. But that and the closed-door task force Brown recommends are no substitute for full scrutiny followed by an overhaul of a force sharing little with its postcard image or illustrious past.
That would be necessary if the RCMP problems stopped at pension abuses, its mystery intervention in the last election, the Maher Arar affair or bizarre and deadly operational failures. Sadly, those are only parts of a pattern.
With depressing regularity the RCMP wanders to the dark side. It has burned barns, dipped into federal sponsorship funds, spied on political parties and blinked at internal wrongs. Connect those dots and find two common denominators. One is an unstable relationship with politicians; the other is a cultish, xenophobic cohesiveness that thwarts oversight and reform.
At times, the RCMP bows to political pressure while more frequently hiding its tracks from its elected masters. Asia-Pacific protesters got the rough 1997 ride Jean Chrétien's handlers wanted while both the Arar and 1981 McDonald inquiries measured the distance between truth and what ministers were told.
The result is a poisonous mix of pragmatism and fear. Sensitive to its power and usefulness as well as keenly aware that the RCMP still commands more public esteem than politicians, parties default to its defence until the weight of evidence makes criticism safe.
So Liberals appointed the weak, very political Zaccardelli rather than search outside for leadership strong enough to challenge the status quo. Now Tories are perpetuating the myth that all that's really needed is a quick fix at the top.
It's not that easy. A new perspective is as vital to RCMP recovery as it is certain that its us-against-them culture will try to reject a transplant. Even that might be manageable if tarnished brass was the only problem. Instead, competence, structure and purpose are all in doubt.
Mountie and prisoner deaths in Alberta and B.C. suggest systemic training failure. Serving as a contract police force in every province except Ontario and Quebec creates organizational conflict and a dual personality. And it's far from clear that the real RCMP lionized by the fictional Sergeant Preston is ready to cope with 21st-century organized crime and security threats.
There's appeal in Brown's remedy of a timely task force focusing on modernizing the RCMP. Swift and cost-efficient, it would skirt public inquiry pitfalls while protecting politicians from the embarrassments of unscripted testimony. More compelling is his argument that further deconstruction of the pension scandal, beyond an OPP review, won't uncover anything new. After seven probes, enough is enough.
But Brown and Day short-change the RCMP and Canadians by not seizing the opportunity to publicly reconstruct an icon, piece by jagged piece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Travers' national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday
Full inquiry into RCMP is needed
Jun 16, 2007 04:30 AM
James Travers
OTTAWA
Stockwell Day is a politician of curious beliefs. Famously confused about evolution and the Niagara River's northerly flow, the public safety minister is currently convinced a public inquiry isn't needed to put the RCMP back on its horse after nasty falls.
Of those three assumptions, the third, predictably endorsed yesterday by David Brown's fast study of the pension mess, is most wrong-headed. One of the country's few remaining icons is broken and can only be painstakingly repaired in the full glare of daylight.
A replacement for defrocked commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli – too superficially wounded by Brown as a weak and arrogant manager – is a start. But that and the closed-door task force Brown recommends are no substitute for full scrutiny followed by an overhaul of a force sharing little with its postcard image or illustrious past.
That would be necessary if the RCMP problems stopped at pension abuses, its mystery intervention in the last election, the Maher Arar affair or bizarre and deadly operational failures. Sadly, those are only parts of a pattern.
With depressing regularity the RCMP wanders to the dark side. It has burned barns, dipped into federal sponsorship funds, spied on political parties and blinked at internal wrongs. Connect those dots and find two common denominators. One is an unstable relationship with politicians; the other is a cultish, xenophobic cohesiveness that thwarts oversight and reform.
At times, the RCMP bows to political pressure while more frequently hiding its tracks from its elected masters. Asia-Pacific protesters got the rough 1997 ride Jean Chrétien's handlers wanted while both the Arar and 1981 McDonald inquiries measured the distance between truth and what ministers were told.
The result is a poisonous mix of pragmatism and fear. Sensitive to its power and usefulness as well as keenly aware that the RCMP still commands more public esteem than politicians, parties default to its defence until the weight of evidence makes criticism safe.
So Liberals appointed the weak, very political Zaccardelli rather than search outside for leadership strong enough to challenge the status quo. Now Tories are perpetuating the myth that all that's really needed is a quick fix at the top.
It's not that easy. A new perspective is as vital to RCMP recovery as it is certain that its us-against-them culture will try to reject a transplant. Even that might be manageable if tarnished brass was the only problem. Instead, competence, structure and purpose are all in doubt.
Mountie and prisoner deaths in Alberta and B.C. suggest systemic training failure. Serving as a contract police force in every province except Ontario and Quebec creates organizational conflict and a dual personality. And it's far from clear that the real RCMP lionized by the fictional Sergeant Preston is ready to cope with 21st-century organized crime and security threats.
There's appeal in Brown's remedy of a timely task force focusing on modernizing the RCMP. Swift and cost-efficient, it would skirt public inquiry pitfalls while protecting politicians from the embarrassments of unscripted testimony. More compelling is his argument that further deconstruction of the pension scandal, beyond an OPP review, won't uncover anything new. After seven probes, enough is enough.
But Brown and Day short-change the RCMP and Canadians by not seizing the opportunity to publicly reconstruct an icon, piece by jagged piece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Travers' national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Atlantica Protesters Arrested
The protestors mentioned that the media was partly to blame for violence since the media reports that! Perhaps they have a point! More attention is often paid to violent protests than the content of the conference, the real issue. But then if the media just reports the violence and not on the substance what is the point of the violence.
21 charged in Halifax protest
Last Updated: Saturday, June 16, 2007 | 9:59 PM ET
CBC News
Most of the demonstrators arrested Friday in a clash with Halifax police will be kept in custody until a court appearance Monday, police spokeswoman Theresa Brien said.
Two of the 21 arrested were released Saturday. The protesters face counts of unlawful assembly, assault on police, mischief and weapons-related offences after the demonstration against the Atlantica 2007 meeting become a confrontation.
A group of self-described anarchists broke away from the main demonstration and a confrontation developed, with protesters throwing paint-filled light bulbs, firecrackers and rocks at police. Police responded with pepper spray and stun guns to control the crowd.
Two officers and two demonstrators were slightly hurt.
The protesters were opposing Atlantica 2007, a conference run by the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce and the Nova Scotia Chambers of Commerce to discuss the idea of a trade zone encompassing the Atlantic Provinces, northeastern United States and eastern Quebec.
The proposal was described as an "anti-worker, secret, undemocratic corporate trade deal" in a media release announcing a demonstration in front of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay's office in Antigonish, N.S., on Saturday.
21 charged in Halifax protest
Last Updated: Saturday, June 16, 2007 | 9:59 PM ET
CBC News
Most of the demonstrators arrested Friday in a clash with Halifax police will be kept in custody until a court appearance Monday, police spokeswoman Theresa Brien said.
Two of the 21 arrested were released Saturday. The protesters face counts of unlawful assembly, assault on police, mischief and weapons-related offences after the demonstration against the Atlantica 2007 meeting become a confrontation.
A group of self-described anarchists broke away from the main demonstration and a confrontation developed, with protesters throwing paint-filled light bulbs, firecrackers and rocks at police. Police responded with pepper spray and stun guns to control the crowd.
Two officers and two demonstrators were slightly hurt.
The protesters were opposing Atlantica 2007, a conference run by the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce and the Nova Scotia Chambers of Commerce to discuss the idea of a trade zone encompassing the Atlantic Provinces, northeastern United States and eastern Quebec.
The proposal was described as an "anti-worker, secret, undemocratic corporate trade deal" in a media release announcing a demonstration in front of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay's office in Antigonish, N.S., on Saturday.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Report claims RCMP needs major shakeup.
THe power that Brown had versus an inquiry were extremely limited. A most important point is that an inquiry was denied. The last thing the Government wants is more revelations about incompetence, coverups, and wrongdoings in the RCMP. It remains to be seen what the Task Force will amount to.
RCMP needs major shakeup: federal report
Last Updated: Friday, June 15, 2007 | 7:00 AM ET
CBC News
The RCMP needs major changes in its governance and culture, a government-appointed investigator said Friday.
David Brown, the former head of the Ontario Securities Commission, was appointed by the government in April to investigate allegations that senior RCMP officers covered up abuse of the force's pension and insurance fund.
Brown recommended appointing a task force to look into the RCMP culture and governance to deal with a situation where RCMP members were punished for challenging the prevailing management.
"We need fundamental cultural, structural and governance changes throughout the RCMP," he told reporters Friday. The lower-ranking force members who complained about problems "were treated very unfairly," he said.
The proposed task force should report by Dec. 14. A decision about appointing a task force is up to the government.
"This is of the utmost urgency and importance" because the current RCMP culture is undermining the confidence in the force of lower-ranking officers and the public, he said.
But Brown also said he found no signs of a coverup on the pension issue, just mismanagement. He singled out the management style of former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli for particular criticism.
Brown reviewed repeated previous investigations and inquiries into RCMP management, and as expected, rejected the idea of a public inquiry. Such an inquiry "will uncover nothing new," he asserted.
But he did recommend the Ontario Provincial Police review a criminal investigation of the pension issues to determine if the investigation was done properly.
He did not conclude that the investigation was flawed, only that the lack of independence in the investigation may be a problem.
Testified to pension abuse
Earlier this spring, RCMP officers and staff told a parliamentary committee they had unearthed abuse of the pension fund. They claimed that senior managers responded to their concerns either by punishing whistleblowers, or blocking investigations into the accounting irregularities.
Brown's report was given to Vic Toews, the president of the Treasury Board.
"I'm very pleased that we're moving as quickly as we are, and all I can say at this point is I'm looking forward to seeing a copy of the report and ensuring any recommendations that are made are closely examined," Toews said before it was released.
Some MPs on the parliamentary committee who first heard the allegations in February raised concerns about how much the report could truly uncover, given that Brown's investigation only began in mid-April.
"If we [the committee] are still asking questions at this point, don't tell me — and we're a committee — that he was able to find out all this information so quickly," committee member and Liberal MP Judy Sgro said. "Frankly, I think it's probably a whitewash of a document."
NDP MP David Christopherson was also skeptical. He pointed out that Brown didn't have the same powers as the committee.
"You're going to tell me that every person that we had to squeeze every answer out of, merrily walked in and voluntarily told him all the things that we wanted to hear but they wouldn't tell us? I don't buy it," he said.
RCMP needs major shakeup: federal report
Last Updated: Friday, June 15, 2007 | 7:00 AM ET
CBC News
The RCMP needs major changes in its governance and culture, a government-appointed investigator said Friday.
David Brown, the former head of the Ontario Securities Commission, was appointed by the government in April to investigate allegations that senior RCMP officers covered up abuse of the force's pension and insurance fund.
Brown recommended appointing a task force to look into the RCMP culture and governance to deal with a situation where RCMP members were punished for challenging the prevailing management.
"We need fundamental cultural, structural and governance changes throughout the RCMP," he told reporters Friday. The lower-ranking force members who complained about problems "were treated very unfairly," he said.
The proposed task force should report by Dec. 14. A decision about appointing a task force is up to the government.
"This is of the utmost urgency and importance" because the current RCMP culture is undermining the confidence in the force of lower-ranking officers and the public, he said.
But Brown also said he found no signs of a coverup on the pension issue, just mismanagement. He singled out the management style of former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli for particular criticism.
Brown reviewed repeated previous investigations and inquiries into RCMP management, and as expected, rejected the idea of a public inquiry. Such an inquiry "will uncover nothing new," he asserted.
But he did recommend the Ontario Provincial Police review a criminal investigation of the pension issues to determine if the investigation was done properly.
He did not conclude that the investigation was flawed, only that the lack of independence in the investigation may be a problem.
Testified to pension abuse
Earlier this spring, RCMP officers and staff told a parliamentary committee they had unearthed abuse of the pension fund. They claimed that senior managers responded to their concerns either by punishing whistleblowers, or blocking investigations into the accounting irregularities.
Brown's report was given to Vic Toews, the president of the Treasury Board.
"I'm very pleased that we're moving as quickly as we are, and all I can say at this point is I'm looking forward to seeing a copy of the report and ensuring any recommendations that are made are closely examined," Toews said before it was released.
Some MPs on the parliamentary committee who first heard the allegations in February raised concerns about how much the report could truly uncover, given that Brown's investigation only began in mid-April.
"If we [the committee] are still asking questions at this point, don't tell me — and we're a committee — that he was able to find out all this information so quickly," committee member and Liberal MP Judy Sgro said. "Frankly, I think it's probably a whitewash of a document."
NDP MP David Christopherson was also skeptical. He pointed out that Brown didn't have the same powers as the committee.
"You're going to tell me that every person that we had to squeeze every answer out of, merrily walked in and voluntarily told him all the things that we wanted to hear but they wouldn't tell us? I don't buy it," he said.
Williams may join Sask. equalization suit
The equalisation issue is not clear to me. I understood that the budget does exempt resource revenues from the formula but places a cap on payments. Anyway it does seem that whatever is the case the new budget formula result in losses to several provinces compared to what was promised.
Williams considers joining Sask. equalization suit
Last Updated: Friday, June 15, 2007 | 7:34 AM NT
CBC News
Newfoundland and Labrador's premier says he would prefer to settle a fight with Ottawa over equalization in the court of public opinion, but is nonetheless opening the door to joining a possible suit launched by Saskatchewan.
"My priority is a public decision — a voting decision by the people in the ballot box," Danny Williams said Thursday, responding to Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert's decision to study options for suing the federal government over its new equalization formula.
Danny Williams says he would prefer to settle a dispute over equalization at the ballot box, not the courtroom.
(CBC) Both premiers are furious over the federal Conservatives' decision to include non-renewable resources — particularly oil and gas — in the new formula, breaking a 2006 election campaign pledge by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Williams told reporters that while he does not rule out legal action, he is concerned that a court battle could be expensive and take years to resolve.
However, he said, now that Saskatchewan is pursuing litigation, Newfoundland and Labrador could become part of it.
"That's possible. I've left the door open for any kinds of options that we do have," said Williams, adding he told Calvert, " 'Let me know what it's all about and let me know what your case is all about, and we will have a look.' "
Williams and Calvert have formed an alliance in recent months over equalization. Williams claims the gains made in the Atlantic accords signed in 2005 with the former Liberal government will be lost through the new formula.
Williams negotiated the accords in tandem with the Nova Scotia government.
Saskatchewan is studying whether it can make a constitutional argument the new equalization program treats it unfairly compared to other provinces.
Nova Scotia has threatened to take similar action, although its key argument is that Ottawa has breached a contract by using legislation to amend the Atlantic
Williams considers joining Sask. equalization suit
Last Updated: Friday, June 15, 2007 | 7:34 AM NT
CBC News
Newfoundland and Labrador's premier says he would prefer to settle a fight with Ottawa over equalization in the court of public opinion, but is nonetheless opening the door to joining a possible suit launched by Saskatchewan.
"My priority is a public decision — a voting decision by the people in the ballot box," Danny Williams said Thursday, responding to Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert's decision to study options for suing the federal government over its new equalization formula.
Danny Williams says he would prefer to settle a dispute over equalization at the ballot box, not the courtroom.
(CBC) Both premiers are furious over the federal Conservatives' decision to include non-renewable resources — particularly oil and gas — in the new formula, breaking a 2006 election campaign pledge by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Williams told reporters that while he does not rule out legal action, he is concerned that a court battle could be expensive and take years to resolve.
However, he said, now that Saskatchewan is pursuing litigation, Newfoundland and Labrador could become part of it.
"That's possible. I've left the door open for any kinds of options that we do have," said Williams, adding he told Calvert, " 'Let me know what it's all about and let me know what your case is all about, and we will have a look.' "
Williams and Calvert have formed an alliance in recent months over equalization. Williams claims the gains made in the Atlantic accords signed in 2005 with the former Liberal government will be lost through the new formula.
Williams negotiated the accords in tandem with the Nova Scotia government.
Saskatchewan is studying whether it can make a constitutional argument the new equalization program treats it unfairly compared to other provinces.
Nova Scotia has threatened to take similar action, although its key argument is that Ottawa has breached a contract by using legislation to amend the Atlantic
Friday, June 15, 2007
Canada alone does not fight for release of citizens at Guanatamo
Reporters don't seem to notice that one of Khadr's brothers Abdurahman is back in Canada after being in Guantanamo as a CIA spy. I can't recall the Canadian government ever even criticising Guantanamo but perhaps the Liberals may have at some time. The Harper government on the whole is very much gung ho on the war on terrorism although with respect to Arar they bucked the US position and even complained. Of course no one was punished or really held accountable within CSIS or the RCMP. It seems there will be no inquiry into the RCMP in spite of other revelations recently.
Canada 'stands alone' on Khadr
TENILLE BONOGUORE
Globe and Mail Update
June 14, 2007 at 1:08 PM EDT
The failure of the Canadian government to seek Omar Khadr's release from Guantanamo Bay leaves it standing virtually alone on the world stage, according to Amnesty International.
Almost every other individual in the U.S. compound in Cuba has governments fighting for their release, Amnesty International Canada Secretary-General Alex Neve said Thursday, insisting it is time Canada joined the effort.
“Even though everyone else seems to get it... Canada still remains silent,” Mr. Neve said. “This isn't law. This isn't justice. This must end.”
Omar Khadr, 20, has been in detention for five years, accused by the U.S. government of tossing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier and injured another in 2002. He is the sole Westerner and only Canadian still held at Guantanamo Bay.
The failure of the Canadian government to seek Omar Khadr's release from Guantanamo Bay leaves it standing virtually alone on the world stage, according to Amnesty International (CP)
Videos
Amnesty International on Khadr case
Amnesty International's Alex Neve talks with reporters about the Khadr case
Related Articles
Recent
Defence Department to appeal Khadr decision
From the archives
Previous discussion: Paul Koring on the Khadr case
White House stymied on legal way forward after Khadr decision
U.S. terror trials in doubt after Khadr
His case was thrown out of the controversial terrorist tribunal on June 4 because the charges did not name him as an “unlawful” combatant.
The Bush administration announced on June 8 that it would appeal the decision. Unfortunately for Mr. Khadr, the court authorized to hear appeals under the new system has yet to be created.
Amnesty International said Mr. Khadr should be tried under Canada's justice system on allegations that he murdered a U.S. military medic in Afghanistan.
University of Ottawa associate professor and author on international law Craig Forcese supported the call for Mr. Khadr's release, saying the 20-year-old's detention has no basis in international law.
“This is a final straw, and it is now time for the government to exercise its duty to extend protection to Mr. Khadr,” Mr. Forcese said.
Foreign Minister Peter MacKay said on Wednesday that he had made several requests on behalf of Mr. Khadr, and had contacted his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, last week about the case.
He said he asked her to ensure Mr. Khadr be granted better access to his family, legal counsel and educational material
While Australia, Britain and other countries have been “very forceful,” in demanding the release of their citizens, Mr. Neve said Canada virtually stood alone on the world stage in its reluctance to act.
He said that could be the product of Mr. Khadr's family, whose the domestic reputation could be a major factor in the government's reluctance to help.
“The Khadr family has a notorious reputation with the Canadian public. It has not endeared itself. Canadian governments don't want to be seen doing anything that suggest they are sympathetic or support their aims,” he said.
“[But] this is about human rights. Human rights must matter and prevail, no matter anything.”
On top of that, the Canadian government often does not want to be forceful with the U.S. government on matters of terrorism, he said.
– With a report from Canadian Press
Canada 'stands alone' on Khadr
TENILLE BONOGUORE
Globe and Mail Update
June 14, 2007 at 1:08 PM EDT
The failure of the Canadian government to seek Omar Khadr's release from Guantanamo Bay leaves it standing virtually alone on the world stage, according to Amnesty International.
Almost every other individual in the U.S. compound in Cuba has governments fighting for their release, Amnesty International Canada Secretary-General Alex Neve said Thursday, insisting it is time Canada joined the effort.
“Even though everyone else seems to get it... Canada still remains silent,” Mr. Neve said. “This isn't law. This isn't justice. This must end.”
Omar Khadr, 20, has been in detention for five years, accused by the U.S. government of tossing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier and injured another in 2002. He is the sole Westerner and only Canadian still held at Guantanamo Bay.
The failure of the Canadian government to seek Omar Khadr's release from Guantanamo Bay leaves it standing virtually alone on the world stage, according to Amnesty International (CP)
Videos
Amnesty International on Khadr case
Amnesty International's Alex Neve talks with reporters about the Khadr case
Related Articles
Recent
Defence Department to appeal Khadr decision
From the archives
Previous discussion: Paul Koring on the Khadr case
White House stymied on legal way forward after Khadr decision
U.S. terror trials in doubt after Khadr
His case was thrown out of the controversial terrorist tribunal on June 4 because the charges did not name him as an “unlawful” combatant.
The Bush administration announced on June 8 that it would appeal the decision. Unfortunately for Mr. Khadr, the court authorized to hear appeals under the new system has yet to be created.
Amnesty International said Mr. Khadr should be tried under Canada's justice system on allegations that he murdered a U.S. military medic in Afghanistan.
University of Ottawa associate professor and author on international law Craig Forcese supported the call for Mr. Khadr's release, saying the 20-year-old's detention has no basis in international law.
“This is a final straw, and it is now time for the government to exercise its duty to extend protection to Mr. Khadr,” Mr. Forcese said.
Foreign Minister Peter MacKay said on Wednesday that he had made several requests on behalf of Mr. Khadr, and had contacted his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, last week about the case.
He said he asked her to ensure Mr. Khadr be granted better access to his family, legal counsel and educational material
While Australia, Britain and other countries have been “very forceful,” in demanding the release of their citizens, Mr. Neve said Canada virtually stood alone on the world stage in its reluctance to act.
He said that could be the product of Mr. Khadr's family, whose the domestic reputation could be a major factor in the government's reluctance to help.
“The Khadr family has a notorious reputation with the Canadian public. It has not endeared itself. Canadian governments don't want to be seen doing anything that suggest they are sympathetic or support their aims,” he said.
“[But] this is about human rights. Human rights must matter and prevail, no matter anything.”
On top of that, the Canadian government often does not want to be forceful with the U.S. government on matters of terrorism, he said.
– With a report from Canadian Press
Airport Confrontations over no-fly list?
Well so far no deep integration or harmonisation of no-fly lists! Will there be pressure from the US to include more? The US list has long been known as having absurd features. It includes dead people as well as the president of Bolivia until recently. Some terror suspects unfortunately have common names and this causes many many false positives and disruption of quite innocent people's flight plans. The US and Canadian lists at 1,000 versus nearly 70,000 seem quite different. I wonder if we just took the most suspicious of the 70,000. There is no word of how one might challenge the inclusion of one's name on the list.
Friday » June 15 » 2007
Air Canada fears airport confrontations over no-fly list,
Jim Brown
Canadian Press
Friday, June 15, 2007
OTTAWA (CP) - The country's biggest airline says it's worried about confrontations with irate travellers who could be barred from boarding aircraft under the Canadian no-fly list set to take effect next week.
Yves Duguay, director of security for Air Canada, told a public inquiry Thursday that his main concern in implementing the program is "the safety and security of our front-line staff and the customers at the check-in counter."
It's not that anybody fears a frustrated terrorist will launch an attack on the airport ticket line, said Duguay. It's simply that "an unruly situation" could develop if people are told they can't fly because their names are on the list.
"The situation could be very tense, and we need to have an authority figure in place to defuse that situation. So we want to make sure that we have a police presence."
Duguay offered his views to the inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major into to the 1985 Air India bombing. Although he's focusing on the downing of the jumbo jet 22 years ago, part of Major's mandate is also to examine current security measures to see if they're adequate to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
The no-fly list, drawn up by the federal government, is scheduled to come into force next Monday. Its aim is to keep anyone deemed a security threat from boarding a commercial air flight originating or stopping in Canada.
Unlike a similar U.S. list, which stood at 70,000 names at one point, the Canadian version is expected to contain fewer than 1,000 names. The hope is to avoid the pitfalls of the American list, which has generated thousands of complaints from travellers wrongly included on the roster of terrorist suspects.
Duguay said Air Canada supports the new list in principle. But he also indicated the airline hasn't received all the answers it wants from Transport Canada about how it will work in practice.
For example, he said, Transport officials have said only that they're consulting the RCMP and other police forces about making officers available in case of trouble at ticket counters.
Also uncertain is whether the airline can share the names on the Canadian list with authorities in other countries - for example, with police at an overseas airport if they're called to subdue an unruly passenger who's denied permission to board a Canada-bound flight.
"That's a point where we're not sure," said Duguay. "Our interpretation is that we would be allowed to pass on that information."
Less clear is whether Air Canada, or any other airline, could share the entire no-fly list with foreign authorities.
Brion Brandt, a Transport Canada official, testified last week that Ottawa could decide to share the list with other governments, but only if they explain what use they intend to make of the information.
Brandt also acknowledged, however, that foreign-based airlines could pass the list to their home governments, with or without Canada's approval.
That sparked concerns by federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, who has since come under pressure to elaborate on her views at the inquiry. Major issued a subpoena earlier this week to compel her to testify, but called off enforcement efforts Thursday after Stoddart agreed to appear voluntarily.
The inquiry has also reached a deal with the International Air Transport Association, which has agreed to send witnesses to the commission after initially resisting the demand.
Air Canada was also reluctant to attend at first but reversed course after Major threatened the company with yet another subpoena.
On other subjects Thursday, Duguay voiced support for the use of armed RCMP officers as sky marshals on selected flights in Canada, brushing aside claims by critics who fear the practice could lead to dangerous mid-air shootouts.
Duguay, who spent 25 years as a Mountie before joining Air Canada, said the officers are well-trained and act as a deterrent to would-be attackers.
He was less enthusiastic about the use of so-called behavioural analysis to screen out passengers at the airport who appear to be acting strangely.
"It requires a lot of time, it requires a lot of training, and you need experts to conduct this type of questioning," said Duguay. If such programs aren't handled carefully, he warned, they degenerate into unacceptable racial profiling.
© The Canadian Press 2007
Friday » June 15 » 2007
Air Canada fears airport confrontations over no-fly list,
Jim Brown
Canadian Press
Friday, June 15, 2007
OTTAWA (CP) - The country's biggest airline says it's worried about confrontations with irate travellers who could be barred from boarding aircraft under the Canadian no-fly list set to take effect next week.
Yves Duguay, director of security for Air Canada, told a public inquiry Thursday that his main concern in implementing the program is "the safety and security of our front-line staff and the customers at the check-in counter."
It's not that anybody fears a frustrated terrorist will launch an attack on the airport ticket line, said Duguay. It's simply that "an unruly situation" could develop if people are told they can't fly because their names are on the list.
"The situation could be very tense, and we need to have an authority figure in place to defuse that situation. So we want to make sure that we have a police presence."
Duguay offered his views to the inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major into to the 1985 Air India bombing. Although he's focusing on the downing of the jumbo jet 22 years ago, part of Major's mandate is also to examine current security measures to see if they're adequate to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
The no-fly list, drawn up by the federal government, is scheduled to come into force next Monday. Its aim is to keep anyone deemed a security threat from boarding a commercial air flight originating or stopping in Canada.
Unlike a similar U.S. list, which stood at 70,000 names at one point, the Canadian version is expected to contain fewer than 1,000 names. The hope is to avoid the pitfalls of the American list, which has generated thousands of complaints from travellers wrongly included on the roster of terrorist suspects.
Duguay said Air Canada supports the new list in principle. But he also indicated the airline hasn't received all the answers it wants from Transport Canada about how it will work in practice.
For example, he said, Transport officials have said only that they're consulting the RCMP and other police forces about making officers available in case of trouble at ticket counters.
Also uncertain is whether the airline can share the names on the Canadian list with authorities in other countries - for example, with police at an overseas airport if they're called to subdue an unruly passenger who's denied permission to board a Canada-bound flight.
"That's a point where we're not sure," said Duguay. "Our interpretation is that we would be allowed to pass on that information."
Less clear is whether Air Canada, or any other airline, could share the entire no-fly list with foreign authorities.
Brion Brandt, a Transport Canada official, testified last week that Ottawa could decide to share the list with other governments, but only if they explain what use they intend to make of the information.
Brandt also acknowledged, however, that foreign-based airlines could pass the list to their home governments, with or without Canada's approval.
That sparked concerns by federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, who has since come under pressure to elaborate on her views at the inquiry. Major issued a subpoena earlier this week to compel her to testify, but called off enforcement efforts Thursday after Stoddart agreed to appear voluntarily.
The inquiry has also reached a deal with the International Air Transport Association, which has agreed to send witnesses to the commission after initially resisting the demand.
Air Canada was also reluctant to attend at first but reversed course after Major threatened the company with yet another subpoena.
On other subjects Thursday, Duguay voiced support for the use of armed RCMP officers as sky marshals on selected flights in Canada, brushing aside claims by critics who fear the practice could lead to dangerous mid-air shootouts.
Duguay, who spent 25 years as a Mountie before joining Air Canada, said the officers are well-trained and act as a deterrent to would-be attackers.
He was less enthusiastic about the use of so-called behavioural analysis to screen out passengers at the airport who appear to be acting strangely.
"It requires a lot of time, it requires a lot of training, and you need experts to conduct this type of questioning," said Duguay. If such programs aren't handled carefully, he warned, they degenerate into unacceptable racial profiling.
© The Canadian Press 2007
Pentagon appeal's dismissal of Khadr charges.
I find it astounding that Khadr was classified as just an enemy combatant. Not that the classification is inappropriate but that the whole idea of the classification system was to classify many of the prisoners as unlawful (unprotected, illegal) enemy combatants. The legal team must think that the whole process is such a charade that it will just be taken for granted that all those brought up on trial are unlawful enemy combatants. If they are enemy combatants they should have prisoner of war status but they have not been given that.
I am doubtful that the Canadian government will ask for Khadr's return to Canada. The Harper government is the running poodle of the USA.
Thursday » June 14 » 2007
Pentagon to appeal dismissal of Khadr charges
Sheldon Alberts
CanWest News Service
Saturday, June 09, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon announced Friday it will challenge a military judge's decision to dismiss all terrorism charges against Canadian Omar Khadr, even as the Bush administration scrambles to assemble an appellate court to hear a formal appeal of the ruling.
Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said military prosecutors will file a motion asking army Col. Peter Brownback to reconsider his decision earlier this week to throw out the U.S. government's case against the 20-year-old Canadian detainee.
"It's the first route you take. It's standard procedure," Gordon said. "If you don't agree with the judge's findings, you file a motion to reconsider. That way, when you go to the appeals court, you will have exhausted every possible way to get your case resolved."
During a court hearing Monday at the American military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Brownback ruled U.S. military commissions lacked jurisdiction to put Khadr on trial because the Pentagon had failed to show he was an "unlawful enemy combatant" as required by law.
Khadr, accused of throwing a grenade that killed U.S. army Sgt. Christopher Speer in a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan, had previously been designated an "enemy combatant," leaving open the possibility he was lawfully waging war against American troops. The distinction is potentially important for Khadr because he would be entitled to full prisoner-of-war rights if deemed to be a lawful combatant.
While the Pentagon claims the charges against Khadr were dismissed on a "semantic" technicality, human rights groups argue the ruling could lead to the collapse of the Bush administration's controversial war crimes tribunals.
The Pentagon will file a similar motion for reconsideration with a military judge who dismissed all charges in a second case -- against Yemeni detainee Salim Hamdan -- for the same reasons as in the Khadr ruling.
The Khadr ruling initially caught the Pentagon off guard, with no avenue to appeal the decision because the Court of Military of Commission Review had not yet been assembled.
As of Friday, the appeals court "has been established, judges have been appointed, and the court is prepared to receive appeals," Gordon said.
The Pentagon acknowledged, however, the fledgling court was not yet ready to hear appeals.
Khadr's defence attorneys said the Pentagon's decision amounts to a delaying tactic as the Bush administration plots its next move.
"I think, strategically, the prosecution's gambit is to use the motion for reconsideration to buy time to get this appeals court up and running in some form and fashion," said Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler, the military defence attorney detailed to Khadr's case.
"I don't think it exists in the sense that we would think a court exists. They have a clerk, so theoretically they have a warm body you could send an appeal to."
Khadr, who has been detained at Guantanamo since late 2002, had been charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and providing material aid to terrorists.
In the wake of the legal developments at Guantanamo this week, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have said they are considering legislation to amend the Military Commissions Act to clarify the law establishing the war crimes tribunals.
In five years, the U.S. has yet to bring a single Guantanamo detainee to trial. The system produced one conviction when Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty and was returned to his home country after political pressure from Prime Minister John Howard.
Human rights groups on Friday said the Bush administration should use the Khadr ruling as a chance to consider moving all war crimes trials to U.S. federal courts or normal military courts martial.
"I really do think there is a growing consensus in the United States that these tribunals are a failure," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project.
"The government really does have multiple options at this point. I think they are buying time."
© CanWest News Service 2007
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
I am doubtful that the Canadian government will ask for Khadr's return to Canada. The Harper government is the running poodle of the USA.
Thursday » June 14 » 2007
Pentagon to appeal dismissal of Khadr charges
Sheldon Alberts
CanWest News Service
Saturday, June 09, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon announced Friday it will challenge a military judge's decision to dismiss all terrorism charges against Canadian Omar Khadr, even as the Bush administration scrambles to assemble an appellate court to hear a formal appeal of the ruling.
Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said military prosecutors will file a motion asking army Col. Peter Brownback to reconsider his decision earlier this week to throw out the U.S. government's case against the 20-year-old Canadian detainee.
"It's the first route you take. It's standard procedure," Gordon said. "If you don't agree with the judge's findings, you file a motion to reconsider. That way, when you go to the appeals court, you will have exhausted every possible way to get your case resolved."
During a court hearing Monday at the American military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Brownback ruled U.S. military commissions lacked jurisdiction to put Khadr on trial because the Pentagon had failed to show he was an "unlawful enemy combatant" as required by law.
Khadr, accused of throwing a grenade that killed U.S. army Sgt. Christopher Speer in a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan, had previously been designated an "enemy combatant," leaving open the possibility he was lawfully waging war against American troops. The distinction is potentially important for Khadr because he would be entitled to full prisoner-of-war rights if deemed to be a lawful combatant.
While the Pentagon claims the charges against Khadr were dismissed on a "semantic" technicality, human rights groups argue the ruling could lead to the collapse of the Bush administration's controversial war crimes tribunals.
The Pentagon will file a similar motion for reconsideration with a military judge who dismissed all charges in a second case -- against Yemeni detainee Salim Hamdan -- for the same reasons as in the Khadr ruling.
The Khadr ruling initially caught the Pentagon off guard, with no avenue to appeal the decision because the Court of Military of Commission Review had not yet been assembled.
As of Friday, the appeals court "has been established, judges have been appointed, and the court is prepared to receive appeals," Gordon said.
The Pentagon acknowledged, however, the fledgling court was not yet ready to hear appeals.
Khadr's defence attorneys said the Pentagon's decision amounts to a delaying tactic as the Bush administration plots its next move.
"I think, strategically, the prosecution's gambit is to use the motion for reconsideration to buy time to get this appeals court up and running in some form and fashion," said Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler, the military defence attorney detailed to Khadr's case.
"I don't think it exists in the sense that we would think a court exists. They have a clerk, so theoretically they have a warm body you could send an appeal to."
Khadr, who has been detained at Guantanamo since late 2002, had been charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and providing material aid to terrorists.
In the wake of the legal developments at Guantanamo this week, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have said they are considering legislation to amend the Military Commissions Act to clarify the law establishing the war crimes tribunals.
In five years, the U.S. has yet to bring a single Guantanamo detainee to trial. The system produced one conviction when Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty and was returned to his home country after political pressure from Prime Minister John Howard.
Human rights groups on Friday said the Bush administration should use the Khadr ruling as a chance to consider moving all war crimes trials to U.S. federal courts or normal military courts martial.
"I really do think there is a growing consensus in the United States that these tribunals are a failure," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project.
"The government really does have multiple options at this point. I think they are buying time."
© CanWest News Service 2007
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Calvert's Case Against Harper
This is from Buckdog Calvert's suit relies on considerations of fairness and equity rather than any contractual promise. It should be noted that not only is Saskatchewan miffed about the equalisation aspects of the budget but so are the Maritime provinces, particularly Nova Scotia and its Conservative premier as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. It is noteworthy that none of the Conservative MPs said bood but supported the budget as did all the Maritime Conservatives except for one.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Why Harper Needs To Have His Sorry Tory Ass Sued Off By Saskatchewan!
I hope the people of Saskatchewan successfully sue the ass off our lying Conservative Prime Minister and his 12 lying Saskatchewan Members of Parliament.
Here is why:
Excerpt from Stephen Harper’s Letter to Premier Calvert, June 10, 2004
“The Conservative Party of Canada will alter the equalization program to remove all non-renewable resources from the formula, as well as move the program to a ten-province standard.”
Conservative Party Platform 2004 ('Demanding Better')
“A Conservative government will also revisit the equalization formula. We will move towards a ten-province standard that excludes non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula, and do so in a manner that ensures no provinces receiving equalization will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the current formula provides.”
Conservative Party Platform 2006 ('Standing Up For Canada')
“Work to achieve with the provinces permanent changes to the equalization formula which would ensure that non-renewable natural resource revenue is removed from the equalization formula to encourage economic growth. We will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula.”
Question by Stephen Harper to Prime Minister Paul Martin in the House of Commons, November 16, 2005
“The prime minister is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over 750-million dollars in lost revenue. When will the prime minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so that Saskatchewan does not lose this money?”
In the recent Federal Budget, Harper 'said' that he was removing non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. He then set a cap on the amount Saskatchewan could qualify for!! At no point, in ANY of Stephen Harper's statements, did the concept of a 'cap' get mentioned.
Where I come from, we call this, 'lying through your teeth!'
Government of Saskatchewan News Release
posted by leftdog at Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | Permalink
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Why Harper Needs To Have His Sorry Tory Ass Sued Off By Saskatchewan!
I hope the people of Saskatchewan successfully sue the ass off our lying Conservative Prime Minister and his 12 lying Saskatchewan Members of Parliament.
Here is why:
Excerpt from Stephen Harper’s Letter to Premier Calvert, June 10, 2004
“The Conservative Party of Canada will alter the equalization program to remove all non-renewable resources from the formula, as well as move the program to a ten-province standard.”
Conservative Party Platform 2004 ('Demanding Better')
“A Conservative government will also revisit the equalization formula. We will move towards a ten-province standard that excludes non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula, and do so in a manner that ensures no provinces receiving equalization will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the current formula provides.”
Conservative Party Platform 2006 ('Standing Up For Canada')
“Work to achieve with the provinces permanent changes to the equalization formula which would ensure that non-renewable natural resource revenue is removed from the equalization formula to encourage economic growth. We will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula.”
Question by Stephen Harper to Prime Minister Paul Martin in the House of Commons, November 16, 2005
“The prime minister is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over 750-million dollars in lost revenue. When will the prime minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so that Saskatchewan does not lose this money?”
In the recent Federal Budget, Harper 'said' that he was removing non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. He then set a cap on the amount Saskatchewan could qualify for!! At no point, in ANY of Stephen Harper's statements, did the concept of a 'cap' get mentioned.
Where I come from, we call this, 'lying through your teeth!'
Government of Saskatchewan News Release
posted by leftdog at Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | Permalink
Groups welcome NAFTA victory against UPS.
The very fact that a corporation can sue the government when it thinks that the govt. may be hurting profit from their investment is a serious restriction on government policy prerogatives. It is one reason why no provincial government is likely to pursue a policy of government monopoly auto insurance such as we have in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The process by which adjudications are made is far from open to put it mildly and that makes matters even worse.
Groups welcome NAFTA victory while decrying NAFTA rules
June 13, 2007 - 14:00
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and Council of Canadians (Council) are pleased that United Parcel Service's complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been rejected by the tribunal hearing the case.
United Parcel Service (UPS) sued Canada over six years ago, under NAFTA’s Chapter 11, which allows corporations to challenge governments if they think their investments are restricted by government measures. UPS claimed that its investments were being restricted by Canada’s publicly funded network of mailboxes and post offices because this network allegedly provided Canada Post with an unfair advantage. The tribunal had already dismissed several elements of the claim.
The federal government’s media release on the final decision indicates that the tribunal dismissed allegations of unfair treatment with respect to the postal network, customs and the Canadian Heritage Publications Assistance Program. The government says that it will release the full decision within thirty days.
“We are very happy that the tribunal rejected UPS’s complaint but that doesn’t mean we think NAFTA works,” said CUPW National President Deborah Bourque. “NAFTA allowed UPS to put public postal service and jobs on trial. A secret trial.”
“The public and workers should have the right to be heard when their jobs or public services are threatened,” said Bourque.
Jean-Yves Lefort, trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians said, “Investment rules such as Chapter 11 need to be removed from NAFTA and all other trade agreements signed by Canada.”
Trade lawyer Steven Shrybman, who represents the groups, said that, victory or not, the groups believe that NAFTA rules allowing foreign corporations to sue governments are unconstitutional.
The Council and CUPW have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal concerning the constitutionality of NAFTA investment rules. The Supreme Court has the right to grant or deny leave to appeal.
The process by which adjudications are made is far from open to put it mildly and that makes matters even worse.
Groups welcome NAFTA victory while decrying NAFTA rules
June 13, 2007 - 14:00
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and Council of Canadians (Council) are pleased that United Parcel Service's complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been rejected by the tribunal hearing the case.
United Parcel Service (UPS) sued Canada over six years ago, under NAFTA’s Chapter 11, which allows corporations to challenge governments if they think their investments are restricted by government measures. UPS claimed that its investments were being restricted by Canada’s publicly funded network of mailboxes and post offices because this network allegedly provided Canada Post with an unfair advantage. The tribunal had already dismissed several elements of the claim.
The federal government’s media release on the final decision indicates that the tribunal dismissed allegations of unfair treatment with respect to the postal network, customs and the Canadian Heritage Publications Assistance Program. The government says that it will release the full decision within thirty days.
“We are very happy that the tribunal rejected UPS’s complaint but that doesn’t mean we think NAFTA works,” said CUPW National President Deborah Bourque. “NAFTA allowed UPS to put public postal service and jobs on trial. A secret trial.”
“The public and workers should have the right to be heard when their jobs or public services are threatened,” said Bourque.
Jean-Yves Lefort, trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians said, “Investment rules such as Chapter 11 need to be removed from NAFTA and all other trade agreements signed by Canada.”
Trade lawyer Steven Shrybman, who represents the groups, said that, victory or not, the groups believe that NAFTA rules allowing foreign corporations to sue governments are unconstitutional.
The Council and CUPW have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal concerning the constitutionality of NAFTA investment rules. The Supreme Court has the right to grant or deny leave to appeal.
Battle over Devil's Lake Diversion continues
There is concern that the water from Devil's Lake could cause problems for Manitoba fisheries since the water ultimately goes into the Red River and runs through Manitoba into Lake Winnipeg. I have no idea why North Dakota does not install a sand filter as suggested by Doer.
Manitoba politicans vow to continue Devils Lake battle
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 5:25 PM CT
CBC News
Federal and provincial politicians are vowing to take action in the cross-border water battle over North Dakota's Devils Lake outlet, which was put into operation Monday.
Manitoba Water Stewardship Minister Christine Melnick was in Ottawa yesterday, where she raised the issue with Manitoba's senior federal minister, Environment Minister Vic Toews.
Manitoba opposes the use of the outlet, which diverts water from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River, a tributary of the Red River, which flows north through Manitoba to Lake Winnipeg.
Toews said Wednesday he would speak with U.S. federal officials about concerns over the North Dakota health department's decision last summer to increase the maximum sulphate level allowed in the water.
"There is some concern that the provincial Manitoba government expressed in respect to the fact that the American federal government delegated the responsibility to the state and that the state lowered the standards in terms of environmental safety of the water," Toews said.
"That was a concern that was expressed to us by Minister Melnick, and that's something that we will raise again with the Americans."
At the Manitoba legislature Wednesday afternoon, Premier Gary Doer said he prefers a diplomatic solution to the issue, such as a sand filter the province has proposed.
"I gave them a good solution and unfortunately, we didn't get it solved," he said. "Turn off the outlet, turn off the tap, and we'll come back to the table."
Water could damage fisheries: Manitoba
Manitoba officials say the water from Devils Lake contains organisms and sulphates that could damage Manitoba's waterways and fisheries.
The Manitoba government is continuing a legal appeal of the North Dakota health department's permit change, which increased the maximum sulphate level in the water to 450 milligrams per litre, up from from 300 milligrams per litre, and extended the time the diversion can be open each year.
Manitoba and several environmental groups appealed the decision, but lost in a U.S. district court in April.
They're now taking the case to North Dakota Supreme Court.
A spokesperson for North Dakota Governor John Hoeven maintains the outlet is a reasonable means of diverting some water to protect life and limb.
North Dakota constructed the outlet to stem the growth of Devils Lake, which has more than tripled in size since the early 1990s, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, swallowing thousands of hectares of farmland and forcing hundreds of households to move.
The last time the outlet was used was in its inaugural year in 2005, when it was in operation for 10 days.
Manitoba politicans vow to continue Devils Lake battle
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 5:25 PM CT
CBC News
Federal and provincial politicians are vowing to take action in the cross-border water battle over North Dakota's Devils Lake outlet, which was put into operation Monday.
Manitoba Water Stewardship Minister Christine Melnick was in Ottawa yesterday, where she raised the issue with Manitoba's senior federal minister, Environment Minister Vic Toews.
Manitoba opposes the use of the outlet, which diverts water from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River, a tributary of the Red River, which flows north through Manitoba to Lake Winnipeg.
Toews said Wednesday he would speak with U.S. federal officials about concerns over the North Dakota health department's decision last summer to increase the maximum sulphate level allowed in the water.
"There is some concern that the provincial Manitoba government expressed in respect to the fact that the American federal government delegated the responsibility to the state and that the state lowered the standards in terms of environmental safety of the water," Toews said.
"That was a concern that was expressed to us by Minister Melnick, and that's something that we will raise again with the Americans."
At the Manitoba legislature Wednesday afternoon, Premier Gary Doer said he prefers a diplomatic solution to the issue, such as a sand filter the province has proposed.
"I gave them a good solution and unfortunately, we didn't get it solved," he said. "Turn off the outlet, turn off the tap, and we'll come back to the table."
Water could damage fisheries: Manitoba
Manitoba officials say the water from Devils Lake contains organisms and sulphates that could damage Manitoba's waterways and fisheries.
The Manitoba government is continuing a legal appeal of the North Dakota health department's permit change, which increased the maximum sulphate level in the water to 450 milligrams per litre, up from from 300 milligrams per litre, and extended the time the diversion can be open each year.
Manitoba and several environmental groups appealed the decision, but lost in a U.S. district court in April.
They're now taking the case to North Dakota Supreme Court.
A spokesperson for North Dakota Governor John Hoeven maintains the outlet is a reasonable means of diverting some water to protect life and limb.
North Dakota constructed the outlet to stem the growth of Devils Lake, which has more than tripled in size since the early 1990s, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, swallowing thousands of hectares of farmland and forcing hundreds of households to move.
The last time the outlet was used was in its inaugural year in 2005, when it was in operation for 10 days.
Byelection Loss worries Alberta Tories
An 800 vote loss is hardly a landslide and provincially a 53 per cent share of the vote is not an indicator that the panic button should be pushed! Doer in Manitoba won handily with about 46 percent of the vote.
This article at least explains why the Conservatives lost the seat. It seems that the same rural city split that exists in Manitoba and Saskatchewan is now opening wider in Alberta. The city slickers do not see eye to eye with the ranchers and farmers from outside of Edmonton and Calgary. Here in Manitoba the NDP won big in Winnipeg but in rural southern Manitoba it won only one seat. However, the north and interlake still support the NDP.
Byelection loss has Alberta Tories worried
Kevin Libin, National Post
Published: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Calgary • Alberta Progressive Conservatives woke up yesterday morning experiencing a strange new feeling: worry.
After three and a half decades of racking up 10 confident majorities in the province, angst isn't something Tories are used to; some younger ones have never experienced it in their lives. It's certainly not something you anticipate when you're buying a membership in the most successful political dynasty in the country's history. But after a Liberal victory on Tuesday night in a
byelection in the long-time riding of former premier Ralph Klein, the splendid feeling of waking up to a secure, politically predictable province may be something that Alberta's PCs do not savour again for a while.
"If we're not careful, I think the Liberals can form the next government," said Alan Hallman, one of Mr. Klein's key political organizers. "You've seen the history of this province. Once we turn, we turn en masse."
: ****It may be early for Tories to let worry turn into panic over their very existence. The seizure by 800 votes of Calgary-Elbow by Liberal Craig Cheffins is, after all, just one riding in a sea of PC hegemony, leaving the government 61 seats to the Liberals' 16.
Tory Jack Hayden demolished his Liberal opponent in a coincident race in DrumhellerStettler. And besides, upper-middle-class Calgary-Elbow has always been hard-won. Even when it was the turf of one of the province's most popular premiers, Liberals there always put up a respectable, if futile, fight.
But then, the defeat for Tory Brian Heninger in a riding that has nevertheless stayed consistently blue since its birth in 1971 is only the latest, most material blow to a PC government that appears to have lost its once invincible political mojo in Alberta's biggest, richest city.
"It's not the byelection I would put as much stock into. It's the trend line," said Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Calgary's Mount Royal College. "There's been a series of little steps, all going down."
After losing three Calgary ridings to the Liberals in 2004's election, Tory fortunes in Calgary took a turn for the worse in December's leadership race. The city's pick, former treasurer Jim Dinning, sewed up every riding in town but lost the race to Ed Stelmach, a farmer from up north and the last choice of Calgary voters. And according to some rural Stelmach supporters - who gloated afterward that they had properly stuck a thumb in the eye of the big city - that was exactly the point.
Then came Mr. Stelmach's Cabinet choices - dominantly rural, with just three Calgarians of 18 (even though the city represents a third of the province's population).
Next, an April budget that failed to live up to Mr. Stelmach's municipal funding guarantees launched Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier on a six-week smear campaign over what he labelled "one of the most significant broken promises ever perpetrated on Albertans."
Recent polls have the Tory party in a free fall here, down more than 19% in Calgary since January.
That had organizers in Calgary-Elbow straining to wrangle up candidates to run in what was once considered a safe seat before acclaiming Mr. Heninger, a Toyota dealer, in March.
"It used to be in an upscale Calgary riding, the fight for the nomination was hellacious because it was a ticket to the show," said one senior Tory strategist. "Here's the [former] premier's riding and nobody wanted to run."
And once on the hustings, things were evidently hostile enough that local reporters observed Mr. Heninger on one doorstep remarking that he would personally like to "choke" Mr. Stelmach for crimes against Calgary.
With even their own candidate unable to defend the government record, several Tories admitted ahead of the byelection that the bigger surprise would be if Mr. Heninger somehow managed to prevail.
"It was never there," Mr. Hallman said. "Brian Heninger was a tremendous candidate. But too much else got involved with all the issues at the provincial level and the civic level."
Still, byelections are an "easy protest vote," Mr. Bratt noted. "You send a message but the government doesn't change." And a careful read of voting patterns show that long-time Tories haven't switched wholesale to the Alberta Liberals (who suffer their own growing rump of doubters in the abilities of leader Kevin Taft) as much as they have simply stayed home.
"Most Tories still can't hold their nose hard enough to vote Liberal," said the strategist. "We're just not giving them any reason to come out and vote for us."
For that, Mr. Stelmach is lucky to have time. Despite Calgary's bad blood, his party enjoys 53% support provincewide, and the luxury of putting off an election till 2009.
If it comes next fall, as rumour has it, "a year is a really long time in politics," Mr. Bratt noted. There is still an opportunity for the Premier to patch things up with a city that, rightly or wrongly, feels snubbed by the party it once adored.
That is, if Mr. Stelmach is interested - and if those of his supporters who seem to so delight in Calgary's comeuppance will allow it.
This article at least explains why the Conservatives lost the seat. It seems that the same rural city split that exists in Manitoba and Saskatchewan is now opening wider in Alberta. The city slickers do not see eye to eye with the ranchers and farmers from outside of Edmonton and Calgary. Here in Manitoba the NDP won big in Winnipeg but in rural southern Manitoba it won only one seat. However, the north and interlake still support the NDP.
Byelection loss has Alberta Tories worried
Kevin Libin, National Post
Published: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Calgary • Alberta Progressive Conservatives woke up yesterday morning experiencing a strange new feeling: worry.
After three and a half decades of racking up 10 confident majorities in the province, angst isn't something Tories are used to; some younger ones have never experienced it in their lives. It's certainly not something you anticipate when you're buying a membership in the most successful political dynasty in the country's history. But after a Liberal victory on Tuesday night in a
byelection in the long-time riding of former premier Ralph Klein, the splendid feeling of waking up to a secure, politically predictable province may be something that Alberta's PCs do not savour again for a while.
"If we're not careful, I think the Liberals can form the next government," said Alan Hallman, one of Mr. Klein's key political organizers. "You've seen the history of this province. Once we turn, we turn en masse."
: ****It may be early for Tories to let worry turn into panic over their very existence. The seizure by 800 votes of Calgary-Elbow by Liberal Craig Cheffins is, after all, just one riding in a sea of PC hegemony, leaving the government 61 seats to the Liberals' 16.
Tory Jack Hayden demolished his Liberal opponent in a coincident race in DrumhellerStettler. And besides, upper-middle-class Calgary-Elbow has always been hard-won. Even when it was the turf of one of the province's most popular premiers, Liberals there always put up a respectable, if futile, fight.
But then, the defeat for Tory Brian Heninger in a riding that has nevertheless stayed consistently blue since its birth in 1971 is only the latest, most material blow to a PC government that appears to have lost its once invincible political mojo in Alberta's biggest, richest city.
"It's not the byelection I would put as much stock into. It's the trend line," said Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Calgary's Mount Royal College. "There's been a series of little steps, all going down."
After losing three Calgary ridings to the Liberals in 2004's election, Tory fortunes in Calgary took a turn for the worse in December's leadership race. The city's pick, former treasurer Jim Dinning, sewed up every riding in town but lost the race to Ed Stelmach, a farmer from up north and the last choice of Calgary voters. And according to some rural Stelmach supporters - who gloated afterward that they had properly stuck a thumb in the eye of the big city - that was exactly the point.
Then came Mr. Stelmach's Cabinet choices - dominantly rural, with just three Calgarians of 18 (even though the city represents a third of the province's population).
Next, an April budget that failed to live up to Mr. Stelmach's municipal funding guarantees launched Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier on a six-week smear campaign over what he labelled "one of the most significant broken promises ever perpetrated on Albertans."
Recent polls have the Tory party in a free fall here, down more than 19% in Calgary since January.
That had organizers in Calgary-Elbow straining to wrangle up candidates to run in what was once considered a safe seat before acclaiming Mr. Heninger, a Toyota dealer, in March.
"It used to be in an upscale Calgary riding, the fight for the nomination was hellacious because it was a ticket to the show," said one senior Tory strategist. "Here's the [former] premier's riding and nobody wanted to run."
And once on the hustings, things were evidently hostile enough that local reporters observed Mr. Heninger on one doorstep remarking that he would personally like to "choke" Mr. Stelmach for crimes against Calgary.
With even their own candidate unable to defend the government record, several Tories admitted ahead of the byelection that the bigger surprise would be if Mr. Heninger somehow managed to prevail.
"It was never there," Mr. Hallman said. "Brian Heninger was a tremendous candidate. But too much else got involved with all the issues at the provincial level and the civic level."
Still, byelections are an "easy protest vote," Mr. Bratt noted. "You send a message but the government doesn't change." And a careful read of voting patterns show that long-time Tories haven't switched wholesale to the Alberta Liberals (who suffer their own growing rump of doubters in the abilities of leader Kevin Taft) as much as they have simply stayed home.
"Most Tories still can't hold their nose hard enough to vote Liberal," said the strategist. "We're just not giving them any reason to come out and vote for us."
For that, Mr. Stelmach is lucky to have time. Despite Calgary's bad blood, his party enjoys 53% support provincewide, and the luxury of putting off an election till 2009.
If it comes next fall, as rumour has it, "a year is a really long time in politics," Mr. Bratt noted. There is still an opportunity for the Premier to patch things up with a city that, rightly or wrongly, feels snubbed by the party it once adored.
That is, if Mr. Stelmach is interested - and if those of his supporters who seem to so delight in Calgary's comeuppance will allow it.
Ottawa does not ask for Khadr release.
Canada is not ready to ask for Khadr's release because it would just be embarassing to be refused. Of course Khadr's brother was released to spy for the US in Bosnia and eventually to be repatriated. Canada does not even criticise Guantanamo because it does not want to irritate the US. Harper would have taken us into the Iraq war. The US will hold Khadr indefinitely whether the appeal is successful or not. Notice that Ottawa has said nothing about his five year detention or detention while a juvenile or even about the murder charge. Given that almost everyone with Khadr was shot including Khadr himself you would think that throwing a grenade would be self-defence!
Ottawa not ready to ask for release of Khadr
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 8:56 PM ET
CBC News
Ottawa has not yet requested that Omar Khadr, the only Canadian being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, be released to Canadian custody despite a judge's decision last week to drop all charges against him.
But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he has spoken with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about Khadr's health.
"I asked specifically about his well-being and for a medical and psychological assessment to be done," MacKay said. "We're going to continue to provide consular access, as we do in the case of all Canadians."
Rice has been asked to allow Khadr better access to his family, legal counsel and the educational materials he's requested.
MacKay said Ottawa will wait until the appeals process is complete before deciding what its next move will be. The U.S. Defence Department is appealing the judge's decision.
The military judge said he dropped the charges of murder and terrorism because Khadr was officially classified as an "enemy combatant," but the military courts in Guantanamo only have jurisdiction to try "unlawful enemy combatants."
Khadr, 20, is accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American medic, Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer.
Khadr was arrested in July 2002 during a firefight with American troops in Afghanistan that left the teenager badly injured, with two gunshot wounds to the chest.
He was held in Afghanistan for three months, then transferred to Cuba.
Ottawa not ready to ask for release of Khadr
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 8:56 PM ET
CBC News
Ottawa has not yet requested that Omar Khadr, the only Canadian being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, be released to Canadian custody despite a judge's decision last week to drop all charges against him.
But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he has spoken with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about Khadr's health.
"I asked specifically about his well-being and for a medical and psychological assessment to be done," MacKay said. "We're going to continue to provide consular access, as we do in the case of all Canadians."
Rice has been asked to allow Khadr better access to his family, legal counsel and the educational materials he's requested.
MacKay said Ottawa will wait until the appeals process is complete before deciding what its next move will be. The U.S. Defence Department is appealing the judge's decision.
The military judge said he dropped the charges of murder and terrorism because Khadr was officially classified as an "enemy combatant," but the military courts in Guantanamo only have jurisdiction to try "unlawful enemy combatants."
Khadr, 20, is accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American medic, Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer.
Khadr was arrested in July 2002 during a firefight with American troops in Afghanistan that left the teenager badly injured, with two gunshot wounds to the chest.
He was held in Afghanistan for three months, then transferred to Cuba.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Trade Lawyer criticizes TILMA
The entire Leader-Post article is here. The Sask. Chambers of Commerce on the other hand were enthusiastic about TILMA and want to get on with it. The article presents the pro TILMA arguments as well.
Ottawa-based trade lawyer Steven Shrybman, who was hired by CUPE Saskatchewan to analyse the agreement, said TILMA favours private holdings over public interests.
In his condemnation of the agreement, Shrybman said TILMA sets the stage for deregulation and privatization. The enforcement clause would also create a system where businesses in other provinces could invoke a review process whenever they felt their interests weren't met, he said.
"If you took out the enforcement aspect, no one would be interested in TILMA," he said.
The lawyer said TILMA would open the door for private health care in Saskatchewan. Other public interests would also be jeopardized by the agreement, he said.
While TILMA contains provisions that would protect labour groups, CUPE Saskatchewan president Tom Graham said inclusion in the deal could have a negative effect for all Saskatchewan residents.
"We are citizens of the province as well as working people," Graham said. "It concerns us that a business or an individual could decide how we're going to live."
The standing committee's report to the province is expected on June 29.
© The Leader-Post (Regina) 2007
Ottawa-based trade lawyer Steven Shrybman, who was hired by CUPE Saskatchewan to analyse the agreement, said TILMA favours private holdings over public interests.
In his condemnation of the agreement, Shrybman said TILMA sets the stage for deregulation and privatization. The enforcement clause would also create a system where businesses in other provinces could invoke a review process whenever they felt their interests weren't met, he said.
"If you took out the enforcement aspect, no one would be interested in TILMA," he said.
The lawyer said TILMA would open the door for private health care in Saskatchewan. Other public interests would also be jeopardized by the agreement, he said.
While TILMA contains provisions that would protect labour groups, CUPE Saskatchewan president Tom Graham said inclusion in the deal could have a negative effect for all Saskatchewan residents.
"We are citizens of the province as well as working people," Graham said. "It concerns us that a business or an individual could decide how we're going to live."
The standing committee's report to the province is expected on June 29.
© The Leader-Post (Regina) 2007
Different views on the budget and equalization.
A Toronto Star editorial claims that the Tory budget offers a more than generous equalisation scheme. According to the anonymous editorialist the Atlantic provinces want to have their cake and eat it too. The article is here. I don't suppose that the Star is headquartered in Ontario has anything to do with their viewpoint!
A Halifax paper on the other hand claims that under the new equalisation formula the province of Nova Scotia will be out billions over 20 years. The article is here.
Finally Premier Calvert in Sask. is going to court to sue the government. The suit is not over broken promises but about the fairness of the equalisation formula. Calvert claims that since oil and gas belong to provinces income from them should not be counted in the equalisation formula. Apparently it is not according to the new formula or so the CBC article below claims. I guess what is unfair are the caps on equalisation. It seems to me that since oil and gas revenues will obviously make a province much richer it should count in the formula in some manner.
Sask. will sue over equalization: Calvert
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 4:42 PM CT
CBC News
Saskatchewan will launch a lawsuit against the federal government next week over equalization payments, Premier Lorne Calvert said Wednesday.
Calvert said a lawsuit isn't his preferred way to deal with the dispute over the federal program, but he tried negotiations and calling on Saskatchewan MPs to vote against the budget and nothing worked.
"This is a very poor way to run a country," Calvert said.
Equalization is the $12 billion program under which Ottawa makes payments to poorer provinces so they can afford the same services and tax rates as richer provinces.
Thanks to surging oil and gas revenues, Saskatchewan has received virtually no equalization money in the past few years.
During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to take non-renewable resources like oil and gas out of the equalization formula — a change Calvert said would mean an extra $800 million a year for provincial coffers.
The March 19 budget did remove oil and gas from the formula, but added a cap on equalization payments. As a result, Saskatchewan is getting $226 million this year and nothing next year.
Calvert said the legal action would not be over a broken campaign promise.
If a lawsuit was filed for every broken Conservative promise, there wouldn't be enough lawyers, he said.
Instead, he said, the suit would be based on the sections of the constitution that require the equalization program to be fair and equitable.
The Saskatchewan government will also argue the constitutional principle that natural resources belong to the people of Saskatchewan and the current equalization program violates that principle.
Earlier in the day, Saskatchewan Conservative MP Gerry Ritz insisted in a CBC interview that there had been no promise broken and that his constituents are telling him the budget is an excellent one for Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan Tory MPs vote for budget
Governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have also been up in arms over the equalization program.
Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey was kicked out of the Conservative caucus after he voted against the government's budget bill last week.
Casey did the same thing again in the final budget vote Tuesday night. The budget passed a final vote in the House of Commons with all 12 Saskatchewan Conservative MPs voting in favour.
Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre MP Tom Lukiwski came out swinging, however, accusing Calvert of launching a lawsuit as a provincial election ploy.
"He's got an election coming up. He's 25 points points down in the polls," Lukiwski said. "This is grandstanding, a last-ditch effort for him to try to change the channel. I think he has no basis for his lawsuit but I welcome his challenge."
Quizzed during question period about equalization, Prime Minister Stephen Harper claimed he was baffled by developments in Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces.
"I don't even understand what they're saying any more," he said.
A Halifax paper on the other hand claims that under the new equalisation formula the province of Nova Scotia will be out billions over 20 years. The article is here.
Finally Premier Calvert in Sask. is going to court to sue the government. The suit is not over broken promises but about the fairness of the equalisation formula. Calvert claims that since oil and gas belong to provinces income from them should not be counted in the equalisation formula. Apparently it is not according to the new formula or so the CBC article below claims. I guess what is unfair are the caps on equalisation. It seems to me that since oil and gas revenues will obviously make a province much richer it should count in the formula in some manner.
Sask. will sue over equalization: Calvert
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 4:42 PM CT
CBC News
Saskatchewan will launch a lawsuit against the federal government next week over equalization payments, Premier Lorne Calvert said Wednesday.
Calvert said a lawsuit isn't his preferred way to deal with the dispute over the federal program, but he tried negotiations and calling on Saskatchewan MPs to vote against the budget and nothing worked.
"This is a very poor way to run a country," Calvert said.
Equalization is the $12 billion program under which Ottawa makes payments to poorer provinces so they can afford the same services and tax rates as richer provinces.
Thanks to surging oil and gas revenues, Saskatchewan has received virtually no equalization money in the past few years.
During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to take non-renewable resources like oil and gas out of the equalization formula — a change Calvert said would mean an extra $800 million a year for provincial coffers.
The March 19 budget did remove oil and gas from the formula, but added a cap on equalization payments. As a result, Saskatchewan is getting $226 million this year and nothing next year.
Calvert said the legal action would not be over a broken campaign promise.
If a lawsuit was filed for every broken Conservative promise, there wouldn't be enough lawyers, he said.
Instead, he said, the suit would be based on the sections of the constitution that require the equalization program to be fair and equitable.
The Saskatchewan government will also argue the constitutional principle that natural resources belong to the people of Saskatchewan and the current equalization program violates that principle.
Earlier in the day, Saskatchewan Conservative MP Gerry Ritz insisted in a CBC interview that there had been no promise broken and that his constituents are telling him the budget is an excellent one for Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan Tory MPs vote for budget
Governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have also been up in arms over the equalization program.
Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey was kicked out of the Conservative caucus after he voted against the government's budget bill last week.
Casey did the same thing again in the final budget vote Tuesday night. The budget passed a final vote in the House of Commons with all 12 Saskatchewan Conservative MPs voting in favour.
Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre MP Tom Lukiwski came out swinging, however, accusing Calvert of launching a lawsuit as a provincial election ploy.
"He's got an election coming up. He's 25 points points down in the polls," Lukiwski said. "This is grandstanding, a last-ditch effort for him to try to change the channel. I think he has no basis for his lawsuit but I welcome his challenge."
Quizzed during question period about equalization, Prime Minister Stephen Harper claimed he was baffled by developments in Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces.
"I don't even understand what they're saying any more," he said.
Maude Barlow on Atlantica
Actually according to other sources there are also labor and community representatives at the Atlantica conference. It costs 600 dollars to register. I guess some unions and community groups must have considerable discretionary funds!
Sometimes Barlow strikes me as a bit idealistic. Atlantic Canada is not some oasis of tranquility compared to Toronto. It is dirt poor in many areas and dominated by reactionary figures such as the Irvines, and McCains. However I have a soft spot for Robert Stanfield and his underwear! Many Maritimers as with many immigrants gravitate to Toronto because that is where the jobs are!
However Marlow is certainly correct to see Atlantica as part of a broader pattern of deep integration with the US that benefits most big capital.
Maude Barlow on “Atlantica”
Chris Arsenault Interviews Maude Barlow
Special to Canadian Dimension June 7, 2007
On June 14-16, corporate executives, the think-tanks they fund, and some government officials from Eastern Canada and the North Eastern United States will gather in Halifax, Nova Scotia to discuss Atlantica: “a broad social project” according the initiative’s leading intellectual architect.
“There are a lot of people with an interest in seeing Atlantica proceed,” said Brian Lee Crowley, former director of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and now a senior economics adviser to Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Others, including unions and community groups in Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States have an interest in stopping Atlantica. The economic and political project has identified several “public policy distress factors” including: “minimum wage legislation (a measure of labor market flexibility)” and “union density.”
Maude Barlow, author of more than a dozen books on politics and economics, and chair-person of the Council of Canadians has been following Atlantica and other neo-liberal initiatives closely.
She most recently won Sweden’s Right Livelihood Award, similar to the Nobel Prize, for her “exemplary and long-standing worldwide work for trade justice.” Her latest book is Too Close for Comfort, Canada’s Future Within Fortress North America.
She spoke with Chris Arsenault from her home in Ottawa.
Chris Arsenault: In your recent book, you talk a lot about ‘Fortress North America’ and ‘Deep Integration’.
Can you describe those concepts a little bit? How do they relate to the Atlantica Initiative?
Maude Barlow: One should look at the Atlantica project within the larger move towards creating one North American security block. It started post 9-11 with the creation of a task force on recommendations from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the country’s largest corporate lobby group.
Who saw, frankly, an opportunity with 9-11 to push their agenda of deregulation of the border and deregulation of trade. That moved very quickly through senior political levels to the Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin. He signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America in Waco, Texas in March, 2005 with George Bush and Vicente Fox. This commitment to building a kind of European Union in North America, but without the environmental, social and human rights safeguards that were in the original European Union, dramatically increased under Harper.
There would be one trade block, harmonizing: immigration, visas at entry level - you name it. Some of them [CCCE leaders] are talking about a customs union; certainly a common market. Some are even talking about a common dollar and existing as one trade block in the WTO (World Trade Organization). So Canada would be negotiating as one with the United States, as opposed to being concerned about what the Americans are demanding from us and trying to protect ourselves.
It would require more integrated foreign policy, security policy, military policy, and so on. We call it ‘Fortress North America’ basically because it’s based on the viewpoint and ideology of big business, big security, and big defense.
When you move into what’s happening with Atlantica, it’s important to have that as a backdrop, to realize what they are talking about with Atlantica is kind of an Atlantic version of this larger ‘Fortress North America’, based on what’s good for big business, the big defense industry, the big security industry and so on.
As with Atlantica, ordinary Canadians, people with different kinds of concerns, were entirely left out of the negotiation and the debate about the Security Partnership for North America. So here we see the same thing happening: the corporate, trade and defense industries getting together and promoting an agenda that’s good for them but not for the majority of Atlantic Canadians.
CA: In a Moncton Times & Transcript article one columnist scoffed at critics, stating “the Atlantica agenda is preoccupied with the hard, mundane work of facilitating trade and cross border business relationships.” What do you think about this assessment?
M.B.: This is always what they fall back on, like we’re just too silly to understand such important issues as cross border trade. We’re not at all opposed to trade or rules to promote trade or even trade agreements.
We are opposed to agreements like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that expose Canada to the whims of U.S. bureaucracy and corporate interests.
With NAFTA and Atlantica, you’re getting into an agreement with a much larger partner and it’s going to be the interests of the larger partner that will prevail.
When the U.S. wants to abide by NAFTA it does; when it doesn’t, it just doesn’t. If nobody but the corporate sector is welcome in these talks then what does that say about democracy?
What does that say about the environment? Human rights concerns? The concerns of working people? Women’s groups? Faith based groups? There are many groups who would have some things to say about how we might have closer co-operation.
Nobody is against better communication and even better transportation. But if you want to see what it’s like when that gets out of hand, go to Windsor, Ontario and take a look at the eight-lane so-called NAFTA highway that goes 24-7, all through the day and night It’s just this horrible strip of highway that takes the trade back and forth across that border. It’s polluting. It’s horribly noisy. There are downsides to constant growth.
Yes, prosperity is important, but so are social rights, maintaining environmental, health and safety standards, and quality of life. All these elements need to be taken into account.
CA: In your travels and meetings with social movements around the world, can you talk about some alternatives, some independent economic policies that really work?
MB: I think you can look right here in Canada, with some flaws of course. We tried in the past to mix public and private in a really innovative way.
That’s because there were so few people living in this great big cold harsh, beautiful, country, this huge geographic space. Our ancestors decided they needed to share with each other. I call it our Canadian founding narrative: Sharing for survival. It’s different from the American founding narrative: Survival of the fittest.
We said yes to the private sector, yes people can make money, yes to entrepreneurship, and all that stuff but there also has to be a strong public sector. The private sector won’t deliver mail to small communities, it won’t take the railroad to the north. The private sector has to make money and it won’t provide the services and the connections to poorer communities.
In Atlantic Canada, for people who wanted to make those east-west links, ribbons of interdependence as I call them, this equalization concept is enormously important.
At the same time, the problem is that Atlantic Canada really was invaded by other parts of the country and its bounty was taken, and that part of the model was not good. So the question is how can we re-balance confederation so more of the resources of Atlantic Canada benefit the people there, while still benefiting from this great partnership called Canada.
So, I think in many respects, we can look favourably on the model we have created ourselves. The whole world, however, not just Atlantic Canada, is going to have to reconfigure our relationship with nature.
The notion behind Atlantica is unlimited growth which one American environmentalist compared to the logic of a cancer cell; it eventually turns on its host in order to survive. We are killing the earth. The earth cannot sustain more growth, more destruction of meadows and wetlands, cutting down more forests, damming more rivers or burning more fossil fuels.
The earth is saying, ‘I’ve reached my limit’. We’re running out of fresh water, energy and minerals. We’re releasing too much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We’ve got to stop.
One of the major answers is something called subsidiarity where you can grow or produce something closer to home. You have economic policy that promotes that practice; food grown locally, not shipped in from across the world, where farmers are working for next to no wages.You stop this horrible head-to-head competition; you support locally produced goods. You cut down on trade, I don’t mean no trade, but the average North American dinner plate has travelled 1,900 km to get to you. That’s insane.
In Atlantica Canada, before life gets out of hand and everything becomes like it is in Toronto, people need to slow down and think about whether that is what they want.
There is a beautiful way of life in Atlantic Canada. I know, I come from there. This notion of supporting local communities, building something together and being careful about our ecological footprint is what the whole world has to turn to. It would be really wrong for Atlantic Canada to give up what it has right now; that beauty, that way of life. It can still be prosperous, but not the model they are looking at with Atlantica. I see a zone where it will be U.S. money and U.S. corporations. It will be a free trade zone on the Canadian side with much lower wages- a Canadian kind of sweatshop.
They’ll deny this and say I am being alarmist, but there is a third world in this country now.
We’ve created a poverty class that didn’t exist 15 years ago through these neo-liberal policies and free trade agreements. Atlantica wants to take this a whole step further.
Maude Barlow will speak in Halifax Wednesday, June 13, 2007. For more information about mobilizations against Atlantica check out http://www.stopatlantica.com/
Sometimes Barlow strikes me as a bit idealistic. Atlantic Canada is not some oasis of tranquility compared to Toronto. It is dirt poor in many areas and dominated by reactionary figures such as the Irvines, and McCains. However I have a soft spot for Robert Stanfield and his underwear! Many Maritimers as with many immigrants gravitate to Toronto because that is where the jobs are!
However Marlow is certainly correct to see Atlantica as part of a broader pattern of deep integration with the US that benefits most big capital.
Maude Barlow on “Atlantica”
Chris Arsenault Interviews Maude Barlow
Special to Canadian Dimension June 7, 2007
On June 14-16, corporate executives, the think-tanks they fund, and some government officials from Eastern Canada and the North Eastern United States will gather in Halifax, Nova Scotia to discuss Atlantica: “a broad social project” according the initiative’s leading intellectual architect.
“There are a lot of people with an interest in seeing Atlantica proceed,” said Brian Lee Crowley, former director of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and now a senior economics adviser to Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Others, including unions and community groups in Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States have an interest in stopping Atlantica. The economic and political project has identified several “public policy distress factors” including: “minimum wage legislation (a measure of labor market flexibility)” and “union density.”
Maude Barlow, author of more than a dozen books on politics and economics, and chair-person of the Council of Canadians has been following Atlantica and other neo-liberal initiatives closely.
She most recently won Sweden’s Right Livelihood Award, similar to the Nobel Prize, for her “exemplary and long-standing worldwide work for trade justice.” Her latest book is Too Close for Comfort, Canada’s Future Within Fortress North America.
She spoke with Chris Arsenault from her home in Ottawa.
Chris Arsenault: In your recent book, you talk a lot about ‘Fortress North America’ and ‘Deep Integration’.
Can you describe those concepts a little bit? How do they relate to the Atlantica Initiative?
Maude Barlow: One should look at the Atlantica project within the larger move towards creating one North American security block. It started post 9-11 with the creation of a task force on recommendations from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the country’s largest corporate lobby group.
Who saw, frankly, an opportunity with 9-11 to push their agenda of deregulation of the border and deregulation of trade. That moved very quickly through senior political levels to the Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin. He signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America in Waco, Texas in March, 2005 with George Bush and Vicente Fox. This commitment to building a kind of European Union in North America, but without the environmental, social and human rights safeguards that were in the original European Union, dramatically increased under Harper.
There would be one trade block, harmonizing: immigration, visas at entry level - you name it. Some of them [CCCE leaders] are talking about a customs union; certainly a common market. Some are even talking about a common dollar and existing as one trade block in the WTO (World Trade Organization). So Canada would be negotiating as one with the United States, as opposed to being concerned about what the Americans are demanding from us and trying to protect ourselves.
It would require more integrated foreign policy, security policy, military policy, and so on. We call it ‘Fortress North America’ basically because it’s based on the viewpoint and ideology of big business, big security, and big defense.
When you move into what’s happening with Atlantica, it’s important to have that as a backdrop, to realize what they are talking about with Atlantica is kind of an Atlantic version of this larger ‘Fortress North America’, based on what’s good for big business, the big defense industry, the big security industry and so on.
As with Atlantica, ordinary Canadians, people with different kinds of concerns, were entirely left out of the negotiation and the debate about the Security Partnership for North America. So here we see the same thing happening: the corporate, trade and defense industries getting together and promoting an agenda that’s good for them but not for the majority of Atlantic Canadians.
CA: In a Moncton Times & Transcript article one columnist scoffed at critics, stating “the Atlantica agenda is preoccupied with the hard, mundane work of facilitating trade and cross border business relationships.” What do you think about this assessment?
M.B.: This is always what they fall back on, like we’re just too silly to understand such important issues as cross border trade. We’re not at all opposed to trade or rules to promote trade or even trade agreements.
We are opposed to agreements like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that expose Canada to the whims of U.S. bureaucracy and corporate interests.
With NAFTA and Atlantica, you’re getting into an agreement with a much larger partner and it’s going to be the interests of the larger partner that will prevail.
When the U.S. wants to abide by NAFTA it does; when it doesn’t, it just doesn’t. If nobody but the corporate sector is welcome in these talks then what does that say about democracy?
What does that say about the environment? Human rights concerns? The concerns of working people? Women’s groups? Faith based groups? There are many groups who would have some things to say about how we might have closer co-operation.
Nobody is against better communication and even better transportation. But if you want to see what it’s like when that gets out of hand, go to Windsor, Ontario and take a look at the eight-lane so-called NAFTA highway that goes 24-7, all through the day and night It’s just this horrible strip of highway that takes the trade back and forth across that border. It’s polluting. It’s horribly noisy. There are downsides to constant growth.
Yes, prosperity is important, but so are social rights, maintaining environmental, health and safety standards, and quality of life. All these elements need to be taken into account.
CA: In your travels and meetings with social movements around the world, can you talk about some alternatives, some independent economic policies that really work?
MB: I think you can look right here in Canada, with some flaws of course. We tried in the past to mix public and private in a really innovative way.
That’s because there were so few people living in this great big cold harsh, beautiful, country, this huge geographic space. Our ancestors decided they needed to share with each other. I call it our Canadian founding narrative: Sharing for survival. It’s different from the American founding narrative: Survival of the fittest.
We said yes to the private sector, yes people can make money, yes to entrepreneurship, and all that stuff but there also has to be a strong public sector. The private sector won’t deliver mail to small communities, it won’t take the railroad to the north. The private sector has to make money and it won’t provide the services and the connections to poorer communities.
In Atlantic Canada, for people who wanted to make those east-west links, ribbons of interdependence as I call them, this equalization concept is enormously important.
At the same time, the problem is that Atlantic Canada really was invaded by other parts of the country and its bounty was taken, and that part of the model was not good. So the question is how can we re-balance confederation so more of the resources of Atlantic Canada benefit the people there, while still benefiting from this great partnership called Canada.
So, I think in many respects, we can look favourably on the model we have created ourselves. The whole world, however, not just Atlantic Canada, is going to have to reconfigure our relationship with nature.
The notion behind Atlantica is unlimited growth which one American environmentalist compared to the logic of a cancer cell; it eventually turns on its host in order to survive. We are killing the earth. The earth cannot sustain more growth, more destruction of meadows and wetlands, cutting down more forests, damming more rivers or burning more fossil fuels.
The earth is saying, ‘I’ve reached my limit’. We’re running out of fresh water, energy and minerals. We’re releasing too much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We’ve got to stop.
One of the major answers is something called subsidiarity where you can grow or produce something closer to home. You have economic policy that promotes that practice; food grown locally, not shipped in from across the world, where farmers are working for next to no wages.You stop this horrible head-to-head competition; you support locally produced goods. You cut down on trade, I don’t mean no trade, but the average North American dinner plate has travelled 1,900 km to get to you. That’s insane.
In Atlantica Canada, before life gets out of hand and everything becomes like it is in Toronto, people need to slow down and think about whether that is what they want.
There is a beautiful way of life in Atlantic Canada. I know, I come from there. This notion of supporting local communities, building something together and being careful about our ecological footprint is what the whole world has to turn to. It would be really wrong for Atlantic Canada to give up what it has right now; that beauty, that way of life. It can still be prosperous, but not the model they are looking at with Atlantica. I see a zone where it will be U.S. money and U.S. corporations. It will be a free trade zone on the Canadian side with much lower wages- a Canadian kind of sweatshop.
They’ll deny this and say I am being alarmist, but there is a third world in this country now.
We’ve created a poverty class that didn’t exist 15 years ago through these neo-liberal policies and free trade agreements. Atlantica wants to take this a whole step further.
Maude Barlow will speak in Halifax Wednesday, June 13, 2007. For more information about mobilizations against Atlantica check out http://www.stopatlantica.com/
Activists to protest Atlantica
This article gives a little more detail on the conference and the objections of protestors. It is from a Halifax newspaper.
Activists prepare to protest against Atlantica concept
By PAUL EVEREST
After gearing up for a year, protesters are ready to descend upon Halifax next week to voice their displeasure with a controversial conference on regional trade.
From June 14 to 16, roughly 500 business, labour and community representatives will gather at the World Trade and Convention Centre to discuss the Atlantica concept, defined as a united economic trade zone encompassing the Atlantic provinces, parts of Quebec and the northeastern United States.
Atlantica has drawn criticism from Canadian unions and activist groups because it promotes the interests of big businesses and deeper ties with the U.S. Last June, hundreds of protesters crashed the inaugural Atlantica conference in Saint John, N.B., and several people were arrested.
This year, protest organizers are expecting as many as "a few thousand" people to rally against the conference and promote the message that Atlantica will only hurt Eastern Canada.
"It’s an extension of this neo-liberal trade agenda that was set way back with (the North American Free Trade Agreement)," said John Price, a spokesman for the Halifax-based Anti-Capitalist Collective, which is helping to organize the protest.
"It’s the neo-liberal alphabet soup of deregulating services that working people have fought and struggled for for a long time. Things like minimum wage. Atlantica plans on lowering minimum wage."
Anti-Atlantica activities kick off this Friday when a petition signed by those unhappy with the conference will be given to conference organizers. Mr. Price said it’s expected this petition will be rejected and that a "spicier" petition will be put forth.
He was unable to say what the second petition will entail.
Mr. Price said there will also be protest-related events across metro between June 14 and 16 including a family-friendly picnic, a fair-trade coffee sack race, similar to a potato sack race, as well as a bike ride.
The protest will climax with a march outside the convention centre on June 15.
Proponents for the Atlantica concept say it will act as a portal for international trade that will only help boost local economies. Trade barriers will come down and regulations between Canada and the U.S. will be harmonized.
It’s expected Premier Rodney MacDonald will use this year’s conference to promote the Atlantic Gateway concept as a regional priority, while the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce will announce the creation of a business leaders council to focus on potential business benefits.
But Mr. Price said he questions whether conference delegates really have the people of Atlantic Canada in mind, especially since the Halifax conference is being held behind closed doors with a $600 entry fee.
"There’s no transparency, there’s no accountability," he said.
( peverest@herald.ca)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back
Activists prepare to protest against Atlantica concept
By PAUL EVEREST
After gearing up for a year, protesters are ready to descend upon Halifax next week to voice their displeasure with a controversial conference on regional trade.
From June 14 to 16, roughly 500 business, labour and community representatives will gather at the World Trade and Convention Centre to discuss the Atlantica concept, defined as a united economic trade zone encompassing the Atlantic provinces, parts of Quebec and the northeastern United States.
Atlantica has drawn criticism from Canadian unions and activist groups because it promotes the interests of big businesses and deeper ties with the U.S. Last June, hundreds of protesters crashed the inaugural Atlantica conference in Saint John, N.B., and several people were arrested.
This year, protest organizers are expecting as many as "a few thousand" people to rally against the conference and promote the message that Atlantica will only hurt Eastern Canada.
"It’s an extension of this neo-liberal trade agenda that was set way back with (the North American Free Trade Agreement)," said John Price, a spokesman for the Halifax-based Anti-Capitalist Collective, which is helping to organize the protest.
"It’s the neo-liberal alphabet soup of deregulating services that working people have fought and struggled for for a long time. Things like minimum wage. Atlantica plans on lowering minimum wage."
Anti-Atlantica activities kick off this Friday when a petition signed by those unhappy with the conference will be given to conference organizers. Mr. Price said it’s expected this petition will be rejected and that a "spicier" petition will be put forth.
He was unable to say what the second petition will entail.
Mr. Price said there will also be protest-related events across metro between June 14 and 16 including a family-friendly picnic, a fair-trade coffee sack race, similar to a potato sack race, as well as a bike ride.
The protest will climax with a march outside the convention centre on June 15.
Proponents for the Atlantica concept say it will act as a portal for international trade that will only help boost local economies. Trade barriers will come down and regulations between Canada and the U.S. will be harmonized.
It’s expected Premier Rodney MacDonald will use this year’s conference to promote the Atlantic Gateway concept as a regional priority, while the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce will announce the creation of a business leaders council to focus on potential business benefits.
But Mr. Price said he questions whether conference delegates really have the people of Atlantic Canada in mind, especially since the Halifax conference is being held behind closed doors with a $600 entry fee.
"There’s no transparency, there’s no accountability," he said.
( peverest@herald.ca)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back
Atlantica Meeting ready for protests
The fact that the chair of the Atlantic Chamber of Commerces does not even live in Canada is symbolic. This whole group seems to be a part of the process of integration with the US. Capital does not really care for borders especially if erasing national differences can be seen as increasing profit.
Police ready riot squad for Atlantica meeting
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 10:32 AM AT
CBC News
Halifax is bracing for a free-trade conference later this week that is expected to draw hundreds of protesters.
The conference, hosted by the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce, promotes the idea of Atlantica, a zone of freer trade between Atlantic Canada, eastern Quebec and the northeastern United States.
The chamber and the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies, a conservative think-tank, say Atlantic Canada would prosper by becoming the gateway for trade between Asia and the U.S.
"NAFTA has made it easier to trade north-south, but you still continue to have barriers, particularly at the state and provincial level, that keep the states and provinces from actually realizing the full potential of NAFTA," said Charles Cirtwell, acting president of AIMS.
Halifax police will have a riot squad on standby. The conference begins Thursday.
Last year's Atlantica conference in Saint John, N.B., attracted a group of protesters, and the Alliance Against Atlantica says thousands are expected at the upcoming meeting.
The group says Atlantica is about cheaper energy and consumer goods for Americans, not economic prosperity for all.
"It's a free-for-all for the business and private elites to do whatever they want to in this region no matter what hindrances might be in the way, such as environmental regulations or social protections," said Dave Ron, who is also with the Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group.
Truck traffic bad for environment: report
Earlier this year, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report saying the Atlantica proposal turns the region into a springboard for Asian goods destined for the U.S. Midwest with few benefits for Atlantic Canada. Heavy truck traffic would be bad for the environment and damage the highways, the report noted.
While critics say Atlantica is an attack on unions, environmental standards and even the minimum wage, proponents say it's all about Atlantic Canada getting a bigger share of the globalization pie.
The new chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce, Jonathan Daniels, lives in Maine. As a board member for several years, his appointment was deliberate and planned, said the outgoing Halifax-based chairman, Stephen Dempsey.
"It really started five years ago when we formally embraced our Atlantica agenda, and we understood if we were going to expand our operation beyond the four Atlantic provinces, then we had to really reach out and engage business people beyond the border," Dempsey said.
Police ready riot squad for Atlantica meeting
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 10:32 AM AT
CBC News
Halifax is bracing for a free-trade conference later this week that is expected to draw hundreds of protesters.
The conference, hosted by the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce, promotes the idea of Atlantica, a zone of freer trade between Atlantic Canada, eastern Quebec and the northeastern United States.
The chamber and the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies, a conservative think-tank, say Atlantic Canada would prosper by becoming the gateway for trade between Asia and the U.S.
"NAFTA has made it easier to trade north-south, but you still continue to have barriers, particularly at the state and provincial level, that keep the states and provinces from actually realizing the full potential of NAFTA," said Charles Cirtwell, acting president of AIMS.
Halifax police will have a riot squad on standby. The conference begins Thursday.
Last year's Atlantica conference in Saint John, N.B., attracted a group of protesters, and the Alliance Against Atlantica says thousands are expected at the upcoming meeting.
The group says Atlantica is about cheaper energy and consumer goods for Americans, not economic prosperity for all.
"It's a free-for-all for the business and private elites to do whatever they want to in this region no matter what hindrances might be in the way, such as environmental regulations or social protections," said Dave Ron, who is also with the Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group.
Truck traffic bad for environment: report
Earlier this year, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report saying the Atlantica proposal turns the region into a springboard for Asian goods destined for the U.S. Midwest with few benefits for Atlantic Canada. Heavy truck traffic would be bad for the environment and damage the highways, the report noted.
While critics say Atlantica is an attack on unions, environmental standards and even the minimum wage, proponents say it's all about Atlantic Canada getting a bigger share of the globalization pie.
The new chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce, Jonathan Daniels, lives in Maine. As a board member for several years, his appointment was deliberate and planned, said the outgoing Halifax-based chairman, Stephen Dempsey.
"It really started five years ago when we formally embraced our Atlantica agenda, and we understood if we were going to expand our operation beyond the four Atlantic provinces, then we had to really reach out and engage business people beyond the border," Dempsey said.
Sweet deals on sale of Fed Buildings
June 12, 2007
This is really absurd. It is basically just a sweetheart deal. If the government is going to lease the properties for 25 years and pay for maintenance it might just as well keep them. It is deals like this that make the Conservatives friends among certain business people!
It's time to stop the sale of federal government buildings
OTTAWA – Today is the closing day for bids on nine choice pieces of federal government real estate in some of Canada's hottest markets. The sell off is a bad deal for Canadians but it can and must be stopped says the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).
The Conservative government is in the process of selling off federal government buildings and arranging to lease them back for 25 years.
“The Conservatives are willing to trade short-term cash gain for long-term taxpayer pain,” says PSAC National President John Gordon. “Rent payments over the life of the leases will be double the sale price.”
The government will be guaranteeing rent for 100% of the space for 25 years. “Where is the incentive to find tenants at the Skyline Complex in Ottawa, a property on the block that currently has an occupancy rate of less than 10%, when taxpayers are picking up the tab?” says Gordon.
This is a sweet deal for the winning bidder if the sale goes through. At the end of 25 years, the bidder will have re-couped its investment and more through rent, paid nothing for maintenance which is the responsibility of the federal government tenant, and own extremely valuable buildings and real estate in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. At the end of 25 years, the government will have spent much more than they received and have nothing to show for it.
According to the PSAC, this is such a bad deal, it's no wonder the whole business is being conducted under a veil of secrecy. All documents are confidential. The asking price is secret. The identity of a third-party being brought in to judge the fairness of the sale is secret. Questions such as why are the same bankers who recommended the sale acting as the government's real estate agents are being left unanswered.
Because they're not getting any answers, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has asked the government to place a moratorium on the sale of the proposed buildings until the Committee is given the relevant impact studies and information.
“The Conservatives continue to insult Canadians and abuse the Parliamentary Committee process by refusing to come clean about the sale and lease-back of these buildings,” says Gordon. “They're not interested in hearing from anyone who might challenge their plan.”
PSAC is calling for more than a moratorium. “We believe this is a bad deal for Canadians and we're calling on the Conservative government to stop the sale once and for all,” says Gordon. “Canadians will not be well-served by this sale. Maintaining ownership makes economic sense and preserves and protects public assets.”
For information:
Louise Laporte, PSAC Communications - 613-558-4975
This is really absurd. It is basically just a sweetheart deal. If the government is going to lease the properties for 25 years and pay for maintenance it might just as well keep them. It is deals like this that make the Conservatives friends among certain business people!
It's time to stop the sale of federal government buildings
OTTAWA – Today is the closing day for bids on nine choice pieces of federal government real estate in some of Canada's hottest markets. The sell off is a bad deal for Canadians but it can and must be stopped says the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).
The Conservative government is in the process of selling off federal government buildings and arranging to lease them back for 25 years.
“The Conservatives are willing to trade short-term cash gain for long-term taxpayer pain,” says PSAC National President John Gordon. “Rent payments over the life of the leases will be double the sale price.”
The government will be guaranteeing rent for 100% of the space for 25 years. “Where is the incentive to find tenants at the Skyline Complex in Ottawa, a property on the block that currently has an occupancy rate of less than 10%, when taxpayers are picking up the tab?” says Gordon.
This is a sweet deal for the winning bidder if the sale goes through. At the end of 25 years, the bidder will have re-couped its investment and more through rent, paid nothing for maintenance which is the responsibility of the federal government tenant, and own extremely valuable buildings and real estate in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. At the end of 25 years, the government will have spent much more than they received and have nothing to show for it.
According to the PSAC, this is such a bad deal, it's no wonder the whole business is being conducted under a veil of secrecy. All documents are confidential. The asking price is secret. The identity of a third-party being brought in to judge the fairness of the sale is secret. Questions such as why are the same bankers who recommended the sale acting as the government's real estate agents are being left unanswered.
Because they're not getting any answers, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has asked the government to place a moratorium on the sale of the proposed buildings until the Committee is given the relevant impact studies and information.
“The Conservatives continue to insult Canadians and abuse the Parliamentary Committee process by refusing to come clean about the sale and lease-back of these buildings,” says Gordon. “They're not interested in hearing from anyone who might challenge their plan.”
PSAC is calling for more than a moratorium. “We believe this is a bad deal for Canadians and we're calling on the Conservative government to stop the sale once and for all,” says Gordon. “Canadians will not be well-served by this sale. Maintaining ownership makes economic sense and preserves and protects public assets.”
For information:
Louise Laporte, PSAC Communications - 613-558-4975
|Liberals capture Klein's former seat in Alberta
There is no anlaysis as to why this happened unfortunately. I was surprised to see that the Liberals have 16 seats provincially and even the NDP four. I thought that provincial governments were usually even more lopsided in Alberta!
Alberta Liberals win byelection in Ralph Klein's old riding
Jun 12, 2007 11:54 PM
Canadian press
CALGARY–Voters in Calgary-Elbow, the riding once held by former premier Ralph Klein, have delivered a hard head shot to Alberta's governing party and its newbie premier tonight.
In one of two byelections, Liberal candidate Craig Cheffins defeated Progressive Conservative rival Brian Heninger in the central Calgary seat that had been home to Tory royalty since it was created in 1971.
In the sprawling riding of Drumheller-Stettler, east of Calgary, Jack Hayden successfully raised the Tory standard once again in a region his party has won by lopsided margins ever since it was wrested from the Social Credit party in 1979.
The byelections were the first tests at the ballot box for Premier Ed Stelmach since he took over the top job from Klein late last year.
Klein had held Calgary-Elbow for 18 years before stepping down in January.
The Tories now have 61 seats in the 83-seat legislature while the Liberals have 16, the NDP have four and the Alberta Alliance has one; there is one Independent.
Alberta Liberals win byelection in Ralph Klein's old riding
Jun 12, 2007 11:54 PM
Canadian press
CALGARY–Voters in Calgary-Elbow, the riding once held by former premier Ralph Klein, have delivered a hard head shot to Alberta's governing party and its newbie premier tonight.
In one of two byelections, Liberal candidate Craig Cheffins defeated Progressive Conservative rival Brian Heninger in the central Calgary seat that had been home to Tory royalty since it was created in 1971.
In the sprawling riding of Drumheller-Stettler, east of Calgary, Jack Hayden successfully raised the Tory standard once again in a region his party has won by lopsided margins ever since it was wrested from the Social Credit party in 1979.
The byelections were the first tests at the ballot box for Premier Ed Stelmach since he took over the top job from Klein late last year.
Klein had held Calgary-Elbow for 18 years before stepping down in January.
The Tories now have 61 seats in the 83-seat legislature while the Liberals have 16, the NDP have four and the Alberta Alliance has one; there is one Independent.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Harper Defends Bush' Missile Defence Scheme
This is the first I had heard that he defended the scheme at the G8 meeting. It is surprising that more of the media did not report on this. Of course Bush claims it is not directed at Russia but at Iran or North Korea. There is not even a smile cracked when this claim is made. Putin offered Bush an alternative. I wonder if Bush will accept it! I wouldn't bet on it.
Harper is Bush's new 'poodle'
>by Linda McQuaig
June 12, 2007
Perhaps the most notable thing Stephen Harper did at the G-8 gathering last week was signal his intention to take over retiring British Prime Minister Tony Blair's role as George W. Bush's most helpful foreign ally.
The implications of this go far beyond whatever embarrassment Canadians may come to feel about our Prime Minister assuming the role of what has sometimes been referred to as Bush's “poodle.”
Members of our corporate and academic elite have long pushed for Canada's Prime Minister to adopt the “poodle” role (without, of course, calling it that), arguing that closer ties with the White House will bring us more influence in U.S. corridors of power.
But as Tony Blair's experience illustrated, the influence tends to go the other way — with the lesser power helping to advance Washington's agenda, rather than Washington advancing the agenda of its finely-furred friend.
Harper gave a good example of this last week when he spoke out in favour of Bush's controversial plan to install a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, and dismissed Russian concerns about it.
Harper's intervention — coming from a country with a peaceful reputation — was extremely helpful to Bush, who has trouble convincing the world that his missile shield won't just set off a new arms race.
So Harper helped Bush sell his missile shield to a skeptical world, even though Canada has refused to participate in the project.
While Harper has expressed support for the shield, he promised in the last federal election campaign that he wouldn't reverse Canada's opposition to it without a vote in the House of Commons, which he knows he could not win.
So, in prominently supporting Bush on the missile defence shield last week, Harper, in effect, did an end-run around Parliament and the Canadian public, and helped advance a position that is at odds with Canada's own official policy.
The significance of this goes beyond Harper's thumbing his nose at Canadian democracy, which is bad enough. Even more seriously, Harper lent Canadian credibility to a reckless scheme that threatens to increase the risk of nuclear war.
If this sounds far-fetched, it's only because of the confusion created by the word “defence” in “missile defence shield.” In reality, the scheme isn't about defence at all, but rather about making it possible for the U.S. to initiate a nuclear war without fear of retaliation.
This was set out clearly by two U.S. military analysts in a major article called “The rise of U.S. nuclear supremacy,” which appeared last year in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs. The analysts, Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, explained: “[T]he sort of missile defences that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield.”
The analysts noted that while a missile shield wouldn't be effective in an all-out war, it could prove useful if Washington were to initiate a nuclear attack against, for example, Russia or China, leaving the targeted country with only a tiny surviving arsenal: “At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defence scheme might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.”
So, as Bush goes about creating the capacity to initiate nuclear war — just in case he decides to eliminate some of the “evil” in the world — it seems he can count on support from his new best friend to the north.
Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star.
Harper is Bush's new 'poodle'
>by Linda McQuaig
June 12, 2007
Perhaps the most notable thing Stephen Harper did at the G-8 gathering last week was signal his intention to take over retiring British Prime Minister Tony Blair's role as George W. Bush's most helpful foreign ally.
The implications of this go far beyond whatever embarrassment Canadians may come to feel about our Prime Minister assuming the role of what has sometimes been referred to as Bush's “poodle.”
Members of our corporate and academic elite have long pushed for Canada's Prime Minister to adopt the “poodle” role (without, of course, calling it that), arguing that closer ties with the White House will bring us more influence in U.S. corridors of power.
But as Tony Blair's experience illustrated, the influence tends to go the other way — with the lesser power helping to advance Washington's agenda, rather than Washington advancing the agenda of its finely-furred friend.
Harper gave a good example of this last week when he spoke out in favour of Bush's controversial plan to install a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, and dismissed Russian concerns about it.
Harper's intervention — coming from a country with a peaceful reputation — was extremely helpful to Bush, who has trouble convincing the world that his missile shield won't just set off a new arms race.
So Harper helped Bush sell his missile shield to a skeptical world, even though Canada has refused to participate in the project.
While Harper has expressed support for the shield, he promised in the last federal election campaign that he wouldn't reverse Canada's opposition to it without a vote in the House of Commons, which he knows he could not win.
So, in prominently supporting Bush on the missile defence shield last week, Harper, in effect, did an end-run around Parliament and the Canadian public, and helped advance a position that is at odds with Canada's own official policy.
The significance of this goes beyond Harper's thumbing his nose at Canadian democracy, which is bad enough. Even more seriously, Harper lent Canadian credibility to a reckless scheme that threatens to increase the risk of nuclear war.
If this sounds far-fetched, it's only because of the confusion created by the word “defence” in “missile defence shield.” In reality, the scheme isn't about defence at all, but rather about making it possible for the U.S. to initiate a nuclear war without fear of retaliation.
This was set out clearly by two U.S. military analysts in a major article called “The rise of U.S. nuclear supremacy,” which appeared last year in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs. The analysts, Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, explained: “[T]he sort of missile defences that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield.”
The analysts noted that while a missile shield wouldn't be effective in an all-out war, it could prove useful if Washington were to initiate a nuclear attack against, for example, Russia or China, leaving the targeted country with only a tiny surviving arsenal: “At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defence scheme might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.”
So, as Bush goes about creating the capacity to initiate nuclear war — just in case he decides to eliminate some of the “evil” in the world — it seems he can count on support from his new best friend to the north.
Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star.
Maher and Mazigh honoured at Nipissing University
I wonder why the pair refused an interview with the Nugget. It would seem a good opportunity to spread their message to a larger audience. I see they also awarded a degree to the weather guru David Phillips!
Nipissing honours Maher Arar; Tells graduates to embrace their civil liberties
BRYN WEESE / The Nugget
Local News - Monday, June 11, 2007 @ 08:00
Maher Arar's message to graduates of Nipissing University was short but sweet: Use your education to make the world a better place, and don't take civil liberties for granted.
Both Arar and his wife, Dr. Monia Mazigh, received honourary doctorates of letters from the university.
"Before my experience, I took my human and civil liberties for granted. Now I've learned not to be complacent," Arar, a 37-year-old Syrian-born Canadian citizen, told the crowd.
"Because of your potential, skills, and qualifications, you have the power to change the world and affect the lives of many people."
Arar was deported by U.S. authorities to Syria in 2002, where he was tortured into false confessions of terrorist links before he was released and returned to his adopted home.
He has since received a formal apology from the RCMP and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Earlier this year, Arar was awarded $10.5 million for his suffering and legal fees.
Mazigh, who successfully pressured the Canadian government to hold an inquiry into his deportation, said she is more proud of the honourary doctorate from Nipissing than the Ph.D. she earned from McGill University seven years ago.
This degree is not for passing exams and for completing research, she said, but rather for understanding one of the many meanings of life: To fight for what you believe in and never give up.
University president Dennis Mock said the decision to invite Arar and Mazigh to Saturday's convocation was an easy one.
"They work so well together and they both really applaud the Canadian justice system," Mock said.
"We know there are injustices, and when something like that happens, we're very proud of the fact that in Canada there are ways to address it, and that's what Monia did."
"Here was a man who was being tortured in a Syrian jail, and his wife, with two kids here in Canada, started to advocate on his behalf, and people listened," Mock said.
Jake deBruyn, a fourth-year honours criminal justice graduate, called the presence of Arar and Mazigh moving and said most students heard their message loud and clear.
"What happened to them in our society today is unacceptable. It's 2007," he told The Nugget.
"It's just great that people like them have the tenacity to help the Canadian public realize what happened and that it's not acceptable . . . When you hear people like Arar, it really grounds you. Suddenly you realize it's not just about me."
Both Arar and Mazigh declined The Nugget's request for interviews.
Others to address Nipissing University graduates during the institution's convocations included Romeo Dallaire, Kate Pace Lindsay and David Phillips.
Mock said the calibre of this year's guests speaks volumes about the university, which only received its charter in 1992.
"I think it's a matter of us coming of age as a university. We're maturing as a university and individuals who see we're committed to learning and students identity with that," Mock said. "When we ask them to honour us, they accept . . . And that's really something."
Nipissing honours Maher Arar; Tells graduates to embrace their civil liberties
BRYN WEESE / The Nugget
Local News - Monday, June 11, 2007 @ 08:00
Maher Arar's message to graduates of Nipissing University was short but sweet: Use your education to make the world a better place, and don't take civil liberties for granted.
Both Arar and his wife, Dr. Monia Mazigh, received honourary doctorates of letters from the university.
"Before my experience, I took my human and civil liberties for granted. Now I've learned not to be complacent," Arar, a 37-year-old Syrian-born Canadian citizen, told the crowd.
"Because of your potential, skills, and qualifications, you have the power to change the world and affect the lives of many people."
Arar was deported by U.S. authorities to Syria in 2002, where he was tortured into false confessions of terrorist links before he was released and returned to his adopted home.
He has since received a formal apology from the RCMP and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Earlier this year, Arar was awarded $10.5 million for his suffering and legal fees.
Mazigh, who successfully pressured the Canadian government to hold an inquiry into his deportation, said she is more proud of the honourary doctorate from Nipissing than the Ph.D. she earned from McGill University seven years ago.
This degree is not for passing exams and for completing research, she said, but rather for understanding one of the many meanings of life: To fight for what you believe in and never give up.
University president Dennis Mock said the decision to invite Arar and Mazigh to Saturday's convocation was an easy one.
"They work so well together and they both really applaud the Canadian justice system," Mock said.
"We know there are injustices, and when something like that happens, we're very proud of the fact that in Canada there are ways to address it, and that's what Monia did."
"Here was a man who was being tortured in a Syrian jail, and his wife, with two kids here in Canada, started to advocate on his behalf, and people listened," Mock said.
Jake deBruyn, a fourth-year honours criminal justice graduate, called the presence of Arar and Mazigh moving and said most students heard their message loud and clear.
"What happened to them in our society today is unacceptable. It's 2007," he told The Nugget.
"It's just great that people like them have the tenacity to help the Canadian public realize what happened and that it's not acceptable . . . When you hear people like Arar, it really grounds you. Suddenly you realize it's not just about me."
Both Arar and Mazigh declined The Nugget's request for interviews.
Others to address Nipissing University graduates during the institution's convocations included Romeo Dallaire, Kate Pace Lindsay and David Phillips.
Mock said the calibre of this year's guests speaks volumes about the university, which only received its charter in 1992.
"I think it's a matter of us coming of age as a university. We're maturing as a university and individuals who see we're committed to learning and students identity with that," Mock said. "When we ask them to honour us, they accept . . . And that's really something."
Premier of NS threatens Harper over Atlantic Accord
This is rather confusing to me. First it seems weird that if Harper agreed to honor the Liberal Accord it does indeed seem a betrayal to then turn around and offer a choice of the Accord or equalisation payments. Furthermore MacDonald should have rejected the choice and ordered Casey and other to vote against the budget because the budget is a betrayal. He didn't. He tried to convince Casey to vote for the budget. The Nova Scotia premier and Harper both look bad but MacDonald seems the worst of the two. He has espoused the cause of Casey only after seeing the mass support behind Casey's move. Peter MacKay and others will now be on the hotseat. MacKay certainly deserves some heat.
Premier threatens to use 'the stick' with feds over Atlantic Accord
Last Updated: Monday, June 11, 2007 | 3:45 PM AT
CBC News
Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald was talking tough about the Atlantic Accord in a speech Monday to Bay Street executives in Toronto.
MacDonald said he feels betrayed by the Conservative government, which reneged on the offshore royalties deal signed two years ago with the Liberal government of Paul Martin.
MacDonald said he is now going to use "the stick," by calling on every Nova Scotian MP to vote against the federal budget on third reading. He's also asked all provincial senators to delay passage of the bill.
"In doing so, they would be standing up for their province, and against the kind of thinking that says it’s OK to break your word," the premier said in his speech. "And the kind of thinking that says Nova Scotia must be denied the opportunity for prosperity that is our birthright as Canadians."
"There will be a price to be paid politically unless the accord is honoured," MacDonald told reporters.
Bargained 'in good faith,' premier says
When the Harper government tabled its budget, it gave Nova Scotia the choice of either keeping the accord or receiving more money in equalization payments.
MacDonald decided to take the increased equalization money, but continued to negotiate over the accord.
"We did so in good faith, assuming the federal government also wanted to resolve our impasse. But we were wrong," the premier said Monday.
"It is now obvious that the federal government never intended to settle this dispute on any terms but its own."
MacDonald said this is "a defining moment" for the province's elected representatives.
"Anyone who thinks Ottawa can run over small provinces at will and break legally binding agreements without any consequences is wrong. We want to be a 'have' province; there is no culture of defeat in Nova Scotia," MacDonald said.
"Nova Scotians do not respond well to bullies."
The broken accord could mean the loss of more than $800 million for Nova Scotia, the premier said.
Conservative MP ejected over budget vote
Last week MP Bill Casey voted against his government's budget, and was immediately kicked out of the Tory caucus. He has been hailed as a hero in Nova Scotia.
MacDonald telephoned Casey just before the vote and urged him to vote with the government.
Premier late to the cause: opposition
Opposition parties in Nova Scotia are accusing MacDonald of being a johnny-come-lately in his defence of the Atlantic Accord.
Liberal Leader Stephen McNeil said Monday he's happy that MacDonald is finally taking on the federal government over changes to the accord.
And McNeil said it's no accident that MacDonald's conversion comes on the heels of widespread public support for Casey.
"I believe the reaction that Bill Casey received from Nova Scotians when he came home told the premier that he's on the wrong side of this issue, in every sense of the word," McNeil said.
"I think the reaction of his caucus around Bill Casey and the decision that was taken, gave him the indication that he had better join the rest of us, and start fighting to save the Atlantic Accord, or otherwise there might be a revolt internally for him."
MacDonald accused of misleading
McNeil also accused MacDonald of misleading Nova Scotians, because there seems to have been no negotiations to try to come up with a new accord.
But he said he's ready and willing to join the premier in fighting the Harper government.
NDP Leader Darrell Dexter said MacDonald's about-face on the accord is akin to a deathbed conversion.
Nova Scotians see the move as coming rather late in the game, he said.
Premier threatens to use 'the stick' with feds over Atlantic Accord
Last Updated: Monday, June 11, 2007 | 3:45 PM AT
CBC News
Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald was talking tough about the Atlantic Accord in a speech Monday to Bay Street executives in Toronto.
MacDonald said he feels betrayed by the Conservative government, which reneged on the offshore royalties deal signed two years ago with the Liberal government of Paul Martin.
MacDonald said he is now going to use "the stick," by calling on every Nova Scotian MP to vote against the federal budget on third reading. He's also asked all provincial senators to delay passage of the bill.
"In doing so, they would be standing up for their province, and against the kind of thinking that says it’s OK to break your word," the premier said in his speech. "And the kind of thinking that says Nova Scotia must be denied the opportunity for prosperity that is our birthright as Canadians."
"There will be a price to be paid politically unless the accord is honoured," MacDonald told reporters.
Bargained 'in good faith,' premier says
When the Harper government tabled its budget, it gave Nova Scotia the choice of either keeping the accord or receiving more money in equalization payments.
MacDonald decided to take the increased equalization money, but continued to negotiate over the accord.
"We did so in good faith, assuming the federal government also wanted to resolve our impasse. But we were wrong," the premier said Monday.
"It is now obvious that the federal government never intended to settle this dispute on any terms but its own."
MacDonald said this is "a defining moment" for the province's elected representatives.
"Anyone who thinks Ottawa can run over small provinces at will and break legally binding agreements without any consequences is wrong. We want to be a 'have' province; there is no culture of defeat in Nova Scotia," MacDonald said.
"Nova Scotians do not respond well to bullies."
The broken accord could mean the loss of more than $800 million for Nova Scotia, the premier said.
Conservative MP ejected over budget vote
Last week MP Bill Casey voted against his government's budget, and was immediately kicked out of the Tory caucus. He has been hailed as a hero in Nova Scotia.
MacDonald telephoned Casey just before the vote and urged him to vote with the government.
Premier late to the cause: opposition
Opposition parties in Nova Scotia are accusing MacDonald of being a johnny-come-lately in his defence of the Atlantic Accord.
Liberal Leader Stephen McNeil said Monday he's happy that MacDonald is finally taking on the federal government over changes to the accord.
And McNeil said it's no accident that MacDonald's conversion comes on the heels of widespread public support for Casey.
"I believe the reaction that Bill Casey received from Nova Scotians when he came home told the premier that he's on the wrong side of this issue, in every sense of the word," McNeil said.
"I think the reaction of his caucus around Bill Casey and the decision that was taken, gave him the indication that he had better join the rest of us, and start fighting to save the Atlantic Accord, or otherwise there might be a revolt internally for him."
MacDonald accused of misleading
McNeil also accused MacDonald of misleading Nova Scotians, because there seems to have been no negotiations to try to come up with a new accord.
But he said he's ready and willing to join the premier in fighting the Harper government.
NDP Leader Darrell Dexter said MacDonald's about-face on the accord is akin to a deathbed conversion.
Nova Scotians see the move as coming rather late in the game, he said.
Report says 40 % of military contracts non-competitive
It seems that the Harper government is imitating the US. US contracts in Iraq are notorious for being non-competititve. Canada would not seem even to have the excuse that there is no time for the competitive process. We will just have to wait and see what reasons are given for the lack of competition. The defence minister has already been in hot water several times. As a former lobbyist himself this report will no doubt be an embarassment.
40% of military contracts non-competitive: report
Last Updated: Monday, June 11, 2007 | 12:29 PM ET
CBC News
Ottawa awarded more than 40 per cent of its military contracts over the last year without fully competitive bidding, and the value of these contracts has doubled over the past two years, says a report released Monday.
The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found more than $16 billion in major military equipment contracts had a "limited tendering process."
The centre relied on publicly available information from a database of federal contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence.
The report also slammed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor for his work as a lobbyist for 28 firms, including five of the world's top 10 defence contractors, "almost all seeking government contracts during the period just prior to his appointment as defence minister."
"This report raises the alarm on the use of public dollars, and the need for greater transparency and federal accountability in military contracting," executive director Bruce Campbell said in a news release.
The report's authors urged the government today not to sign any new military contracts valued at more than $100 million pending reports by the auditor general and the Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, expected by the end of the year.
They also urged that ministers involved in defence contracts, especially the defence minister, should wait at least five years after leaving the department before accepting work with government contractors.
The issue of defence procurement has been in the news since the Conservatives announced last year $17 billion in new equipment
40% of military contracts non-competitive: report
Last Updated: Monday, June 11, 2007 | 12:29 PM ET
CBC News
Ottawa awarded more than 40 per cent of its military contracts over the last year without fully competitive bidding, and the value of these contracts has doubled over the past two years, says a report released Monday.
The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found more than $16 billion in major military equipment contracts had a "limited tendering process."
The centre relied on publicly available information from a database of federal contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence.
The report also slammed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor for his work as a lobbyist for 28 firms, including five of the world's top 10 defence contractors, "almost all seeking government contracts during the period just prior to his appointment as defence minister."
"This report raises the alarm on the use of public dollars, and the need for greater transparency and federal accountability in military contracting," executive director Bruce Campbell said in a news release.
The report's authors urged the government today not to sign any new military contracts valued at more than $100 million pending reports by the auditor general and the Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, expected by the end of the year.
They also urged that ministers involved in defence contracts, especially the defence minister, should wait at least five years after leaving the department before accepting work with government contractors.
The issue of defence procurement has been in the news since the Conservatives announced last year $17 billion in new equipment
Monday, June 11, 2007
The plan to disappear Canada
This is a good summary of some of the things that are happening to integrate Canada and the US )and Mexico. It is ironic that is often the right that is opposing the move in the US while it is the left here. Dobbin talks about deregulation but much of this is less deregulation than harmonisation of regulations to the detriment of national control and often resulting in weaker regulations as the pesiticide residues case shows. This is from Rabble.
The plan to disappear Canada
>by Murray Dobbin
June 11, 2007
If the machinations going on in this country regarding so-called “deep integration” were instead a communist conspiracy to take over the country (you will, of course, have to try hard to imagine this) the news media would be blaring the story.
Pundits would pontificate, editorialists would erupt, security forces would be unleashed.
Instead, a virtual conspiracy to make the country disappear through assimilation into the U.S. gets barely a mention.
But news of the scheme — formally called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) — is finally breaking out of the secret chambers of the ruling elite and the federal government. This is both good news and bad. It's good that ordinary citizens are finally getting a glimpse of the betrayal of their country. The news is bad because it reflects just how much of this scheme is already being implemented.
Given the meetings of CEOs and politicians to advance the scheme politically, as well as all that must go into its actual implementation, there is simply too much activity to keep secret.
Ten dots to connect
Here are 10 developments in the plan to disappear Canada.
1) Pesticides 'harmonized.' The most thoroughly reported story (though even this did not go much beyond the CanWest chain) was the revelation that Canada was about to “harmonize” its regulations, setting limits for pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables. In 40 per cent of the cases, the U.S. allows for higher levels. Richard Aucoin, chief registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which sets Canada's pesticide levels, said that Canada's higher levels were a “trade irritant.”
The downgrading of health protection had been a NAFTA initiative, but is being “fast-tracked” as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Some 300 regulatory regimes are currently going through the same process.
2) Tory tirade. The next story that broke through the wall of media silence reported on the paranoid reaction of the Harper Conservatives to any criticism of the SPP. The occasion was hearings of the Commons International Trade Committee into the SPP, forced by the NDP.
Gordon Laxer, head of Alberta's Parkland Institute, was testifying on the energy implications of the SPP, warning that eastern Canada could end up “freezing in the dark.” He had barely started when the chair of the committee, Conservative MP Leon Benoit, demanded that Laxer halt his “irrelevant” testimony. The Committee members overruled Benoit — who promptly (and illegally) adjourned the meeting and stomped out. The NDP and Liberal members nonetheless continued without him.
3) Council of corporate power. The SPP initiative began in earnest back in 2002 with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the BCNI), the most powerful corporate body in the country. It continues its leadership role, but does not promote the scheme just in its own name. It instead has helped create several supportive bodies that now help drive the agenda. Included in these are the North American Competitive Council (NACC), which includes CEOs of the largest North American corporations, and which institutionalizes the exclusively corporate nature of the agreement. The NACC is the only advisory group to the three NAFTA/SPP governments.
4) Secretive summit. The NACC at least is public. But much of what happens in building the elite consensus for deep integration is done in absolute secrecy or very privately, away from the prying eyes of the media. The most secretive of these was held last year from Sept. 12 to 14, in Banff Springs. As The Tyee reported, the gathering was sponsored by something called the North American Forum* and it was attended by some of the most powerful members of the North American ruling elite.
Attendees, according to a leaked list that could not be confirmed, included Donald Rumsfeld, George Schultz (former U.S. Secretary of State), General Rick Hillier, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day. The media was not informed of the meeting and it was first revealed by the weekly Banff Crag & Canyon.
Stockwell Day refused to even confirm he was there, but said that even if he was, it was a “private” meeting that he would not comment on. There is no better indication that these meetings, and the SPP itself, constitute a parallel governing structure — unaccountable to any democratic institution or the public.
5) 'No fly' coordination. Canada will have its own “no-fly” list just like our U.S. “partner.”
As the Council of Canadians pointed out: “The no-fly list is very much a Security and Prosperity Partnership initiative. 'The SPP Report to Leaders, August 2006' outlines 105 SPP initiatives. Initiative #93 states, 'Develop, test, evaluate and implement a plan to establish comparable aviation passenger screening, and the screening of baggage and air cargo (for North America).'”
Canada's privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has raised a number of concerns about the plan including the fact that the list will be shared with the U.S., that “false positives” are a virtual certainty, and that there is no evidence put forward by the government that the list will improve airline security.
6) Bye, bye Canadian dollar? David Dodge, the head of the Bank of Canada, told a Chicago audience that a single currency for North America “is possible.” That would see a big chunk of Canadian sovereignty and the ability to guide the economy through monetary policy go out the window. It's not the first time Dodge has mused about abandoning the Canadian dollar — or deep integration.
7) Water and oil giveaways. The deep integrationists clearly see Canadian water as a North American resource, not a Canadian resource. At yet another very private meeting, held in Calgary on April 27th under the auspices of yet another forum, it was made clear that water is on the table for negotiation.
Discussion of bulk “water transfers” and diversions took place at a Calgary meeting of the North American Future 2025 Project (partly funded by the U.S. government). The meeting based its deliberations on the false notion that Canada has 20 per cent of the world's fresh water. Actual available supply amounts to only around six per cent — about the same as has the U.S.
The water (and environment) meeting was preceded by another on April 26th talking about “North American” energy. The beneficiary of these discussions is pretty clear when you realize Canada has no national energy policy. We are the only energy exporting country in the world without a one.
Gordon Laxer told the Parliamentary committee: “The National Energy Board wrote me on April 12: 'Unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.'” He was also told by the NEB that Canada does not maintain a 90 day energy reserve as other developed nations do. As Laxer points out, “Canada may be a net exporter, but it still imports 40 per cent of its oil — 850,000 barrels per day — to meet 90 per cent of Atlantic Canada's and Quebec's needs, and 40 per cent of Ontario's.”
Canada exports 63 per cent of its oil production and 56 per cent of its natural gas, percentages that can never decrease under NAFTA.
8) NAFTA Superhighway. State governments in the U.S. are becoming increasingly alarmed at the prospects of deep integration. Earlier this year, Idaho became the first state to pass a legislative resolution directing the U.S. Congress to drop out of the SPP, which is referred to as the North American Union amongst U.S. opponents. Thirteen states in addition to Idaho are calling on Congress to abandon the SPP: Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Montana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Virginia.
Part of the opposition is focused on plans for a so-called NAFTA Superhighway: actually a corridor several hundred metres wide including rail lines, freeways and pipelines from Mexico to the Canadian border. There is a growing grassroots movement against the SPP in the U.S., but led by the right over the issue of compromising American sovereignty.
9) Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). While U.S. states, concerned about state rights under an unaccountable “North American Union, ” are organizing against the scheme, Canadian provinces are either blithely unaware or knowingly complicit in the deal. More Canadians may be aware of TILMA — the investors' rights agreement between B.C. and Alberta — than they are about the SPP, but in reality they are one and the same.
TILMA is major piece of the deep integration, deregulation imperative and fits hand in glove with the SPP. There is a similar, though more informal, process evolving in the Atlantic provinces, called “Atlantica.” And B.C. is now pushing the so-called Gateway Initiative, a kind of regional superhighway project that will see huge and environmentally disastrous expansion of ports, highways and pipelines to further supply the U.S.'s insatiable demand for resources and cheap Asian goods.
10) The next SPP summit. The third leaders summit on the SPP will take place this August 21-22nd in Montebello, Quebec, not far from Ottawa. By the time it does many more Canadians will be aware of it.
Part of the reason that news of the SPP/deep integration issue is finally seeing the light of day is that opposition is growing and groups fighting the SPP are having an impact. The Council of Canadians, the CLC and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives held an SPP teach-in in Ottawa last month and many civil society groups are now taking deep integration to their members. Demonstrations are planned for the summit. The NDP continues to press the government on SPP secrecy and the Green Party's Elizabeth May has said deep integration will be a focus of the party's election platform.
It is hard to think of any other issue in modern Canadian history, especially one that will literally determine whether the country survives or not, that has taken so long to get public attention. I first wrote about it September, 2002.
By the time the SPP summit has come and gone and the fall political season begins, deep integration, the most treacherous plan for the country yet devised by Bay Street, will be increasingly exposed.
And by the next election, we could see a repeat of the great “free trade” election of 1988. This time we have to win.
Murray Dobbin writes from Vancouver. This column has appeared in The Tyee.
The plan to disappear Canada
>by Murray Dobbin
June 11, 2007
If the machinations going on in this country regarding so-called “deep integration” were instead a communist conspiracy to take over the country (you will, of course, have to try hard to imagine this) the news media would be blaring the story.
Pundits would pontificate, editorialists would erupt, security forces would be unleashed.
Instead, a virtual conspiracy to make the country disappear through assimilation into the U.S. gets barely a mention.
But news of the scheme — formally called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) — is finally breaking out of the secret chambers of the ruling elite and the federal government. This is both good news and bad. It's good that ordinary citizens are finally getting a glimpse of the betrayal of their country. The news is bad because it reflects just how much of this scheme is already being implemented.
Given the meetings of CEOs and politicians to advance the scheme politically, as well as all that must go into its actual implementation, there is simply too much activity to keep secret.
Ten dots to connect
Here are 10 developments in the plan to disappear Canada.
1) Pesticides 'harmonized.' The most thoroughly reported story (though even this did not go much beyond the CanWest chain) was the revelation that Canada was about to “harmonize” its regulations, setting limits for pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables. In 40 per cent of the cases, the U.S. allows for higher levels. Richard Aucoin, chief registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which sets Canada's pesticide levels, said that Canada's higher levels were a “trade irritant.”
The downgrading of health protection had been a NAFTA initiative, but is being “fast-tracked” as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Some 300 regulatory regimes are currently going through the same process.
2) Tory tirade. The next story that broke through the wall of media silence reported on the paranoid reaction of the Harper Conservatives to any criticism of the SPP. The occasion was hearings of the Commons International Trade Committee into the SPP, forced by the NDP.
Gordon Laxer, head of Alberta's Parkland Institute, was testifying on the energy implications of the SPP, warning that eastern Canada could end up “freezing in the dark.” He had barely started when the chair of the committee, Conservative MP Leon Benoit, demanded that Laxer halt his “irrelevant” testimony. The Committee members overruled Benoit — who promptly (and illegally) adjourned the meeting and stomped out. The NDP and Liberal members nonetheless continued without him.
3) Council of corporate power. The SPP initiative began in earnest back in 2002 with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the BCNI), the most powerful corporate body in the country. It continues its leadership role, but does not promote the scheme just in its own name. It instead has helped create several supportive bodies that now help drive the agenda. Included in these are the North American Competitive Council (NACC), which includes CEOs of the largest North American corporations, and which institutionalizes the exclusively corporate nature of the agreement. The NACC is the only advisory group to the three NAFTA/SPP governments.
4) Secretive summit. The NACC at least is public. But much of what happens in building the elite consensus for deep integration is done in absolute secrecy or very privately, away from the prying eyes of the media. The most secretive of these was held last year from Sept. 12 to 14, in Banff Springs. As The Tyee reported, the gathering was sponsored by something called the North American Forum* and it was attended by some of the most powerful members of the North American ruling elite.
Attendees, according to a leaked list that could not be confirmed, included Donald Rumsfeld, George Schultz (former U.S. Secretary of State), General Rick Hillier, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day. The media was not informed of the meeting and it was first revealed by the weekly Banff Crag & Canyon.
Stockwell Day refused to even confirm he was there, but said that even if he was, it was a “private” meeting that he would not comment on. There is no better indication that these meetings, and the SPP itself, constitute a parallel governing structure — unaccountable to any democratic institution or the public.
5) 'No fly' coordination. Canada will have its own “no-fly” list just like our U.S. “partner.”
As the Council of Canadians pointed out: “The no-fly list is very much a Security and Prosperity Partnership initiative. 'The SPP Report to Leaders, August 2006' outlines 105 SPP initiatives. Initiative #93 states, 'Develop, test, evaluate and implement a plan to establish comparable aviation passenger screening, and the screening of baggage and air cargo (for North America).'”
Canada's privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has raised a number of concerns about the plan including the fact that the list will be shared with the U.S., that “false positives” are a virtual certainty, and that there is no evidence put forward by the government that the list will improve airline security.
6) Bye, bye Canadian dollar? David Dodge, the head of the Bank of Canada, told a Chicago audience that a single currency for North America “is possible.” That would see a big chunk of Canadian sovereignty and the ability to guide the economy through monetary policy go out the window. It's not the first time Dodge has mused about abandoning the Canadian dollar — or deep integration.
7) Water and oil giveaways. The deep integrationists clearly see Canadian water as a North American resource, not a Canadian resource. At yet another very private meeting, held in Calgary on April 27th under the auspices of yet another forum, it was made clear that water is on the table for negotiation.
Discussion of bulk “water transfers” and diversions took place at a Calgary meeting of the North American Future 2025 Project (partly funded by the U.S. government). The meeting based its deliberations on the false notion that Canada has 20 per cent of the world's fresh water. Actual available supply amounts to only around six per cent — about the same as has the U.S.
The water (and environment) meeting was preceded by another on April 26th talking about “North American” energy. The beneficiary of these discussions is pretty clear when you realize Canada has no national energy policy. We are the only energy exporting country in the world without a one.
Gordon Laxer told the Parliamentary committee: “The National Energy Board wrote me on April 12: 'Unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.'” He was also told by the NEB that Canada does not maintain a 90 day energy reserve as other developed nations do. As Laxer points out, “Canada may be a net exporter, but it still imports 40 per cent of its oil — 850,000 barrels per day — to meet 90 per cent of Atlantic Canada's and Quebec's needs, and 40 per cent of Ontario's.”
Canada exports 63 per cent of its oil production and 56 per cent of its natural gas, percentages that can never decrease under NAFTA.
8) NAFTA Superhighway. State governments in the U.S. are becoming increasingly alarmed at the prospects of deep integration. Earlier this year, Idaho became the first state to pass a legislative resolution directing the U.S. Congress to drop out of the SPP, which is referred to as the North American Union amongst U.S. opponents. Thirteen states in addition to Idaho are calling on Congress to abandon the SPP: Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Montana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Virginia.
Part of the opposition is focused on plans for a so-called NAFTA Superhighway: actually a corridor several hundred metres wide including rail lines, freeways and pipelines from Mexico to the Canadian border. There is a growing grassroots movement against the SPP in the U.S., but led by the right over the issue of compromising American sovereignty.
9) Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). While U.S. states, concerned about state rights under an unaccountable “North American Union, ” are organizing against the scheme, Canadian provinces are either blithely unaware or knowingly complicit in the deal. More Canadians may be aware of TILMA — the investors' rights agreement between B.C. and Alberta — than they are about the SPP, but in reality they are one and the same.
TILMA is major piece of the deep integration, deregulation imperative and fits hand in glove with the SPP. There is a similar, though more informal, process evolving in the Atlantic provinces, called “Atlantica.” And B.C. is now pushing the so-called Gateway Initiative, a kind of regional superhighway project that will see huge and environmentally disastrous expansion of ports, highways and pipelines to further supply the U.S.'s insatiable demand for resources and cheap Asian goods.
10) The next SPP summit. The third leaders summit on the SPP will take place this August 21-22nd in Montebello, Quebec, not far from Ottawa. By the time it does many more Canadians will be aware of it.
Part of the reason that news of the SPP/deep integration issue is finally seeing the light of day is that opposition is growing and groups fighting the SPP are having an impact. The Council of Canadians, the CLC and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives held an SPP teach-in in Ottawa last month and many civil society groups are now taking deep integration to their members. Demonstrations are planned for the summit. The NDP continues to press the government on SPP secrecy and the Green Party's Elizabeth May has said deep integration will be a focus of the party's election platform.
It is hard to think of any other issue in modern Canadian history, especially one that will literally determine whether the country survives or not, that has taken so long to get public attention. I first wrote about it September, 2002.
By the time the SPP summit has come and gone and the fall political season begins, deep integration, the most treacherous plan for the country yet devised by Bay Street, will be increasingly exposed.
And by the next election, we could see a repeat of the great “free trade” election of 1988. This time we have to win.
Murray Dobbin writes from Vancouver. This column has appeared in The Tyee.
PC Ontario Leader John Tory unveils election platform
This is from the GLobe and Mail.
All the provincial conservative parties have retained the term "progressive" in their name while the federal party is just "Conservative". The provincial wings must think that the product will sell better with the "progressive" tag. Tory seems to even throw some sops to those left behind. No doubt the Tory tide will lift all boats--but not equally. The metaphor is not exact. The poor getting the crumbs of the bigger cake is more accurate. Some people even seem to think of Tory as a Red Tory. I guess in comparison to Harris he at least has a pink tinge.
ONTARIO POLITICS
PC leader unveils election platform
Tory distances himself from Harris with measures to reduce poverty
KAREN HOWLETT
June 11, 2007
Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory vowed two years ago to rebuild his deeply divided party by positioning himself as a moderate in the mould of former premier Bill Davis and by reaching out to the party's right wing.
In his maiden speech as party leader in February, 2005, Mr. Tory said he planned to embrace the best attributes of two of his predecessors - his mentor, Mr. Davis, and Mike Harris, father of the province's Common Sense Revolution.
"I think if you could put together the inclusiveness of a Bill Davis, together with the kind of clarity and purpose of a Mike Harris, you'd have something that's going to be a very powerful combination for 2007," Mr. Tory said at the time. "The two of them sum up what I'm about."
This weekend, Mr. Tory officially kicked off his campaign for the Oct. 10 provincial election by unveiling a platform that contains something for everyone. Like Mr. Davis, who led the province from 1971 to 1985, Mr. Tory says he would be fiscally prudent while socially progressive if he wins. (He was Mr. Davis's principal secretary in the mid-1980s.) At the same time, he would avoid the radical cuts to social programs imposed by the Harris government in the mid-1990s that polarized voters.
Mr. Tory told reporters on the weekend that his campaign pledges address the fact that he does not want to see anybody left behind.
"I don't think it's worth being in public life, I don't think it's worth creating the prosperity that I'm committed to producing ... [unless] everybody has the opportunity to share in that," he said.
Many of the promises in Mr. Tory's 52-page campaign document titled For a Better Ontario: Leadership Matters, are not new. In recent months, he has announced plans to boost spending on health care and education, build new nuclear reactors, tackle gun violence and give faith-based schools in Ontario the option of joining the public education system.
In a striking departure from Mr. Harris, Mr. Tory said a Conservative government under his leadership would fight poverty by creating jobs to get more people off the welfare rolls, and revitalize vulnerable communities by creating more affordable housing for the poor and homeless.
"The Progressive Conservative Party that I lead is a party that is committed to helping disadvantaged people, to doing as much as we can to offer people a hand up," Mr. Tory said.
But in a nod to the right, Mr. Tory promised not to ignore the party's traditional supporters - farmers and residents of rural and northern communities. He said he would give smaller communities hard-hit by job losses a "small shot in the arm" by relocating government jobs from Toronto. He has also promised to phase out the annual $2.6-billion health tax over four years.
Mr. Tory said he would make government more transparent by providing frequent disclosure on how tax dollars are spent. But the Liberals attacked him for not saying how he plans to pay for his promises. Mr. Tory said he won't do that until he reviews the provincial Auditor-General's pre-election report on the province's finances, expected this summer.
Deputy Premier George Smitherman accused Mr. Tory of floating a trial balloon.
"What they're really saying is, here's some ideas that we have so far, but check back with us later once the Auditor-General's report comes out and we'll let you know whether we actually intend to do any of these things."
New Democrat MPP Paul Ferreira said the Conservatives have failed to distinguish themselves from the governing Liberals. Both leaders are in favour of nuclear energy, and the government outlined plans in this year's budget to tackle child poverty.
"What we saw here today is John Tory and Dalton McGuinty are one and the same," Mr. Ferreira said.
All the provincial conservative parties have retained the term "progressive" in their name while the federal party is just "Conservative". The provincial wings must think that the product will sell better with the "progressive" tag. Tory seems to even throw some sops to those left behind. No doubt the Tory tide will lift all boats--but not equally. The metaphor is not exact. The poor getting the crumbs of the bigger cake is more accurate. Some people even seem to think of Tory as a Red Tory. I guess in comparison to Harris he at least has a pink tinge.
ONTARIO POLITICS
PC leader unveils election platform
Tory distances himself from Harris with measures to reduce poverty
KAREN HOWLETT
June 11, 2007
Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory vowed two years ago to rebuild his deeply divided party by positioning himself as a moderate in the mould of former premier Bill Davis and by reaching out to the party's right wing.
In his maiden speech as party leader in February, 2005, Mr. Tory said he planned to embrace the best attributes of two of his predecessors - his mentor, Mr. Davis, and Mike Harris, father of the province's Common Sense Revolution.
"I think if you could put together the inclusiveness of a Bill Davis, together with the kind of clarity and purpose of a Mike Harris, you'd have something that's going to be a very powerful combination for 2007," Mr. Tory said at the time. "The two of them sum up what I'm about."
This weekend, Mr. Tory officially kicked off his campaign for the Oct. 10 provincial election by unveiling a platform that contains something for everyone. Like Mr. Davis, who led the province from 1971 to 1985, Mr. Tory says he would be fiscally prudent while socially progressive if he wins. (He was Mr. Davis's principal secretary in the mid-1980s.) At the same time, he would avoid the radical cuts to social programs imposed by the Harris government in the mid-1990s that polarized voters.
Mr. Tory told reporters on the weekend that his campaign pledges address the fact that he does not want to see anybody left behind.
"I don't think it's worth being in public life, I don't think it's worth creating the prosperity that I'm committed to producing ... [unless] everybody has the opportunity to share in that," he said.
Many of the promises in Mr. Tory's 52-page campaign document titled For a Better Ontario: Leadership Matters, are not new. In recent months, he has announced plans to boost spending on health care and education, build new nuclear reactors, tackle gun violence and give faith-based schools in Ontario the option of joining the public education system.
In a striking departure from Mr. Harris, Mr. Tory said a Conservative government under his leadership would fight poverty by creating jobs to get more people off the welfare rolls, and revitalize vulnerable communities by creating more affordable housing for the poor and homeless.
"The Progressive Conservative Party that I lead is a party that is committed to helping disadvantaged people, to doing as much as we can to offer people a hand up," Mr. Tory said.
But in a nod to the right, Mr. Tory promised not to ignore the party's traditional supporters - farmers and residents of rural and northern communities. He said he would give smaller communities hard-hit by job losses a "small shot in the arm" by relocating government jobs from Toronto. He has also promised to phase out the annual $2.6-billion health tax over four years.
Mr. Tory said he would make government more transparent by providing frequent disclosure on how tax dollars are spent. But the Liberals attacked him for not saying how he plans to pay for his promises. Mr. Tory said he won't do that until he reviews the provincial Auditor-General's pre-election report on the province's finances, expected this summer.
Deputy Premier George Smitherman accused Mr. Tory of floating a trial balloon.
"What they're really saying is, here's some ideas that we have so far, but check back with us later once the Auditor-General's report comes out and we'll let you know whether we actually intend to do any of these things."
New Democrat MPP Paul Ferreira said the Conservatives have failed to distinguish themselves from the governing Liberals. Both leaders are in favour of nuclear energy, and the government outlined plans in this year's budget to tackle child poverty.
"What we saw here today is John Tory and Dalton McGuinty are one and the same," Mr. Ferreira said.
John Tory: Provincial PC leader.
This is part of a longer article on Tory from Wikipedia.
Tory obviously has a family background as a member of the elite including the corporate elite. He positions himself as a progressive conservative to drain support from Liberals and NDP.
Background
From 1972 to 1979, Tory was hired by family friend Ted Rogers as a journalist for Rogers Broadcasting's Toronto radio stations CFTR and CHFI.
Before enrolling in university, he attended the University of Toronto Schools, a private high school affiliated with the University of Toronto.
Tory received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Trinity College, University of Toronto in 1975. He continued the family tradition of studying law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, where he received his Bachelor of Laws degree in 1978. He was called to the bar in Ontario in 1980.
From 1980 to 1981, and later from 1986 to 1995, Tory held various positions at his grandfather's Toronto law firm Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, including partner, managing partner, and member of the Executive Committee.
From 1981 to 1985, Tory served in the Office of the Premier of Ontario, Bill Davis as Principal Secretary to the Premier and Associate Secretary of the Cabinet. In 1985, Davis retired as Premier. Tory joined the Office of the Canadian Special Envoy on Acid Rain, as Special Advisor to the Special Envoy. The Special Envoy had been appointed by the federal government of Brian Mulroney to review matters of air quality with a United States counterpart. Tory supported Dianne Cunningham's bid to lead the provincial Progressive Conservative Party in 1990 (Toronto Star, 3 May 1990).
Tory later served as Tour Director and Campaign Chairman to then Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, and managed the 1993 federal election campaign of Mulroney's successor, Kim Campbell. Tory was criticized for approving a 1993 election ad that mocked Liberal Party leader Jean Chrétien's facial deformity (although the Conservatives denied that was the ad's intention). The Conservatives suffered the most lopsided defeat for a governing party at the federal level, losing half their vote from 1988 and all but two of their 151 seats.
From 1995 to 1999, he returned to Rogers Communications Inc., but this time as president and CEO of what had become one of Canada's largest publishing and broadcasting companies. Rogers has interests in radio and television stations, specialty television channels, consumer magazines, trade magazines and, at the time, the Toronto Sun and the Sun newspaper chain. In 1999, he became president and CEO of Rogers subsidiary Rogers Cable, Canada's largest cable television company and a leading video rental chain and cable Internet provider. He led it through a period of transition from a monopoly environment to an open marketplace, overseeing a significant increase in operating income. Tory stepped down after Ted Rogers announced that he would stay on as President and CEO of parent company Rogers Communications.
Tory also served as chairman of the Canadian Football League from 1992 to 2000.
Tory obviously has a family background as a member of the elite including the corporate elite. He positions himself as a progressive conservative to drain support from Liberals and NDP.
Background
From 1972 to 1979, Tory was hired by family friend Ted Rogers as a journalist for Rogers Broadcasting's Toronto radio stations CFTR and CHFI.
Before enrolling in university, he attended the University of Toronto Schools, a private high school affiliated with the University of Toronto.
Tory received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Trinity College, University of Toronto in 1975. He continued the family tradition of studying law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, where he received his Bachelor of Laws degree in 1978. He was called to the bar in Ontario in 1980.
From 1980 to 1981, and later from 1986 to 1995, Tory held various positions at his grandfather's Toronto law firm Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, including partner, managing partner, and member of the Executive Committee.
From 1981 to 1985, Tory served in the Office of the Premier of Ontario, Bill Davis as Principal Secretary to the Premier and Associate Secretary of the Cabinet. In 1985, Davis retired as Premier. Tory joined the Office of the Canadian Special Envoy on Acid Rain, as Special Advisor to the Special Envoy. The Special Envoy had been appointed by the federal government of Brian Mulroney to review matters of air quality with a United States counterpart. Tory supported Dianne Cunningham's bid to lead the provincial Progressive Conservative Party in 1990 (Toronto Star, 3 May 1990).
Tory later served as Tour Director and Campaign Chairman to then Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, and managed the 1993 federal election campaign of Mulroney's successor, Kim Campbell. Tory was criticized for approving a 1993 election ad that mocked Liberal Party leader Jean Chrétien's facial deformity (although the Conservatives denied that was the ad's intention). The Conservatives suffered the most lopsided defeat for a governing party at the federal level, losing half their vote from 1988 and all but two of their 151 seats.
From 1995 to 1999, he returned to Rogers Communications Inc., but this time as president and CEO of what had become one of Canada's largest publishing and broadcasting companies. Rogers has interests in radio and television stations, specialty television channels, consumer magazines, trade magazines and, at the time, the Toronto Sun and the Sun newspaper chain. In 1999, he became president and CEO of Rogers subsidiary Rogers Cable, Canada's largest cable television company and a leading video rental chain and cable Internet provider. He led it through a period of transition from a monopoly environment to an open marketplace, overseeing a significant increase in operating income. Tory stepped down after Ted Rogers announced that he would stay on as President and CEO of parent company Rogers Communications.
Tory also served as chairman of the Canadian Football League from 1992 to 2000.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Saskatchewan Party ahead in Sask.
This is from an http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=635. From what I hear if there is an election the NDP would suffer a devastating defeat retaining only a few city seats.
Saskatchewan
The Saskatchewan Party remains in first place. Support for the governing NDP has declined, to the benefit of the third-place Liberals.
After levelling off in the previous quarter, support for the Saskatchewan Party (SP) continues to hold steady this quarter. It receives the support of half (48%) of decided voters in the province; this figure is essentially unchanged from December 2006, but is nine points higher than its popular vote in the November 2003 election.
After improving for two consecutive quarters, support for the second-place NDP has declined. Moreover, the gap between the governing NDP and the SP has more than doubled - from eight points in December to 19 points this quarter. The NDP currently has the support of 29 percent of decided voters, down nine points from December 2006, and now 15 points lower than its popular vote in the 2003 election.
Support for the Liberals has increased - at the expense of the NDP - and they now receive the support of 21 percent of decided voters. This figure is up seven points from December 2006, and is seven points higher than their share of the popular vote in the 2003 election.
One percent of decided voters support other minor parties. Sixteen percent of eligible voters express no party preference
Saskatchewan
The Saskatchewan Party remains in first place. Support for the governing NDP has declined, to the benefit of the third-place Liberals.
After levelling off in the previous quarter, support for the Saskatchewan Party (SP) continues to hold steady this quarter. It receives the support of half (48%) of decided voters in the province; this figure is essentially unchanged from December 2006, but is nine points higher than its popular vote in the November 2003 election.
After improving for two consecutive quarters, support for the second-place NDP has declined. Moreover, the gap between the governing NDP and the SP has more than doubled - from eight points in December to 19 points this quarter. The NDP currently has the support of 29 percent of decided voters, down nine points from December 2006, and now 15 points lower than its popular vote in the 2003 election.
Support for the Liberals has increased - at the expense of the NDP - and they now receive the support of 21 percent of decided voters. This figure is up seven points from December 2006, and is seven points higher than their share of the popular vote in the 2003 election.
One percent of decided voters support other minor parties. Sixteen percent of eligible voters express no party preference
A Review of Canadian Economic Statistics
Certainly an increase in farm income will be welcome given the increased costs of production especially fuel. The strong dollar does not seem to have had much overall effect on exports according to these figures. The building boom seems to be subsiding. Even Alberta seems to be slowing.
A review of economic statistics in Canada this week
Canadian Press
Published: Sunday, June 10, 2007
OTTAWA (CP) - A review of economic statistics this week:
Farm commodity prices rise
****Prices farmers received for their commodities rose 9.4 per cent in March from the same month a year earlier, as most crop, livestock and animal product prices increased. Crop prices were 17.9 per cent higher in March than they were a year earlier, according to the Farm Product Price Index. Prices for the overall livestock and animal product index rose 4.1 per cent in March, as gains were made in all commodities except eggs.
-
Building permits decline
The total value of building permits declined in April as construction intentions fell in both the residential and non-residential sectors, as well as in every province except Nova Scotia. Contractors took out permits worth $5.6 billion, down 8.4 per cent from March.
-
Employment up
A strong influx of students into jobs helped keep Canada's unemployment rate at a 33-year low of 6.1 per cent in May. The number of people with jobs in May rose slightly by 9,300. The gain would have been higher if not for a drop of 23,400 part-time jobs, offset by an increase of 32,700 in full-time employment. For the first five months of this year, employment rose by one per cent as 162,000 new jobs were created, slightly below the 1.3 per cent rise in employment in the same period last year.
-
New home construction increases
Housing starts were running at 229,700 units at a seasonally adjusted annual rate in May, up from 211,900 in April. Total starts were down an estimated 3.8 per cent in the first five months of 2007 compared with a year earlier, pulled down by an 11.7 per cent decline in urban single-family home construction.
The May number exceeded market expectations of 215,000, boosted by a 16.3 per cent rise in urban multiple-unit starts while single-family starts grew 2.8 per cent.
-
Merchandise trade surplus up
Canada's merchandise trade surplus was $5.8 billion in April, up from $5.1 billion in March as imports declined while exports showed little change. The surplus exceeded financial-market expectations by $1 billion, offering support to the Canadian dollar. Exports edged down 0.3 per cent to $40.7 billion from a revised $40.8 billion in March. Imports fell 2.2 per cent to $34.9 billion.
A review of economic statistics in Canada this week
Canadian Press
Published: Sunday, June 10, 2007
OTTAWA (CP) - A review of economic statistics this week:
Farm commodity prices rise
****Prices farmers received for their commodities rose 9.4 per cent in March from the same month a year earlier, as most crop, livestock and animal product prices increased. Crop prices were 17.9 per cent higher in March than they were a year earlier, according to the Farm Product Price Index. Prices for the overall livestock and animal product index rose 4.1 per cent in March, as gains were made in all commodities except eggs.
-
Building permits decline
The total value of building permits declined in April as construction intentions fell in both the residential and non-residential sectors, as well as in every province except Nova Scotia. Contractors took out permits worth $5.6 billion, down 8.4 per cent from March.
-
Employment up
A strong influx of students into jobs helped keep Canada's unemployment rate at a 33-year low of 6.1 per cent in May. The number of people with jobs in May rose slightly by 9,300. The gain would have been higher if not for a drop of 23,400 part-time jobs, offset by an increase of 32,700 in full-time employment. For the first five months of this year, employment rose by one per cent as 162,000 new jobs were created, slightly below the 1.3 per cent rise in employment in the same period last year.
-
New home construction increases
Housing starts were running at 229,700 units at a seasonally adjusted annual rate in May, up from 211,900 in April. Total starts were down an estimated 3.8 per cent in the first five months of 2007 compared with a year earlier, pulled down by an 11.7 per cent decline in urban single-family home construction.
The May number exceeded market expectations of 215,000, boosted by a 16.3 per cent rise in urban multiple-unit starts while single-family starts grew 2.8 per cent.
-
Merchandise trade surplus up
Canada's merchandise trade surplus was $5.8 billion in April, up from $5.1 billion in March as imports declined while exports showed little change. The surplus exceeded financial-market expectations by $1 billion, offering support to the Canadian dollar. Exports edged down 0.3 per cent to $40.7 billion from a revised $40.8 billion in March. Imports fell 2.2 per cent to $34.9 billion.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Intelligence services call inquests judicial terrorism
Imagine these intelligence agencies are caught not doing their job right in some instances (Air India) and even destroying important records, removing surveillance from key suspects etc. etc. and in the Arar case, sending raw intelligence data to the US some of it completely false, none of it verified or with any caveats, allowing leaks of classified material damaging to Arar's reputation and one could go on and on. None of these worthies were ever punished for anything. Yet they now cry judicial jihad and judicial terrorism. There is a jihad for sure but it is a holy war by intelligence services against human rights and the ability of society to hold them accountable for their manifold failings.
SURVEILLANCE: BALANCING NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
State agents say inquests causing 'judicial terrorism'
COLIN FREEZE
June 9, 2007
Since 9/11, Canada has secured no convictions under the terrorism laws it passed two months after the attacks, but it has launched three judicial inquiries, all aimed at exploring the missteps of security agencies. This situation has left some state agents complaining it is they who have been put on trial.
How much supervision should be applied against agencies working in the shadow of surveillance and counterterrorism? Mindful of past oversteps, authorities are struggling to find better ways to vet wiretapping practices, to share information with foreign allies and to avoid any involvement in torture in overseas prisons.
Tomorrow, a security conference begins in Ottawa on adjudicating terrorism in democracies. It is being billed as the first event of its kind and the speakers, most of them judges from across North America and Europe, will address a common quandary - how to balance civil liberties with national security.
It's a fine balance. Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor, the Canadian judge who cleared former Syrian detainee Maher Arar of wrongdoing, will be one of the panelists describing the added scrutiny he's recommended for Canadian investigators. While his recommendations have been broadly praised, his inquiry and related ones have prompted some backlash from officials, who wonder whether Canada will retain the tools it needs to prevent attacks.
"The term I've used in the past is judicial terrorism," said Ben Soave, a recently retired RCMP chief superintendent, who argues that a debilitating damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't malaise has begun to hamper Canadian investigations. "The fear factor kicks in," he explained in an interview. "The fear of being tied up in another public inquiry."
"Legal jihad is the one we use," said Jack Hooper, a top official who recently left the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. CSIS, he said, is struggling to comply with the judicial inquiries atop of processes already laden with overseers. While hindsight may always be 20/20, he cautions that those who investigate cases in real time find it "difficult to connect the dots when the whole page is black."
Terrorism cases are, by nature, difficult to prosecute. Conspiracies are transnational, gathering evidence is tricky and the work is often left to agencies that operate in different legal regimes.
The bureaucratic infighting and artificial barriers - "stove pipes" in the jargon - that existed between Canadian security agencies in 1985 are now under review, by Mr. Justice John Major, after a failed criminal probe. The intelligence gaps of the day allowed Sikh extremists in Canada to place bombs on airplanes, killing 330 people.
In 2001, the peril of sharing imprecise or inaccurate information was highlighted when several Canadian Arabs were jailed in Syria after being arrested in international airports. Now free, all say they were tortured on the basis of false information from an investigation that started in Canada but led to no charges.
It was these episodes that gave rise to the O'Connor commission and its sequel, the inquiry into the other Syrian detentions now being led by Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci. Judge O'Connor's right-hand man for the Arar investigation, Paul Cavalluzzo, says that in cases like these, counterterrorism agencies have only themselves to blame for the scrutiny they invite.
"It's because of events they created, " he said, adding he finds references to "judicial terrorism" to be "hyperbole at its highest" and "unbelievably disrespectful."
But agencies anticipate they are about to be presented with a flurry of competing directives.
"[Judge] O'Connor will say white and [Judge] Major will say black, and at the end of the day the policy silence will be deafening and we'll be back trying to reconcile the right thing to do," said Mr. Hooper, who retired from CSIS in March. "We need people to recognize we don't deal in black and white. We deal in various shades of grey ... and it's hard to build policy around that."
CSIS, he said, is trying to streamline bureaucracy, not to build more. The intelligence service recently arranged to have fewer officials sign off on the paperwork used to launch investigations.
Canada is in the process of prosecuting two alleged al-Qaeda inspired conspiracies. Last year, 18 suspects were arrested and the ringleaders accused of a plan to detonate truck bombs in Toronto. The trial remains far off.
Meanwhile, an Ottawa computer programmer who was arrested in 2004, has launched a series of constitutional challenges of terrorism laws that have delayed his trial.
SURVEILLANCE: BALANCING NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
State agents say inquests causing 'judicial terrorism'
COLIN FREEZE
June 9, 2007
Since 9/11, Canada has secured no convictions under the terrorism laws it passed two months after the attacks, but it has launched three judicial inquiries, all aimed at exploring the missteps of security agencies. This situation has left some state agents complaining it is they who have been put on trial.
How much supervision should be applied against agencies working in the shadow of surveillance and counterterrorism? Mindful of past oversteps, authorities are struggling to find better ways to vet wiretapping practices, to share information with foreign allies and to avoid any involvement in torture in overseas prisons.
Tomorrow, a security conference begins in Ottawa on adjudicating terrorism in democracies. It is being billed as the first event of its kind and the speakers, most of them judges from across North America and Europe, will address a common quandary - how to balance civil liberties with national security.
It's a fine balance. Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor, the Canadian judge who cleared former Syrian detainee Maher Arar of wrongdoing, will be one of the panelists describing the added scrutiny he's recommended for Canadian investigators. While his recommendations have been broadly praised, his inquiry and related ones have prompted some backlash from officials, who wonder whether Canada will retain the tools it needs to prevent attacks.
"The term I've used in the past is judicial terrorism," said Ben Soave, a recently retired RCMP chief superintendent, who argues that a debilitating damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't malaise has begun to hamper Canadian investigations. "The fear factor kicks in," he explained in an interview. "The fear of being tied up in another public inquiry."
"Legal jihad is the one we use," said Jack Hooper, a top official who recently left the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. CSIS, he said, is struggling to comply with the judicial inquiries atop of processes already laden with overseers. While hindsight may always be 20/20, he cautions that those who investigate cases in real time find it "difficult to connect the dots when the whole page is black."
Terrorism cases are, by nature, difficult to prosecute. Conspiracies are transnational, gathering evidence is tricky and the work is often left to agencies that operate in different legal regimes.
The bureaucratic infighting and artificial barriers - "stove pipes" in the jargon - that existed between Canadian security agencies in 1985 are now under review, by Mr. Justice John Major, after a failed criminal probe. The intelligence gaps of the day allowed Sikh extremists in Canada to place bombs on airplanes, killing 330 people.
In 2001, the peril of sharing imprecise or inaccurate information was highlighted when several Canadian Arabs were jailed in Syria after being arrested in international airports. Now free, all say they were tortured on the basis of false information from an investigation that started in Canada but led to no charges.
It was these episodes that gave rise to the O'Connor commission and its sequel, the inquiry into the other Syrian detentions now being led by Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci. Judge O'Connor's right-hand man for the Arar investigation, Paul Cavalluzzo, says that in cases like these, counterterrorism agencies have only themselves to blame for the scrutiny they invite.
"It's because of events they created, " he said, adding he finds references to "judicial terrorism" to be "hyperbole at its highest" and "unbelievably disrespectful."
But agencies anticipate they are about to be presented with a flurry of competing directives.
"[Judge] O'Connor will say white and [Judge] Major will say black, and at the end of the day the policy silence will be deafening and we'll be back trying to reconcile the right thing to do," said Mr. Hooper, who retired from CSIS in March. "We need people to recognize we don't deal in black and white. We deal in various shades of grey ... and it's hard to build policy around that."
CSIS, he said, is trying to streamline bureaucracy, not to build more. The intelligence service recently arranged to have fewer officials sign off on the paperwork used to launch investigations.
Canada is in the process of prosecuting two alleged al-Qaeda inspired conspiracies. Last year, 18 suspects were arrested and the ringleaders accused of a plan to detonate truck bombs in Toronto. The trial remains far off.
Meanwhile, an Ottawa computer programmer who was arrested in 2004, has launched a series of constitutional challenges of terrorism laws that have delayed his trial.
Big win for BC unions in court
Notice that this reactionary and ultimately illegal labor legislation was not passed by some Alberta radical Conservative administration but by provincial B.C. Liberals.
Big win for unions as ruling says bargaining protected
B.C. health unions welcome victory at Supreme Court of Canada
Last Updated: Friday, June 8, 2007 | 8:03 PM ET
CBC News
In a case that pitted B.C. health unions against highly contentious labour legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that the collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a 6-1 decision, the high court threw out sections of British Columbia's Bill 29, saying they interfere with that process "either by disregarding past processes of collective bargaining, by pre-emptively undermining future processes of collective bargaining, or both."
The law, passed by Gordon Campbell's Liberal government in 2002, allowed the province to tear up the B.C. Hospital Employees Union contract and led to the layoff of more than 8,000 unionized health-care workers. Two years later, under Bill 37, the government imposed a 15 per cent pay cut on HEU members.
Union hails ruling as 'huge victory'
"This is a huge victory for both health care and health-care workers because the Supreme Court of Canada said that Bill 29 violates the freedom of association protections in the charter, which cover the right to free collective bargaining," said HEU president Judy Darcy.
"In particular, the Supreme Court said that the denial of the right to negotiate around the issue of contracting out in health care was unconstitutional," she said.
Continue Article
The ruling gives the government 12 months to renegotiate contracts with the 38,000-member HEU, the largest of the unions fighting the legislation. Darcy said she wants the government to immediately halt a further 650 pending layoffs at several long-term-care facilities.
In addition to the section on contracting out, the court found that provisions in the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act dealing with layoffs and bumping rights also restricted the unions' right to collective bargaining.
The law allowed for contracting out of non-clinical services previously performed by union members and eased layoff notice provisions. It also prevented health unions from negotiating job security clauses in subsequent contracts.
In 2004, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled against the unions, saying the law does not violate their bargaining rights.
Bill 29 was pushed through the legislature in three days after the government said health-care employers needed more flexibility to cut costs.
The Supreme Court of Canada justices said there was little evidence that the government made any meaningful effort to consult with the unions before bringing in the legislation.
Public policy change, minister says
B.C. Health Minister George Abbott said he's disappointed with the ruling, adding that government officials are still assessing its implications.
But the minister acknowledged Friday's decision represents a significant change of course in Canadian labour law.
"There is no appealing the ruling. We will have to understand the ruling and attempt to construct public policy consistent with the ruling," he said.
Kenneth Thornicroft, a professor of labour law at the University of Victoria, said the judgment signals that the country's top court is willing to extend constitutional protections to collective bargaining rights.
"Governments still have room to manoeuver, so to speak, but if they are going to change existing collective bargaining agreements, they have a duty to meet with the union."
Workers may be entitled to compensation
He also told CBC News the ruling may mean thousands of laid-off HEU workers may be entitled to back pay and compensation.
"There may well be back pay that's owed. I'm not suggesting that every single employee is going to get their job back. I don't think that's going to happen. But there may well be measures of compensation that are going to be negotiated, and people may well be entitled to some form of back pay."
NDP Leader Carole James is calling on the Liberal government to recall the legislature to rescind Bill 29, in light of Friday's Supreme Court ruling.
"I think the first step of good faith that Gordon Campbell could do, in fact, is rescind Bill 29. That's the first step they could do, and then go back to the bargaining table.
"This gives them a year, but I think they don't have to wait a year. They could sit down and bargain right now, withdraw that bill, show that they were wrong, show that the Supreme Court was right and get on with improving health care."
James also said the government should put all contracting out in the health-care sector on hold.
Big win for unions as ruling says bargaining protected
B.C. health unions welcome victory at Supreme Court of Canada
Last Updated: Friday, June 8, 2007 | 8:03 PM ET
CBC News
In a case that pitted B.C. health unions against highly contentious labour legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that the collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a 6-1 decision, the high court threw out sections of British Columbia's Bill 29, saying they interfere with that process "either by disregarding past processes of collective bargaining, by pre-emptively undermining future processes of collective bargaining, or both."
The law, passed by Gordon Campbell's Liberal government in 2002, allowed the province to tear up the B.C. Hospital Employees Union contract and led to the layoff of more than 8,000 unionized health-care workers. Two years later, under Bill 37, the government imposed a 15 per cent pay cut on HEU members.
Union hails ruling as 'huge victory'
"This is a huge victory for both health care and health-care workers because the Supreme Court of Canada said that Bill 29 violates the freedom of association protections in the charter, which cover the right to free collective bargaining," said HEU president Judy Darcy.
"In particular, the Supreme Court said that the denial of the right to negotiate around the issue of contracting out in health care was unconstitutional," she said.
Continue Article
The ruling gives the government 12 months to renegotiate contracts with the 38,000-member HEU, the largest of the unions fighting the legislation. Darcy said she wants the government to immediately halt a further 650 pending layoffs at several long-term-care facilities.
In addition to the section on contracting out, the court found that provisions in the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act dealing with layoffs and bumping rights also restricted the unions' right to collective bargaining.
The law allowed for contracting out of non-clinical services previously performed by union members and eased layoff notice provisions. It also prevented health unions from negotiating job security clauses in subsequent contracts.
In 2004, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled against the unions, saying the law does not violate their bargaining rights.
Bill 29 was pushed through the legislature in three days after the government said health-care employers needed more flexibility to cut costs.
The Supreme Court of Canada justices said there was little evidence that the government made any meaningful effort to consult with the unions before bringing in the legislation.
Public policy change, minister says
B.C. Health Minister George Abbott said he's disappointed with the ruling, adding that government officials are still assessing its implications.
But the minister acknowledged Friday's decision represents a significant change of course in Canadian labour law.
"There is no appealing the ruling. We will have to understand the ruling and attempt to construct public policy consistent with the ruling," he said.
Kenneth Thornicroft, a professor of labour law at the University of Victoria, said the judgment signals that the country's top court is willing to extend constitutional protections to collective bargaining rights.
"Governments still have room to manoeuver, so to speak, but if they are going to change existing collective bargaining agreements, they have a duty to meet with the union."
Workers may be entitled to compensation
He also told CBC News the ruling may mean thousands of laid-off HEU workers may be entitled to back pay and compensation.
"There may well be back pay that's owed. I'm not suggesting that every single employee is going to get their job back. I don't think that's going to happen. But there may well be measures of compensation that are going to be negotiated, and people may well be entitled to some form of back pay."
NDP Leader Carole James is calling on the Liberal government to recall the legislature to rescind Bill 29, in light of Friday's Supreme Court ruling.
"I think the first step of good faith that Gordon Campbell could do, in fact, is rescind Bill 29. That's the first step they could do, and then go back to the bargaining table.
"This gives them a year, but I think they don't have to wait a year. They could sit down and bargain right now, withdraw that bill, show that they were wrong, show that the Supreme Court was right and get on with improving health care."
James also said the government should put all contracting out in the health-care sector on hold.
Munir El-Kassem
At least he wasn't imprisoned and found to be an Al Qaeda member by an immigration court and then rendered to Syria as was Maher Arar. It is hard to believe that supposed professionals at the border could act in such a bizarre way. Will the persons involved be punished. I wouldn't hold my breath. Perhaps they will come up with a wildly different story even. While investigating US treatment of Muslims an even worse case is Benamar Benatta who was sent back to the US--he says involuntarily- before his refugee hearing and held in jail and allegedly tortured. He was held for about five years. He is back in Canada now. He is not a Canadian citizen though.
Ottawa to look into U.S. treatment of Canadian Muslim
Last Updated: Friday, June 8, 2007 | 3:24 PM ET
CBC News
The government will look into the mistreatment of a Canadian Muslim detained by U.S. border officials last month, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Friday.
Munir El-Kassem, who is seeking an apology, said he was dehumanized and demeaned by American border authorities last month during a stopover at the Detroit airport en route to a conference in Milwaukee.
El-Kassem, a professor of dentistry at London's University of Western Ontario, said that when authorities found out he was Muslim, he was sternly ordered down a hallway into an interrogation room and questioned about whether he personally knew Osama bin Laden. He was also asked whether he believed in Allah or God.
"This was a very, very unfortunate incident," MacKay said Friday during question period, adding that Ottawa "will take the matter up" with U.S. border authorities.
El-Kassem, who was fingerprinted and detained for four hours, hopes his case will highlight the need for more interfaith dialogue.
With files from the Canadian Press
Ottawa to look into U.S. treatment of Canadian Muslim
Last Updated: Friday, June 8, 2007 | 3:24 PM ET
CBC News
The government will look into the mistreatment of a Canadian Muslim detained by U.S. border officials last month, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Friday.
Munir El-Kassem, who is seeking an apology, said he was dehumanized and demeaned by American border authorities last month during a stopover at the Detroit airport en route to a conference in Milwaukee.
El-Kassem, a professor of dentistry at London's University of Western Ontario, said that when authorities found out he was Muslim, he was sternly ordered down a hallway into an interrogation room and questioned about whether he personally knew Osama bin Laden. He was also asked whether he believed in Allah or God.
"This was a very, very unfortunate incident," MacKay said Friday during question period, adding that Ottawa "will take the matter up" with U.S. border authorities.
El-Kassem, who was fingerprinted and detained for four hours, hopes his case will highlight the need for more interfaith dialogue.
With files from the Canadian Press
An Update on Canada's Two Economies
As noted, Jackson is the chief economist for the Canadian Labour Congress. His article is much longer. It can be accessed here. Our trade deficit with China is even worse than that of the US considering the size of our economy. It looks as if we are becoming primarily a resource based economy, our traditional role and one that is encouraged b the provisions of NAFTA which forces us to share out resources.
An Update on Canada’s Two Economies - Implications for Workers and for Monetary Policy
Andrew Jackson
Chief Economist
Canadian Labour Congress
The Hidden Jobs Crisis
Superficially, the Canadian economy and labour market are doing well. Economic growth is running above 3% at an annual rate, despite the US slowdown. We have a low unemployment rate of just over 6% (6.1% in May) and a near all-time high employment rate of 63.4% ( This is the proportion of the working-age population with jobs.) The rate of new job creation continues to have been quite high in 2007 until recently, matching the demand for jobs coming from the entry of echo baby boomers into the workforce, high rates of immigration, and a desire for later retirement on the part of some older workers.
The Bank of Canada and many economists believe that the job market is very tight and that our economy is operating “above capacity,” pushing inflation above the target rate of 2%. The Consumer Price Index was up 2.2% year over year in April and the core rate, which strips out volatile items like food and energy, is running at 2.5%. The Bank of Canada said on May 29th that there is “excess demand” in the economy and that they will very likely raise interest rates in the near future. While the concept of operating “above capacity” takes into account more than the state of job market, continuing low unemployment and strong employment growth are driving fears of higher inflation.
Yet, as the Bank of Canada does recognize, wages are quite flat. And, inflation is a decidedly regional issue. In April, only Alberta had an inflation rate significantly above 2% (coming in at a very high 5.5%), and inflation is well below 2% in Ontario (1.8%) and Quebec (1.4%.) High inflation in Alberta is driven above all by soaring home prices, with the owned accommodation component up 17.7% in the past year.
From the perspective of working people, the real issue is not inflation but why apparently low unemployment and an apparently tight job market are not benefitting them. It is not that long ago that the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD all thought that an unemployment rate much below 8% would spark a sharp increase in real wages. But this is simply not happening.
In fact, most workers are not sharing in the growth of national income generated by the resource boom, jobs are becoming more insecure and precarious, and many good jobs are being lost to industrial restructuring and the crisis in the manufacturing sector. More than 250,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2002, and the pace of job loss has recently begun to accelerate. Unemployment may be low, but Canada faces a major crisis in terms of the quality of jobs. This crisis will be worsened if the Canadian dollar remains over-valued and interest rates are increased.
Boom and Bust: Resources, Trade and the Manufacturing Crisis.
The Canadian economy is being driven by a geographically and sectorally concentrated resource boom. Prices of oil and gas and many base metals have soared, leading to increased production and major investments in new capacity, most notably the Alberta tar sands. The boom is being driven mainly by increased global commodity prices as a result of strong Asian growth. These higher commodity prices, along with the huge US balance of payments deficit, have led to a major appreciation of the Canadian against the US dollar. Since 2002, the dollar has risen from a low of 62 cents US to a recent high of almost 95 cents. The high Canadian dollar is mainly a function of shifts in Canada’s terms of trade, plus the weakness of the US dollar. Monetary policy has also played a role, as detailed below. Since major Asian currencies (notably those of China, Japan and Korea) are tied to the US dollar, Canadian competitiveness with Asia has been severely eroded.
Non resource based manufacturing and the forest industry are experiencing a major crisis due to
a slowdown in exports to the US. This reflects slower growth in the US market for products like paper, lumber, and autos and parts, and a loss of the Canadian share of the US market to rising Asian imports because of the high Canadian dollar. Meanwhile, Asian producers have grabbed a much larger share of the Canadian domestic market for manufactured goods. Since 2002, the US share of Canadian imports has fallen from 72% to 65% as the fall of the US against the Canadian dollar has mainly benefitted Asian exporters.
A large deficit in the trade of manufactured goods - defined as non resource-based goods - has opened up since 2002 and our trade deficit with China and developing Asia is now greater as a share of the economy than that of the US. Our overall merchandise trade surplus has shrunk despite high energy and mineral prices, and we now import about $1.25 worth of manufactured goods for every $1 of manufactured exports. (Manufactured goods are defined here as machinery and equipment, consumer goods and auto products combined as opposed to resource-based and industrial goods.) We import $35 Billion worth of goods, mainly consumer goods and machinery and equipment - from China, but export just $7.7 Billion worth of goods - mainly resources - to that country in return. We also run large trade deficits with Korea, Japan and virtually every country in the world except the US, which is the almost exclusive buyer of our booming oil and gas exports. Laid on top of the problems caused by the high dollar are specific problems in the forest sector and the automotive sector, and the fact that many Asian markets for manufactured goods are not truly open to Canadian exports.
While some parts of manufacturing have remained profitable, the competitiveness squeeze caused by the high dollar and the huge and growing trade deficit with Asia has resulted in the loss of some 250,000 manufacturing jobs since the peak in 2002. Another 31,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in April and May of 2007 combined as the second round of the manufacturing jobs crisis has intensified. Jobs have been lost to plant closures and to layoffs caused by lower production, a corporate drive for intensified productivity in remaining operations, and outsourcing of production inputs to other countries as part of the creation of global value chains. More job losses are clearly on the way now that the dollar has breached the 90 cent barrier, and indeed many layoffs which have yet to take place have already been announced.
There is evidence that relatively few manufacturers are taking advantage of the high dollar to purchase mainly imported machinery and equipment in an effort to restructure their operations in a more positive way for workers. In fact, machinery and equipment investment fell sharply (by 1.5%) in the first quarter of 2007, and business machinery and equipment investment is heavily concentrated in the primary resource sector.
Manufacturing Matters for Workers
The conventional wisdom is that re-structuring of the manufacturing sector is not a major problem, and that the economy is “adjusting well.”
However, manufacturing is an important direct source of almost 2 million good jobs due to above average productivity, in turn the result of higher than average capital investment per worker and a strong base of skilled workers. Manufacturing operations also support many spin-off jobs, including good jobs in business services and in transportation. It is true that there are also good jobs in the resource sector, but mines and oil and gas production are extremely capital intensive operations. Once built, they will require relatively few workers. Between 2005 and 2006, the mining sector (including oil and gas operations) created just 20,000 direct new jobs and total employment is less than one tenth the level of manufacturing.
Manufacturing is often denigrated as part of an “old economy” which must be replaced by a new “knowledge-based economy”, but more than two-thirds of all business research and development in Canada takes place in manufacturing, especially in industries like aerospace and electrical machinery and equipment. Skill levels in manufacturing have been rising.
There are big structural problems down the road if we allow manufacturing to shrink too much, especially if growth is driven by an energy sector which is based on non renewable resources being extracted far too fast, in an environmentally unsustainable fashion, with little value-added in Canada. As a key case in point, if the Keystone pipeline proposal is approved by the National Energy Board, increased production of bitumen from the Alberta tar sands will be refined in the US, just as dwindling natural gas supplies from Alberta have been diverted from value-added, job-creating petro-chemical production to natural gas exports. Most of the gains of the recent energy boom are being captured by owners of oil and gas companies, many of them foreign-owned.
Resource-led economies are prone to boom-bust cycles and to have a relatively narrow core of good jobs, as opposed to diversified economies with a strong manufacturing base which are more stable and have relatively more jobs in higher productivity sectors. Part of the recently much-lamented productivity slowdown in Canada is due to the fact that most of the workers displaced from manufacturing are moving to much lower productivity jobs in private services
An Update on Canada’s Two Economies - Implications for Workers and for Monetary Policy
Andrew Jackson
Chief Economist
Canadian Labour Congress
The Hidden Jobs Crisis
Superficially, the Canadian economy and labour market are doing well. Economic growth is running above 3% at an annual rate, despite the US slowdown. We have a low unemployment rate of just over 6% (6.1% in May) and a near all-time high employment rate of 63.4% ( This is the proportion of the working-age population with jobs.) The rate of new job creation continues to have been quite high in 2007 until recently, matching the demand for jobs coming from the entry of echo baby boomers into the workforce, high rates of immigration, and a desire for later retirement on the part of some older workers.
The Bank of Canada and many economists believe that the job market is very tight and that our economy is operating “above capacity,” pushing inflation above the target rate of 2%. The Consumer Price Index was up 2.2% year over year in April and the core rate, which strips out volatile items like food and energy, is running at 2.5%. The Bank of Canada said on May 29th that there is “excess demand” in the economy and that they will very likely raise interest rates in the near future. While the concept of operating “above capacity” takes into account more than the state of job market, continuing low unemployment and strong employment growth are driving fears of higher inflation.
Yet, as the Bank of Canada does recognize, wages are quite flat. And, inflation is a decidedly regional issue. In April, only Alberta had an inflation rate significantly above 2% (coming in at a very high 5.5%), and inflation is well below 2% in Ontario (1.8%) and Quebec (1.4%.) High inflation in Alberta is driven above all by soaring home prices, with the owned accommodation component up 17.7% in the past year.
From the perspective of working people, the real issue is not inflation but why apparently low unemployment and an apparently tight job market are not benefitting them. It is not that long ago that the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD all thought that an unemployment rate much below 8% would spark a sharp increase in real wages. But this is simply not happening.
In fact, most workers are not sharing in the growth of national income generated by the resource boom, jobs are becoming more insecure and precarious, and many good jobs are being lost to industrial restructuring and the crisis in the manufacturing sector. More than 250,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2002, and the pace of job loss has recently begun to accelerate. Unemployment may be low, but Canada faces a major crisis in terms of the quality of jobs. This crisis will be worsened if the Canadian dollar remains over-valued and interest rates are increased.
Boom and Bust: Resources, Trade and the Manufacturing Crisis.
The Canadian economy is being driven by a geographically and sectorally concentrated resource boom. Prices of oil and gas and many base metals have soared, leading to increased production and major investments in new capacity, most notably the Alberta tar sands. The boom is being driven mainly by increased global commodity prices as a result of strong Asian growth. These higher commodity prices, along with the huge US balance of payments deficit, have led to a major appreciation of the Canadian against the US dollar. Since 2002, the dollar has risen from a low of 62 cents US to a recent high of almost 95 cents. The high Canadian dollar is mainly a function of shifts in Canada’s terms of trade, plus the weakness of the US dollar. Monetary policy has also played a role, as detailed below. Since major Asian currencies (notably those of China, Japan and Korea) are tied to the US dollar, Canadian competitiveness with Asia has been severely eroded.
Non resource based manufacturing and the forest industry are experiencing a major crisis due to
a slowdown in exports to the US. This reflects slower growth in the US market for products like paper, lumber, and autos and parts, and a loss of the Canadian share of the US market to rising Asian imports because of the high Canadian dollar. Meanwhile, Asian producers have grabbed a much larger share of the Canadian domestic market for manufactured goods. Since 2002, the US share of Canadian imports has fallen from 72% to 65% as the fall of the US against the Canadian dollar has mainly benefitted Asian exporters.
A large deficit in the trade of manufactured goods - defined as non resource-based goods - has opened up since 2002 and our trade deficit with China and developing Asia is now greater as a share of the economy than that of the US. Our overall merchandise trade surplus has shrunk despite high energy and mineral prices, and we now import about $1.25 worth of manufactured goods for every $1 of manufactured exports. (Manufactured goods are defined here as machinery and equipment, consumer goods and auto products combined as opposed to resource-based and industrial goods.) We import $35 Billion worth of goods, mainly consumer goods and machinery and equipment - from China, but export just $7.7 Billion worth of goods - mainly resources - to that country in return. We also run large trade deficits with Korea, Japan and virtually every country in the world except the US, which is the almost exclusive buyer of our booming oil and gas exports. Laid on top of the problems caused by the high dollar are specific problems in the forest sector and the automotive sector, and the fact that many Asian markets for manufactured goods are not truly open to Canadian exports.
While some parts of manufacturing have remained profitable, the competitiveness squeeze caused by the high dollar and the huge and growing trade deficit with Asia has resulted in the loss of some 250,000 manufacturing jobs since the peak in 2002. Another 31,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in April and May of 2007 combined as the second round of the manufacturing jobs crisis has intensified. Jobs have been lost to plant closures and to layoffs caused by lower production, a corporate drive for intensified productivity in remaining operations, and outsourcing of production inputs to other countries as part of the creation of global value chains. More job losses are clearly on the way now that the dollar has breached the 90 cent barrier, and indeed many layoffs which have yet to take place have already been announced.
There is evidence that relatively few manufacturers are taking advantage of the high dollar to purchase mainly imported machinery and equipment in an effort to restructure their operations in a more positive way for workers. In fact, machinery and equipment investment fell sharply (by 1.5%) in the first quarter of 2007, and business machinery and equipment investment is heavily concentrated in the primary resource sector.
Manufacturing Matters for Workers
The conventional wisdom is that re-structuring of the manufacturing sector is not a major problem, and that the economy is “adjusting well.”
However, manufacturing is an important direct source of almost 2 million good jobs due to above average productivity, in turn the result of higher than average capital investment per worker and a strong base of skilled workers. Manufacturing operations also support many spin-off jobs, including good jobs in business services and in transportation. It is true that there are also good jobs in the resource sector, but mines and oil and gas production are extremely capital intensive operations. Once built, they will require relatively few workers. Between 2005 and 2006, the mining sector (including oil and gas operations) created just 20,000 direct new jobs and total employment is less than one tenth the level of manufacturing.
Manufacturing is often denigrated as part of an “old economy” which must be replaced by a new “knowledge-based economy”, but more than two-thirds of all business research and development in Canada takes place in manufacturing, especially in industries like aerospace and electrical machinery and equipment. Skill levels in manufacturing have been rising.
There are big structural problems down the road if we allow manufacturing to shrink too much, especially if growth is driven by an energy sector which is based on non renewable resources being extracted far too fast, in an environmentally unsustainable fashion, with little value-added in Canada. As a key case in point, if the Keystone pipeline proposal is approved by the National Energy Board, increased production of bitumen from the Alberta tar sands will be refined in the US, just as dwindling natural gas supplies from Alberta have been diverted from value-added, job-creating petro-chemical production to natural gas exports. Most of the gains of the recent energy boom are being captured by owners of oil and gas companies, many of them foreign-owned.
Resource-led economies are prone to boom-bust cycles and to have a relatively narrow core of good jobs, as opposed to diversified economies with a strong manufacturing base which are more stable and have relatively more jobs in higher productivity sectors. Part of the recently much-lamented productivity slowdown in Canada is due to the fact that most of the workers displaced from manufacturing are moving to much lower productivity jobs in private services
Friday, June 8, 2007
Abdurahman Khadr: CIA spy
Abdurahman is the self-described black sheep of a family devoted to jihad. He was quite upset at his treatment in Guantanamo where he was treated as the rest for the most part so he would not be suspected as a spy.
CIA paid me to spy: Abdurahman Khadr
Last Updated: Friday, March 5, 2004 | 12:35 AM ET
CBC News
A Canadian man who says his family was connected to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda says he spent months working for the CIA as an informant.
Abdurahman Khadr made the comments Thursday in a documentary aired on CBC's The National.
In the first part of the documentary, aired on Wednesday, Abdurahman told CBC his father was old friends with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and that he and his brothers attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
Abdurahman says he was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan when the Taliban fell in November 2001. He lived in a CIA safehouse in Kabul for months, showing intelligence agents al-Qaeda locations around the city.
"There was this tour. They called it Abdurahman tour," he said. "I was famous for that."
Abdurahman says the CIA sent him to Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to spy on other inmates. When that failed, he says he was sent to Bosnia – on the CIA's payroll – to spy on suspected al-Qaeda members.
"You see how much people are working with them, what they're doing. They're buying weapons, they're selling weapons, they're recruiting people. You know, information, just any information at all," said Abdurahman.
When he asked to return to Canada, Abdurahman says the CIA dropped him off at the Canadian embassy in Sarajevo after making him promise to keep his CIA activities secret.
Aly Hindy, a Toronto imam and friend of the Khadr family, says he is appalled by what he has seen on the documentary. He hopes there isn't a backlash against Canada's Muslim community.
"It's very damaging for the family. I don't see how they could come back to Canada," said Hindy. "It's also damaging for all the people who supported them."
Some opposition politicians say the family shouldn't have the chance to return. Conservative MP Stockwell Day says the remaining Khadr family members should be barred from Canada.
"We have to signal to our allies that we are serious about fighting the war against terrorism and we will not put political considerations first. We'll put safety and security first," said Day.
Prime Minister Paul Martin says it's confidential whether Canadian intelligence agencies knew about the Khadr family's terrorist connections, but says it's a good example of why Canada is investing more in intelligence.
"[The] reason we created a new ministry of Public Safety [and Emergency Preparedness] is an indication of our response to the world in which we now live," said Martin. "We have focused on a border strategy, and greater funding of intelligence."
Abdurahman's mother, Maha, sister, Zaynab, and younger brother, Karim, are in Pakistan, living on handouts from friends. His brother Abdullah is believed hiding in Pakistan and brother Omar is a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. His father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was killed in an October 2003 shootout in Pakistan.
CIA paid me to spy: Abdurahman Khadr
Last Updated: Friday, March 5, 2004 | 12:35 AM ET
CBC News
A Canadian man who says his family was connected to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda says he spent months working for the CIA as an informant.
Abdurahman Khadr made the comments Thursday in a documentary aired on CBC's The National.
In the first part of the documentary, aired on Wednesday, Abdurahman told CBC his father was old friends with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and that he and his brothers attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
Abdurahman says he was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan when the Taliban fell in November 2001. He lived in a CIA safehouse in Kabul for months, showing intelligence agents al-Qaeda locations around the city.
"There was this tour. They called it Abdurahman tour," he said. "I was famous for that."
Abdurahman says the CIA sent him to Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to spy on other inmates. When that failed, he says he was sent to Bosnia – on the CIA's payroll – to spy on suspected al-Qaeda members.
"You see how much people are working with them, what they're doing. They're buying weapons, they're selling weapons, they're recruiting people. You know, information, just any information at all," said Abdurahman.
When he asked to return to Canada, Abdurahman says the CIA dropped him off at the Canadian embassy in Sarajevo after making him promise to keep his CIA activities secret.
Aly Hindy, a Toronto imam and friend of the Khadr family, says he is appalled by what he has seen on the documentary. He hopes there isn't a backlash against Canada's Muslim community.
"It's very damaging for the family. I don't see how they could come back to Canada," said Hindy. "It's also damaging for all the people who supported them."
Some opposition politicians say the family shouldn't have the chance to return. Conservative MP Stockwell Day says the remaining Khadr family members should be barred from Canada.
"We have to signal to our allies that we are serious about fighting the war against terrorism and we will not put political considerations first. We'll put safety and security first," said Day.
Prime Minister Paul Martin says it's confidential whether Canadian intelligence agencies knew about the Khadr family's terrorist connections, but says it's a good example of why Canada is investing more in intelligence.
"[The] reason we created a new ministry of Public Safety [and Emergency Preparedness] is an indication of our response to the world in which we now live," said Martin. "We have focused on a border strategy, and greater funding of intelligence."
Abdurahman's mother, Maha, sister, Zaynab, and younger brother, Karim, are in Pakistan, living on handouts from friends. His brother Abdullah is believed hiding in Pakistan and brother Omar is a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. His father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was killed in an October 2003 shootout in Pakistan.
Amnesty Internation: The Case of Omar Khadr
According to this account the Canadian authorities were not very helpful to Khadr. A brother was also at Guantanamo for some time as a spy. The next post is about him.
This is from the Amnesty website.Case Studies:
Who are the Guantánamo detainees?
Canadian national: Omar Khadr
Full name: Omar Khadr
Nationality: Canadian
Age: 19
"Young enemy combatants are treated in a manner appropriate to their age and status." Letter from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Butler to Amnesty International, July 2003.
Omar Khadr was taken into US custody when he was 15 years old. The US government has said that all detainees are "treated in a manner appropriate to their age and status". If this is true, then the case of Omar Khadr indicates that an "appropriate manner" involves torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as denial of any form of justice.
Perhaps because the USA is one of only two states that have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes that children need special safeguards and care, it feels free to trample on the human rights of juveniles in its "war on terror".
Omar Khadr is one of at least four and possibly nine of the current Guantánamo Bay detainees who were aged under 18 when detained. In April 2003 the US authorities revealed that children as young as 13 were detained in the prison. Reports of torture and attempted suicide by juvenile detainees undermine the claim by US authorities that they are receiving "special emotional and physical care". Contrary to international standards the Pentagon has defined child detainees as those aged under 16, rather than under 18.
Lieutenant Corporal Johnson, a spokesperson for the US military, stated in 2003 that, "until we ensure that they're no longer a threat, that there’s no pending law enforcement against them, that they’re no longer of intelligence value", the children would continue to be held.
Arrest and injury
Omar Khadr was wounded by US soldiers during a battle near Khost, Afghanistan, and taken into US custody on 27 July 2002. During his capture he was shot three times and is nearly blind in one eye as a result of his injuries. The US military says that Omar Khadr killed a US soldier, Sergeant Christopher J. Speer, in the operation.
Even though Omar Khadr was seriously injured, his interrogation started as soon as he was taken into custody. A US official stated that captured prisoners were so scared of abuse by US soldiers that they would talk without prompting. The prisoners "sometimes think we are going to cut out their livers" he said, giving Omar Khadr as an example of a prisoner "singing like a bird". Omar Khadr alleges that:
he asked for pain medication for his wounds but was refused;
during interrogations a bag was placed over his head and US personnel brought military dogs into the room to frighten him;
cold water was thrown on him;
his hands were tied above a door frame and he was forced to stand in this position for hours;
he was not allowed to use the bathroom and was forced to urinate on himself.
On 30 August 2002 Canadian officials sent a diplomatic note to the US authorities asking for consular access to Omar Khadr while he was held in the US airbase at Bagram, Afghanistan. The US denied the request on 9 September, saying only that they would notify the Canadian government if any Canadian citizens were transferred to Guantánamo Bay.
Guantánamo Bay
"Your life is in my hands." Interrogator to Omar Khadr in Guantánamo.
Omar Khadr was transferred to Guantánamo Bay in October 2002. He says that as soon as he arrived he was subjected to a range of torture and ill-treatment that included:
being short-shackled by his hands and feet to a bolt in the floor and left for five to six hours; occasionally a US officer would enter the room to laugh at him;
being kept in extremely cold rooms;
being lifted up by the neck while shackled, and then dropped to the floor;
being beaten by guards;
having a finger pressed into a pressure point in his neck, causing severe pain and inability to breathe.
He alleges that on one occasion guards left him short-shackled in an interrogation room until he urinated on himself. Guards then poured a pine scented cleaning fluid over him and used him as a "human mop" to clean up the mess. He says that he was not provided with clean clothes for several days after this degradation.
Omar Khadr was held in Camp V of Guantánamo Bay for over a year and, according to his lawyer, was only transferred recently to Camp IV. Camp V is the most notorious of the camps still operating at Guantánamo, styled on the harsh super-maximum security units on the US mainland. It is reserved for "high value" or "uncooperative" detainees.
Omar Khadr says of his time in Camp V:
the lights were kept on 24 hours a day and detainees were punished for trying to cover the lights with their clothes;
the air conditioning was kept on cold, which he says "destroyed his lungs";
he was routinely placed in isolation, sometimes for up to a month;
he was only allowed exercise once every four or five days, and in 2005 went without exercise in daylight hours for several months.
In addition to the beatings, isolation and frequent interrogations, Omar Khadr has been threatened with transfer to Afghanistan, Jordan and other places. He understood that these were threats of transfer to places where he would be tortured. He was also told that an Egyptian soldier, known to him only as Soldier Number 9, would be sent to rape him.
Hunger strike
In protest against his treatment and conditions at Guantánamo, Omar Khadr embarked on a hunger strike in July 2005 along with up to 200 other detainees. He went without food for 15 days, during which he was taken to the camp hospital twice to be given intravenous fluids. Omar Khadr lost 30 pounds (13.5kg) during the strike. Another detainee, Omar Deghayes, says he witnessed Omar Khadr vomiting blood.
During the hunger stirke the abuse did not stop. On one occasion, when guards were transferring him to the hospital, he was told to walk back to his cell. As he was too weak to do so, the guards allegedly lifted him off the ground and repeatedly kicked his leg.
The hunger strike ended in July when the US authorities apparently made a number of concessions to the detainees. The detainees resumed their hunger strike in August, however, because the camp authorities had not kept their promises and in response to particularly brutal abuse. One of those at the receiving end of a beating was Omar Khadr.
"Get ready for a miserable life." Interrogator to Omar Khadr in Guantánamo.
In November 2004, Omar Khadr’s lawyers gave him a series of psychological tests which were sent to independent psychiatrists for evaluation. In answer to some of the questions Omar Khadr stated that he had flashbacks, difficulty sleeping and had heard voices when no one was there.
Dr Eric W. Trupin, an expert on the mental health of juveniles in correctional facilities, evaluated the tests. He said Omar Khadr’s symptoms were "consistent with those exhibited by victims of torture" and called for "the immediate cessation of mental and physical abuse". He noted that the conditions in which Omar Khadr was held were particularly harmful to adolescents. He concluded that Omar Khadr had a mental disorder "including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder" and that he was "a moderate to high risk of suicide".
Government lawyers sought to cast doubt on the doctors’ diagnosis by saying they had relied on second hand testimony, overlooking the dark irony that the same government was denying any kind of independent medical evaluation.
Role of Canadian authorities
"I'm not here to help you. I'm not here to do anything for you. I'm just here to get information." Canadian interrogator to Omar Khadr in Guantánamo.
Flying in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Canadian government accepted the promise of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell, who stated that "all enemy combatants at Guantánamo are treated humanely" when writing to the Canadian authorities about Omar Khadr.
The Canadian government may not simply have neglected their responsibilities towards Omar Khadr. It may also have been complicit in his detention and ill-treatment.
Omar Khadr has been interrogated several times by Canadian officials. According to papers filed in a US court, Omar Khadr was visited by Canadian officials four times in four days, starting on 27 March 2003. Rather than asking about his health or if he wanted to send a message to his family, the Canadian officials interrogated him.
Canadian lawyers for Omar Khadr filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government, arguing that the authorities had violated the Canadian Constitution by "participating in interviews or interrogations without a lawyer being present, without [Omar Khadr] being allowed access to consular representation to get advice, without him being allowed to speak to family and friends".
Another lawsuit attempted to force the Canadian government to release all its files on Omar Khadr. The government argued that doing so would "be injurious to international relations, national defense or national security". A memo of William Hooper, Assistant Director of Operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which was made public as a result of this case, revealed the logic of the government’s neglect of the human rights of one of its citizens. It states that "any efforts to limit or fetter the service’s investigative powers… will hamper the service’s ability to advise the Canadian government".
The Canadian government has since written to Amnesty International stating that it has raised the allegations of abuse of Omar Khadr with the US government. It said it was engaged in "ongoing diplomatic discussions" with the US regarding his legal status and had requested an independent medical evaluation.
Legal issues
The US government alleges that Omar Khadr is an "al-Qa’ida fighter" and has classified him as an "enemy combatant". Despite this, it has refused to charge Omar Khadr with a recognizably criminal offence and give him a full and fair trial.
Instead, the US Department of Defense announced on 7 November 2005 that Omar Khadr is to be tried by military commission, though they will not seek the death penalty in his case. The military commissions are executive bodies with the power to hand down death sentences against which there is no right of appeal to any court. The military commissions are fundamentally flawed and cannot provide fair trials in accordance with internationally recognized standards
This is from the Amnesty website.Case Studies:
Who are the Guantánamo detainees?
Canadian national: Omar Khadr
Full name: Omar Khadr
Nationality: Canadian
Age: 19
"Young enemy combatants are treated in a manner appropriate to their age and status." Letter from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Butler to Amnesty International, July 2003.
Omar Khadr was taken into US custody when he was 15 years old. The US government has said that all detainees are "treated in a manner appropriate to their age and status". If this is true, then the case of Omar Khadr indicates that an "appropriate manner" involves torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as denial of any form of justice.
Perhaps because the USA is one of only two states that have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes that children need special safeguards and care, it feels free to trample on the human rights of juveniles in its "war on terror".
Omar Khadr is one of at least four and possibly nine of the current Guantánamo Bay detainees who were aged under 18 when detained. In April 2003 the US authorities revealed that children as young as 13 were detained in the prison. Reports of torture and attempted suicide by juvenile detainees undermine the claim by US authorities that they are receiving "special emotional and physical care". Contrary to international standards the Pentagon has defined child detainees as those aged under 16, rather than under 18.
Lieutenant Corporal Johnson, a spokesperson for the US military, stated in 2003 that, "until we ensure that they're no longer a threat, that there’s no pending law enforcement against them, that they’re no longer of intelligence value", the children would continue to be held.
Arrest and injury
Omar Khadr was wounded by US soldiers during a battle near Khost, Afghanistan, and taken into US custody on 27 July 2002. During his capture he was shot three times and is nearly blind in one eye as a result of his injuries. The US military says that Omar Khadr killed a US soldier, Sergeant Christopher J. Speer, in the operation.
Even though Omar Khadr was seriously injured, his interrogation started as soon as he was taken into custody. A US official stated that captured prisoners were so scared of abuse by US soldiers that they would talk without prompting. The prisoners "sometimes think we are going to cut out their livers" he said, giving Omar Khadr as an example of a prisoner "singing like a bird". Omar Khadr alleges that:
he asked for pain medication for his wounds but was refused;
during interrogations a bag was placed over his head and US personnel brought military dogs into the room to frighten him;
cold water was thrown on him;
his hands were tied above a door frame and he was forced to stand in this position for hours;
he was not allowed to use the bathroom and was forced to urinate on himself.
On 30 August 2002 Canadian officials sent a diplomatic note to the US authorities asking for consular access to Omar Khadr while he was held in the US airbase at Bagram, Afghanistan. The US denied the request on 9 September, saying only that they would notify the Canadian government if any Canadian citizens were transferred to Guantánamo Bay.
Guantánamo Bay
"Your life is in my hands." Interrogator to Omar Khadr in Guantánamo.
Omar Khadr was transferred to Guantánamo Bay in October 2002. He says that as soon as he arrived he was subjected to a range of torture and ill-treatment that included:
being short-shackled by his hands and feet to a bolt in the floor and left for five to six hours; occasionally a US officer would enter the room to laugh at him;
being kept in extremely cold rooms;
being lifted up by the neck while shackled, and then dropped to the floor;
being beaten by guards;
having a finger pressed into a pressure point in his neck, causing severe pain and inability to breathe.
He alleges that on one occasion guards left him short-shackled in an interrogation room until he urinated on himself. Guards then poured a pine scented cleaning fluid over him and used him as a "human mop" to clean up the mess. He says that he was not provided with clean clothes for several days after this degradation.
Omar Khadr was held in Camp V of Guantánamo Bay for over a year and, according to his lawyer, was only transferred recently to Camp IV. Camp V is the most notorious of the camps still operating at Guantánamo, styled on the harsh super-maximum security units on the US mainland. It is reserved for "high value" or "uncooperative" detainees.
Omar Khadr says of his time in Camp V:
the lights were kept on 24 hours a day and detainees were punished for trying to cover the lights with their clothes;
the air conditioning was kept on cold, which he says "destroyed his lungs";
he was routinely placed in isolation, sometimes for up to a month;
he was only allowed exercise once every four or five days, and in 2005 went without exercise in daylight hours for several months.
In addition to the beatings, isolation and frequent interrogations, Omar Khadr has been threatened with transfer to Afghanistan, Jordan and other places. He understood that these were threats of transfer to places where he would be tortured. He was also told that an Egyptian soldier, known to him only as Soldier Number 9, would be sent to rape him.
Hunger strike
In protest against his treatment and conditions at Guantánamo, Omar Khadr embarked on a hunger strike in July 2005 along with up to 200 other detainees. He went without food for 15 days, during which he was taken to the camp hospital twice to be given intravenous fluids. Omar Khadr lost 30 pounds (13.5kg) during the strike. Another detainee, Omar Deghayes, says he witnessed Omar Khadr vomiting blood.
During the hunger stirke the abuse did not stop. On one occasion, when guards were transferring him to the hospital, he was told to walk back to his cell. As he was too weak to do so, the guards allegedly lifted him off the ground and repeatedly kicked his leg.
The hunger strike ended in July when the US authorities apparently made a number of concessions to the detainees. The detainees resumed their hunger strike in August, however, because the camp authorities had not kept their promises and in response to particularly brutal abuse. One of those at the receiving end of a beating was Omar Khadr.
"Get ready for a miserable life." Interrogator to Omar Khadr in Guantánamo.
In November 2004, Omar Khadr’s lawyers gave him a series of psychological tests which were sent to independent psychiatrists for evaluation. In answer to some of the questions Omar Khadr stated that he had flashbacks, difficulty sleeping and had heard voices when no one was there.
Dr Eric W. Trupin, an expert on the mental health of juveniles in correctional facilities, evaluated the tests. He said Omar Khadr’s symptoms were "consistent with those exhibited by victims of torture" and called for "the immediate cessation of mental and physical abuse". He noted that the conditions in which Omar Khadr was held were particularly harmful to adolescents. He concluded that Omar Khadr had a mental disorder "including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder" and that he was "a moderate to high risk of suicide".
Government lawyers sought to cast doubt on the doctors’ diagnosis by saying they had relied on second hand testimony, overlooking the dark irony that the same government was denying any kind of independent medical evaluation.
Role of Canadian authorities
"I'm not here to help you. I'm not here to do anything for you. I'm just here to get information." Canadian interrogator to Omar Khadr in Guantánamo.
Flying in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Canadian government accepted the promise of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell, who stated that "all enemy combatants at Guantánamo are treated humanely" when writing to the Canadian authorities about Omar Khadr.
The Canadian government may not simply have neglected their responsibilities towards Omar Khadr. It may also have been complicit in his detention and ill-treatment.
Omar Khadr has been interrogated several times by Canadian officials. According to papers filed in a US court, Omar Khadr was visited by Canadian officials four times in four days, starting on 27 March 2003. Rather than asking about his health or if he wanted to send a message to his family, the Canadian officials interrogated him.
Canadian lawyers for Omar Khadr filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government, arguing that the authorities had violated the Canadian Constitution by "participating in interviews or interrogations without a lawyer being present, without [Omar Khadr] being allowed access to consular representation to get advice, without him being allowed to speak to family and friends".
Another lawsuit attempted to force the Canadian government to release all its files on Omar Khadr. The government argued that doing so would "be injurious to international relations, national defense or national security". A memo of William Hooper, Assistant Director of Operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which was made public as a result of this case, revealed the logic of the government’s neglect of the human rights of one of its citizens. It states that "any efforts to limit or fetter the service’s investigative powers… will hamper the service’s ability to advise the Canadian government".
The Canadian government has since written to Amnesty International stating that it has raised the allegations of abuse of Omar Khadr with the US government. It said it was engaged in "ongoing diplomatic discussions" with the US regarding his legal status and had requested an independent medical evaluation.
Legal issues
The US government alleges that Omar Khadr is an "al-Qa’ida fighter" and has classified him as an "enemy combatant". Despite this, it has refused to charge Omar Khadr with a recognizably criminal offence and give him a full and fair trial.
Instead, the US Department of Defense announced on 7 November 2005 that Omar Khadr is to be tried by military commission, though they will not seek the death penalty in his case. The military commissions are executive bodies with the power to hand down death sentences against which there is no right of appeal to any court. The military commissions are fundamentally flawed and cannot provide fair trials in accordance with internationally recognized standards
Two letters on the Khadr Case
U.S. just won't listen on Khadr
Column, June 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering that all his friends had been killed in the attack by the US it is hardly surprising Khadr threw a grenade. In the following post there is a description by Amnesty International of Khadr's case. Of course his family is notorious and there is little doubt of their sympathy for jihad and the father was associated with Bin Laden. Perhaps this explains the lack of outrage of Canadians at what is happening.
James Travers described the murder allegation against the then 15-year-old Omar Khadr as follows: "Khadr has been held since 2002, when he allegedly threw a grenade, killing medic Christopher Speer, 28, who was attending to wounded Afghans."
As I understand the factual situation, Khadr and others (probably Al Qaeda) were in a house that was attacked by American and Afghan forces. A gun battle ensued and bombs were called in. Everyone in the house was killed except Khadr, who was badly wounded. It is in that context that it is alleged Khadr threw the grenade that killed the medic and blinded, in one eye, an American soldier.
I have been a criminal defence counsel for more than 40 years. The facts as I know them do not sound like the basis for a murder charge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Copeland, Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. left scrambling in wake of dismissal
June 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of whether or not the charges against Omar Khadr go ahead, the whole idea that he is charged with murder and war crimes is rather surreal. He was 15 years old at the time. He was in a compound that was attacked by U.S. troops. Every other person whom he was with was killed. He was shot in the chest, twice.
Maybe Khadr threw a grenade and maybe he killed a U.S. soldier. But it was a war.
The whole thing reminds me of that great line from the Martin Sheen character in Apocalypse Now: "Charging a man with murder in this place is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kane Slater, Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column, June 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering that all his friends had been killed in the attack by the US it is hardly surprising Khadr threw a grenade. In the following post there is a description by Amnesty International of Khadr's case. Of course his family is notorious and there is little doubt of their sympathy for jihad and the father was associated with Bin Laden. Perhaps this explains the lack of outrage of Canadians at what is happening.
James Travers described the murder allegation against the then 15-year-old Omar Khadr as follows: "Khadr has been held since 2002, when he allegedly threw a grenade, killing medic Christopher Speer, 28, who was attending to wounded Afghans."
As I understand the factual situation, Khadr and others (probably Al Qaeda) were in a house that was attacked by American and Afghan forces. A gun battle ensued and bombs were called in. Everyone in the house was killed except Khadr, who was badly wounded. It is in that context that it is alleged Khadr threw the grenade that killed the medic and blinded, in one eye, an American soldier.
I have been a criminal defence counsel for more than 40 years. The facts as I know them do not sound like the basis for a murder charge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Copeland, Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. left scrambling in wake of dismissal
June 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of whether or not the charges against Omar Khadr go ahead, the whole idea that he is charged with murder and war crimes is rather surreal. He was 15 years old at the time. He was in a compound that was attacked by U.S. troops. Every other person whom he was with was killed. He was shot in the chest, twice.
Maybe Khadr threw a grenade and maybe he killed a U.S. soldier. But it was a war.
The whole thing reminds me of that great line from the Martin Sheen character in Apocalypse Now: "Charging a man with murder in this place is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kane Slater, Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should there be an inquiry into the RCMP
This article lists quite a good number of the specific instances where the RCMP seems to have been involved in wrongdoing. I doubt that Day will call another investigation though unless the pressure is much stronger. He will ride out the storm. I have always been irritated that nothing was done about the wrongdoing in the Arar case. In fact some people involved in the "mistakes" have been promoted. Imagine how much dirt is happening in the CSIS where nothing can be revealed most of the time because of national security.
Thu, June 7, 2007
Sex, lies and booze
By GREG WESTON
It's time for the feds to call an inquiry into the sad state of the RCMP.
What will it take for the Conservative government to order a public inquiry into the RCMP?
Apparently, it wasn't enough that senior Mounties were caught with their fingers in the pension pot, or that the brass approved secret bank accounts stashed with cash from the sponsorship scandal -- money used for scandalous expenditures.
One might have thought the trail of RCMP negligence and lies in the Maher Arar affair would have led directly to a public probe of rot and incompetence.
Instead, the first reaction of Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day was to give a big cheer to then-commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli for doing such a great job, aside from having presided over the worst sullying of the famous red tunic in more than 30 years.
And now this: RCMP officers have been getting a slap on the wrist for sexual assaults, firearms offences, drunk driving, beating up prisoners, fraud, lying and obstruction of justice.
Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show that of 114 Mounties found guilty of misconduct since 2005, only nine were ordered to resign.
The rest all rode off into the sunset with a reprimand and maybe few days of missing pay.
(We have no idea how many, if any, also faced criminal charges since thwarting legitimate requests for information is also part of the RCMP's lamentable legacy of late.)
As Sun Media correspondent Kathleen Harris reports, the documents show offences having been committed by all levels of the federal force, from civilians and constables all the way up to the brass.
In not a single case is there any indication of a demotion.
The issue here is not that police officers have broken the law and violated the most basic standards of conduct. In such a huge and diverse organization with more than 27,000 members, there are bound to be some bad apples and big mistakes.
Indeed, given the examples set by the RCMP brass in recent years, the wonder may be why crime and corruption is not far more rampant in the force.
What is the message the rank and file take from the brass pilfering the pension fund for a costly golf getaway?
What is acceptable conduct for the average cop when the highest echelons of command allowed Arar to be wrongly branded an al-Qaida terrorist, and then did nothing to help save him from a Syrian torture chamber?
What kind of image is projected by a commissioner who charges taxpayers $1,100 for hand-made riding boots and uses an RCMP plane like his own limo?
The issue is not that relatively few Mounties are breaking the law they are sworn to uphold; it's that the internal consequences are such a farce.
A constable found guilty of sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse got nothing but two reprimands over six years before finally getting the boot.
Others involved in assaults on prisoners suffered no more than a loss of 10 days' pay.
Drunk driving by a cop is so serious in the RCMP that it costs an average of a week's wages and a reprimand. One officer found guilty of drinking in his cruiser while in uniform and causing a disturbance lost 10 days' pay and got "a recommendation for transfer and supervision." Ouch.
Among the worst and most plentiful offenders are the RCMP officers caught lying on the job, a category that makes up almost 20 per cent of the total disciplinary file provided to Sun Media.
The entire judicial process and its ability to deliver a fair verdict turns in large measure on the truthful testimony of police. Yet not a single Mountie caught in official lies outside the courtroom was turfed from the force.
Day has said he will not hesitate to call an inquiry, "if warranted."
Surely, that is no longer in doubt. Anything less would be an abdication of the minister's responsibility, and an affront to the vast majority of the RCMP who serve this country with integrity and honour.
Thu, June 7, 2007
Sex, lies and booze
By GREG WESTON
It's time for the feds to call an inquiry into the sad state of the RCMP.
What will it take for the Conservative government to order a public inquiry into the RCMP?
Apparently, it wasn't enough that senior Mounties were caught with their fingers in the pension pot, or that the brass approved secret bank accounts stashed with cash from the sponsorship scandal -- money used for scandalous expenditures.
One might have thought the trail of RCMP negligence and lies in the Maher Arar affair would have led directly to a public probe of rot and incompetence.
Instead, the first reaction of Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day was to give a big cheer to then-commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli for doing such a great job, aside from having presided over the worst sullying of the famous red tunic in more than 30 years.
And now this: RCMP officers have been getting a slap on the wrist for sexual assaults, firearms offences, drunk driving, beating up prisoners, fraud, lying and obstruction of justice.
Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show that of 114 Mounties found guilty of misconduct since 2005, only nine were ordered to resign.
The rest all rode off into the sunset with a reprimand and maybe few days of missing pay.
(We have no idea how many, if any, also faced criminal charges since thwarting legitimate requests for information is also part of the RCMP's lamentable legacy of late.)
As Sun Media correspondent Kathleen Harris reports, the documents show offences having been committed by all levels of the federal force, from civilians and constables all the way up to the brass.
In not a single case is there any indication of a demotion.
The issue here is not that police officers have broken the law and violated the most basic standards of conduct. In such a huge and diverse organization with more than 27,000 members, there are bound to be some bad apples and big mistakes.
Indeed, given the examples set by the RCMP brass in recent years, the wonder may be why crime and corruption is not far more rampant in the force.
What is the message the rank and file take from the brass pilfering the pension fund for a costly golf getaway?
What is acceptable conduct for the average cop when the highest echelons of command allowed Arar to be wrongly branded an al-Qaida terrorist, and then did nothing to help save him from a Syrian torture chamber?
What kind of image is projected by a commissioner who charges taxpayers $1,100 for hand-made riding boots and uses an RCMP plane like his own limo?
The issue is not that relatively few Mounties are breaking the law they are sworn to uphold; it's that the internal consequences are such a farce.
A constable found guilty of sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse got nothing but two reprimands over six years before finally getting the boot.
Others involved in assaults on prisoners suffered no more than a loss of 10 days' pay.
Drunk driving by a cop is so serious in the RCMP that it costs an average of a week's wages and a reprimand. One officer found guilty of drinking in his cruiser while in uniform and causing a disturbance lost 10 days' pay and got "a recommendation for transfer and supervision." Ouch.
Among the worst and most plentiful offenders are the RCMP officers caught lying on the job, a category that makes up almost 20 per cent of the total disciplinary file provided to Sun Media.
The entire judicial process and its ability to deliver a fair verdict turns in large measure on the truthful testimony of police. Yet not a single Mountie caught in official lies outside the courtroom was turfed from the force.
Day has said he will not hesitate to call an inquiry, "if warranted."
Surely, that is no longer in doubt. Anything less would be an abdication of the minister's responsibility, and an affront to the vast majority of the RCMP who serve this country with integrity and honour.
Sarnia rejects funding to protect buses from terrorists
I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of this type of funding in terms of its opportunity costs? It is interesting the Quebeckers oppose Charest's tax cuts. The whole idea of tax cuts as I see it is just to make it difficult if not impossible to expand government social services.
Take it or they will come
>by Rick Salutin
June 8, 2007
On Monday, the city council of Sarnia, an Ontario border city of 80,000 with some oil refineries, voted 6-3 not to take $120,000 from the Harper government to fund a counterterrorism plan for their buses. Mayor Mike Bradley came out against the idea last Friday, calling it ludicrous. Sarnia's bridges and refineries are secured; this was just for the buses. Still, it was “tricky,” he says, since no one wants to look unvigilant on terror. It was a one-day story with a bounce, maybe another half a day. But like everything, it connects to everything.
For me, it resonated because I recalled that a Sarnia native, 37-year-old Corporal Brent Poland, died in Afghanistan in April, and a Sarnia councillor had said, “I guess we've really learned the price of freedom.” I wondered then what he could mean, or have thought he meant.
On Tuesday, CBC Radio's Carol Off, on As It Happens, asked the mayor if he'd have taken the money if it weren't for $40,000 that Sarnia would have had to kick in. He said no, because there was no way to “justify” it. Was that just fast footwork on his part? I don't think so. “Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? ” he asked on the phone yesterday. It turns out he's the Canadian mayor in Michael Moore's film about how U.S. gun violence is rooted in a culture of fear. “Those things were linked even in 2002, ” when the film was made, he says. “It's the same climate of fear.”
The way you fight fear, he thinks, is by striking at its real sources in people's lives, such as deprivation and inequality. You do that through social policies. Then he cites Bruce Springsteen—“no one wins unless everyone wins, ” as he had in the film. Springsteen is huge for him. He has served 19 years as mayor, he says, with Springsteen as “the soundtrack. ” When he met Toronto Mayor David Miller, he said it was like meeting a rock star. Mayor Miller asked which one, and he charitably answered, The Boss.
It's about taxes, too, he says, and using them intelligently. Last week, Quebec Premier Jean Charest voiced shock that Quebeckers massively oppose his plan to take almost $1-billion in federal money and give it back to them in tax breaks. They want it used for education and health care, instead. Only in Quebec, he moaned, as if his people are uniquely stunted. Yet, clearly for them, taxes aren't something you just want back; they're a resource to use for things you can't acquire individually— like Quebec's public, affordable child-care program, which is a role model for how to spend public money smartly. Anti-terror planning for small-town bus routes is not.
(Lethbridge Mayor Bob Tarleck, on the other hand, took the Harper bus money and told the CBC that any city that didn't do so has issued an “open invitation” to terrorists. Take It Or They Will Come. “If any terrorist is listening,” he said, “I'd discourage them from coming to Lethbridge.”).
But is there also a link between the death of Cpl. Poland (and of another local soldier last year in Afghanistan) and rejecting the bus money? Mayor Bradley says not. And the Poland family explicitly said they don't want his death to undermine the Canadian military mission there. So I'm the one making this link, which is, as the mayor might say, tricky.
Yet, I can't help wondering if people in Sarnia and elsewhere might start to ask whether they and their children are really paying the price of freedom, or rather of a whipped-up and ludicrous hysteria that contributes to and even creates what it fears most. We send our troops there, who mean well but seem to inevitably kill civilians and innocents, creating rage and rancour that lead to more Canadian deaths there and possibly here, too, as some think: Those Westerners will only leave us in peace if the terror reaches them at home. Was voting down the bus money an indirect (or unconscious) way to raise that delicate issue and avoid further Canadian deaths?
Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin's column usually appears every Friday.
Take it or they will come
>by Rick Salutin
June 8, 2007
On Monday, the city council of Sarnia, an Ontario border city of 80,000 with some oil refineries, voted 6-3 not to take $120,000 from the Harper government to fund a counterterrorism plan for their buses. Mayor Mike Bradley came out against the idea last Friday, calling it ludicrous. Sarnia's bridges and refineries are secured; this was just for the buses. Still, it was “tricky,” he says, since no one wants to look unvigilant on terror. It was a one-day story with a bounce, maybe another half a day. But like everything, it connects to everything.
For me, it resonated because I recalled that a Sarnia native, 37-year-old Corporal Brent Poland, died in Afghanistan in April, and a Sarnia councillor had said, “I guess we've really learned the price of freedom.” I wondered then what he could mean, or have thought he meant.
On Tuesday, CBC Radio's Carol Off, on As It Happens, asked the mayor if he'd have taken the money if it weren't for $40,000 that Sarnia would have had to kick in. He said no, because there was no way to “justify” it. Was that just fast footwork on his part? I don't think so. “Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? ” he asked on the phone yesterday. It turns out he's the Canadian mayor in Michael Moore's film about how U.S. gun violence is rooted in a culture of fear. “Those things were linked even in 2002, ” when the film was made, he says. “It's the same climate of fear.”
The way you fight fear, he thinks, is by striking at its real sources in people's lives, such as deprivation and inequality. You do that through social policies. Then he cites Bruce Springsteen—“no one wins unless everyone wins, ” as he had in the film. Springsteen is huge for him. He has served 19 years as mayor, he says, with Springsteen as “the soundtrack. ” When he met Toronto Mayor David Miller, he said it was like meeting a rock star. Mayor Miller asked which one, and he charitably answered, The Boss.
It's about taxes, too, he says, and using them intelligently. Last week, Quebec Premier Jean Charest voiced shock that Quebeckers massively oppose his plan to take almost $1-billion in federal money and give it back to them in tax breaks. They want it used for education and health care, instead. Only in Quebec, he moaned, as if his people are uniquely stunted. Yet, clearly for them, taxes aren't something you just want back; they're a resource to use for things you can't acquire individually— like Quebec's public, affordable child-care program, which is a role model for how to spend public money smartly. Anti-terror planning for small-town bus routes is not.
(Lethbridge Mayor Bob Tarleck, on the other hand, took the Harper bus money and told the CBC that any city that didn't do so has issued an “open invitation” to terrorists. Take It Or They Will Come. “If any terrorist is listening,” he said, “I'd discourage them from coming to Lethbridge.”).
But is there also a link between the death of Cpl. Poland (and of another local soldier last year in Afghanistan) and rejecting the bus money? Mayor Bradley says not. And the Poland family explicitly said they don't want his death to undermine the Canadian military mission there. So I'm the one making this link, which is, as the mayor might say, tricky.
Yet, I can't help wondering if people in Sarnia and elsewhere might start to ask whether they and their children are really paying the price of freedom, or rather of a whipped-up and ludicrous hysteria that contributes to and even creates what it fears most. We send our troops there, who mean well but seem to inevitably kill civilians and innocents, creating rage and rancour that lead to more Canadian deaths there and possibly here, too, as some think: Those Westerners will only leave us in peace if the terror reaches them at home. Was voting down the bus money an indirect (or unconscious) way to raise that delicate issue and avoid further Canadian deaths?
Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin's column usually appears every Friday.
The Bush Dollar
This article fails to mention the negative effect the rise in the Canadian dollar against the US dollar has on Canadian export companies and manufacturers in terms of their exports to the US. The decline will also aid US exporters. Since the demand for Canadian oil will continue "our" oil companies will do well.
The Bush dollar
As George W. Bush arrives in Germany for the G8 summit, the U.S. position vis à vis Europe is the weakest in over 100 years.
>by Duncan Cameron
June 6, 2007
The U.S. is losing two wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. No American presidential candidate has a credible plan for bringing a political settlement forward in Iraq, and the U.S. president has lost the domestic support of two-thirds of the population over his conduct of the Iraq war. NATO is helping the U.S. out in Afghanistan, but the war goes poorly, and it has little or no popular support in European nations.
The U.S. dollar is sinking. About one trillion U.S. dollars a year are flowing out into the world, as the U.S. buys about one trillion dollars more abroad that it sells to others. As U.S. dollar spending abroad goes up faster than the demand for these dollars, its price — the dollar foreign exchange rate — falls.
Most Canadians have noticed that the Canadian dollar will now buy you about 94 U.S. cents, while five years ago our money would only fetch 62 U.S. cents. But, our money did not so much go up, as the U.S. dollar went down.
The Canadian media do not tell us is what happens to our money against other world currencies: the British pound, Japanese yen, and the euro. In fact, Canada is probably the only industrialized country in the world where it is standard practice to ignore the value of our money against world currencies, and measure it only against the U.S. dollar. So Canadians get a distorted view of the world.
Compared to the euro, for instance, the Canadian dollar has fallen in value by a few cents, in the same five year period when it went up sharply against the U.S. dollar. Emotion matters in currency markets. As the U.S. dollar falls, people get scared it will fall some more, so they sell. Speculators smell U.S. dollar weakness, and sell dollars today, so as to buy them back later, for less, and pocket the difference as profit. Large scale selling will force down the price of anything. Speculators expect to win because the U.S. continues to spend abroad to buy assets, and fight wars.
Currencies are subject to confidence, and the world is losing confidence in President Bush; the U.S. dollar falls because of his perceived weakness, as well as because of the one trillion dollar deficit abroad.
Bush has defended American hyper-consumption of energy by waging war in the Middle East. His successor will have to plan how to reduce American energy use, deal with an emerging environmental consciousness, and figure out how to find a diplomatic settlement to the Iraq war. No wonder “Re-elect Al Gore” bumper stickers are selling well.
The weak dollar takes the initiative in world affairs away from the American president. To shore up its currency the U.S. needs support of the other world currency countries. While it bullies Japan, and dominates the U.K., the euro countries are capable of acting independently of the U.S.
At every G8 summit, the host is responsible for suggesting a priority agenda item. German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants this three-day meeting in the Baltic resort of Heiligendamm to be the climate change summit, and has called for specific targets to be accepted for greenhouse gas reductions.
Bush wants to derail international agreement on a green agenda this week, so he has announced his own climate change plan. Since this requires another timetable, effectively he has decided to pre-empt any concerted action at the Baltic summit. Instead of working with the host country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a Canadian plan, doing his small part to help Bush divide the summit.
Both Bush and Harper need the G8. Without a plan to stabilize the dollar against the euro, interest rates will have to go up in the U.S. to make holding dollars more attractive. Holding up the U.S. dollar through interest hikes will provoke a recession in the U.S., and hurt Canada.
Bankers and financiers are used to a world led by the U.S. Dollar weakness signals both that the euro is a much stronger currency and that the U.S. is no longer in a position to lead on the issues that matter to the world.
The Bush dollar represents reduced status for the U.S., and neither Bush nor Stephen Harper seem to recognize what this means: the age of unilateral American leadership in world affairs is about to end, poorly.
Duncan Cameron is associate publisher of rabble.ca. He writes from Vancouver.
The Bush dollar
As George W. Bush arrives in Germany for the G8 summit, the U.S. position vis à vis Europe is the weakest in over 100 years.
>by Duncan Cameron
June 6, 2007
The U.S. is losing two wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. No American presidential candidate has a credible plan for bringing a political settlement forward in Iraq, and the U.S. president has lost the domestic support of two-thirds of the population over his conduct of the Iraq war. NATO is helping the U.S. out in Afghanistan, but the war goes poorly, and it has little or no popular support in European nations.
The U.S. dollar is sinking. About one trillion U.S. dollars a year are flowing out into the world, as the U.S. buys about one trillion dollars more abroad that it sells to others. As U.S. dollar spending abroad goes up faster than the demand for these dollars, its price — the dollar foreign exchange rate — falls.
Most Canadians have noticed that the Canadian dollar will now buy you about 94 U.S. cents, while five years ago our money would only fetch 62 U.S. cents. But, our money did not so much go up, as the U.S. dollar went down.
The Canadian media do not tell us is what happens to our money against other world currencies: the British pound, Japanese yen, and the euro. In fact, Canada is probably the only industrialized country in the world where it is standard practice to ignore the value of our money against world currencies, and measure it only against the U.S. dollar. So Canadians get a distorted view of the world.
Compared to the euro, for instance, the Canadian dollar has fallen in value by a few cents, in the same five year period when it went up sharply against the U.S. dollar. Emotion matters in currency markets. As the U.S. dollar falls, people get scared it will fall some more, so they sell. Speculators smell U.S. dollar weakness, and sell dollars today, so as to buy them back later, for less, and pocket the difference as profit. Large scale selling will force down the price of anything. Speculators expect to win because the U.S. continues to spend abroad to buy assets, and fight wars.
Currencies are subject to confidence, and the world is losing confidence in President Bush; the U.S. dollar falls because of his perceived weakness, as well as because of the one trillion dollar deficit abroad.
Bush has defended American hyper-consumption of energy by waging war in the Middle East. His successor will have to plan how to reduce American energy use, deal with an emerging environmental consciousness, and figure out how to find a diplomatic settlement to the Iraq war. No wonder “Re-elect Al Gore” bumper stickers are selling well.
The weak dollar takes the initiative in world affairs away from the American president. To shore up its currency the U.S. needs support of the other world currency countries. While it bullies Japan, and dominates the U.K., the euro countries are capable of acting independently of the U.S.
At every G8 summit, the host is responsible for suggesting a priority agenda item. German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants this three-day meeting in the Baltic resort of Heiligendamm to be the climate change summit, and has called for specific targets to be accepted for greenhouse gas reductions.
Bush wants to derail international agreement on a green agenda this week, so he has announced his own climate change plan. Since this requires another timetable, effectively he has decided to pre-empt any concerted action at the Baltic summit. Instead of working with the host country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a Canadian plan, doing his small part to help Bush divide the summit.
Both Bush and Harper need the G8. Without a plan to stabilize the dollar against the euro, interest rates will have to go up in the U.S. to make holding dollars more attractive. Holding up the U.S. dollar through interest hikes will provoke a recession in the U.S., and hurt Canada.
Bankers and financiers are used to a world led by the U.S. Dollar weakness signals both that the euro is a much stronger currency and that the U.S. is no longer in a position to lead on the issues that matter to the world.
The Bush dollar represents reduced status for the U.S., and neither Bush nor Stephen Harper seem to recognize what this means: the age of unilateral American leadership in world affairs is about to end, poorly.
Duncan Cameron is associate publisher of rabble.ca. He writes from Vancouver.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Foreign trained doctors ask for discrimination probe in Quebec
If there is doctor shortage one would think that residencies would be available. Maybe the problem is that doctors tend to press for residencies in urban areas when in many rural areas doctors are needed. Anyway you would think a doctor working at a university as a research fellow and who passed all the exams should be able to get a residency.
Foreign-trained MDs request discrimination probe
Last Updated: Thursday, June 7, 2007 | 3:48 PM ET
CBC News
A coalition of foreign-trained doctors in Quebec says they are being systematically discriminated against when applying for hospital residency programs, and they want the province's human rights tribunal to investigate.
"We want to stay here, but the system in Quebec is especially tough, and not reasonable tough," said Behzad Mansouri, who said he was a successful family doctor in Iran before he moved to Quebec with his family.
He's now a research fellow in neuroscience at McGill University. He wants to work as a doctor in a hospital but he's been shut out of getting a residency, he said.
Many foreign-trained doctors are never told why they are refused a residency, said Dr. Comlan Amouzou, a spokesperson for the Coalition of Associations for Foreign Trained Doctors.
"They pass all the exams, so no need to close the door — no need anymore. We are are Canadian. We are not foreigners," Amouzou said.
The coalition on Wednesday morning asked Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal to investigate how international medical graduates are chosen for residencies.
The system must change to address the shortage of doctors in the province, he said.
Foreign-trained MDs request discrimination probe
Last Updated: Thursday, June 7, 2007 | 3:48 PM ET
CBC News
A coalition of foreign-trained doctors in Quebec says they are being systematically discriminated against when applying for hospital residency programs, and they want the province's human rights tribunal to investigate.
"We want to stay here, but the system in Quebec is especially tough, and not reasonable tough," said Behzad Mansouri, who said he was a successful family doctor in Iran before he moved to Quebec with his family.
He's now a research fellow in neuroscience at McGill University. He wants to work as a doctor in a hospital but he's been shut out of getting a residency, he said.
Many foreign-trained doctors are never told why they are refused a residency, said Dr. Comlan Amouzou, a spokesperson for the Coalition of Associations for Foreign Trained Doctors.
"They pass all the exams, so no need to close the door — no need anymore. We are are Canadian. We are not foreigners," Amouzou said.
The coalition on Wednesday morning asked Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal to investigate how international medical graduates are chosen for residencies.
The system must change to address the shortage of doctors in the province, he said.
Defence minister refuses to budge on Afghan detainees
o'Connor always seems to be battling for credibility. At least the Canadian forces are not deeply integrated with the US as far as policy is concerned. However, the Canadian public would be better informed in this case if we were! I suppose the idea behind the Canadian policy is that the information would somehow help the enemy but it seems that if it helps them at all it would be minimally helpful.
Defence minister refuses to budge on Afghan detainees
Last Updated: Thursday, June 7, 2007 | 4:22 PM ET
CBC News
Liberal opposition MPs continued to hound Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor on Thursday to release information regarding Afghan detainees captured by Canadian forces, but he said he won't co-operate because the issue is "a matter of national security."
During question period in the House of Commons, O'Connor reiterated what he said on Wednesday before a joint meeting of the parliamentary committees on national defence, and foreign affairs and international development.
"We do not intend to do anything to impede military operations in Afghanistan," he told the Commons.
Leading the latest attack was Ontario Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla, who accused the Conservatives of a coverup.
"After repeatedly misleading this House, the ministers of defence, of foreign affairs and public safety were forced to admit there are two new detainee capture cases [involving abuse allegation]," she said. "Will the minister tell us how many detainees have been captured by Canadian forces or will they admit once and for all that they just do not know?"
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told the Commons that Canadian officials have had "unfettered and private" visits to holding facilities in Kabul and Kandahar since reaching a new monitoring agreement last month.
Continue Article
On Wednesday, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day told the joint parliamentary meeting that four prisoners have complained of mistreatment since they were captured by Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan, and that the Red Cross and Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission were investigating.
Day revealed news of the first two cases of alleged abuse in April.
No numbers of alleged abuses released
While both Day and MacKay were forthcoming with numbers on abuse allegations, no information has been released on how many prisoners Canada has captured while fighting the Taliban.
"The U.S. issues a press release about every detainee they capture," Dhalla said Thursday in a statement directed at O'Connor. "Why does this minister refuse to be as transparent?"
The defence minister said that in Afghanistan, each country involved in defence and reconstruction determines its own policies.
"In the case of Canada, the military has determined that the public release of information on detainees would be detrimental to their military operations," he said. "The operational chain of command has a responsibility for deciding what kind of information is releasable or not. It is a military decision, not a political decision."
Since the beginning of May, the U.S. military has issued 25 media releases detailing the capture of at least 100 Afghan prisoners.
Information in the releases is posted on a U.S. army website and includes:
Where the captures occurred.
The number and type of weapons seized.
Information about the prisoners, such as rank and sometimes even
Defence minister refuses to budge on Afghan detainees
Last Updated: Thursday, June 7, 2007 | 4:22 PM ET
CBC News
Liberal opposition MPs continued to hound Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor on Thursday to release information regarding Afghan detainees captured by Canadian forces, but he said he won't co-operate because the issue is "a matter of national security."
During question period in the House of Commons, O'Connor reiterated what he said on Wednesday before a joint meeting of the parliamentary committees on national defence, and foreign affairs and international development.
"We do not intend to do anything to impede military operations in Afghanistan," he told the Commons.
Leading the latest attack was Ontario Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla, who accused the Conservatives of a coverup.
"After repeatedly misleading this House, the ministers of defence, of foreign affairs and public safety were forced to admit there are two new detainee capture cases [involving abuse allegation]," she said. "Will the minister tell us how many detainees have been captured by Canadian forces or will they admit once and for all that they just do not know?"
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told the Commons that Canadian officials have had "unfettered and private" visits to holding facilities in Kabul and Kandahar since reaching a new monitoring agreement last month.
Continue Article
On Wednesday, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day told the joint parliamentary meeting that four prisoners have complained of mistreatment since they were captured by Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan, and that the Red Cross and Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission were investigating.
Day revealed news of the first two cases of alleged abuse in April.
No numbers of alleged abuses released
While both Day and MacKay were forthcoming with numbers on abuse allegations, no information has been released on how many prisoners Canada has captured while fighting the Taliban.
"The U.S. issues a press release about every detainee they capture," Dhalla said Thursday in a statement directed at O'Connor. "Why does this minister refuse to be as transparent?"
The defence minister said that in Afghanistan, each country involved in defence and reconstruction determines its own policies.
"In the case of Canada, the military has determined that the public release of information on detainees would be detrimental to their military operations," he said. "The operational chain of command has a responsibility for deciding what kind of information is releasable or not. It is a military decision, not a political decision."
Since the beginning of May, the U.S. military has issued 25 media releases detailing the capture of at least 100 Afghan prisoners.
Information in the releases is posted on a U.S. army website and includes:
Where the captures occurred.
The number and type of weapons seized.
Information about the prisoners, such as rank and sometimes even
TILMA submission to Sask. govt. Committee on the Economy
This is a submission by the economist Erin Weir showing some of the dangers of TILMA.
Submission to the Standing Committee on the Economy: TILMA’s Supposed Economic Benefits
Introduction
The Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee on the Economy is studying the possibility of joining the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which came into force between Alberta and British Columbia on April 1, 2007. This agreement gives business sweeping powers to sue provincial governments, municipalities and school boards over a wide range of public policies, laws and regulations.
TILMA’s supporters acknowledge that “signing TILMA would reduce our sovereignty” through “reduced legislative independence”, but argue that the agreement’s economic benefits would outweigh these costs. However, since there are almost no trade barriers between Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC, the agreement would deliver virtually no economic gain. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) recommends that Saskatchewan not join TILMA and instead work with other provinces toward transparent, incremental solutions to any minor inter-provincial barriers that may exist.
In February 2007, the CLC and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a paper demonstrating that alleged inter-provincial barriers have almost no measurable economic effect. This paper revealed that the Conference Board’s projection of TILMA adding $4.8 billion to BC’s economy was based on shoddy methodology and arithmetic errors.
In April 2007, the Government of Saskatchewan released another Conference Board study, which estimates that TILMA would add $291 million to Saskatchewan’s economy, along with two independent reviews of this study. This submission examines the myth of inter-provincial barriers, TILMA’s promised economic benefits for Saskatchewan, the Conference Board’s methodology, and TILMA’s costs.
The Myth of Inter-provincial Barriers
Canadians share common legal and financial institutions and are free to live and work anywhere in the country. There are neither customs stations along provincial borders nor tariffs on inter-provincial trade. The federal government has constitutional jurisdiction over inter-provincial trade and the courts have consistently struck down provincial attempts to obstruct it.
What many commentators call “inter-provincial barriers” are, in fact, regulatory differences between provinces. According to the Conference Board’s Saskatchewan study, “the most cited existing trade impediment was lack of inter-provincial harmonization of government standards and regulation. Most commonly, this barrier takes the form of occupational certification requirements, registration fees and standards and different inter-provincial freight load and dimension requirements.”
Federalism is intended to allow different provincial governments to establish different regulations in response to different provincial conditions. For example, Saskatchewan has less than one-third of Alberta’s population, but thousands more kilometers of highway than Alberta. In maintaining its highway system, Saskatchewan might reasonably choose to regulate the “freight load and dimension” of heavy trucks more stringently than Alberta regulates them.
In fields where provincial governments wish to harmonize their regulations, they can do so by jointly adopting common standards. This process hardly requires a sweeping agreement like TILMA that purports to apply to all areas of the economy with a few exceptions. TILMA would achieve harmonization by defining regulatory differences as trade barriers and pushing provincial standards down to the lowest common denominator.
Whether or not regulatory differences among provinces are justified, there is no evidence that they impede inter-provincial trade. Relative to distance and market size, trade between provinces is as intense as trade within provinces. By contrast, provinces are twelve times more likely to trade goods and thirty times more likely to trade services with each other than with American states.
From 2000 through 2006, Saskatchewan’s exports increased by 28% to other countries and by 38% to other provinces. Saskatchewan’s imports increased by 18% from other countries and by 31% from other provinces. Despite the rising prices of commodities that Saskatchewan sells onto world markets, inter-provincial trade is growing faster than international trade. This fact contradicts the allegation that inter-provincial barriers are obstructing inter-provincial trade.
Research conducted for the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, chaired by Donald Macdonald, concluded that inter-provincial barriers cost no more than 0.05% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 1985, the Macdonald Commission reported: “The direct costs of existing interprovincial trade barriers appear to be small . . . their quantitative effect on the level of economic activity in Canada is not sufficient to justify a call for major reform.” Since the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) has eliminated most of the barriers that existed at that time, whatever remains is certainly not sufficient to justify TILMA’s sweeping, legalistic approach.
A study conducted by the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association in 1991 concluded that inter-provincial barriers cost $6.5 billion - or 1% of national GDP at the time - including preferential procurement policies ($5 billion), agricultural-marketing boards ($1 billion), and local-production requirements for alcoholic beverages ($0.5 billion). However, this study omitted the benefits of these policies to local suppliers, farmers, and breweries. Taking account of such benefits revealed the net cost of these barriers to be no more than 0.05% of GDP.
Since 1991, local-production requirements for alcoholic beverages and some agricultural-marketing boards have been eliminated. In any case, TILMA exempts existing marketing boards. The AIT has liberalized most provincial procurement, but exempts Crown Corporations. Signing TILMA would prevent the Crowns from favouring Saskatchewan-based suppliers. According to the Conference Board: “Crown Corporations and [some] government organizations have a ‘Buy Local’ policy, which favours local companies and suppliers. This policy would not hold under TILMA, potentially disadvantaging small local firms.”
There are very few genuine inter-provincial barriers. Academic analysis suggests that removing all barriers among all provinces would increase GDP by less than 0.05%.
TILMA’s Promised Economic Benefits
The Conference Board projects that TILMA will add $291 million (at 1997 basic prices) and 4,400 jobs to Saskatchewan’s economy. These figures seem implausibly optimistic for three reasons.
First, $291 million (at 1997 basic prices) equals 0.92% of Saskatchewan’s GDP. In other words, the Conference Board is suggesting that a “free trade” agreement with two other provinces would produce gains twenty times greater than those previously estimated for complete “free trade” with all provinces. John Helliwell, a former President of the Canadian Economics Association, judges “the maximum gain to be a small fraction of the 0.92% of GDP estimated by the Conference Board.”
Second, TILMA would handicap Saskatchewan’s economic-development policies. Due to Alberta’s vast resource wealth, businesses located there enjoy lower tax rates and higher levels of public spending. Although Saskatchewan cannot match Alberta on this basis, it can currently use targeted incentives to compete in specific sectors. TILMA would not address the omnipresent subsidy created by Alberta’s overall tax rates and public spending, but would prohibit the more focused and affordable “business subsidies” provided by Saskatchewan.
According to Dr. Helliwell, “increases in mutual access will always tend to favour firms located in the richer province. This fundamental non-neutrality means that the playing field can never be level between Alberta and Saskatchewan firms. This may indeed be the most important fact affecting the evaluation of TILMA by Saskatchewan, even though it is not mentioned in the Conference Board report.” By aggravating this disadvantage, TILMA could slightly reduce Saskatchewan’s GDP rather than slightly increasing it.
Third, Saskatchewan imports substantially more from its prospective TILMA partners than it exports to them. Since no significant inter-provincial barriers exist, TILMA would not significantly increase trade flows. However, if TILMA fulfilled its objective of expanding these flows, it would increase Saskatchewan’s trade deficits.
The most recent figures dividing Saskatchewan’s inter-provincial exports and imports by province are for 2003. In that year, Saskatchewan’s international trade surplus offset most of its inter-provincial trade deficit, leaving a net deficit of only $43 million. If Saskatchewan had exported 10% more to Alberta and BC and imported 10% more from these two provinces, this deficit would have been $288 million.
Other things being equal, a larger trade deficit (or smaller trade surplus) implies a lower GDP and less employment. Larger trade flows might increase productivity, which might increase GDP. However, productivity does not create jobs: “since the gain in GDP is coming from productivity increases, the increase in GDP is not based on hiring more workers but on reducing the number of workers required to produce a given amount of GDP.” Even if TILMA were to increase GDP, it is completely unclear how it could create 4,400 jobs.
The Conference Board’s Methodology
Prior to its Saskatchewan report, the Conference Board had estimated that TILMA would increase BC’s GDP by 3.8%. The CLC’s critique of this document was endorsed by Patrick Grady, a former senior federal Finance official and eminently mainstream economist who describes the BC estimate as “not credible.” Dr. Helliwell independently drew the same conclusion regarding the Saskatchewan report: “there is no empirical support for the Conference Board estimates of GDP and employment changes.”
Eric Howe, the other independent reviewer, came to the opposite conclusion: “the Conference Board’s analysis has underestimated the economic benefits to Saskatchewan of signing TILMA.” One might be tempted to view the Conference Board’s projections as a reasonable compromise between the opposing perspectives of Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Howe. However, a detailed examination of the Conference Board’s work strongly supports Dr. Helliwell’s interpretation.
The Conference Board has displayed little confidence in its own numbers. It recently forecast that BC’s economy will grow at the same moderate pace (2.2% annually) as the national economy, which seems inconsistent with the expectation of a 3.8% boost from TILMA. The Conference Board offers no explanation of why “free trade” with Alberta would expand BC’s economy by 3.8% but “free trade” with both Alberta and BC would expand Saskatchewan’s economy by one-quarter of this percentage: 0.92%.
In fact, both quantitative projections were arbitrarily inferred from small qualitative surveys of business organizations and government agencies. The Conference Board reports that its Saskatchewan “survey was sent to a total of 118 persons: 17 representing the public sector and 111 from the private sector.” Unfortunately, 17 added to 111 does not equal 118. An appendix seems to indicate that there were, in fact, 17 public-sector and 101 private-sector entities.
The Conference Board then explains, “we received a total of 34 responses, 9 from the public sector and 23 from the private sector.” Unfortunately, 9 added to 23 does not equal 34. It subsequently reports receiving 31 complete responses: 9 from the public sector and 22 from the private sector. Perhaps it also received 3 incomplete responses from the private sector, for a grand total of 34 responses.
More than three-quarters of private-sector entities did not respond to the survey, which suggests that alleged inter-provincial barriers are not an important issue for Saskatchewan business. Larger national surveys confirm this point. In the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters’ 2005-2006 “Management Issues Survey”, the top five economic-policy priorities had each been identified by more than 30% of companies. By contrast, only 13% of companies identified “reduce barriers to trade and investment” as a priority. Since some of these companies presumably meant international barriers, the proportion concerned about inter-provincial barriers must have been very low.
Dr. Howe argues, “Some Saskatchewan businesses that have successfully sought protection from outside competition will not be pleased by the lowering of trade barriers, giving them an incentive to under report the gains from Saskatchewan signing TILMA.” If these unnamed barriers exist, most other businesses would have an analogous incentive to overstate the gains from signing TILMA. In fact, most of the private-sector organizations surveyed by the Conference Board were not individual businesses, but chambers of commerce and industry associations which tend to be strongly committed to deregulation. Clearly, the “self-serving biases” among respondents would generally favour TILMA.
The Conference Board used these survey results to “score” eleven industries in seven regions of Saskatchewan. As Dr. Helliwell notes, “Since there was no research or quantitative base for this translation, it has no empirical basis, and hence cannot be treated as evidence.” The Conference Board combines its regional/industrial scores into a province-wide score, which it then treats as a percentage of GDP.
Dr. Howe defends this approach as follows: “There are arbitrary elements to the quantitative analysis by the Conference Board just as there are arbitrary elements to any quantitative analysis.” Conventional approaches to projecting the benefits of “free trade” agreements are at least based on explicit, if arbitrary, models of how the economy works and how much trade barriers cost. By contrast, the Conference Board does not even pretend to estimate the cost of existing barriers. Dr. Howe’s position seems to be that, since some arbitrariness is inevitable, any amount of arbitrariness is acceptable.
However, even if one accepts the Conference Board’s basic approach, most of its projected benefits are based on industries that are exempt from TILMA or that barely engage in inter-provincial trade. TILMA’s exemptions in the areas of energy, mining, forestry and fishing throw into question the high positive scores assigned to “primary” industry outside Regina and Saskatoon as well as the consistently positive scores assigned to “utilities”. Factoring out these nonexistent benefits reduces the credibility of forecast spin-offs for industries that barely engage in inter-provincial trade.
Retail and wholesale trade serve local consumers rather than out-of-province markets. To the extent that commercial services can be traded, the Conference Board suggests that Saskatchewan suppliers will suffer due to “increased competition from the more mature commercial services sectors of Alberta and BC.” Nevertheless, it assigns strongly positive scores to the “wholesale and retail trade” and “commercial services” industries in all seven regions. Factoring out these industries along with “primary” industry and “utilities” reduces the Conference Board’s projected benefits by three-quarters in Regina and Saskatoon, and by half in other regions.
In summary, the Conference Board sent questionnaires to a significant number of business organizations and some government agencies, miscounted the relatively few responses it received, used these responses to generate high scores for industries that do not engage in inter-provincial trade or that are largely exempt from TILMA, and then treated the final score as a fraction of GDP. This procedure does not inspire confidence in the Conference Board’s estimates. Since Dr. Howe presents no additional evidence, one is left with Dr. Helliwell’s conclusion that the impact of TILMA on Saskatchewan’s GDP would certainly be small and might be negative.
TILMA’s Costs
Whether TILMA slightly increases or slightly reduces GDP, its most important effect would be to allow private interests to sue the provincial government, Crown corporations, municipal governments, and school boards for up to $5 million for each alleged violation. Rather than simply preventing measures that discriminate among provinces, TILMA purports to “eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.” Almost everything governments do influences the market and could be challenged under the agreement.
TILMA’s extremely broad language will be interpreted and applied by commercial tribunals that meet behind closed doors. While such tribunals may be necessary in adjudicating international disputes, there is no good reason to empower them in place of Canadian courts in adjudicating internal disputes. At worst, these tribunals may interpret TILMA in ways that severely restrict public policy. At best, uncertainty about possible interpretations would have a chilling effect on policy-makers who fear being sued.
To quote Dr. Helliwell, “unrestricted private access to the dispute mechanisms, combined with a commitment to neutrality of treatment, would make almost any provincial or municipal programme subject to attack. This is no doubt part of the appeal of TILMA for some. However, using expensive legal procedures to advance particular private interests is surely not the best way of providing a non-instrusive and efficient network of trade-supporting public rules and institutions.”
Defenders of TILMA argue that its exceptions would shield important public policies from challenge. However, these exceptions protect a policy only if the government can prove that there is no conceivable alternative policy. In practice, it would be extremely difficult for government to prove this negative case and extremely easy for business to suggest possible policy alternatives.
TILMA’s dispute-settlement process is based on the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) Chapter 11. A recent review of this notorious chapter concluded, “there are ongoing challenges related to water exports, log export controls, public postal services, Canada’s agricultural supply management system, Canadian cultural policy, and other matters which were supposedly excluded from the NAFTA.” There is no reason to believe that TILMA’s exceptions will be any more effective.
Conclusion
TILMA’s tiny potential economic benefit pales in comparison to its significant economic, social and environmental costs. Fortunately, there are far better approaches to internal trade. A more sensible process would begin with Saskatchewan businesses compiling publicly-available lists of inter-provincial barriers. Citizens could respond by assessing the economic, social and environmental purposes of these alleged barriers.
The Government of Saskatchewan could then work with other provincial governments and/or the federal government to reform measures that entail economic costs, but do not serve important policy goals. Indeed, provincial governments have already established mutually recognized credentials in many skilled trades and are currently working to harmonize licensing by professional bodies to enhance labour mobility. The few remaining inter-provincial barriers are so small that any measurable benefit could be achieved only by addressing them on a multilateral basis among all provinces.
Submission to the Standing Committee on the Economy: TILMA’s Supposed Economic Benefits
Introduction
The Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee on the Economy is studying the possibility of joining the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which came into force between Alberta and British Columbia on April 1, 2007. This agreement gives business sweeping powers to sue provincial governments, municipalities and school boards over a wide range of public policies, laws and regulations.
TILMA’s supporters acknowledge that “signing TILMA would reduce our sovereignty” through “reduced legislative independence”, but argue that the agreement’s economic benefits would outweigh these costs. However, since there are almost no trade barriers between Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC, the agreement would deliver virtually no economic gain. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) recommends that Saskatchewan not join TILMA and instead work with other provinces toward transparent, incremental solutions to any minor inter-provincial barriers that may exist.
In February 2007, the CLC and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a paper demonstrating that alleged inter-provincial barriers have almost no measurable economic effect. This paper revealed that the Conference Board’s projection of TILMA adding $4.8 billion to BC’s economy was based on shoddy methodology and arithmetic errors.
In April 2007, the Government of Saskatchewan released another Conference Board study, which estimates that TILMA would add $291 million to Saskatchewan’s economy, along with two independent reviews of this study. This submission examines the myth of inter-provincial barriers, TILMA’s promised economic benefits for Saskatchewan, the Conference Board’s methodology, and TILMA’s costs.
The Myth of Inter-provincial Barriers
Canadians share common legal and financial institutions and are free to live and work anywhere in the country. There are neither customs stations along provincial borders nor tariffs on inter-provincial trade. The federal government has constitutional jurisdiction over inter-provincial trade and the courts have consistently struck down provincial attempts to obstruct it.
What many commentators call “inter-provincial barriers” are, in fact, regulatory differences between provinces. According to the Conference Board’s Saskatchewan study, “the most cited existing trade impediment was lack of inter-provincial harmonization of government standards and regulation. Most commonly, this barrier takes the form of occupational certification requirements, registration fees and standards and different inter-provincial freight load and dimension requirements.”
Federalism is intended to allow different provincial governments to establish different regulations in response to different provincial conditions. For example, Saskatchewan has less than one-third of Alberta’s population, but thousands more kilometers of highway than Alberta. In maintaining its highway system, Saskatchewan might reasonably choose to regulate the “freight load and dimension” of heavy trucks more stringently than Alberta regulates them.
In fields where provincial governments wish to harmonize their regulations, they can do so by jointly adopting common standards. This process hardly requires a sweeping agreement like TILMA that purports to apply to all areas of the economy with a few exceptions. TILMA would achieve harmonization by defining regulatory differences as trade barriers and pushing provincial standards down to the lowest common denominator.
Whether or not regulatory differences among provinces are justified, there is no evidence that they impede inter-provincial trade. Relative to distance and market size, trade between provinces is as intense as trade within provinces. By contrast, provinces are twelve times more likely to trade goods and thirty times more likely to trade services with each other than with American states.
From 2000 through 2006, Saskatchewan’s exports increased by 28% to other countries and by 38% to other provinces. Saskatchewan’s imports increased by 18% from other countries and by 31% from other provinces. Despite the rising prices of commodities that Saskatchewan sells onto world markets, inter-provincial trade is growing faster than international trade. This fact contradicts the allegation that inter-provincial barriers are obstructing inter-provincial trade.
Research conducted for the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, chaired by Donald Macdonald, concluded that inter-provincial barriers cost no more than 0.05% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 1985, the Macdonald Commission reported: “The direct costs of existing interprovincial trade barriers appear to be small . . . their quantitative effect on the level of economic activity in Canada is not sufficient to justify a call for major reform.” Since the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) has eliminated most of the barriers that existed at that time, whatever remains is certainly not sufficient to justify TILMA’s sweeping, legalistic approach.
A study conducted by the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association in 1991 concluded that inter-provincial barriers cost $6.5 billion - or 1% of national GDP at the time - including preferential procurement policies ($5 billion), agricultural-marketing boards ($1 billion), and local-production requirements for alcoholic beverages ($0.5 billion). However, this study omitted the benefits of these policies to local suppliers, farmers, and breweries. Taking account of such benefits revealed the net cost of these barriers to be no more than 0.05% of GDP.
Since 1991, local-production requirements for alcoholic beverages and some agricultural-marketing boards have been eliminated. In any case, TILMA exempts existing marketing boards. The AIT has liberalized most provincial procurement, but exempts Crown Corporations. Signing TILMA would prevent the Crowns from favouring Saskatchewan-based suppliers. According to the Conference Board: “Crown Corporations and [some] government organizations have a ‘Buy Local’ policy, which favours local companies and suppliers. This policy would not hold under TILMA, potentially disadvantaging small local firms.”
There are very few genuine inter-provincial barriers. Academic analysis suggests that removing all barriers among all provinces would increase GDP by less than 0.05%.
TILMA’s Promised Economic Benefits
The Conference Board projects that TILMA will add $291 million (at 1997 basic prices) and 4,400 jobs to Saskatchewan’s economy. These figures seem implausibly optimistic for three reasons.
First, $291 million (at 1997 basic prices) equals 0.92% of Saskatchewan’s GDP. In other words, the Conference Board is suggesting that a “free trade” agreement with two other provinces would produce gains twenty times greater than those previously estimated for complete “free trade” with all provinces. John Helliwell, a former President of the Canadian Economics Association, judges “the maximum gain to be a small fraction of the 0.92% of GDP estimated by the Conference Board.”
Second, TILMA would handicap Saskatchewan’s economic-development policies. Due to Alberta’s vast resource wealth, businesses located there enjoy lower tax rates and higher levels of public spending. Although Saskatchewan cannot match Alberta on this basis, it can currently use targeted incentives to compete in specific sectors. TILMA would not address the omnipresent subsidy created by Alberta’s overall tax rates and public spending, but would prohibit the more focused and affordable “business subsidies” provided by Saskatchewan.
According to Dr. Helliwell, “increases in mutual access will always tend to favour firms located in the richer province. This fundamental non-neutrality means that the playing field can never be level between Alberta and Saskatchewan firms. This may indeed be the most important fact affecting the evaluation of TILMA by Saskatchewan, even though it is not mentioned in the Conference Board report.” By aggravating this disadvantage, TILMA could slightly reduce Saskatchewan’s GDP rather than slightly increasing it.
Third, Saskatchewan imports substantially more from its prospective TILMA partners than it exports to them. Since no significant inter-provincial barriers exist, TILMA would not significantly increase trade flows. However, if TILMA fulfilled its objective of expanding these flows, it would increase Saskatchewan’s trade deficits.
The most recent figures dividing Saskatchewan’s inter-provincial exports and imports by province are for 2003. In that year, Saskatchewan’s international trade surplus offset most of its inter-provincial trade deficit, leaving a net deficit of only $43 million. If Saskatchewan had exported 10% more to Alberta and BC and imported 10% more from these two provinces, this deficit would have been $288 million.
Other things being equal, a larger trade deficit (or smaller trade surplus) implies a lower GDP and less employment. Larger trade flows might increase productivity, which might increase GDP. However, productivity does not create jobs: “since the gain in GDP is coming from productivity increases, the increase in GDP is not based on hiring more workers but on reducing the number of workers required to produce a given amount of GDP.” Even if TILMA were to increase GDP, it is completely unclear how it could create 4,400 jobs.
The Conference Board’s Methodology
Prior to its Saskatchewan report, the Conference Board had estimated that TILMA would increase BC’s GDP by 3.8%. The CLC’s critique of this document was endorsed by Patrick Grady, a former senior federal Finance official and eminently mainstream economist who describes the BC estimate as “not credible.” Dr. Helliwell independently drew the same conclusion regarding the Saskatchewan report: “there is no empirical support for the Conference Board estimates of GDP and employment changes.”
Eric Howe, the other independent reviewer, came to the opposite conclusion: “the Conference Board’s analysis has underestimated the economic benefits to Saskatchewan of signing TILMA.” One might be tempted to view the Conference Board’s projections as a reasonable compromise between the opposing perspectives of Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Howe. However, a detailed examination of the Conference Board’s work strongly supports Dr. Helliwell’s interpretation.
The Conference Board has displayed little confidence in its own numbers. It recently forecast that BC’s economy will grow at the same moderate pace (2.2% annually) as the national economy, which seems inconsistent with the expectation of a 3.8% boost from TILMA. The Conference Board offers no explanation of why “free trade” with Alberta would expand BC’s economy by 3.8% but “free trade” with both Alberta and BC would expand Saskatchewan’s economy by one-quarter of this percentage: 0.92%.
In fact, both quantitative projections were arbitrarily inferred from small qualitative surveys of business organizations and government agencies. The Conference Board reports that its Saskatchewan “survey was sent to a total of 118 persons: 17 representing the public sector and 111 from the private sector.” Unfortunately, 17 added to 111 does not equal 118. An appendix seems to indicate that there were, in fact, 17 public-sector and 101 private-sector entities.
The Conference Board then explains, “we received a total of 34 responses, 9 from the public sector and 23 from the private sector.” Unfortunately, 9 added to 23 does not equal 34. It subsequently reports receiving 31 complete responses: 9 from the public sector and 22 from the private sector. Perhaps it also received 3 incomplete responses from the private sector, for a grand total of 34 responses.
More than three-quarters of private-sector entities did not respond to the survey, which suggests that alleged inter-provincial barriers are not an important issue for Saskatchewan business. Larger national surveys confirm this point. In the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters’ 2005-2006 “Management Issues Survey”, the top five economic-policy priorities had each been identified by more than 30% of companies. By contrast, only 13% of companies identified “reduce barriers to trade and investment” as a priority. Since some of these companies presumably meant international barriers, the proportion concerned about inter-provincial barriers must have been very low.
Dr. Howe argues, “Some Saskatchewan businesses that have successfully sought protection from outside competition will not be pleased by the lowering of trade barriers, giving them an incentive to under report the gains from Saskatchewan signing TILMA.” If these unnamed barriers exist, most other businesses would have an analogous incentive to overstate the gains from signing TILMA. In fact, most of the private-sector organizations surveyed by the Conference Board were not individual businesses, but chambers of commerce and industry associations which tend to be strongly committed to deregulation. Clearly, the “self-serving biases” among respondents would generally favour TILMA.
The Conference Board used these survey results to “score” eleven industries in seven regions of Saskatchewan. As Dr. Helliwell notes, “Since there was no research or quantitative base for this translation, it has no empirical basis, and hence cannot be treated as evidence.” The Conference Board combines its regional/industrial scores into a province-wide score, which it then treats as a percentage of GDP.
Dr. Howe defends this approach as follows: “There are arbitrary elements to the quantitative analysis by the Conference Board just as there are arbitrary elements to any quantitative analysis.” Conventional approaches to projecting the benefits of “free trade” agreements are at least based on explicit, if arbitrary, models of how the economy works and how much trade barriers cost. By contrast, the Conference Board does not even pretend to estimate the cost of existing barriers. Dr. Howe’s position seems to be that, since some arbitrariness is inevitable, any amount of arbitrariness is acceptable.
However, even if one accepts the Conference Board’s basic approach, most of its projected benefits are based on industries that are exempt from TILMA or that barely engage in inter-provincial trade. TILMA’s exemptions in the areas of energy, mining, forestry and fishing throw into question the high positive scores assigned to “primary” industry outside Regina and Saskatoon as well as the consistently positive scores assigned to “utilities”. Factoring out these nonexistent benefits reduces the credibility of forecast spin-offs for industries that barely engage in inter-provincial trade.
Retail and wholesale trade serve local consumers rather than out-of-province markets. To the extent that commercial services can be traded, the Conference Board suggests that Saskatchewan suppliers will suffer due to “increased competition from the more mature commercial services sectors of Alberta and BC.” Nevertheless, it assigns strongly positive scores to the “wholesale and retail trade” and “commercial services” industries in all seven regions. Factoring out these industries along with “primary” industry and “utilities” reduces the Conference Board’s projected benefits by three-quarters in Regina and Saskatoon, and by half in other regions.
In summary, the Conference Board sent questionnaires to a significant number of business organizations and some government agencies, miscounted the relatively few responses it received, used these responses to generate high scores for industries that do not engage in inter-provincial trade or that are largely exempt from TILMA, and then treated the final score as a fraction of GDP. This procedure does not inspire confidence in the Conference Board’s estimates. Since Dr. Howe presents no additional evidence, one is left with Dr. Helliwell’s conclusion that the impact of TILMA on Saskatchewan’s GDP would certainly be small and might be negative.
TILMA’s Costs
Whether TILMA slightly increases or slightly reduces GDP, its most important effect would be to allow private interests to sue the provincial government, Crown corporations, municipal governments, and school boards for up to $5 million for each alleged violation. Rather than simply preventing measures that discriminate among provinces, TILMA purports to “eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.” Almost everything governments do influences the market and could be challenged under the agreement.
TILMA’s extremely broad language will be interpreted and applied by commercial tribunals that meet behind closed doors. While such tribunals may be necessary in adjudicating international disputes, there is no good reason to empower them in place of Canadian courts in adjudicating internal disputes. At worst, these tribunals may interpret TILMA in ways that severely restrict public policy. At best, uncertainty about possible interpretations would have a chilling effect on policy-makers who fear being sued.
To quote Dr. Helliwell, “unrestricted private access to the dispute mechanisms, combined with a commitment to neutrality of treatment, would make almost any provincial or municipal programme subject to attack. This is no doubt part of the appeal of TILMA for some. However, using expensive legal procedures to advance particular private interests is surely not the best way of providing a non-instrusive and efficient network of trade-supporting public rules and institutions.”
Defenders of TILMA argue that its exceptions would shield important public policies from challenge. However, these exceptions protect a policy only if the government can prove that there is no conceivable alternative policy. In practice, it would be extremely difficult for government to prove this negative case and extremely easy for business to suggest possible policy alternatives.
TILMA’s dispute-settlement process is based on the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) Chapter 11. A recent review of this notorious chapter concluded, “there are ongoing challenges related to water exports, log export controls, public postal services, Canada’s agricultural supply management system, Canadian cultural policy, and other matters which were supposedly excluded from the NAFTA.” There is no reason to believe that TILMA’s exceptions will be any more effective.
Conclusion
TILMA’s tiny potential economic benefit pales in comparison to its significant economic, social and environmental costs. Fortunately, there are far better approaches to internal trade. A more sensible process would begin with Saskatchewan businesses compiling publicly-available lists of inter-provincial barriers. Citizens could respond by assessing the economic, social and environmental purposes of these alleged barriers.
The Government of Saskatchewan could then work with other provincial governments and/or the federal government to reform measures that entail economic costs, but do not serve important policy goals. Indeed, provincial governments have already established mutually recognized credentials in many skilled trades and are currently working to harmonize licensing by professional bodies to enhance labour mobility. The few remaining inter-provincial barriers are so small that any measurable benefit could be achieved only by addressing them on a multilateral basis among all provinces.
Actors protest Global's fall lineup
Marred by protest? Enlivened maybe. Canadian content often just means imitation of the shows meant for mass audiences made in the US. Since private Canadian stations and even the CBC are dependent on advertising you cannot expect much content that hasn't mass appeal so that unless you can format a news show of talking heads in the manner of FOX news rather than CPAC you won't have much news coverage. A lot of CBC news is now just public interest fluff or sensationalism. There are still a few in depth documentaries but even they are changing it seems. A recent documentary on Afghanistan struck me as such. TV is about selling advertising. Of course you can sell Canadian content as in Tim Horton's but that is about it! Actually until recently Horton's was part of Wendy's international based in the US.
CANWEST TV
TheStar.com - entertainment - Global's fall launch marred by protest
Global's fall launch marred by protest
Actors union demands more homegrown programming while network unveils lineup
Jun 07, 2007 04:30 AM
Jim Bawden
television columnist
Canadian TV stars, including Peter Keleghan, Gordon Pinsent, Shirley Douglas, Colin Mochrie and Wendy Crewson, came out in force yesterday for CanWest MediaWorks' fall TV preview at Massey Hall.
Crewson said the protest by members of ACTRA was not targeted at Global specifically, but Canadian broadcasters in general.
"Our airwaves are now filled with American shows 24-7," complained the actor, who has roles in ReGenesis and the film Away From Her.
"We're here to say that they have a responsibility to the Canadian public out of the millions and millions of dollars they make from advertising, by showing American shows, to put some back into Canadian content." Crewson said. "We need to hear our stories, we need to see our people and our stories on the airwaves during prime-time hours.
Inside, Barbara Williams, CanWest senior vice-president of programming, was announcing an increased commitment to grow Canadian series and specials for Global TV and the recently rebranded E! (formerly Hamilton's CHCH-TV).
"We want to work more with U.S. cable networks on developing scripted drama series," Williams told the Star. "Like Painkiller Jane (with the U.S. Sci Fi network)."
Global did air the Manitoba-made Falcon Beach, but it was cancelled after a U.S. network pulled out.
Williams pointed to the new half-hour comedy 'Da Kink In My Hair, based on trey anthony's award-winning play. Global will position it Sunday nights at 7:30. She also noted current homegrown series, The Best Years, airing Tuesdays at 10.
New Canadian series set to debut this fall include the Halifax-based Search and Rescue, the coming-of-age comedy About A Girl and a BBC-co-production, Burn Up, described as an "oil industry thriller."
In January 2008, Global's 5:30 p.m. national newscast with Kevin Newman moves to Ottawa from Vancouver. "At least I'm going; the executive editor and his team remain in B.C.," Newman said.
Global's U.S. picks include five new hour dramas, Journeyman with Kevin McKidd as a modern-day time traveller; Jimmy Smits in the Cane; Damian Lewis as a detective back on the force after years in prison in Life; Canterbury's Law with Julianna Margulies (ER) as a pugnacious attorney; and Swingtown with Canadian Molly Parker.
The network added one new U.S. comedy, Back to You with Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton.
E!'s new U.S. series include K-Ville, Cashmere Mafia (from Sex and the City producer Darren Star), Kid Nation, Bionic Woman, Viva Laughlin, In Plain Sight and Life IsWild.
Williams said she dropped Without a Trace and Two and a Half Men (both picked up by CTV) because the price was too high and both shows had passed their peaks.
CANWEST TV
TheStar.com - entertainment - Global's fall launch marred by protest
Global's fall launch marred by protest
Actors union demands more homegrown programming while network unveils lineup
Jun 07, 2007 04:30 AM
Jim Bawden
television columnist
Canadian TV stars, including Peter Keleghan, Gordon Pinsent, Shirley Douglas, Colin Mochrie and Wendy Crewson, came out in force yesterday for CanWest MediaWorks' fall TV preview at Massey Hall.
Crewson said the protest by members of ACTRA was not targeted at Global specifically, but Canadian broadcasters in general.
"Our airwaves are now filled with American shows 24-7," complained the actor, who has roles in ReGenesis and the film Away From Her.
"We're here to say that they have a responsibility to the Canadian public out of the millions and millions of dollars they make from advertising, by showing American shows, to put some back into Canadian content." Crewson said. "We need to hear our stories, we need to see our people and our stories on the airwaves during prime-time hours.
Inside, Barbara Williams, CanWest senior vice-president of programming, was announcing an increased commitment to grow Canadian series and specials for Global TV and the recently rebranded E! (formerly Hamilton's CHCH-TV).
"We want to work more with U.S. cable networks on developing scripted drama series," Williams told the Star. "Like Painkiller Jane (with the U.S. Sci Fi network)."
Global did air the Manitoba-made Falcon Beach, but it was cancelled after a U.S. network pulled out.
Williams pointed to the new half-hour comedy 'Da Kink In My Hair, based on trey anthony's award-winning play. Global will position it Sunday nights at 7:30. She also noted current homegrown series, The Best Years, airing Tuesdays at 10.
New Canadian series set to debut this fall include the Halifax-based Search and Rescue, the coming-of-age comedy About A Girl and a BBC-co-production, Burn Up, described as an "oil industry thriller."
In January 2008, Global's 5:30 p.m. national newscast with Kevin Newman moves to Ottawa from Vancouver. "At least I'm going; the executive editor and his team remain in B.C.," Newman said.
Global's U.S. picks include five new hour dramas, Journeyman with Kevin McKidd as a modern-day time traveller; Jimmy Smits in the Cane; Damian Lewis as a detective back on the force after years in prison in Life; Canterbury's Law with Julianna Margulies (ER) as a pugnacious attorney; and Swingtown with Canadian Molly Parker.
The network added one new U.S. comedy, Back to You with Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton.
E!'s new U.S. series include K-Ville, Cashmere Mafia (from Sex and the City producer Darren Star), Kid Nation, Bionic Woman, Viva Laughlin, In Plain Sight and Life IsWild.
Williams said she dropped Without a Trace and Two and a Half Men (both picked up by CTV) because the price was too high and both shows had passed their peaks.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Walkom On Canadian Economic Nationalism
While many of Walkom's points are well taken there is a curious omission in discussion of this issue not only in what Walkom says but even in Layton's article that you can read in an earlier post. No one mentions nationalisation or public ownership (feds or state or even municipal). Manitoba Hydro is a good example of a successful state owned enterprise and there are still many (Sask. has several). There are also co-op enterprises. It is as if for profit Canadian capitalist enterprises are the only candidates for economic nationalism. In my view they are part of the problem just as much as foreign owned for profit enterprises. As capitalist corporations their commitment to Canada must be limited to anything that does not detract significantly from their pursuit of profits. There should be restriction on foreign takeovers but to pursue an economic nationalist course much more must be done. Trudeau for example set up Petro Can to get the government into the oil business. Of course his national energy policies upset Alberta but that was to be expected.
Economic nationalism as an illusion
Jun 03, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
Hark. That grumbling you hear is the federal Liberal party making noises about economic nationalism. Stéphane Dion wants the issue studied. He and New Democrat Leader Jack Layton also want the rules for foreign takeovers revisited.
It's hard to know whether Dion and Layton are serious or merely pandering. The Liberals have ignored these questions since the '80s. The NDP goes on and off. But if we are heading down this road again, we need to rethink what economic nationalism can realistically mean in 2007.
In particular, we have to stop focusing narrowly on the issue of ownership. It's no longer clear that Canadian-owned private firms operate differently from foreign-owned ones. It's not even clear that publicly owned firms operate differently. I give you Toronto Hydro as an example.
The real questions today have to do with control. In whose interests do firms operate? Where do they invest their profits?
In the '70s, these questions were subsumed under the issue of ownership. The argument then was that Canada could hardly operate a sovereign country politically if its economy was foreign-owned.
Behind this was an assumption that Canadian-owned businesses would be different – that they wouldn't be subservient to ill-conceived U.S. laws, such as America's ban on trade with Cuba, and that they would be more successful in producing wealth for us.
Yet even then, there were worrying signs that globalization had the capacity to subvert this nationalist project. Once Canadian-owned firms reach a certain size, they begin to act like foreign firms.
In particular, they tend to move their centre of operations to where their major markets are – the United States. Nortel Networks, the once high-flying Canadian tech firm nourished under the wing of the Bell Canada telephone monopoly, repaid us by situating its de facto world headquarters in Dallas. Canadian National, once a government-owned company, now gains equal revenues from its American and Canadian rail systems.
Nor are Canadian-owned firms necessarily loath to obey U.S. extraterritorial laws. The Royal Bank of Canada, desperate to protect its U.S. operations, applies American domestic law to its Canadian customers in Canada. This came to light in January after the bank refused to let an Iranian-born Canadian citizen open a U.S. dollar account at its Montreal branch.
Nostalgia buffs lament the sale of Inco Ltd. to a Brazilian firm, or the possible sale of Canadian aluminum giant Alcan to its U.S. counterpart, Alcoa. They forget that Inco began life as a U.S. firm providing nickel to the American steel industry. Similarly, Alcan was originally part of Alcoa. It was hived off only at the insistence of U.S. anti-trust regulators.
Others fret that state-owned companies (read Chinese) are buying up Canadian resource firms, saying this could impair national security. This is nothing more than ill-disguised sinophobia. Firms will do what firms do unless government decrees otherwise. At the start of World War I, Inco continued to sell Canadian nickel to both the Germans and the British.
Yet even if the foreign-ownership issue itself is outdated, the broader questions behind it are not. Should Dion become prime minister, he will be expected to seriously deal with this matter.
But the key word here is serious. It's not enough to promote Canadian-owned firms that, for instance, outsource jobs to cheap-wage countries. The point of economic nationalism is to have an economy that works for the people of that nation.
In a global, capitalist world, this is not easy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Walkom's column appears Thursday and Sunday
Economic nationalism as an illusion
Jun 03, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
Hark. That grumbling you hear is the federal Liberal party making noises about economic nationalism. Stéphane Dion wants the issue studied. He and New Democrat Leader Jack Layton also want the rules for foreign takeovers revisited.
It's hard to know whether Dion and Layton are serious or merely pandering. The Liberals have ignored these questions since the '80s. The NDP goes on and off. But if we are heading down this road again, we need to rethink what economic nationalism can realistically mean in 2007.
In particular, we have to stop focusing narrowly on the issue of ownership. It's no longer clear that Canadian-owned private firms operate differently from foreign-owned ones. It's not even clear that publicly owned firms operate differently. I give you Toronto Hydro as an example.
The real questions today have to do with control. In whose interests do firms operate? Where do they invest their profits?
In the '70s, these questions were subsumed under the issue of ownership. The argument then was that Canada could hardly operate a sovereign country politically if its economy was foreign-owned.
Behind this was an assumption that Canadian-owned businesses would be different – that they wouldn't be subservient to ill-conceived U.S. laws, such as America's ban on trade with Cuba, and that they would be more successful in producing wealth for us.
Yet even then, there were worrying signs that globalization had the capacity to subvert this nationalist project. Once Canadian-owned firms reach a certain size, they begin to act like foreign firms.
In particular, they tend to move their centre of operations to where their major markets are – the United States. Nortel Networks, the once high-flying Canadian tech firm nourished under the wing of the Bell Canada telephone monopoly, repaid us by situating its de facto world headquarters in Dallas. Canadian National, once a government-owned company, now gains equal revenues from its American and Canadian rail systems.
Nor are Canadian-owned firms necessarily loath to obey U.S. extraterritorial laws. The Royal Bank of Canada, desperate to protect its U.S. operations, applies American domestic law to its Canadian customers in Canada. This came to light in January after the bank refused to let an Iranian-born Canadian citizen open a U.S. dollar account at its Montreal branch.
Nostalgia buffs lament the sale of Inco Ltd. to a Brazilian firm, or the possible sale of Canadian aluminum giant Alcan to its U.S. counterpart, Alcoa. They forget that Inco began life as a U.S. firm providing nickel to the American steel industry. Similarly, Alcan was originally part of Alcoa. It was hived off only at the insistence of U.S. anti-trust regulators.
Others fret that state-owned companies (read Chinese) are buying up Canadian resource firms, saying this could impair national security. This is nothing more than ill-disguised sinophobia. Firms will do what firms do unless government decrees otherwise. At the start of World War I, Inco continued to sell Canadian nickel to both the Germans and the British.
Yet even if the foreign-ownership issue itself is outdated, the broader questions behind it are not. Should Dion become prime minister, he will be expected to seriously deal with this matter.
But the key word here is serious. It's not enough to promote Canadian-owned firms that, for instance, outsource jobs to cheap-wage countries. The point of economic nationalism is to have an economy that works for the people of that nation.
In a global, capitalist world, this is not easy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Walkom's column appears Thursday and Sunday
Naomi Klein on Alberta Oil development.
It is certainly part of US plans to wean the US from Middle East oil and replace that with production from more secure and friendly regimes. Alberta is a perfect place. Alberta is Texas with snow but with a similar right wing political climate.
Baghdad Burns, Calgary Booms
by Naomi Klein
June 01, 2007
The invasion of Iraq has set off what could be the largest oil boom in history. All the signs are there: multinationals free to gobble up national firms at will, ship unlimited profits home, enjoy leisurely "tax holidays" and pay a laughable 1 percent in royalties to the government.
This isn't the boom in Iraq sparked by the proposed new oil law--that will come later. This boom is already in full swing, and it is happening about as far away from the carnage in Baghdad as you can get, in the wilds of northern Alberta. For four years now, Alberta and Iraq have been connected to each other through a kind of invisible seesaw: As Baghdad burns, destabilizing the entire region and sending oil prices soaring, Calgary booms.
Here is how chaos in Iraq unleashed what the Financial Times recently called "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush." Albertans have always known that in the northern part of their province, there are vast deposits of bitumen--black, tarlike goo that is mixed with sand, clay, water and oil. There are approximately 2.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world.
It is possible to turn Alberta's crud into crude, but it's awfully hard. One method is to mine it in vast open pits: First forests are clear-cut, then topsoil scraped away. Next, huge machines dig out the black goop and load it into the largest dump trucks in the world (two stories high, a single wheel costs $100,000). The tar is diluted with water and solvents in giant vats, which spin it around until the oil rises to the top, while the massive tailings are dumped in ponds larger than the region's natural lakes. Another method is to separate the oil where it is: Large drill-pipes push steam deep underground, which melts the tar, while another pipe sucks it out and transports it through several more stages of refining, much of it powered by natural gas.
Both techniques are costly: between $18 and $23 per barrel, just in expenses. Until quite recently, that made no economic sense. In the mid-1980s, oil sold for $20 a barrel; in 1998-99, it was down to $12 a barrel. The major international players had no intention of paying more to get the oil than they could sell it for, which is why, when global oil reserves were calculated, the tar sands weren't even factored in. Everyone but a few heavily subsidized Canadian companies knew that the tar was staying put.
Then came the US invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, the price of oil reached $35 a barrel, raising the prospect of making a profit from the tar sands (the industry calls them "oil sands"). That year, the United States Energy Information Administration "discovered" oil in the tar sands. It announced that Alberta--previously thought to have only 5 billion barrels of oil--was actually sitting on at least 174 billion "economically recoverable" barrels. The next year, Canada overtook Saudi Arabia as the leading provider of foreign oil to the United States.
All this has meant that Iraq's oil boom has not been delayed; it has been relocated. All the majors, save BP, have rushed to northern Alberta: ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total, which alone plans to spend $9-$14 billion. In April, Shell paid $8 billion to take full control of its Canadian subsidiary. The town of Fort McMurray, ground zero of the boom, has nowhere to house the tens of thousands of new workers, and one company has built its own airstrip so it can fly in the people it needs.
Seventy-five percent of the oil from the tar sands flows directly to the United States, prompting Brian Hall, an energy consultant with Colorado-based IHS, to call the tar sands "America's energy security blanket." There is a certain irony there: The United States invaded Iraq at least in part to secure access to its oil. Now, thanks partly to economic blowback from that disastrous decision, it has found the "security" it was looking for right next door.
It has become fashionable to predict that high oil prices will spark a free-market response to climate change, setting off an "explosion of innovation in alternatives," as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote recently. Alberta puts the lie to that claim. High prices have indeed led to an R&D extravaganza, but it is squarely focused on figuring out how to get the dirtiest possible oil out of the hardest-to-reach places. Shell, for instance, is working on a "novel thermal recovery process"--embedding large electric heaters in the deposits and literally cooking the earth.
And that's the Alberta tar sands for you: The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta.
Developing the sands is devouring trees and wildlife--the Pembina Institute, the leading authority on the tar sands' environmental impact, warns that boreal forests covering "an area as large as the State of Florida" risk being leveled. Now it turns out that the main river feeding the industry the massive quantities of water it needs is in jeopardy. Climate scientists say that dropping water levels are the result--fittingly enough--of climate warming.
Contemplating the collective madness in Alberta--a scene even the Financial Times has labeled "some dystopian fantasy"--it strikes me that Canada has ended up with more than Iraq's displaced oil boom. We have its elusive weapons of mass destruction too. They are out near Fort McMurray, in the jet-black goo beneath the earth's crust. And with the help of trucks, pipes, steam and gas, these weapons are being detonated.
Baghdad Burns, Calgary Booms
by Naomi Klein
June 01, 2007
The invasion of Iraq has set off what could be the largest oil boom in history. All the signs are there: multinationals free to gobble up national firms at will, ship unlimited profits home, enjoy leisurely "tax holidays" and pay a laughable 1 percent in royalties to the government.
This isn't the boom in Iraq sparked by the proposed new oil law--that will come later. This boom is already in full swing, and it is happening about as far away from the carnage in Baghdad as you can get, in the wilds of northern Alberta. For four years now, Alberta and Iraq have been connected to each other through a kind of invisible seesaw: As Baghdad burns, destabilizing the entire region and sending oil prices soaring, Calgary booms.
Here is how chaos in Iraq unleashed what the Financial Times recently called "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush." Albertans have always known that in the northern part of their province, there are vast deposits of bitumen--black, tarlike goo that is mixed with sand, clay, water and oil. There are approximately 2.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world.
It is possible to turn Alberta's crud into crude, but it's awfully hard. One method is to mine it in vast open pits: First forests are clear-cut, then topsoil scraped away. Next, huge machines dig out the black goop and load it into the largest dump trucks in the world (two stories high, a single wheel costs $100,000). The tar is diluted with water and solvents in giant vats, which spin it around until the oil rises to the top, while the massive tailings are dumped in ponds larger than the region's natural lakes. Another method is to separate the oil where it is: Large drill-pipes push steam deep underground, which melts the tar, while another pipe sucks it out and transports it through several more stages of refining, much of it powered by natural gas.
Both techniques are costly: between $18 and $23 per barrel, just in expenses. Until quite recently, that made no economic sense. In the mid-1980s, oil sold for $20 a barrel; in 1998-99, it was down to $12 a barrel. The major international players had no intention of paying more to get the oil than they could sell it for, which is why, when global oil reserves were calculated, the tar sands weren't even factored in. Everyone but a few heavily subsidized Canadian companies knew that the tar was staying put.
Then came the US invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, the price of oil reached $35 a barrel, raising the prospect of making a profit from the tar sands (the industry calls them "oil sands"). That year, the United States Energy Information Administration "discovered" oil in the tar sands. It announced that Alberta--previously thought to have only 5 billion barrels of oil--was actually sitting on at least 174 billion "economically recoverable" barrels. The next year, Canada overtook Saudi Arabia as the leading provider of foreign oil to the United States.
All this has meant that Iraq's oil boom has not been delayed; it has been relocated. All the majors, save BP, have rushed to northern Alberta: ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total, which alone plans to spend $9-$14 billion. In April, Shell paid $8 billion to take full control of its Canadian subsidiary. The town of Fort McMurray, ground zero of the boom, has nowhere to house the tens of thousands of new workers, and one company has built its own airstrip so it can fly in the people it needs.
Seventy-five percent of the oil from the tar sands flows directly to the United States, prompting Brian Hall, an energy consultant with Colorado-based IHS, to call the tar sands "America's energy security blanket." There is a certain irony there: The United States invaded Iraq at least in part to secure access to its oil. Now, thanks partly to economic blowback from that disastrous decision, it has found the "security" it was looking for right next door.
It has become fashionable to predict that high oil prices will spark a free-market response to climate change, setting off an "explosion of innovation in alternatives," as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote recently. Alberta puts the lie to that claim. High prices have indeed led to an R&D extravaganza, but it is squarely focused on figuring out how to get the dirtiest possible oil out of the hardest-to-reach places. Shell, for instance, is working on a "novel thermal recovery process"--embedding large electric heaters in the deposits and literally cooking the earth.
And that's the Alberta tar sands for you: The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta.
Developing the sands is devouring trees and wildlife--the Pembina Institute, the leading authority on the tar sands' environmental impact, warns that boreal forests covering "an area as large as the State of Florida" risk being leveled. Now it turns out that the main river feeding the industry the massive quantities of water it needs is in jeopardy. Climate scientists say that dropping water levels are the result--fittingly enough--of climate warming.
Contemplating the collective madness in Alberta--a scene even the Financial Times has labeled "some dystopian fantasy"--it strikes me that Canada has ended up with more than Iraq's displaced oil boom. We have its elusive weapons of mass destruction too. They are out near Fort McMurray, in the jet-black goo beneath the earth's crust. And with the help of trucks, pipes, steam and gas, these weapons are being detonated.
Jack Layton on Foreign Takeovers
There seems not to be much discussion or concern about foreign takeovers any more. At the time of the Waffle years ago there seemed to be much more Canadian nationalist sentiment on these issues. There used to be a significant group of Conservatives who were nationalist, people like George Grant.
We are not supposed to control our own economic destiny any more. We are to be a resource base for the US and we will again have a branch plant economy insofar as we have much manufacturing left. However, our manufacturing sector is declining at least in job numbers..
Canadian identity suffers as business icons depart
May 29, 2007 07:42 AM
Jack Layton
Looking down at the powerful Saguenay River from the heights of Alcan’s sprawling aluminum-producing facility in Jonquière, Que., last week, reinforced for me just how much is at stake for our jobs, communities and our future with so many Canadian companies being bought up by foreign investors.
With Alcan driving two-thirds of the economy in the Saguenay region, the entire community is anxious. The hostile bid by Alcoa for Alcan — the 5th largest Canadian-controlled firm in Canada and the world’s third largest aluminum manufacturer — has ignited an important debate on the extent to which Canadians should be concerned about the disappearance of signature Canadian companies.
Over the last 16 months, 600 Canadian companies have been taken over by foreign owners. By now, most of us can rhyme off the growing list of companies that have been removed from Canadian hands: Molson, Dofasco, Labatt, Inco, The Bay, Falconbridge and even the Montreal Canadiens.
The cumulative impact is being noted, even from surprising sources: Canadian CEOs. Dominic D’Alessandro, chief executive of Manulife, told his company’s annual meeting this month: “I sometimes worry that we may all wake up one day and find that, as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs.” Others saying that the issue must be addressed include: Gordon Nixon (Royal Bank Canada), Gerry Schwartz (Onex Corp.), Peter Munk (Barrick Gold Corp.) and Dick Haskayne (former CEO of several Alberta oil and gas companies) — not your typical 1970s economic nationalists.
When large Canadian companies are permitted to fall into foreign hands without rigorous due diligence, we risk losing not only good Canadian jobs, but also the competitive advantage that comes with being a centre of expertise.
On the jobs side, not only do well-paying head office jobs disappear, but so do jobs in the broader supply chain and in professional services. This is a point made recently by Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of EnCana: “While foreign-controlled branch operations are significant contributors to our economy, Canadian head offices employ greater numbers of high-value professional services and support firms.”
The Alcan case illustrates the issue of expertise. Not long ago, the presence of Canadian companies like Inco, Falconbridge, Dofasco, Algoma Steel, Teck Cominco, and, indeed, Falconbridge helped make Canada an important world centre for mining finance and managerial expertise. This is a strategic competitive advantage that we fritter away by not having in place the proper means to deal with ad hoc takeovers and their cumulative effect.
Beyond the dollars and cents, there is an intangible value in the pride and identity that is attached to Canadian business icons. Our collective sense of identity takes a hit when we see the ease with which companies like Molson, Labatt, Hudson’s Bay and the Montreal Canadiens are sold to foreign interests.
Perhaps most importantly is the loss of our ability to chart our country’s future. Again, the takeovers in the resource sector are instructive. As pointed out by D’Alessandro, Canada’s natural resources are “unique and irreplaceable assets.” The unfettered sell-off of our resource companies means that we effectively surrender Canada’s ability to make decisions in the national interest about key strategic assets today and into the future.
If the federal government’s allowance of so many foreign takeovers is by design, it’s extremely short-sighted. If it’s by neglect, then this government has abdicated its responsibility and it’s time to take action.
The Investment Canada Act, the law which governs foreign takeovers, is toothless and has never once stopped the foreign takeover of a Canadian firm in its 22-year history.
In the short term, we need to apply the legislative criteria we do have rigorously.
We also need to immediately look at best practices elsewhere, the application of rules to the resource sector, and adding further precision and strength to the “net benefit to Canada” test. New rules must include input from the public.
Canada is a country of great potential whose best and most prosperous years lie ahead. To build local communities and extend our global reach we must be more than mere tenants in our own country. We must start by recognizing that for Canada to chart its own future we must maintain the tools to build it.
Jack Layton, the MP for the riding of Toronto-Danforth, is the leader of the federal New Democratic Party.
We are not supposed to control our own economic destiny any more. We are to be a resource base for the US and we will again have a branch plant economy insofar as we have much manufacturing left. However, our manufacturing sector is declining at least in job numbers..
Canadian identity suffers as business icons depart
May 29, 2007 07:42 AM
Jack Layton
Looking down at the powerful Saguenay River from the heights of Alcan’s sprawling aluminum-producing facility in Jonquière, Que., last week, reinforced for me just how much is at stake for our jobs, communities and our future with so many Canadian companies being bought up by foreign investors.
With Alcan driving two-thirds of the economy in the Saguenay region, the entire community is anxious. The hostile bid by Alcoa for Alcan — the 5th largest Canadian-controlled firm in Canada and the world’s third largest aluminum manufacturer — has ignited an important debate on the extent to which Canadians should be concerned about the disappearance of signature Canadian companies.
Over the last 16 months, 600 Canadian companies have been taken over by foreign owners. By now, most of us can rhyme off the growing list of companies that have been removed from Canadian hands: Molson, Dofasco, Labatt, Inco, The Bay, Falconbridge and even the Montreal Canadiens.
The cumulative impact is being noted, even from surprising sources: Canadian CEOs. Dominic D’Alessandro, chief executive of Manulife, told his company’s annual meeting this month: “I sometimes worry that we may all wake up one day and find that, as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs.” Others saying that the issue must be addressed include: Gordon Nixon (Royal Bank Canada), Gerry Schwartz (Onex Corp.), Peter Munk (Barrick Gold Corp.) and Dick Haskayne (former CEO of several Alberta oil and gas companies) — not your typical 1970s economic nationalists.
When large Canadian companies are permitted to fall into foreign hands without rigorous due diligence, we risk losing not only good Canadian jobs, but also the competitive advantage that comes with being a centre of expertise.
On the jobs side, not only do well-paying head office jobs disappear, but so do jobs in the broader supply chain and in professional services. This is a point made recently by Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of EnCana: “While foreign-controlled branch operations are significant contributors to our economy, Canadian head offices employ greater numbers of high-value professional services and support firms.”
The Alcan case illustrates the issue of expertise. Not long ago, the presence of Canadian companies like Inco, Falconbridge, Dofasco, Algoma Steel, Teck Cominco, and, indeed, Falconbridge helped make Canada an important world centre for mining finance and managerial expertise. This is a strategic competitive advantage that we fritter away by not having in place the proper means to deal with ad hoc takeovers and their cumulative effect.
Beyond the dollars and cents, there is an intangible value in the pride and identity that is attached to Canadian business icons. Our collective sense of identity takes a hit when we see the ease with which companies like Molson, Labatt, Hudson’s Bay and the Montreal Canadiens are sold to foreign interests.
Perhaps most importantly is the loss of our ability to chart our country’s future. Again, the takeovers in the resource sector are instructive. As pointed out by D’Alessandro, Canada’s natural resources are “unique and irreplaceable assets.” The unfettered sell-off of our resource companies means that we effectively surrender Canada’s ability to make decisions in the national interest about key strategic assets today and into the future.
If the federal government’s allowance of so many foreign takeovers is by design, it’s extremely short-sighted. If it’s by neglect, then this government has abdicated its responsibility and it’s time to take action.
The Investment Canada Act, the law which governs foreign takeovers, is toothless and has never once stopped the foreign takeover of a Canadian firm in its 22-year history.
In the short term, we need to apply the legislative criteria we do have rigorously.
We also need to immediately look at best practices elsewhere, the application of rules to the resource sector, and adding further precision and strength to the “net benefit to Canada” test. New rules must include input from the public.
Canada is a country of great potential whose best and most prosperous years lie ahead. To build local communities and extend our global reach we must be more than mere tenants in our own country. We must start by recognizing that for Canada to chart its own future we must maintain the tools to build it.
Jack Layton, the MP for the riding of Toronto-Danforth, is the leader of the federal New Democratic Party.
Nunavut introduces new language bills
Interesting that the former Official Languages Act listed eight official languages. There must have been several "Indian" languages included perhaps. If the new law is applied to businesses it see