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

[agentaqua]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/polit...eep-tabs-on-all-demonstrations-across-country

Government orders federal departments to keep tabs on all demonstrations across country

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
More from David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: June 4, 2014
Last Updated: June 5, 2014 12:23 PM EDT

060414-idle-W.jpg-IMG_1857.jpg-POS1312101236341827

The federal government is expanding its surveillance of public activities to include all known demonstrations across the country, a move that collects information even on the most mundane of protests by Canadians.

The email requesting such information was sent out Tuesday by the Government Operations Centre in Ottawa to all federal departments.

“The Government Operations Centre is seeking your assistance in compiling a comprehensive listing of all known demonstrations which will occur either in your geographical area or that may touch on your mandate,” noted the email, leaked to the Citizen. “We will compile this information and make this information available to our partners unless of course, this information is not to be shared and not available on open sources. In the case of the latter, this information will only be used by the GOC for our Situational Awareness.”

The Government Operations Centre or GOC is supposed to provide strategic-level coordination on behalf of the federal government “in response to an emerging or occurring event affecting the national interest.”

It assesses the requirement for developing plans to prevent or deal with emergencies such as pandemics, earthquakes, forest fires and floods. It also monitors overseas situations such as the 2011 crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

But the Government Operations Centre has also been involved, as an intelligence clearing house, in compiling information on Aboriginal protesters. Tuesday’s email, however, significantly expands its surveillance activities to include all demonstrations by any person or group.

Wesley Wark, an intelligence specialist at the University of Ottawa, said such an order is illegal. “The very nature of the blanket request and its unlimited scope I think puts it way over the line in terms of lawful activity,” said Wark. “I think it’s a clear breach of our Charter rights.”

Wark said the only lawful way a Canadian government agency, with the appropriate mandate, would have to monitor a demonstration would be if that agency could establish that the protest would constitute some kind of threat to civil order.

“But it has to be specific and it has to be justifiable in law to mount such surveillance,” he added.

Wark also questioned why the Government Operations Centre would issue such an order. It is mandated to assess incoming information about emergencies and threats to the security of Canada but it doesn’t have a legal mandate to issue directions, he added.

Jean Paul Duval, a spokesman for Public Safety Canada, noted in an email that “such requests for information fall within the mandate of the Government Operations Centre which facilitates information-sharing for potential and ongoing events with other federal departments, provinces and territories, and its partners through regular analysis and reporting.”

Liberal MP Wayne Easter, the party’s public safety critic, said the order appears to be a continuation of the Conservative government’s efforts to keep track of Canadians who might disagree with government policy.

“Demonstrations, as long as they are peaceful, are part of a healthy democracy,” Easter said. “This is the kind of tactics you would see in a dictatorship.”

The GOC was created in 2004 by Public Safety Canada. It is connected with the operations centres of 20 federal departments and agencies, as well as with those of the provinces and territories, and other countries, including the United States.

NDP MP Paul Dewar said the email is part of what he sees as a disturbing pattern on the part of government to increase its collection of information on the public. “This government is turning into Big Brother,” said Dewar. “This is clearly out of bounds from what GOC is supposed to do.”

Last year the Government Operations Centre was involved in coordinating a response to Aboriginal demonstrations against fracking. The GOC distributed a map of the area where the RCMP had conducted raids on protesters who had seized an oil company’s vehicles. It also produced a spreadsheet detailing 32 planned events in support of anti-fracking.

Those included a healing dance in Kenora, Ont., a prayer ceremony in Edmonton and an Idle No More “taco fundraiser, raffle and jam session” planned at the Native Friendship Centre in Barrie, Ont., according to documents obtained through the Access to Information Act by APTN National News.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/03/17/worried-about-c-51-youre-probably-a-terrorist/

Worried about C-51? You’re probably a terrorist.

By Joanna Kerr | Mar 17, 2015

Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy's comments linking a Muslim advocacy group with terrorism were widely attacked as 'McCarthyesque'. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Are you now, or have you ever been, a terrorist?

That, in one form or another, is the question being asked over and over by Conservative MPs of expert witnesses called before the Commons standing committee reviewing Bill C-51, the so-called anti-terrorism law.

I spoke before the committee last week. I pointed to the danger in the bill’s much-expanded definition of national security and in its false conflation of peaceful protest with terrorism. I was expecting to be called on to defend our arguments, to cite evidence on how the bill’s sweeping new powers could be used against peaceful advocates for action on climate change.

No one on the government side seemed terribly interested in our argument — but they were very interested in us.

Conservative MP LaVar Payne asked me if I consider myself to be a threat to national security — because, he said, if I’m not a terrorist then why would I worry about an “anti-terrorism” bill? He added that our criticism of C-51 made him “wonder if your organization is a national security threat”. (I never got a chance to respond, since Payne kept talking to run out the clock.)

This was no slip of the tongue. Carmen Cheung, senior counsel for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, spoke to the committee shortly before me. Her carefully-parsed legal arguments on the threats this bill poses to civil rights without enhancing security were dismissed by Conservative MP Rick Norlock as “rambling” — before he had the gall to ask her if she is “simply fundamentally opposed to taking terrorists off the street”.

More than 100 legal experts have written to parliamentarians to say that this legislation is dangerous — including four former prime ministers, five former Supreme Court judges, the federal Privacy Commissioner, Amnesty International, the Assembly of First Nations and a host of other organizations. Are they all terrorists?

The third witness on our panel was Ron Atkey, who has seen national security operations up close as a former Conservative cabinet minister and as the first chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. He warned that Bill C-51 is “a constitutional mess” and offered recommendations on how to fix it. It was the Conservative committee members who had invited him to testify — presumably with the expectation that he would support the bill. Oddly enough, they had no questions for him.

You’ve already heard, of course, about what happened to Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, when he testified before the committee. Rather than address his concerns, Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy parroted terrorism allegations linked to Mr. Gardee’s organization — allegations he refuted when they came from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s then-spokesman Jason MacDonald and which are now the subject of a defamation lawsuit. (Ablonczy, of course, was speaking from a zone of Parliamentary privilege, protecting her from slander allegations.) “In order to work together,” Ablonczy said, “there needs to be a satisfaction that, you know, this can’t be a halfhearted battle against terrorism and where do you stand in light of these allegations?”

Mr. Gardee rightly dismissed Ablonczy’s ‘question’ as a cheap smear tactic. It’s worse than that.

The Harper government is employing a very dangerous strategy — stoking the politics of fear and division in order to distract voters from the state of the economy. Harper’s dream of turning Canada into what he has called an “energy superpower” by rapidly expanding tar sands exports has proved to be a bad bet for our economy and a political liability. So as oil prices drop, the Conservatives ratchet up the rhetoric on terror.

Good short-term tactics often make for bad laws. More than 100 legal experts have written to parliamentarians to say that this legislation is dangerous — that it will make it harder to effectively fight terrorism while introducing unprecedented infringements on our rights and privacy. Their concerns have been echoed by four former prime ministers, five former Supreme Court judges, the federal Privacy Commissioner, Amnesty International, the Assembly of First Nations and a host of other organizations. Are they all terrorists?

Still, the hearings go on — driving home the message that Canadians shouldn’t risk asking too many questions about C-51. Meanwhile, Canadians took to the streets in over 70 communities across the country on the weekend to say that they will not sit still while our country is ruled by fear and intolerance.

Canada used to be a global beacon on human rights, environmental consciousness and democracy. I’m confident it’s not too late to get that Canada back.

kerrJoanna Kerr is executive director of Greenpeace Canada

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

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/03/2...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=200315

Bill C-51 Reveals Harper's Inner Bully

The need to ramp up civic literacy is 'critical.'

By Murray Dobbin, Today, TheTyee.ca

Bill C-51 protest

Protesters against Bill C-51 staged rallies last weekend across Canada, including this one at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto. Flickr photo by Alex Guibord.

The Harper government's pursuit of its odious Secret Police Act (Bill C-51) is just another chapter in the most through-going and massive social engineering project in the history of the country.

Social engineering used to be one of the favourite phrases of the right in its attack on social programs -- accusing both liberal-minded politicians and meddling bureaucrats with manufacturing the welfare state. They conveniently ignored the fact that there was huge popular demand and support for activist government.

That was the so-called golden age of capitalism, and it wasn't just because of expanding government services. It was so-called because of a much broader and well-informed citizen engagement -- both through social movements and as individual citizens. The level of trust in government was much higher than it is today. And absent from the picture were the factors that today dominate the political conversation: fear and economic insecurity.

Exactly how historians will describe this period in Canadian history is anyone's guess, but one approach could be to look upon the Harper era as an experiment in revealing how vulnerable democracies are to political sociopaths bold enough and ruthless enough to bend or break every rule and tradition on which democracy's foundation rests.

Contempt for Parliament

It's not just the institutions that are vulnerable, though they certainly are. It's a familiar list, including Harper's bullying of former governor-general Michaëlle Jean to force the proroguing of the House, his guide book on how to make parliamentary committees ineffective, the use of robocalls and other election dirty tricks, his attempt to break the rules in appointing a Supreme Court judge, and his neutering the House of Commons question period through a deliberate strategy of refusing to answer questions -- a practice that institutionalizes a contempt for Parliament that spreads outward to the general public. At a certain point it doesn't matter who is responsible -- the institution itself becomes risible and irrelevant to ordinary citizens. Which is, of course, exactly what Harper intends.

And that brings us to the other element of democratic politics -- the actual citizens who are supposed to be the raw material of democracy. The whole institutional edifice theoretically rests on the foundation of the voting public. The extent to which the institutions of democracy can be assaulted and eroded with impunity is directly proportional to the level of civic literacy. The lower it is, the easier it is for autocrats like Harper to abuse their power.

In terms of civic literacy, we are somewhere between Europe where it is relatively high, and the U.S. where it is frighteningly low. While the question is obviously more complicated than this, it's not far-fetched to suggest that there is a continuum -- with consumerism at one end and highly engaged citizenship at the other. We live in a hyper-consumer society -- not a citizen-society characterized by the oft-repeated disclaimer "I'm not interested in politics." The growing basis for our culture is not community or cooperation but conspicuous consumption and possessive individualism.

So long as the political elite accepted the basic premises of modern democracy and activist government, so long as the institutions they controlled functioned more or less within their defined mandates (that is, they were only occasionally abused), society could function with a minimal level of civic literacy. We could all go shopping more or less assured that the stuff of government (in substance and process) would continue undisturbed. If all political parties accepted the precepts of civil liberties, for example, it didn't matter that much if there was a low degree of public awareness of the importance of civil liberties to our daily lives.

But when a politician suddenly appears on the scene willing to systematically violate democratic principles as if they simply don't apply to him, then the demand for increased civic literacy is just as suddenly urgent and critical. Yet it is not something can be accomplished easily or quickly. Three sources come to mind: schools, the media and civil society organizations and activity.

Despite the best efforts of teachers and their unions over the decades, civic literacy is extremely low on the curriculum totem pole in Canadian schools. Provincial governments have resisted such pressures, which should hardly come as a surprise. There is a built-in bias in a hierarchical, capitalist society against critical thinking -- precisely because in liberal democracies the over-arching role of government is to manage capitalism with a view to maintaining it along with all its inherent inequalities. Too many critical thinkers are not helpful.

Media played role

The media, of course, are largely responsible for helping put Stephen Harper in power. Ever since the Machiavellian Conrad Black bought up most of Canada's dailies, they have been used (by him and his successors) as an explicit propaganda tool for the dismantling of the post-war democratic consensus. While there are some tentative signs that they now recognize they've created a monster (Globe editorials criticizing the PM on a number of issues like Bill C-51), it's a little late. Twenty-five years of telling people there is no alternative to unfettered capitalism has had a pernicious effect on both democracy and civic literacy.

That leaves voluntary (for the most part) civil society organizations. Yet despite their objective of informing people about the myriad issues we face, here, too, the model falls short of significantly expanding the base of engaged, informed citizens. Ironically, much of the defensive politics of the left are the mirror image of Harper's reliance on fear (of Muslims, criminals, niqabs, terrorists, environmentalists, unions, the CBC) to energize his base. We peddle more mundane but substantive fears -- of losing medicare, of climate change, of higher tuition fees, of unprotected rivers and streams and dirty oil.

If Canadians are scared silly, it's no wonder, given the mode of politics directed at them.

Regrettably, there is no model from Canadian history that points us in the direction of serious commitment to civic literacy. We have to look to the Scandinavian countries. According to Canadian author Henry Milner, the late "Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme once said that he preferred to think of Sweden not as a social democracy but as a 'study-circle democracy.' The idea... is associated most of all with the efforts of the ABF (the Workers' Educational Association)... The ABF offers courses in organizing groups and co-operatives, understanding media, and a broad range of contemporary issues, as well as languages, computers, art, music, and nature appreciation." There were 10 other groups doing study circles -- many of them subsidized by the government. Half of all Swedish adults were involved in them.

Even in Sweden the model is no longer as robust as it was when Milner wrote this assessment in 2002. But even after the defeat of Social Democratic governments, no party has dared undermine Swedish social programs or run roughshod over its democracy. That's because informed citizens are not easily manipulated by fear and their level of trust in government remains high.

Given our shamefully biased media, Canadians still manage to resist Harper's continued assault on our political sensibility. The first polls on the Secret Police Act (don't call it by any other name) were alarming, with upwards of 80 per cent agreeing with the need for tougher anti-terror laws. But things are changing very quickly as the result of a determined fight-back by civil society groups, a phalanx of heavy-hitting experts and the NDP.

A Forum Research poll this week showed support for the bill was down to 38 per cent with those disapproving at 51 per cent -- an amazing turn around. The highest levels of disapproval were amongst "...the youngest (64 per cent), New Democrats (77 per cent), the best educated (65 per cent) and the non-religious (70 per cent)."

Yet the Forum results are decidedly mixed and demonstrate how much work there is yet to be done to neutralize the fear campaign. When respondents were presented with specific parts of the bill, the percentage disapproving actually decreased and supporters increased.

The polling will no doubt continue to demonstrate confusion, a desire to deal with the real problem of terrorism and condemnation of the attempt to label environmentalists and First Nations as terror suspects.

Yet a huge effort will be needed to completely immunize Canadians against the next wave of Harper fear mongering. Imagine if all these efforts and similar warning campaigns had instead been put into creating something similar to the Swedish "study circle democracy." That's the only lasting solution to voter manipulation and a healthy democracy. Until we realize that, progressive politics will remain crisis management and we will continue to pin our desperate hopes on coalitions and proportional representation. But without a high degree of civic literacy, these institutional fixes will be ultimately dissatisfying.

 

[agentaqua]

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/03/civic-literacy-and-assault-on-canadian-democracy

Civic literacy and the assault on Canadian democracy
By Murray Dobbin | March 20, 2015

Photo: teachandlearn/flickr

The Harper government's pursuit of its odious Secret Police Act (C-51) is just another chapter in the most through-going and massive social engineering project in the history of the country. Social engineering used to be one of the favourite phrases of the right in its attack on social programs -- accusing both liberal-minded politicians and meddling bureaucrats with manufacturing the welfare state. They conveniently ignored the fact that there was huge popular demand and support for activist government.

That was the so-called golden age of capitalism and it wasn't just because of expanding government services. It was so-called because of a much broader and well-informed citizen engagement -- both through social movements and as individual citizens. The level of trust in government was much higher than it is today. And absent from the picture were the factors that today dominate the political conversation: fear and economic insecurity.

Exactly how historians will describe this period in Canadian history is anyone's guess but one approach could be to look upon the Harper era as an experiment in revealing how vulnerable democracies are to political sociopaths bold enough and ruthless enough to bend or break every rule and tradition on which democracy's foundation rests.

It's not just the institutions that are vulnerable, though they certainly are. It's a familiar list, including Harper's bullying of Governor General Michaëlle Jean to force the proroguing of the House, his guide book on how to make parliamentary committees ineffective, the use of robo-calls and other election dirty tricks, his attempt to break the rules in appointing a Supreme Court judge and his neutering the House of Commons question period through a deliberate strategy of refusing to answer questions -- a practice that institutionalizes a contempt for Parliament that spreads outward to the general public. At a certain point it doesn't matter who is responsible -- the institution itself becomes risible and irrelevant to ordinary citizens. Which is, of course, exactly what Harper intends.

The crucial role of civic literacy

And that brings us to the other element of democratic politics -- the actual citizens who are supposed to be the raw material of democracy. The whole institutional edifice theoretically rests on the foundation of the voting public. The extent to which the institutions of democracy can be assaulted and eroded with impunity is directly proportional to the level of civic literacy. The lower it is, the easier it is for malevolent autocrats like Harper to abuse his power.

In terms of civic literacy we are somewhere between Europe, where it is relatively high, and the U.S., where it is frighteningly low. While the question is obviously more complicated than this, it's not far-fetched to suggest that there is a continuum -- with consumerism at one end and highly engaged citizenship at the other. We live in a hyper-consumer society -- not a citizen-society -- characterized by the oft-repeated disclaimer "I'm not interested in politics." The growing basis for our culture is not community or co-operation but conspicuous consumption and possessive individualism.

So long as the political elite accepted the basic premises of modern democracy and activist government, so long as the institutions they controlled functioned more or less within their defined mandates (that is, they were only occasionally abused), society could function with a minimal level of civic literacy. We could all go shopping more or less assured that the stuff of government (in substance and process) would continue undisturbed. If all political parties accepted the precepts of civil liberties, for example, it didn't matter that much if there was a low degree of public awareness of the importance of civil liberties to our daily lives.

But when a politician suddenly appears on the scene willing to systematically violate democratic principles as if they simply don't apply to him, then the demand for increased civic literacy is just as suddenly urgent and critical. Yet it is not something that can be accomplished easily or quickly. Three sources come to mind: schools, the media and civil society organizations and activity.

How Canada fares

Despite the best efforts of teachers and their unions over the decades, civic literacy is extremely low on the curriculum totem pole in Canadian schools. Provincial governments have resisted such pressures, which should hardly come as a surprise. There is a built-in bias in a hierarchical, capitalist society against critical thinking -- precisely because in liberal democracies the over-arching role of government is to manage capitalism with a view to maintaining it along with all its inherent inequalities. Having too many critical thinkers is not helpful.

The media, of course, are largely responsible for helping put Stephen Harper in power. Ever since the Machiavellian Conrad Black bought up most of Canada's dailies, they have been used (by him and his successors) as an explicit propaganda tool for the dismantling of the post-war democratic consensus. While there are some tentative signs that they now recognize they've created a monster (Globe editorials criticizing the PM on a number of issues like C-51) it's a little late. Twenty-five years of telling people there is no alternative to unfettered capitalism has had a pernicious effect on both democracy and civic literacy.

That leaves voluntary (for the most part) civil society organizations. Yet, despite their objective of informing people about the myriad issues we face, here, too, the model falls short of significantly expanding the base of engaged, informed citizens. Ironically, much of the defensive politics of the left are the mirror image of Harper's reliance on fear (of Muslims, criminals, niqabs, terrorists, environmentalists, unions, the CBC) to energize his base. We peddle more mundane but substantive fears -- of losing medicare, of climate change, of higher tuition fees, of unprotected rivers and streams and dirty oil.

If Canadians are scared silly, it's no wonder given the mode of politics directed at them.

Regrettably there is no model from Canadian history that points us in the direction of serious commitment to civic literacy. We have to look to the Scandinavian countries. According to Canadian author Henry Milner:


"Swedish prime minister Olof Palme once said that he preferred to think of Sweden not as a social democracy but as a 'study-circle democracy.' The idea … is associated most of all with the efforts of the ABF (the Workers' Educational Association). …The ABF offers courses in organizing groups and co-operatives, understanding media, and a broad range of contemporary issues, as well as languages, computers, art, music, and nature appreciation."

There were 10 other groups doing study circles -- many of them subsidized by the government. Half of all Swedish adults were involved in them.

Overcoming a politics of fear

Even in Sweden the model is no longer as robust as it was when Milner wrote this assessment in 2002. But even after the defeat of Social Democratic governments, no party has dared undermine Swedish social programs or run roughshod over its democracy. That's because informed citizens are not easily manipulated by fear and their level of trust in government remains high.

Given our shamefully biased media, Canadians still manage to resist Harper's continued assault on our political sensibility. The first polls on the Secret Police Act (don't call it by any other name) were alarming, with upwards of 80 per cent agreeing with the need for tougher anti-terror laws. But things are changing very quickly as the result of a determined fight-back by civil society groups, a phalanx of heavy-hitting experts and the NDP. A Forum Research poll this week showed support for the Act was down to 38 per cent with those disapproving at 51 per cent -- an amazing turnaround. The highest levels of disapproval were amongst "the youngest (64%), New Democrats (77%), the best educated (65%) and the non-religious (70%)."

Yet the Forum results are decidedly mixed and demonstrate how much work there is yet to be done to neutralize the fear campaign. When respondents were presented with specific parts of the bill, the percentage disapproving actually decreased and supporters increased.

The polling will no doubt continue to demonstrate confusion, a desire to deal with the real problem of terrorism, and condemnation of the attempt at labelling environmentalists and First Nations as terror suspects.

Yet a huge effort will be needed to completely immunize Canadians against the next wave of Harper fear-mongering. Imagine if all these efforts and similar warning campaigns had instead been put into creating something similar to the Swedish "study circle democracy." That's the only lasting solution to voter manipulation and a healthy democracy. Until we realize that, progressive politics will remain crisis management and we will continue to pin our desperate hopes on coalitions and proportional representation. But without a high degree of civic literacy these institutional fixes will be ultimately dissatisfying.

Murray Dobbin has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for 40 years. He writes rabble's State of the Nation column, which is also found at The Tyee.

Photo: teachandlearn/flickr

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/03/21/H...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=210315

Harry Smith Is Coming for Stephen Harper

The 92-year-old anti-austerity campaigner, a UK sensation, sets his sights on Canada.

By Jeremy J. Nuttall, Today, TheTyee.ca
Harry-Smith

Harry Smith: 'Since Harper has come into power, everything has gone downhill.'

A sparkling-clean nation where everyone willingly paid their taxes is the Canada that Harry Leslie Smith remembers choosing as a place to raise his family and live his life decades ago.

Now, at 92, Smith has become a sensation in the United Kingdom for his opinion pieces and memoir Harry's Last Stand, in which he draws parallels between his brutal childhood in the U.K. and where the western world is headed today as government austerity grips many of its countries.

Smith, who splits his time between Canada and Yorkshire, was recently asked by the U.K. Labour Party to be a spokesman for its campaign in advance of the May 7 election. He now finds himself in the midst of a gruelling speaking tour, travelling through 30 cities in 50 days, to rally the fight against austerity and corporate greed.

When that's done, Smith told The Tyee, he will be returning to Canada to do the same, in a ''full-tilt'' effort on his part to help oust Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

''He is really, to me, the worst prime minister that ever existed,'' Smith said over the phone from Manchester, pausing for a drink of water. ''Since Harper has come into power, everything has gone downhill. He has one consideration, and that is to let the rich get richer and the poor fend for themselves.''

Smith said the ''epidemic'' of child poverty in Toronto, government service cutbacks, and tax loopholes used by corporations are some of the most concerning threats facing the country today.

It's a stark difference from when he first arrived in Ontario in the 1950s to start anew after serving in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War.

''I've seen this province and the rest of the western world slip back to a society that reminds me of my boyhood,'' Smith said. ''Today is starting to have that same edge -- the same cruelty, the same divisions between those that have, and those that have not, that polarized the 1920s.''

A 'miracle' middle class story

Born in 1923 and raised in crippling Depression-era poverty in England, Smith and his wife moved to Canada in 1953, eventually settling in Belleville, Ont. where he opened a carpet business.

At the time, Smith saw Canada as a virtuous country, where buildings weren't hundreds of years old and he could raise his family. He knew he could put food on the table, own a home, and perhaps have grass in the back garden.

It was a far cry from the slums of his youth in England, where his 10-year-old sister was buried in an unmarked ''pauper's pit'' after dying of tuberculosis -- a story he retold in front of thousands during a speech to the Labour Party conference last year.

But there was no longer such torment for Smith, as the Canada of the 1950s delivered on its promise of prosperity.

''It was almost a miracle to me that I came from nothing to be a respectable middle class man,'' Smith said. ''It was not just me, it was everyone around us.''

Back then, none of his friends or neighbours had a problem with paying taxes. Most of them, having grown up in the Depression, thought services paid for by taxes were what made the country a safe and good place to live.

But the decades of prosperity for those like Smith have slowly slipped from view, as corporations and politicians robbed the public of its social safety net, he said. It's a trend that began with Margaret Thatcher in the U.K., he added.

''[The public] has suffered so much under different governments that they now feel that they can't trust anyone anymore, that no one is going to come along and rescue them,'' he said.

That's led to a desperate situation where poor people are overwhelmed by the affects of austerity and don't know how to make ends meet, he said.

Voting for 'compassion'

Smith said he will tour the country in the run-up to the Canadian election, delivering speeches aimed at youth about the perils of austerity and attacks on government services.

He said young people in Canada need to realize their futures are at risk if they don't oust Harper and vote in someone with ''compassion'' who cares about them.

His upcoming speech at the Broadbent Institute's Progress Summit, starting Thursday in Ottawa, will touch on some of these themes.

Smith was originally to appear in person to deliver a speech at the progressive conference, but the request for him to support the Labour Party pulled him back to England, and he will now speak via video.

The touring will begin once Smith returns to Canada, and he said he's ''looking forward to seeing the back of that monster,'' Harper.

He stressed that warning young Canadians about their inaction risks the return to an uncivilized, brutish reality -- one festering with poverty and indifference to those drowning in it.

For Smith, that reality is long ago, but not forgotten.

''We were a generation of people who received nothing and we had to fend for ourselves to improve our standard of living," he said. "But it was much easier for us than it is for the young people of today.”

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...ion-denounces-governments-anti-terrorism-bill

Canadian Bar Association denounces government's anti-terrorism bill

The Canadian Press

|Mar 20th, 2015

Canadian Bar Association denounces government's anti-terrorism bill

Photo courtesy of Sean Kilpatrick, THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Conservative government's anti-terrorism bill contains "ill-considered" measures that will deprive Canadians of liberties without increasing their safety, the Canadian Bar Association says.

The bar association objects to the planned transformation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service into an agency that could actively disrupt terror plots.

It argues the bill's "vague and overly broad language" would capture legitimate activity, including environmental and aboriginal protests — and possibly put a chill on expressions of dissent.

The most worrying element of the bill is a provision that would give judges the power to authorize CSIS violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the association says.

It potentially brings "the entire Charter into jeopardy, undermines the rule of law, and goes against the fundamental role of judges as the protectors of Canada's constitutional rights."

The association wants a sunset clause that would see the bill expire and trigger a parliamentary review no more than five years after its passage.

The association, which represents more than 36,000 lawyers across Canada, released a draft summary of its concerns Friday. It has developed a full submission drawing on the input of experts in criminal, immigration, privacy and charities law.

Association representatives are scheduled to appear before the House of Commons committee studying the bill next week.

The government argues the proposed new provisions are needed to combat the threat of homegrown terrorism in the wake of two murders of Canadian soldiers last October.

The bill would also make it easier for police to limit the movements of a suspect, expand no-fly list powers and take aim at terrorist propaganda.

In addition, it would allow much greater sharing of federally held information about activity that "undermines the security of Canada."

The information-sharing measures would permit disclosure of personal data to the private sector and foreign governments, unconstrained by the charter, and open the door to misuse, the association's summary says.

It also says:

— the expanded no-fly list provisions would introduce powers to search computers and mobile devices without a warrant;

— CSIS's powers would be expanded without a similar boost to already insufficient oversight and review of the intelligence sector;

— the bill is being rushed through Parliament without enough time for careful study.

Neither the new disruptive powers nor the information-sharing provisions apply to "lawful" advocacy, protest or dissent, but many critics fear the bill could be used against activists who demonstrate without an official permit or despite a court order.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney told the committee last week such concerns were ridiculous, saying the legislation is not intended to capture minor violations committed during legitimate protests.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/commu...ent-s-cyberwarfare-toolbox-revealed-1.3002978
Exclusive
Communication Security Establishment's cyberwarfare toolbox revealed

Mexico, North Africa, Middle East among targets of cyber-spy hacking

By Amber Hildebrandt, Michael Pereira and Dave Seglins, CBC News Posted: Mar 23, 2015 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Mar 23, 2015 9:21 AM ET

CSE is working with NSA on computer network access and exploitation in a number of countries. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

Disruption possibilities 2:37

Top-secret documents obtained by the CBC show Canada's electronic spy agency has developed a vast arsenal of cyberwarfare tools alongside its U.S. and British counterparts to hack into computers and phones in many parts of the world, including in friendly trade countries like Mexico and hotspots like the Middle East.

The little known Communications Security Establishment wanted to become more aggressive by 2015, the documents also said.

Revelations about the agency's prowess should serve as a "major wakeup call for all Canadians," particularly in the context of the current parliamentary debate over whether to give intelligence officials the power to disrupt national security threats, says Ronald Deibert, director of the Citizen Lab, the respected internet research group at University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs.

"These are awesome powers that should only be granted to the government with enormous trepidation and only with a correspondingly massive investment in equally powerful systems of oversight, review and public accountability," says Deibert.

Details of the CSE¡¯s capabilities are revealed in several top-secret documents analyzed by CBC News in collaboration with The Intercept, a U.S. news website co-founded by Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who obtained the documents from U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The CSE toolbox includes the ability to redirect someone to a fake website, create unrest by pretending to be another government or hacker, and siphon classified information out of computer networks, according to experts who viewed the documents.
¡öINTERACTIVE: From hacking to attacking, a look at CSE's toolbox

The agency refused to answer questions about whether it's using all the tools listed, citing the Security of Information Act as preventing it from commenting on such classified matters.

In a written statement, though, it did say that some of the documents obtained by CBC News were dated and do "not necessarily reflect current CSE practices or programs."

Hacking spans globe

Canada's electronic spy agency and the U.S. National Security Agency "cooperate closely" in "computer network access and exploitation" of certain targets, according to an April 2013 briefing note for the NSA.

CSE cyber activity spectrum presentation
A 2011 presentation by a CSE analyst outlines 32 tactics that the spy agency has developed. Click on the photo to see an explainer on some of them.

Their targets are located in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and Mexico, plus other unnamed countries connected to the two agencies' counterterrorism goals, the documents say. Specific techniques used against the targets are not revealed.

Deibert notes that previous Snowden leaks have disclosed that the CSE uses the highly sophisticated WARRIORPRIDE malware to target cellphones, and maintains a network of infected private computers ¡ª what's called a botnet ​¡ª that it uses to disguise itself when hacking targets.

Other leaked documents revealed back in 2013 that the CSE spied on computers or smartphones connected to Brazil's mining and energy ministry to get economic intelligence.

But the latest top-secret documents released to CBC News and The Intercept illustrate the development of a large stockpile of Canadian cyber-spy capabilities that go beyond hacking for intelligence, including:

¡ödestroying infrastructure, which could include electricity, transportation or banking systems;
¡öcreating unrest by using false-flags ¡ª ie. making a target think another country conducted the operation;
¡ödisrupting online traffic by such techniques as deleting emails, freezing internet connections, blocking websites and redirecting wire money transfers.

It¡¯s unclear which of the 32 cyber tactics listed in the 2011 document are actively used or in development.

'In Canada's interests'

Some of the capabilities mirror what CSE's U.S. counterpart, the NSA, can do under a powerful hacking program called QUANTUM, which was created by the NSA's elite cyberwarfare unit, Tailored Access Operations, says Christopher Parsons, a post-doctoral fellow at the Citizen Lab, one of the groups CBC News asked to help decipher the CSE documents. QUANTUM is mentioned in the list of CSE cyber capabilities.

Publicizing details of QUANTUM's attack techniques fuelled debate south of the border about the project's constitutionality, says Parsons, who feels a debate is needed here in Canada as well.

"Our network has been turned into a battlefield without any Canadian being asked: Should it be done? How should it be done?¡± says Parsons.

National security expert Christian Leuprecht says the wide spectrum of cyber capabilities should come as no surprise, considering Canada's stature as an industrialized country and partner in the influential Five Eyes spying network, which also includes the U.S., U.K., New Zealand and Australia.

"I think it's in Canada's interest to have full-spectrum capability, because if or when the issue does arise, then we want to make sure we can be a major player in taking our collective security interest into our hands," says Leuprecht, a fellow at Queen's University's Centre for International and Defence Policy and professor at the Royal Military College.

Leuprecht adds, however, that "simply having that capability doesn't necessarily mean we're going to deploy" it.

He also claims Canada has "very explicitly" decided ¡ª for now ¡ª not to become embroiled in a dangerous cyberwar by using its most destructive tools to attack other countries, citing the example of the mysterious shutdown of North Korea's internet following that country's alleged hacking of Sony Pictures.

Canada also faces practical limitations in deploying some of these tools, such as money and strict laws, he says.
...continued...

 

[agentaqua]

Seeking approval for more disruption

According to the documents, the CSE wanted more aggressive powers for use both at home and abroad.

In 2011, the Canadian agency presented its vision for 2015 to the Five Eyes allies at a conference.

On mobile? See CSE's 2011 presentation here

"We will seek the authority to conduct a wide spectrum of Effects operations in support of our mandates," the top-secret presentation says.

Effects operations refer to manipulating and disrupting computers or devices.

CSE said in a written statement: "In moving from ideas or concepts to planning and implementation, we examine proposals closely to ensure that they comply with the law and internal policies, and that they ultimately lead to effective and efficient ways to protect Canada and Canadians against threats.¡±

Experts say the Anti-Terrorism Act, Bill C-51, currently being debated, could legalize use of some of the capabilities outlined in these classified documents.

Though the act would give CSIS, Canada's domestic intelligence agency, the power to disrupt threats to the security of Canada both at home and abroad, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service relies on its sister service, the CSE, for technical help with surveillance and infiltration of cellphones and computers.

"With Bill C-51, we're seeing increased powers being provided to CSIS, and that could mean that they would be able to more readily use or exploit the latent domestic capabilities that CSE has built up," says Parsons.

A ¡®perimeter around Canada¡¯

In an increasingly hostile cyberspace, Canada has also turned its attention to figuring out ways to better protect itself against such attacks.

'If we wish to enable defence, we must have intelligence to know when attacks enter our national infrastructure.'

- CSE presentation

Back in 2011, CSE envisioned creating a "perimeter around Canada" to better defend the country's interests from potential threats from other countries and criminals, raising the prospect the agency was preparing a broad surveillance program to target Canadians¡¯ online traffic.

At the time, "full visibility of our national infrastructure" was among its goals, according to a planning document for 2015. Security analysts wanted the means to detect an attack before it hit a target like a government website.

"If we wish to enable defence, we must have intelligence to know when attacks enter our national infrastructure," the 2011 top-secret CSE presentation says.

The agency would not answer how far it got with the 2015 plan. A spokesman called some of the documents obtained by CBC dated and said they "explored possible ideas."

As a result, the information "does not necessarily reflect current CSE practices or programs," the agency said in a written statement.

"Logically, it makes perfect sense" that CSE wanted to monitor all traffic coming in and out of the country, says Deibert.

"The problem is the techniques they have at their disposal, the capabilities, if they are indeed in place, are dual use and could be abused."

CBC is working with U.S. news site The Intercept to shed light on Canada-related files in the cache of documents obtained by U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The CBC News team ¡ª Dave Seglins, Amber Hildebrandt and Michael Pereira ¡ªcollaborated with The Intercept¡¯s Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher to analyze the documents.

For a complete list of the past stories done by CBC on the Snowden revelations, see our topics page. Contact us via email by clicking on our respective names or search for our PGP keys here.

With files from The Intercept's Ryan Gallagher and Glenn Greenwald

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion...ly+motivated+audits+chill/10916523/story.html

Stephen Hume: Politically motivated tax audits chill government’s critics

Call for legal change: Report says Canada Revenue Agency must be outside the influence of federal cabinet

By Stephen Hume, Vancouver Sun Columnist March 24, 2015

Stephen Hume: Politically motivated tax audits chill government’s critics

A study reports that tax audits of environmental groups were triggered by complaints from an oil-industry group with close ties to the Harper government.

Photograph by: Sean Kilpatrick , THE CANADIAN PRESS

Is Prime Minister Stephen Harper Canada’s equivalent to Richard Nixon, that U.S. president who was eventually impeached for using state powers to punish critics of his government and policies?

Whether or not you dismiss such a comparison as casual water cooler opinion, there are real grounds for a perception that Canada’s politicians can use government to silence critics, the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria warns after doing a study of recent federal tax audits.

It urges immediate reform to place the supposedly-neutral Canada Revenue Agency indisputably beyond the influence of politicians who are busy defending government policies from criticisms by groups that are subsequently investigated by the agency.

The study, for the Vancouver-based environmental organization DeSmog Canada, starts with the Harper government’s special allocation — during otherwise deep budget cuts — of $13.4 million to fund tax audits of “political activities” by non-profit groups that provide tax receipts for donations.

CRA has since audited at least 52 such charities to see whether they exceeded a 10-per-cent spending cap on political activities, the report says. By comparison, private companies donating directly to political parties can claim it as a tax credit and the cost of lobbying is a tax-deductible business expense.

Charities investigated by the CRA include the Nobel Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International; Pen Canada, which advocates freedom of expression under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-leaning economic think-tank that balances the right-leaning Fraser Institute.

Last September, 422 university professors from across Canada sent a letter to the federal government expressing concern that conservative think tanks appeared to have escaped audits. They concluded that the decision to audit the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives was “politically motivated to intimidate and silence its criticism of your government’s policies.”

The Broadbent Institute, a left-leaning think-tank that focuses on democratic process and social issues, also claimed “mounting evidence suggesting the audits are being used as a politicized tool to exert pressure on critics of the government.” It called for an independent inquiry.

Seven leading Canadian environmental charities were subject to audits: David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, West Coast Environmental Law, the Pembina Foundation, Environmental Defence, Equiterre and the Ecology Action Centre.

The UVic study cites research at Royal Roads University that found that while most charities passed their audit, a severe “advocacy chill” had fallen on groups intimidated by the federal audits.

Complaints against environmental groups were brought to the revenue agency by a private organization, Ethical Oil. It was originally headed by Alykhan Velshi, a former senior staffer in federal cabinet minister Jason Kenney’s office. Velshi left Ethical Oil a few months after starting it to take a senior position in Harper’s office. Jamie Ellerton, formerly executive assistant to Kenney, subsequently became Ethical Oil’s executive director.

“The suspicion that the audits targeted environmental groups has been heightened by reports that staff moved back and forth between the Prime Minister’s Office, minister Jason Kenney’s office and Ethical Oil — the private group which filed complaints against a number of environmental groups,” the study observes.

“It has also been pointed out that government has targeted environmental groups by changing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to severely limit the legal standing of such groups in environmental assessments and, in some cases, to eliminate their ability to cross-examine industry on proposals. (It has) muzzled government scientists to prevent them discussing oil sands development or climate change, and enacted sweeping retrenchment of environmental laws at the direct request of the oil and other resource industries.”

Groups exceeding their “political” cap can have their charitable tax status revoked, be required to either give away or forfeit all the charity’s assets within 12 months and face losing all donors who require charitable tax receipts.

But the study says that what constitutes “political” activity is vague and subject to “undue bureaucratic definition.” Canada’s limits on such activity are far more restrictive than in the United Kingdom, Europe and the U.S., where limits are liberal or non-existent.

The study says there is potential for perceived bias in Canada’s tax auditing process because the Canada Revenue Agency is directly accountable to the cabinet minister responsible for national revenue.

“The current concern is that the Conservative government is using their direct influence over the (agency) to target charitable organizations opposed to their governmental policies. It appears to some that the Conservative government is using the tax authority to fight its policy battles. As much as the (charities) directorate may deny it, the fact remains that there is a direct structural chain of command from an elected politician to the directorate which audits charities,” the study says.

“If there is political direction to these audits, then we face a situation not unlike the one that triggered the impeachment of President Nixon. However, even if there is no political direction, the mere appearance of possible targeting is having a grievous impact. It is silencing organizations.”

shume@islandnet.com

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.canadians.org/media/former-un-advisor-issues-scathing-report-harpers-legacy-water

Former UN Advisor issues scathing report on Harper's legacy on water

Media Release

March 24, 2015

Ottawa – The UN recognized last Sunday, March 22 as World Water Day, but a former UN advisor on water says that Canadians did not have much to celebrate this year.

Maude Barlow, former UN advisor on water and bestselling author, gives Stephen Harper’s government a failing grade in her report Blue Betrayal, launched by the Council of Canadians.

“The Harper government has put Canada’s freshwa*ter heritage at great risk. The values of greed driving the Harper government’s policies are not shared by the majority of Canadians who want our waterways protected by strong laws and who view water as an essential public service,” writes Barlow.

From gutting legislation to slashing funding for water protection and research, from promoting water privatization to tying international aid to water-destroying resource extraction by Canadian corporations, Harper’s agenda against water and the environment is clear, says the report.

As well, actions such as the overhaul of the Fisheries Act, the delisting of 99% of lakes and rivers under the Navigation Waters Protection Act, and the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that cancelled 3000 environmental assessments are risks to drinking water. Meanwhile the government promotes tar sands, pipeline, fracking and other projects that threaten drinking water.

Blue BetrayalThis week, a UN report revealed that within 15 years, the world will be in a water crisis.

Barlow says that action is urgent, “The federal government is setting the country up for a freshwater crisis if it doesn’t reinstate funding, freshwater protections and research programs. In a world running out of accessible water, we have no choice but to fight for the laws and policies that will protect our water for people and the planet forever.”

The report can be found here.
http://www.canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/report-blue-betrayal-0315.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post...rs-plan-return-canada-dog-eat-dog-world-1930s
Mar 28, 2015 by PressProgress

VIDEO: WWII vet warns Stephen Harper will return Canada "to the dog-eat-dog world of the 1930s"

Veteran Harry Smith, 92, is warning that Stephen Harper's "politics of austerity" will return Canada "to the dog-eat-dog world of the 1930s."

In a blistering attack on the Prime Minister, broadcast Saturday at the Broadbent Institute's Progress Summit 2015, Smith said Harper "has treated veterans with disdain, intimidated scientists, environmentalists, and most importantly the poor," "robbed the vulnerable" and "enriched the 1% at the expense of the 99%."

Smith authored the 2014 book Harry's Last Stand and is one one of the last remaining survivors of the Great Depression and the Second World War.

Smith, who was born in a British coal mining town before immigrating to Canada, called out Harper for working to "eradicate" Canada's social programs and "enrich the mighty." Watch his takedown of Harper's "politics of austerity" below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfLeDOV43NU&feature=player_embedded#t=4

Smith's speech warned against growing inequality, arguing that post-war improvements to the social safety net are being clawed back by the government.

Here are some of Smith's best quotes:

"The answer does not lie with the Harper government. Their message of austerity and restraint to the 99% and untold wealth to the 1% will return Canada to the dog-eat-dog world of the 1930s.

"The Harper government has robbed the vulnerable of their benefits to enrich the mighty and they have snatched from the workers of this country the right to a dignified wage. Harper has used fear instead of good governance to rule Canada."

"He is working to eradicate the progressive society that my generation built to protect the vulnerable, balance the books and defend our shores from real threats. Not from the made-up dangers cynically created by conservative media professionals."

"You are worth more than a Harper recovery that enriched the 1% at the expense of the 99%. You are worth more than a life enslaved to student debt or a life-time spent running from pillar to post on a below-subsistence wage. You are worth more than a cost-of-living crisis that insures you will never have a home to call your own. You are worth more than corporations who won’t pay a living wage and hide their profits offshore in tax-free havens."

"My generation built a strong social safety network. We created universal health care and public pensions, and we built affordable housing and demanded that education was everyone’s right. We enacted laws to protect workers, families, our youth from misfortunes caused by power being concentrated in too few hands. Sadly my generation's greatest achievement, the Welfare State, has become tarnished by the politics of austerity espoused by right-wing demagogues."

 

[tincan]

FULL report at the bottom of the link below:
---------

A new report by the Council of Canadians harshly condemns the federal government's "assault" on laws and institutions protecting Canada's freshwater.

”The Navigable Waters Protection Act no longer protects water. The Fisheries Act no longer protects fish. The Environmental Assessment Act no longer requires environmental assessments be done before important decisions are made," a Lake Ontario waterkeeper laments in the report compiled by Council of Canadians director and former UN Advisor Maude Barlow.

While acknowledging that Liberal governments also contributed to the problem, the report calls out the current Conservative government for actively "gut[ting] the regulatory framework” that protected Canada’s water, and turning policies “upside down to advance the interests of the energy industry.”

The report, Blue Betrayal: Harper's assault on Canada's freshwater, points out a wide range of damaging actions under the Conservative government, such as changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that removed protection from 99 per cent of lakes and rivers in Canada.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was rendered so weak by 2012 omnibus legislation that 3,000 active environmental assessments were immediately cancelled, the report said.

What’s more, the few remaining protections of navigable waters have now been handed to the National Energy Board, which has been completely stripped of its power to make decisions on major pipeline and extraction projects affecting water.

Other changes included funding cuts to institutions tasked with enforcing environmental protection: Parks Canada, for example, is no longer required to conduct environmental audits, while the Department of Fisheries and Oceans shut down its marine pollution monitoring program and laid off all habitat inspectors in B.C.

See here for the full report, Blue Betrayal: The Harper Government's assault on Canada's freshwater.


http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...harper-governments-assault-canadas-freshwater

 

[walleyes]

The battle for young hearts and minds: Should energy literacy be taught in schools?
Improving energy literacy among Canadian students is a big test for the industry. It’s also one it can’t afford to fail
BY LYNDSIE BOURGON
February 02, 2015


As part of a ‘social justice’ initiative, the B.C. Teachers’ Federation provided anti-oil industry posters like this one to schools in Vancouver, triggering a debate between educators, environmentalists and the energy industry about the role of politics and propaganda in the classroom
Poster www.bctf.ca
You might think that a public school classroom is a protected space, cut off from the corrupting influence of propaganda. But if you think that, you obviously haven’t spent much time in Vancouver lately. After all, posters titled “What We Stand to Lose With Pipelines and Supertankers” hang on classroom walls throughout the city. The posters are accompanied by fact sheets, lesson plans and “in-depth resources for the classroom,” all sponsored and distributed by the BC Teachers’ Federation. The posters were so popular with teachers that the BCTF ran out of stock. As the Vancouver Sun’s editorial board wrote in October, “No one should be deluded into thinking this has anything to do with education. There is no serious study of science, no discussion of economic benefits, no attempt to address the engineering challenges related to production and shipment of oil, no consideration of the people and communities that depend on resource industries for survival. It is a one-sided presentation that students are likely to – indeed, are expected to – accept as factual information and to view those who question it as errant.”

The energy sector is hoping to introduce some balance to that conversation. It’s fighting back with a decidedly less shrill campaign, one that involves a traveling 26-foot map and the participation of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. The RCGS, in partnership with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, is trying to give school-aged kids a way to “see how energy from one part of Canada can heat my home in another,” says Jeff Gaulin, vice-president of communications at CAPP. The two organizations worked together for years developing their “Energy IQ” program, which is now in hundreds of schools across Canada and provides energy-based classroom tools that span everything from online quizzes to animated videos. Of course, when the project was announced there was predictable outrage. The Canadian Youth Climate Coalition launched a petition against the partnership, writing, “Our schools are no place for Big Oil, and Canadian Geographic [published by the RCGS] is abandoning its responsibility as an educator and publisher by giving CAPP access.”

This debate over the proper role and place of the energy sector in our schools isn’t new to Alberta. It came to a head most recently last March, when the Edmonton Journal reported that the advisory panel for the province’s massive Kindergarten-to-Grade-3 curriculum modernization plan included representatives from Suncor, Syncrude and Cenovus. Cue the uproar. After the announcement, NDP education critic Deron Bilous visited then- Minister of Education Jeff Johnson’s office with a list of 26,000 signatures asking for the companies to be removed from the development process. In a statement, Alberta Education insists that it is now consulting with a wide variety of stakeholders and industries to create a plan that will meet the needs of a growing province. “We are reaching out to employers – including those in the oil and gas sector – who employ a diverse workforce. From skilled laborers to recognized professionals, they can offer insight into what industry needs from a new generation of 21st century employees.” From their standpoint, Albertan children should receive an education that shows all sides of an issue that’s front and center in their lives; kids shouldn’t have to sit through industry-approved curriculum or a screening of An Inconvenient Truth, either.

But from the perspective of oil and gas companies, including energy education in class could help stem distrust surrounding oil and gas production that has turned public opinion away in recent years. In a written statement, a Suncor representative says the company agreed to take part in the curriculum review after it was approached by Edmonton Public Schools, which is overseeing the initiative. “Education is simply too important to become part of a larger polarized energy debate,” Suncor wrote to Alberta Oil. “Our hope is that any curriculum will be developed representing a variety of viewpoints, and will present a thoughtful exploration of the environmental, social and economic aspects of energy.” Suncor points out that it has also been a part of creating educational tools with organizations like the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, as with their “The Big and Small of It” video, which was produced for fourth- and fifth-grade students.

“Some people think we shouldn’t be teaching about the oil sands, period. I would argue that many of them think they shouldn’t exist and should be closed down. But that’s not a good enough reason to not teach young people that it exists.” – Steve McIsaac, executive director of Inside Education
There are a number of organizations in Alberta that are dedicated to thinking about the challenges of teaching energy in school; Inside Education, which is run by former teachers and funded by a conglomerate of industry, government and non-profit players, is one of the biggest and executive director Steve McIsaac says it exists because of a desire to create a trusted third-party organization that can bring people together from across the spectrum. “There is a certain amount of recognition that it could be the most balanced information in the world and no one’s going to believe them, because it’s coming from [energy companies],” he says. “The minute the perception for our audience is that we are giving one-sided messaging … then we’re not trusted anymore. It’s in no one’s best interest to be a mouthpiece.” McIsaac doesn’t think that ignoring the issue entirely is much of an option, either. “Some people think we shouldn’t be teaching about the oil sands, period. I would argue that many of them think they shouldn’t exist and should be closed down. But that’s not a good enough reason to not teach young people that it exists.”

TW Insurance Big Box
The role that industry can – and should – play in public education has been hotly contested for decades. In Alberta, organizations and programs have surfaced with noble plans only to disappear through the years. In 2003, a petroleum “edukit” was developed by the Heritage Community Foundation, which shut down in 2009. Those resources are now archived at the University of Alberta but are no longer used. Prior to that, the Petroleum Communication Foundation arranged educational materials on oil and gas. The PCF was acquired by the now-defunct Centre for Energy Information, whose information was assimilated into CAPP’s initiatives. The text that was developed by these organizations was called Our Petroleum Challenge, but was aimed primarily at high school and post-secondary students.

Roger Rowley was part of the PCF when it first started to develop and propose curricula. “When I started there, I said they were drinking their own bathwater,” Rowley says. “It was all good information, but it was about the industry from the industry. It didn’t answer questions from the public, and there were no tools.”

Rowley and the PCF solicited help from consultants to identify places in the curriculum where energy could be discussed, and came up with 80 of them which they took to the board along with a teachers’ guide they dubbed, “The Source of So Much.” Soon after, they heard that the foundation was being shut down.

Can a compromise be reached between those trying to provide information about energy and those worried it will simply be propaganda they don’t agree with? “I think it’s possible,” Rowley says. “[But] it’s been neglected for so long. It ain’t easy, and it ain’t gonna be cheap. You’re asking people to change their perceptions about an industry that many don’t like. Some organizations thought we should have advocated only for oil and gas, but that’s the worst possible thing. They wanted to stress how big and important they are. You need to bring some perspective, a point of reference so [students] can judge the importance.”

The heart of this debate is not so much about curriculum or learning materials. Instead, it’s literacy – the ability of students to know what they’re reading, who brought it to them and why. The concern on the part of environmental groups is that students will be taught oil industry propaganda as truth. And industry is concerned that a new generation of Canadians will have no idea how energy actually works. “This should be about providing an opportunity for young people to figure out what they think,” says Inside Education’s McIsaac. “They have the ability to discern bias when they see it. It really speaks poorly of us, that we don’t think they are smart enough to figure it out for themselves. We do [them] a disservice to think that they don’t have that ability.

 

[walleyes]

The truth about fracking? — An oilfield engineer seeks to reassure you
Story

About the author:
Delaney Leigh, a Kalispell native, is an oil engineer and a graduate of Montana Tech University. She has worked for an oil services company for the past decade and has lived/worked in Siberia, Calgary and Denver.
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 9:00 pm | Updated: 9:03 am, Tue Apr 22, 2014.

By DELANEY LEIGH

My radio dial is tuned to NPR, I recycle whenever possible, and almost always vote for Democrats. But why is any of this relevant? Because I am also a scientist, with an engineering degree from Montana Tech University, and have worked for the world’s largest oilfield service company for 10 years. My business is hydraulic fracturing.
In the narrative concerning hydraulic fracturing, there seem to be two dominant points of view: those who unequivocally oppose it, and those who actually understand it. Unfortunately, those opposed are making a lot more noise. They are pounding their fists on the table and shouting, while those of us with the knowledge and expertise in the field sit stunned, watching as the practice that we’ve safely and consistently executed for decades is suddenly under attack as the villain du jour of the environmental movement.
The emotionally charged arguments made against hydraulic fracturing lead the public to believe that it will turn their children purple, blow up their house, and take away Christmas. The problem is that it’s very difficult to argue against emotional fear using only dry, scientific reason. And dry, scientific reason doesn’t make headlines, or lucrative HBO documentaries.
One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that hydraulic fracturing is a new, experimental technique that hasn’t been tested, isn’t regulated, and is being tried for the first time in your backyard. The fact is that the first “Frac” was conducted in 1947. That’s 66 years ago — think Harry Truman, the Cold War, and Jackie Robinson. It is estimated that as of 2012 more than 1 million fracturing jobs have been done in the United States and 2.5 million worldwide. This is not new or experimental.
So why all of the hype now?
As with most things, oil and gas production follows a path of least resistance. Whatever is easiest to get out of the ground and into your Ford Focus, that’s what we go after first. Next we move on to stuff that’s a little harder to get out, and so on, and so on. Historically, this easy, low-hanging fruit was a sandstone rock (with big pores full of hydrocarbon) that is bordered on the top and bottom by a much denser, harder rock on either side to keep the hydrocarbon in one place. Those dense, hard, border rocks are often shale.
Well, about 15 years ago, we realized that all of those shale rocks that we’ve been ignoring, thinking their only use to us is to be the book ends of the money maker, can actually produce oil and gas for us too. How, you ask? Because of two things: horizontal drilling, and yep, you guessed it, hydraulic fracturing.
Horizontal drilling is a technique that allows the well to be drilled down, turned 90 degrees and then drilled sideways through the pay zone. This, in combination with the already existing hydraulic fracturing technique to unlock the hydrocarbon from those tight, hard rocks, made shale oil and gas economical.
It’s not that hydraulic fracturing is new, it’s that it’s being used in new rocks, which means it’s being used in new places. In areas like North Dakota and Pennsylvania, large shale deposits have existed for millennia, but now because of horizontal drilling and the realization that we can “Frac” these reservoirs to make them produce, we are fracturing in places we didn’t “Frac” before.
Now let me clear up a few more misconcep tions that are out there about hydraulic fracturing.
n It is not a drilling technique. I too often hear reporters and protesters referring to “the drilling technique called fracking.” Hydraulic fracturing has nothing to do with drilling. Hydraulic fracturing doesn’t take place until well after the well has been drilled, cased, and cemented. It is a completion technique, to stimulate the production of the well. This is not splitting hairs, it’s a big difference; get the facts right.
n We are not just pumping massive amounts of harmful chemicals into the earth. Fracturing fluid is generally made up of 98 percent water. The other 2 percent is chemicals ranging anywhere from acid to anti-bacterial agents (used in disinfectants), to gelling agents (used in ice cream), to friction reducers (used in cosmetics), to surfactants (used in laundry detergents). And we’re not rubbing these chemicals on your face or washing your clothes with them. We are pumping very small amounts of them thousands of feet below the surface and then recovering most of them when the well is flowed back.
n Hydraulic fracturing is not contaminating drinking water. These fractures are being created about 6,000 feet below the surface. That’s four Empire State Buildings stacked on top of each other between the aquifer and the hydraulic fracture. If anything is going to risk the integrity of the drinking water, point the figure at the construction of the well, the steel and concrete barrier that is built to isolate that aquifer from a flowing well.
I fully realize that this does not exonerate the oil and gas industry, but hydraulic fracturing is the one getting all the blame for no reason, and by people who clearly need to take a physics class.
In May 2011, former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that she was “not aware of any proven case where the fracturing process itself has affected water…” And just recently, after a year of monitoring, the U.S. Department of Energy released its preliminary results from a landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, which found no evidence that chemicals from the hydraulic fracturing process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers in the area that the study covered, the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania.
n Hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes. In 2012 a study was released by the National Research Council stating that in nearly 90 years of monitoring, human activity has been shown to trigger 154 significant earthquakes, most of them moderate or small, and 60 of them in the United States. Most of this was from oil and gas drilling, damming rivers, and injection of wastewater. Only two cases of “shaking” worldwide have ever been attributed to hydraulic fracturing: a 2.8 magnitude in Oklahoma and a 2.3 magnitude in England, both in 2011. That’s compared to a total of 14,450 earthquakes of magnitude 4 or greater that occur around the world every year.
In the history of the world, nobody has ever died as a result of an earthquake caused by hydraulic fracturing, but every year on average 150 people die from falling coconuts. Maybe we should shift our attention to the larger concern. Consider this: In Northern California there have been 300 to 400 tiny quakes every year since 2005 because of geothermal energy extraction, and I have yet to see one protest against the practice.
So what can you do if you are presented with oil and gas development near you?
First you need to understand that keeping your community safe has everything to do with well construction and very little to do with fracturing. A poorly executed cement job will pose a much greater risk than a fracturing treatment ever will. Get involved! Contact the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and the Montana Board of Oil and Gas. Contact the oil company. Ask questions about well integrity; ask to see the Cement Bond Log (CBL) to prove that there is a good barrier between the production zone and the water table. Ask about the life cycle of the well. How will the wells be safely abandoned when they are done producing? What is the disposal plan for flowback water? Understand the risks and educate yourself.
So now you’re saying to yourself, “Yeah, OK, but I drive a Prius, I don’t want or need any of this stuff in my back yard.”
Stop. Right. There.
If you think that because you ride your bike to work, grow your own organic vegetables, and have a wind farm in your back yard, you don’t have a need for all this ill-gotten shale oil and gas, think again. Let’s start with that reusable “BPA free” water bottle full of mountain spring water sitting on your desk. I probably don’t have to mention that the bottle itself is made of plastic. Plastic is a product of hydrocarbons. Your water bottle is not made of unicorn tears; it came to you from the oil and gas industry.
How about that organic cotton shirt on your back? It was most likely made in a clothing factory that is powered by natural gas. That shirt was then shipped to you, not on the wings of doves, but by a semi- truck, powered by diesel fuel. I won’t go on, but it’s safe to say that everything around you, from your cell phone to your flu shot, in some way required oil and gas to be part of your life today. Even that wind turbine in your back yard required plastic and transportation.
In the grand scheme of things, despite advances in renewable resources, a hydrocarbon free future is a long way off, and in the developed world, extracting oil and gas from the ground is not optional. You need oil and natural gas, and hydraulic fracturing is the reason that they are available to you. So the next time you see a protest to ban hydraulic fracturing, see through the emotional hysteria and avoid a debate without facts, because the reality is often very different from the fear

 

[walleyes]

Clean Air Agenda

Through Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the federal government is advancing international climate change actions and obligations and continuing engagement and alignment with the United States. The federal government renewed funding to support the international theme of Canada’s Clean Air Agenda in Budget 2011 to advance Canada’s international engagement on climate change, including support for the U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue.

The Clean Air Agenda represents a part of the government’s broader efforts to address the challenges of climate change and air pollution, with a view to building a clean and healthy environment for all Canadians.

About the Initiative
International action on climate change

The renewal of this program will allow Canada to advance its climate change objectives by:

Participating in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations and complementary processes such as bilateral meetings and international forums, including the Major Economies Forum and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to address Short-Lived Climate Pollutants.
Ensuring that Canada continues to pay its membership dues in the UNFCCC process, as well as to international scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research.
U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue

Renewal of the U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue fosters enhanced engagement and alignment with the United States on clean energy technology and innovation. Through this collaboration, progress has been made in building cross-border clean energy networks and remains essential given the integration of our economies, our close energy relationship and the strong leadership role of the U.S. on clean energy innovation.

The Dialogue supports the transition to a lower-carbon economy in North America by offering an important opportunity for bilateral collaboration on carbon capture and storage, the electricity grid, clean energy research and development, and energy efficiency. The Dialogue further enhances energy security, seeks to revitalize the economy through the creation of new jobs, and is an important part of the government’s focused plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

Who Will Benefit
International action on climate change

Canadian interests are protected and advanced in both existing and new agreements, as well as through participation in key bilateral and multilateral partnerships. This approach will ensure that international agreements contain rules that are balanced and consider Canada’s economic needs and interests while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing clean air.

U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue

The U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue is supported by the collaborative work of three bilateral Working Groups composed of American and Canadian government officials. In turn, these Working Groups engage with clean energy practitioners in the scientific, academic and private sectors to strengthen work under the Dialogue.

Initiative Update
International action on climate change

The round of negotiations under the UNFCCC that took place in Doha, Qatar, in December 2012 concluded with the adoption of a package of decisions referred to as the Doha Climate Gateway. Key to this outcome is the important focus that will now be given to the new negotiating track that was established at the Durban Climate Conference in 2011, under which Parties aim to develop a new binding international climate change agreement that will come into force and be implemented from 2020 and that will include commitments by all major emitters.

By acknowledging that all countries need to take action if we are to succeed in effectively addressing climate change, the Durban Platform builds upon the success of the Cancun Agreements of 2010 and the Copenhagen Accord of 2009, and represents a significant step in advancing international climate change efforts.

Canada will continue to actively and constructively engage in the UNFCCC negotiations to support the establishment of a fair and comprehensive global climate change regime that will include all major emitters.

As a constructive and active Party to the UNFCCC, Canada has significantly scaled up its climate change-related financial support to accelerate global progress and effective action by all countries with an overall commitment of $1.2 billion in new and additional climate change financing for the fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Canada continues to deliver on this commitment to support climate change actions in developing countries.

Canada also continues to actively participate in complementary multilateral processes including the Major Economies Forum. In February 2012, Canada, along with Bangladesh, Ghana, Mexico, Sweden, the United States and the United Nations Environment Programme, launched the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, a new international voluntary initiative aimed at advancing efforts to reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs) in ways that protect the environment and public health, promote food and energy security, and address near-term climate change. Today, the initiative has expanded to over 60 partner countries, non-state partners and members of the scientific community. Action on SLCPs is one element of Canada’s broader climate change agenda and will complement, not replace, global actions to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, particularly those under the UNFCCC. Due to the nature of SLCPs, combining efforts on SLCPs with actions to address carbon dioxide emissions can greatly increase our chances of meeting the goal of limiting global average temperature increase to 2°C. Since the launch, Canada continues to actively engage in the Coalition, taking the lead on several initiatives aimed at reducing SLCPs from sectors such as municipal solid waste, heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines, and actively contributing to promoting alternatives to hydrofluorocarbons and other activities of the Coalition. To date, Canada has contributed over $13 million to the Coalition to support its action-oriented initiatives.

U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue

Important results have already been achieved under Action Plan II, which sets the framework of the U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue until spring 2014. On May 1, 2012, partners unveiled the North American Carbon Storage Atlas at the 11th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration in Pittsburgh. The Atlas identifies all the geological reservoirs in Canada, Mexico and the United States where greenhouse gas emissions can be stored when carbon capture and storage technologies are used by industrial facilities.

Also, in March 2012, the Dialogue’s Research and Development Working Group convened scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State to advance the science that will enable “dead forests” (killed by mountain pine beetles) to be transformed into usable biofuels.

Canada also continues to collaborate with U.S. officials in the implementation of smart-grid technology through a variety of technical workshops. This technology will increase the reliability of the electricity grid and ease transmission congestion.

Find Out More
International action on climate change

To find out more on Canada’s international action on climate change, please visit Canada’s Action on Climate Change under Canada’s International Action.

U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue

To find out more on Canada’s continental action on clean energy, please visit U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue.

 

[walleyes]

Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs)
In February 2012, Canada, along with Bangladesh, Ghana, Mexico, Sweden, the United States, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), launched the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), a new international voluntary initiative aimed at advancing efforts to reduce SLCPs in ways that protect the environment and public health, promote food and energy security, and address near-term climate change. The membership of the Coalition is growing reflecting the importance that both developed and developing countries attach to action in this area. The G8 countries endorsed the Coalition and agreed to join its efforts at the May 2012 Camp David Summit.

About SLCPs

Short-lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs) are substances such as black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane and some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which have a relatively short lifespan in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide (CO2) and other longer-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Although their life-spans are short relative to CO2, they are potent global warmers. The lifetime of these substances is an important consideration for addressing climate change. Even if emissions of long-lived GHGs were to cease, atmospheric levels would not decline significantly for a long time as the processes that remove such substances from the atmosphere are slow. In contrast, atmospheric levels of short-lived substances respond relatively quickly to changes in emissions since they are removed quickly from the atmosphere.

It is estimated that, unmitigated, SLCPs will contribute about half of the climate warming effect from current anthropogenic emissions over the next couple of decades. Reducing emissions of short-lived substances therefore offers an opportunity to influence the rate of near-term global warming. Interest in mitigating SLCPs is also driven by concern for the rapid rate of Arctic warming. Polar regions such as the Arctic are especially sensitive to the effects of black carbon as there is an additional warming effect from deposition of black carbon onto snow and ice.

In addition to their contribution to near-term climate change, ozone and black carbon are air pollutants and key components of smog which causes respiratory and heart diseases. Further, ozone contributes to agricultural crop damage. As a result reducing emissions of SLCPs has the potential to bring both near-term climate benefits and important positive co-benefits for air quality, agricultural productivity and human health.

The Coalition has identified five areas to take immediate action:

Reducing black carbon emissions from heavy duty diesel vehicles and engines;
Mitigating SLCPs and other pollutants from brick production;
Mitigating SLCPs from the waste management sector;
Alternative technology and standards promotion for HFCs;
Accelerating methane and black carbon reductions from oil and gas production.
A dedicated world-class Science Advisory Panel to provide scientific advice to the Coalition will be set up in the coming months

The Coalition will also undertake work in support of the development of National Action Plans and to identify how addressing SLCPs can be financed in novel and creative ways.

A Trust Fund, managed by the UNEP-hosted Secretariat, has been established to support the Coalition's efforts. To date, the Government of Canada has pledged $3 million to the Trust Fund, and is delivering and additional $7 million in projects that support the long-term mitigation of SLCPs in developing countries under Canada’s $1.2 billion fast–start financing contribution.

Canada’s domestic action on SCLPs

Members of the CCAC are committed to reducing SLCPs both abroad and at home. Several of the Government of Canada’s existing and forthcoming measures to address air pollution emissions also impact SLCPs. These include air emission standards in place for new engines in heavy-duty diesel vehicles, recent amendments to phase in more stringent air emission standards for off-road diesel engines, and the national Air Quality Management System (AQMS) currently being finalized.

Canada is also taking concerted action on SLCPs at the international level through a number of other multilateral initiatives, including the Global Methane Initiative (GMI), the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves as well as efforts under the Arctic Council and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Action on SLCPs is one element of Canada’s broader climate change agenda and will complement, not replace, global actions to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, particularly those under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Due to the nature of SLCPs, combining efforts on SLCPs with actions to address carbon dioxide emissions can greatly increase our chances of meeting the goal of limiting global average temperature increase to 2°C while resulting in positive near term benefits for human health and well-being

 

[walleyes]

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2014/home-accueil-eng.html

 

[GLG]

Man you just pegged the meter their Walleyes
Are you happy now?

 

[walleyes]

Harper Government commits significant funding to international Green Climate Fund
November 20, 2014 – Ottawa, Ontario – Environment Canada

Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced today that the Government of Canada is continuing to play a leadership role on the international stage by making a significant funding contribution to the Green Climate Fund. Canada will provide $300 million to the Green Climate Fund, which is aimed at supporting projects, programs, policies and other activities to address climate change in developing countries.

This funding announcement builds on Canada’s previous significant investment under the Fast-Start Financing Initiative. The Government of Canada has fully delivered on this investment of $1.2 billion in funding which supports a range of projects focused on climate change adaptation and increasing renewable energy in more than 60 developing countries.

In addition, Canada is a founding member and major financial contributor to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition that is focused on marshalling global efforts to tackle short-lived climate pollutants. Canada is also advancing the development of action to address short-lived climate pollutants under its Chairmanship of the Arctic Council.

Quick Facts
The Green Climate Fund is aiming to invest 50 per cent of its resources to support adaptation, with half of the adaptation funding going to the poorest and most vulnerable countries.
Domestically, the Government of Canada has already taken decisive action on two of Canada’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions—transportation and electricity.
Earlier this year, the Government announced further regulatory actions to limit the growth of hydrofluorocarbons and to further reduce emissions in the transport sector.
Canada’s economy has increased 10.6 per cent, while Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 5.1 per cent between 2005 and 2012.
Canada boasts one of the cleanest electricity systems in the G7 and in the world, with more than three quarters of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gases.
Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Quote
“Our Government’s funding pledge today demonstrates Canada’s commitment to establish a fair, effective international agreement in Paris next year that includes binding obligations on all major emitters. The Green Climate Fund’s strong focus on helping the poorest countries with adaptation and promoting private sector investment will play a key role in addressing climate change globally. We will continue to protect our environment and support our economy as we move towards a new climate agreement in 2015 that must include all major economies and major emitters.”

– The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council
Related Product
For more information and to view a backgrounder on this announcement, please visit the Government of Canada's website.

Associated Link
Climate Financing

Contacts
Ted Laking
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister of the Environment
819-997-1441

 

[GLG]

This is where the rubber hits the road....
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=E0533893-1&offset=5&toc=show#toc52

All this "bla bla bla" by walleyes means nothing when the facts don't match up with reality.

Canada missed another deadline yesterday when it comes to our international obligations.
http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission Pages/submissions.aspx

The whole world is stepping up their game but why is Canada not there?
Could it be that Harper is feeding us ********?
And some members are taken by it.....