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

[GLG]

Scientists push for 'scientific integrity' at bargaining table

Published on: <time itemprop="datePublished" class="entry-date published pubdate" datetime="2014-12-02T20:41:34+00:00" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 14.8788633346558px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(101, 101, 101);">December 2, 2014</time>Last Updated: <time itemprop="dateModified" class="updated" datetime="2014-12-02T20:41:34+00:00" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 14.8788633346558px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(101, 101, 101);">December 2, 2014
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/scientists-push-for-scientific-integrity-at-bargaining-table

Canada’s federal scientists are going to the bargaining table this week with an unprecedented package of contract changes to promote “scientific integrity” in government, including the right of scientists to speak freely and forbidding political interference in their work.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which represents more than 15,000 scientists, researchers and engineers, is tabling a negotiating position for managing science in the “public interest” with a list of demands for Treasury Board negotiators that dramatically push the boundaries of traditional collective bargaining in the public service.
The 7,000 members of PIPSC’s large applied science and patent examination group are the first at the table with Treasury Board this week, followed by 2,300 members of the research group next week.
The two groups have previously traded electronic demands, but this is the first face-to-face negotiating round. PIPSC negotiators are presenting two packages – one on “scientific integrity” that would trigger a series of changes to other federal policies, and another package of proposals for professional development of scientists.
A document obtained by the Citizen shows the union is looking for changes to deal with the ongoing spending cuts in science and “interference” in the integrity of scientific work.
The integrity policies will ensure science is done in the public interest; information and data is shared; scientists can collaborate, seek peer review and be protected from political meddling, “intimidation,” “coercion” or pressure to alter data.
The policy would lay out the expectations of scientists, managers, policy analysts, and communications or public affairs staff.
PIPSC officials said negotiating provisions around integrity or public science isn’t outside the scope of bargaining for federal unions. “There is no legal or other restriction that would prevent parties from negotiating along these lines. In fact, some of our proposals flow directly from Charter rights.”
Federal scientists have been a thorn in the Conservatives’ side during the government’s downsizing, accusing them of using federal policies to muzzle them, change or suppress their findings and undermine their ability to do their jobs to protect Canadians’ health and safety and inform evidence-based decision-making.
About a month ago, hundreds of scientists from around the world signed an open letter appealing to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end the “burdensome restrictions” Canada’s scientists face in talking about their work and collaborating with international colleagues.
The letter, signed by 800 scientists from 32 countries, was drafted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which represents U.S. scientists.
The union has extensively surveyed federal scientists in recent years and issued two major reports that found scientists don’t feel they can freely speak and that spending cuts are affecting Canadians’ health, safety and environment.
A quarter of scientists surveyed said they have been asked to exclude or alter information. That request, whether explicit or implicit, came from the department, ministers’ offices or the Prime Minister’s Office. At the same time, nearly three-quarters of scientists believe policy is being compromised by political interference.
More recently, the union consulted with its members on what they wanted from collective bargaining. A key issue that emerged was “scientific integrity,” with many feeling the drive for good public science is about more than decent salaries and benefits and needs policy changes, said PIPSC president Debi Daviau.
“This is about much more than their salaries; it’s about preserving the standards on which both Canadian public policy and public services are maintained,” she said.
Specifically, PIPSC wants a scientific integrity policy for Treasury Board and the 40 science-based departments and agencies. The union would be consulted in the drafting and the final policy would be part of the collective agreements and made public.
The policy would touch on a range of issues and existing policies, but the key proposal is the “right to speak.” The union wants a clause guaranteeing scientists the right to express their personal views while making clear they don’t speak for government.
The other big demand is professional development, allowing scientists to attend meetings, conferences and courses to maintain their professional standards.
PIPSC wants scientists to get 37.5 hours per year for conferences or similar gatherings and be allowed to carry any of that unused time over to the next year. It wants any refusals justified in writing.
The union’s push for “scientific integrity” is modeled after the Obama administration’s call for similar policies. More than 22 departments and agencies have since drafted or finalized integrity policies.
A proposal for a “scientific integrity” policy enshrined in contracts certainly ramps up the pressure on the government and union in the battle for public opinion in this bargaining round that was largely expected to be fought on sick leave benefits.
This round of negotiations was expected to be unlike any previous round because of the Conservatives’ legislative changes to bargaining rights, strike and replacing sick leave with a new short-term disability plan.
</time>

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/01/2...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=260115

Downsize Democracy for 40 Years, Here's What You Get
New signs civilization is veering towards collapse.
By Murray Dobbin, Today, TheTyee.ca

If you are searching for significant anniversaries for 2015, one that you might find illuminating is the publication of a book published 40 years ago entitled The Crisis of Democracy.

The title would seem fitting today but that's not the crisis its authors had in mind.

The book was commissioned by a new international boys club of finance capitalists, CEOs, senior political figures (retired and active) and academics from Europe, North America and Japan. The Trilateral Commission (TLC) could be said to be the birthplace of neoliberalism, a political theory that suggests progress depends upon "liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade."

Alarmed by the spread of the liberal state and its economic and social interventions, the TLC was founded to reverse the welfare state and re-establish capital to its "rightful" place at the pinnacle of economic and political power. (It still exists but has been supplanted to some extent by the World Economic Forum.)

The TLC book concluded, in the words of its American co-author Samuel Huntington, that the industrial countries suffered from "an excess of democracy." He wrote "the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy... on the part of some individuals and groups." He bemoaned the fact that "Marginal groups, as in the case of blacks, are now becoming full participants in the political system."

The TLC was just one of a growing number of institutions -- forums, think-tanks, academic clusters, major media outlets -- focussed on the same theme: that expectations of what government could provide had risen to a level that was now threatening the proper functioning of capitalist democracies. In Canada the most prominent and aggressive of these would be the Fraser Institute (FI), headed up Michael Walker (retired).

Walker told a group of worried corporate CEOs from B.C. that "if you want to change society you have to change the ideological fabric of society." In short, you had to launch a culture war against the activist state. It would be a war against democratic "excess."

The Fraser Institute (founded in 1973, the same year as the TLC) has been engaged in that process ever since on countless fronts and funded generously by well-endowed foundations and corporations. The guru for the FI was Milton Friedman, eventually the world's pre-eminent neoliberal economist. At an FI forum on democracy, Friedman declared: "I believe that a relatively free economy is a necessary condition for a democratic society. But I also believe that... a democratic society, once established, destroys a free economy."

Today's crisis

At the time these political declarations were widely ridiculed, dismissed even by conservative politicians and writers. After all, the West was characterized by mixed economies (government and private investment) that were doing very well in terms of growth and profitability. High taxes on wealth did not prevent the rich from investing, government revenues were robust, unemployment was low, social strife in Canada was rare.

Fast forward 40 years and any new book with the title The Crisis of Democracy is likely to be chronicling the result of four decades of systematic assaults on the liberal/social democratic state. Indeed in contrast to Huntington's "excess of democracy" complaint, the phrase "democratic deficit" has now been used by scores of writers and commentators. It is easy enough to chronicle the long list of attacks on democracy carried out by Stephen Harper as many have, and in the U.S. the domination of corporate money (backed by the U.S. Supreme Court) and outright theft of elections has democracy in that country on the ropes.

But it is the consequences of this decline and erosion of democracy that should be the most important focus of critics and citizens alike. The exceptionally successful four decades campaign to change the "ideological fabric" of society has put western civilization on a track to irreversible collapse according to a major study sponsored by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. The study focused on population, climate, water, agriculture and energy as the interrelated factors that determine the collapse or survival of civilizations going back 5000 years.

According to a Guardian report on the study, these factors can coalesce and lead to civilization's collapse if they create two critical social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity... and... the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or 'Commoners') [poor]."

According to the study these two developments played "a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse" in the demise of the Roman, Han, Mauryan, Gupta and multiple Mesopotamian Empires as well as the Maya. The study provides convincing "testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."

Careening towards collapse?

How far down the road to collapse are we? For my generation not so far that we will see the worst of it. But what is alarming is that all the signs are so dramatically obvious. And while the mainstream media isn't yet talking about the end of our world, the issue of grotesque inequality and unsustainable resource depletion are somewhere in the media almost every week. Indeed inequality in particular has been a hot topic ever since the Occupy movement briefly swept the planet. Yet if you monitor the political debate in this country the two most important trends in our society and the world are virtually never mentioned except rhetorically. There are no serious policy prescriptions. Mass denial reigns. Or, as Freud stated, we are "knowing without knowing."

Regarding income (and wealth) inequality, a 2010 study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives revealed that the top one per cent claimed close to a third of all income growth during the decade from 1997 to 2007. "That's a bigger piece of the action than any other generation of rich Canadians has taken," said Armine Yalnizyan, CCPA's senior economist and author of the report. "The last time Canada's elite held so much of the nation's income in their hands was in the 1920s. Even then, their incomes didn't soar as fast as they are today. It's a first in Canadian history and it underscores a dramatic reversal of long-term trends."

Internationally, the picture is just as bad or worse. Earlier this month Oxfam released a report revealing: "The combined wealth of the world's richest one per cent will overtake that of the remaining 99 per cent by 2016.... " The wealthiest one per cent -- amounting to 72 million people -- already owns 48 per cent of all global wealth. This trend continues to accelerate, flying in the face of all the evidence that it could ultimately be fatal for capitalism.

Is this really what the geniuses at the Chicago School of Economics like Milton Friedman had in mind? Did he really believe that "a democratic society, once established, destroys a free economy"? Would he have had any qualms about his policy prescriptions resulting in capitalism devolving into neo-feudalism or into Plutonomies? The term Plutonomies was first used by analysts at Citigroup in 2005 to "describe a country that is defined by massive income and wealth inequality." The analysts singled out the U.K., Canada, Australia and the United States.

Elites won't save us

Theoretically, of course, neoliberalism says the state should not intervene in the efficient functioning of the market -- resulting in prosperity for everyone. But the theory, according to neoliberalism authority David Harvey, was simply hijacked by the elites to fleece the system -- bailing out the financial sector with trillions of taxpayers' dollars and failing to re-regulate, while gutting labour and environmental regulation. Government actions reveal neoliberalism as "more of a practical attempt to restore elite class power than as a theoretical project driven by the works of [Friedrich von] Hayek or Friedman."

The NASA study is not optimistic about our chances of avoiding eventual collapse given the failure of other civilizations. It says "collapse is difficult to avoid.... Elites grow and consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society."

Warnings go unheeded. The NASA reports says "historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases)."

How close are we to collapse? The study points out that the process can extend over decades and even centuries. Yet some of the supporting empirical studies (by KPMG and the British Office for Science) suggest a perfect storm that involves food, water and energy could occur within 15 years.

The NASA study highlights two trends -- resource depletion and inequality -- as the key factors in civilization collapse. But there is a third and it explains why historically elites have been "oblivious" to their unfolding catastrophes. That factor is the political system of the particular civilization. Designed to govern and manage social and economic life before it became corrupted, and still in the hands of the benefiting elites, these governing systems were simply incapable of incorporating the idea of collapse into their thinking.

What would have to happen for us to escape the same fate?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?
Natural and social scientists develop new model of how 'perfect storm' of crises could unravel global system

This Nasa Earth Observatory image shows a storm system circling around an area of extreme low pressure in 2010, which many scientists attribute to climate change. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
Nafeez Ahmed
Friday 14 March 2014 18.28 GMT

A new study partly-sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Noting that warnings of 'collapse' are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that "the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history." Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to "precipitous collapse - often lasting centuries - have been quite common."

The independent research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The HANDY model was created using a minor Nasa grant, but the study based on it was conducted independently. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics.

It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation:

"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."

By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.

These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity"; and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]" These social phenomena have played "a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse," in all such cases over "the last five thousand years."

Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources, with "Elites" based largely in industrialised countries responsible for both:

"... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels."

The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency:

"Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."

Productivity increases in agriculture and industry over the last two centuries has come from "increased (rather than decreased) resource throughput," despite dramatic efficiency gains over the same period.

Modelling a range of different scenarios, Motesharrei and his colleagues conclude that under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid." In the first of these scenarios, civilisation:

".... appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature."

Another scenario focuses on the role of continued resource exploitation, finding that "with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites."

In both scenarios, Elite wealth monopolies mean that they are buffered from the most "detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners", allowing them to "continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe." The same mechanism, they argue, could explain how "historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases)."

Applying this lesson to our contemporary predicament, the study warns that:

"While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing."

However, the scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation.

The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth:

"Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."

The NASA-funded HANDY model offers a highly credible wake-up call to governments, corporations and business - and consumers - to recognise that 'business as usual' cannot be sustained, and that policy and structural changes are required immediately.

Although the study based on HANDY is largely theoretical - a 'thought-experiment' - a number of other more empirically-focused studies - by KPMG and the UK Government Office of Science for instance - have warned that the convergence of food, water and energy crises could create a 'perfect storm' within about fifteen years. But these 'business as usual' forecasts could be very conservative.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

This article was amended on 26 March 2014 to reflect the nature of the study and Nasa's relationship to it more clearly.

 

[agentaqua]

so true.......

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...illions_under_nafta_investor_protections.html

Canada being sued for billions under NAFTA investor protections
Study charts foreign corporations' growing use of NAFTA's investor protections to sue governments over environmental and economic regulations.

Michigan billionaire Matty Moroun, owner of the existing bridge connecting Windsor to Detroit, is claiming damages from Ottawa in connection with Canada’s plan to help build a second bridge linking Ontario to Michigan at Detroit.

By: Les Whittington Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Tue Jan 13 2015

OTTAWA—The private owner of the Detroit-Windsor bridge is suing Canada for billions under NAFTA, one of many legal cases cited in a new study on corporations’ growing use of investor protection measures to challenge the Canadian, U.S. and Mexican governments.

Michigan billionaire Matty Moroun, owner of the existing bridge connecting Windsor to Detroit, is claiming damages from Ottawa in connection with Canada’s plan to help build a second bridge linking Ontario to Michigan at Detroit.

Moroun, whose bridge company opposes the Canadian project, claims Canada’s handling of the pre-construction phase of the proposed new bridge has violated his firm’s right under NAFTA provisions to be treated no differently than a Canadian company. In an initial filing, Moroun’s company asked a NAFTA arbitration tribunal for $3.5 billion in damages from Ottawa.

In the ensuing proceedings, Canada has argued the case should be thrown out because Moroun’s company did not file a complaint within the time deadline for Chapter 11 suits, which is three years after a complainant becomes aware of an alleged rights violation. The case is still before the NAFTA dispute settlement tribunal.

It’s only one example of claims against Canada by U.S. or Mexican companies or private investors who say they have been treated unfairly by environmental, health, trade and economic regulations by governments in Canada. The claims against Ottawa for damages under the Chapter 11 investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in NAFTA total billions of dollars, according to the summary of cases by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), an Ottawa think tank that has often criticized federal policies.

Canada’s experience with NAFTA investor protections has taken on a higher profile in the controversy over inclusion of a similar mechanism in the free-trade pact being finalized by Canada and the European Union. The Canada-EU deal has sparked concerns in Europe among political groups who see ISDS measures as a danger to governments’ ability to regulate on behalf of public safety, the environment, health and other priorities.

“NAFTA’s investor-state mechanism and similar investment rules in other international treaties have been rightly criticized for giving multinational corporations too much power while constraining the fundamental role of democratic governments,” says Scott Sinclair, the CCPA senior researcher who authored the study being released Wednesday.

Canadians and their elected officials should be paying more attention to the impact of investor protection measures, Sinclair says in Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism.

Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments, the report says.

These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec government; a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful; provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies; a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia.

The report notes Canada has already lost or settled six claims and paid out damages totaling more than $170 million.

The federal Conservative government has said critics are overstating problems associated with ISDS measures in free-trade pacts. “Investment protections have long been a core element of trade policy in Canada and Europe, and will encourage job-creating investment and economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic,” a spokesperson for International Trade Minister Ed Fast said during the debate over the Canada-EU deal.

Legal challenges by investors against national governments filed under NAFTA Chapter 11 over two decades:
Against Canada: 35
Against Mexico: 22
Against U.S.: 20

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/01/15/meet-the-real-stephen-harper/

Meet the real Stephen Harper
By Michael Harris | Jan 15, 2015 8:58 pm

Stephen Harper

In politics, as in baseball, the rule is simple: Three strikes and you’re out.

When Stephen Harper finally shambles towards the showers, head down, bat in hand, I’ll be thinking of Mighty Casey. For much of his career, Harper has umpired his own at-bats. But that role will soon — if briefly — fall to the people of Canada. Election Day is coming to Mudville.

Strike one against this government of oligarchs and corporate shills comes down to this: They have greedily championed oil and gas while doing nothing to protect air and water. Consider the piece of legislation with the Orwellian name — the Navigable Waters Protection Act. NDP house leader Nathan Cullen said it as well as anyone could:

“It means the removal of almost every lake and river we know from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. From one day to the next, we went from 2.5 million protected lakes and rivers in Canada to 159 lakes and rivers protected.”

On second thought, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May put it pretty well too: “In Bill C-38, Stephen Harper cancelled and gutted environmental laws brought in by Brian Mulroney. He’s now moved on to destroy environmental law brought in by Sir John A. MacDonald.”

And who gave the Conservatives the blueprint for gutting the Navigable Waters Protection Act? The pipeline industry. The new legislation gave them a big plum: Along with power lines, pipelines were removed from the legislation altogether.

After eight years in office, Harper’s promise to regulate the energy sector remains as empty as the look behind his eyes. There’s a reason the Green Party just enjoyed the best fundraising year in its short history. May, like most Canadians, sees the big picture: All Stephen Harper has done in office is play shortstop to big business.

Canada now has more corrupt companies on the World Bank’s blacklist than any other country in the world. A stunning 115 of those companies are comprised of disgraced engineering giant SNC-Lavalin and its subsidiaries — the same company that the Harper government supported with an $800 million loan guarantee to build the dubious Muskrat Falls power development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Big business keeps telling workers they can’t have defined benefit pensions. Yet 43 per cent of Canadian CEOs have reserved that option for themselves. The PM has nothing to say about the gulf between worker and CEO pay packets.

The Conservatives have ignored the great issue of the age — the environment — and have offered instead a robber-baron vision of Canada built on unsustainable development and inflated oil prices. The lion’s share of the benefits have gone to foreign corporations and speculators.

Albertans get a tenth of what Norwegians get from the sale of their non-renewables. Since the public owns those resources, this amounts to a form of theft.

The Harper government has sabotaged international efforts to set a bolder course on global warming. How badly has he betrayed the environment? We’re talking Benedict Arnold here: He has transformed Environment Canada into just another oilpatch stooge, violating the purpose for which it was created.

He will drag out the usual mantra to continue his reign of error — that only Steve can protect us from terrorists, only Steve can protect us from recession, and only Steve has the stuff of leadership. I don’t think it’s working this time.

And for the third time in a year, the Harper government is trying to stop an investigation into Canada’s environmental record. Although there is evidence that chemicals from toxic tailings ponds created by the tar sands are seeping into adjacent groundwater in Alberta, the Harper government is trying to terminate a proposed NAFTA probe into the environmental effects of tailings ponds. Poison leaching into the ground — and Harper doesn’t want a factual record.

Of course he doesn’t. He didn’t want a factual record on endangered polar bears or salmon farm pollution. And remember, this is the guy who didn’t mind selling asbestos to other countries when it was being treated as a deadly carcinogen here in Canada.

Strike two against Stephen Harper is his personal failure to give Canadians a more open, ethical and democratic government. That is, after all, what got him elected in 2006 (that and a little cheating during the campaign). So it was beyond hypocritical this past week for the PM to portray himself as a champion of democracy and free speech after the dreadful killings in Paris. He even politicizes tragedy.

Here is the real man … the one who dedicated his entire communications effort to smothering free speech, who undermined access to information, the life-blood of any democracy, with endless delays in handing over government documents that belong to us. In some cases, his government has simply — and unconstitutionally — refused to fork them over. He has also mused about charging $200 per access request — which would certainly suppress the urge to ask.

The real man has muzzled his own workers — even demanding loyalty oaths from them. He wanted the right to ask prospective government employees about their politics. He has viciously attacked any individual or institution that opposes him, from former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The real man repeatedly has tried to turn the Internet into a servant of the police state, disguising his intent with nonsense about child pornographers and “protection”.

The real man has starved the opposition of even the most basic information about the budget and deprived Parliament of the ability to debate legislation through the cynical use of enormous omnibus bills.

Sheila Fraser has named the disease. Laws are being passed in Stephen Harper’s Canada without scrutiny. (That didn’t seem to bother the dear host of CBC’s The Current when she interviewed on my new book. But it bothers me, and a lot of other people, a great deal.)

The real man doesn’t speak to his fellow premiers as a group, banishes journalists from public buildings and thinks Sun News is where it’s at.

It didn’t take a genius to work out that Harper’s reaction to the robocall scandal would be new legislation that will make it harder to catch cheaters the next time. And trust me, there will be a next time. So let it be said clearly: Stephen Harper is a champion of screwing free speech and democracy at every opportunity.

What’s strike three? Canada is not Harperland. Stephen Harper is not who we are.

Canadians don’t want to see medicare slowly reduced to a ghost of its former self by a prime minister who once headed an organization created to destroy it.

Despite the stunning selfishness of some of its stars, Canadians don’t want to see the CBC brought to its knees and “restructured” by a man who prefers public relations to journalism.

Finally, Canadians don’t want to save money on the backs of veterans who didn’t take to the closet in the face of clear and present danger — especially when Harper has so egregiously used the military for political gain. There has to be more for our soldiers than bullets and beans.

Stephen Harper will definitely come out swinging when he comes to the plate. He will drag out the usual mantra to continue his reign of error — that only Steve can protect us from terrorists, only Steve can protect us from recession, and only Steve has the stuff of leadership.

I don’t think it’s working this time. I suspect that when Mighty Steve strikes out, there will be joy in Mudville.

Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His eight books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. His new book on the Harper majority government, Party of One, recently hit number one on Maclean’s magazine’s top ten list for Canadian non fiction.

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

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.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Roy Spencer, PHD
The Little Blizzard that Couldn’t
January 27th, 2015
2015-blizzard-that-couldntIt was going to be epic. The worst evah. Two feet of snow or more for New York City with blizzard conditions.

But as I blogged about yesterday, the forecast uncertainty with this particular storm was unusually large. As early as yesterday noon it was looking like NYC might only get 6-12 inches.

Yes, we probably will see some snowfall records for the date broken well east of NYC, which is not that hard to do. But it’s now looking like the 12+ inch snowfalls will be restricted to eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, portions of Long Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. All-time record snowfalls look unlikely.

Nantucket had winds gusting to 70 mph overnight, but that’s normal weather for those hardy souls. Blizzard conditions are occurring over much of the area just listed above.

So, a winter nor’easter with snow. How unusual!

Global Warming Causes Whatever We Feel Like it Causes

Despite the official IPCC view that there is no obvious connection between winter storms and Climate Change(TM), several of the usual suspects couldn’t even wait for the storm to hit before they blamed the calamity on your SUV. Bill Nye the Bow Tied Wise Guy. Kevin Trenberth.

Bill Nye even used the opportunity to blame (relatively weak) Santa Ana winds in California on global warming. Really, Bill? He also made it sound like he was the first to dream up the “weather-is-now-climate-change” meme. I guess TV really is only for entertainment now. If Bill was a real scientist, he’d be sporting a pocket protector, not a bow tie.

This morning, after being buried by literally several inches of snow (now up to about 8 inches in in Central Park), the Big Apple is picking up the pieces. Stay off the roads! Stay off the sidewalks!

Earlier this morning, Weather.com was claiming Islip, NY got 18 inches, but I find that hard to believe. Maybe in a snowdrift somewhere.

Yes, heavy precip events have become more frequent in the Northeast U.S. Yes, the North Atlantic is warm right now. But that’s mostly natural climate variability, folks. It’s probably related to some combination of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

But extraordinary claims related to human causation and people driving their SUVs require extraordinary evidence. So far, what we’ve seen is still in the range of natural variability. Our weather records are relatively short (only 100 years or so, at best), and it is entirely expected that storms in some regions will result in “all-time” records.

But it looks like the 2015 Blizzard that Couldn’t won’t be one of them.

And until climate scientists decide whether global warming causes more snow or less snow, don’t trust them. They will probably decide on “both”, which then makes it an untestable hypothesis, which is what climate science (and the politicians) love.

 

[GLG]

Roy Spencer, PHD
The Little Blizzard that Couldn’t
January 27th, 2015
2015-blizzard-that-couldntIt was going to be epic. The worst evah. Two feet of snow or more for New York City with blizzard conditions.

You seem confused OBD. This post should go on the "other thread".
Perhaps delete it and repost it over there.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ca...-veterans-class-action-lawsuit-290077361.html

Feds spend $700,000 in court fighting veterans class-action lawsuit
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Posted: 10:34 AM | Comments: 1 | Last Modified: 3:25 PM

Canadian Veterans Advocacy president Mike Blais speaks during a press conference to discuss various veteran related issues Wednesday January 28, 2015 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

OTTAWA - The federal government has so far spent nearly $700,000 fighting a disgruntled group of wounded Afghan veterans in court— a revelation that on Wednesday rekindled a political controversy the Conservatives had hoped was behind them.

During question period, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to cast the ongoing court battle as the legacy of a flawed policy that was foisted on Parliament nine years ago by Paul Martin's Liberal government.

"The government is defending a decision of the previous government, supported by all parties in the House of Commons," Harper said, referring to the new veterans charter, which the Conservatives have championed since coming to office in 2006.

"Since the previous government imposed the new veterans charter, it has enhanced veterans services and programs by some $5 billion — opposed by the Liberals and NDP."

The $700,000 figure was contained in a response to a written question posed by the opposition. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau used the cost to demand in the House that the lawsuit be dropped.

Liberal veterans critic Frank Valeriote described the government's response as "hypocrisy," noting that the issue for ex-soldiers is not the system itself, but the amount of funding within it.

"It is not the new veterans charter that is the problem, it's adequency of the funding given to those programs and the sufficiency of the awards given to our veterans through the application of the charter," Valeriote said.

The ex-soldiers are plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court, calling the charter discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it does not provide the same level of benefits and support as the old pension system.

In a statement of defence filed by federal lawyers, the government argues Ottawa has no special obligation or "social contract" with veterans, and that it is unfair to bind the current government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, called the legal bill "unconscionable" and called on the government to drop the lawsuit and negotiate a settlement.

"That money should have been spent on veterans," Blais said.

"Taxpayers deserve better. I think if taxpayers knew that this government, Stephen Harper, was spending so much on lawyers — government lawyers — to fight the wounded in court, they would appalled."

At issue in the court case is a 1917 pledge made on the eve of the Battle of Vimy Ridge by Sir Robert Borden, who was prime minister at the time, that effectively said the country would not fail to show its appreciation for those who've served.

Although never explicitly codified in law, that pledge has guided the country's policy towards veterans for decades. The government's apparent attempt to abandon it has been central to the recent unrest among veterans.

The government had hoped some of that unrest would be muted by the decision earlier this month to shuffle Julian Fantino out of Veterans Affairs and replace him with Erin O'Toole, a retired air force officer.

O'Toole spoke in the House of Commons this week about the government's "tremendous obligation, recognized as far back as Robert Borden," but he emphasized that the policy was "not frozen in time."

How O'Toole plans to bridge the contradiction between the Conservatives oft-repeated, overflowing public affection for veterans and the reality of the government's legal arguments and actions remains unclear.

For his part, Valeriote dismisses O'Toole's comments.

"They're just wiggle words," he said. "The phrase 'not frozen in time' means he's just looking to abrogate their obligation."

O'Toole wasn't willing to discuss the lawsuit or its costs Wednesday, but did say the issue remains a priority, noting it was the first thing he asked about after taking over from Julian Fantino earlier this month.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-anti-terror-bill-could-put-chill-on-freedom-of-speech-1.2935312
New anti-terror bill could put chill on freedom of speech
'It’s really more political posturing than sound counterterrorism policy,' says legal expert
By Lucas Powers, CBC News Posted: Jan 29, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 29, 2015 5:24 AM ET

Pushing the limits of criminalized speech could stifle discussion about sensitive topics, such as extremism and radicalization, in communities where that conversation is

Such a move, however, could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Canada and would not necessarily contribute to effectively fighting domestic extremism, according to legal experts.

The new bill aimed at combating domestic threats was promised by the federal government in the weeks following the October attacks in Quebec and Ottawa that left two members of the Canadian Forces dead.

The new bill, however, is largely a knee-jerk response to October’s attacks and Canada already has the necessary laws on the books to pursue and prosecute people promoting hatred or inciting violence, says Kent Roach, a professor at the University of Toronto who specializes in constitutional and terrorism law.

“The government has the burden before they introduce new laws to demonstrate why it’s not possible to prosecute these kinds of offences under existing Canadian law,” he says.

“There’s a real danger when we make laws in reaction to events with the assumption that those laws will help prevent tragedies from happening again.”

Government officials have repeatedly stated that any new legislation would be drafted in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will not infringe on freedom of expression and religion.

'Glorification' offences

Similar legislation criminalizing the "glorification" of terrorist acts exists in several European countries, and MacKay said last year that the government was reviewing specific laws in the U.K. as a possible template.

Earlier this month, Roach co-authored a working paper with Craig Forcese, an associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa, that analyzed the prospect of a Canadian law targeting glorification of terrorism offences.

'Sometimes these things can become wins for extremists and terrorists. They are trying to provoke further attacks and if the response reinforces their perspective on the state of the world, then it ends up helping their cause. '
- Scott Stewart, VP of tactical analysis at Stratfor
Pushing the limits on what kinds of speech are considered criminal may put a "chill" on the dialogue around terrorism, they wrote, particularly in communities where discussing the issues around radicalization and extremism is most critical.

"There are at least two concerns about speech chill: will people not talk about controversial topics because they’re worried about being charged under a new offence? And second, will it drive potentially radicalized individuals further underground?" says Roach.

When people don’t feel free to talk about the political, religious and ideological elements of extremism, Canadian society won’t be able to address the underlying forces that drive people toward radicalization and, in some cases, to acts of violence, says University of Waterloo sociology and legal studies professor Lorne Dawson.

'It's silencing'

Dawson does extensive research within communities dealing with radicalization. He says many people are already reluctant to speak openly about the subject.

"If we expand our laws, it will stoke the fear that people are susceptible to prosecution just by the suggestion that that they may empathize in part with the world view of people that are considered terrorists, but they themselves would never do anything violent or hateful," says Dawson.

EXCLUSIVE |​ CSE tracks millions of downloads daily: Snowden documents
CBC readers skeptical about new terror laws
Has Ottawa been too slow to take on radicalized Canadians?
"There is already an increasing sense that it is a forbidden topic — it’s too potentially dangerous and words could be misconstrued or misunderstood. It’s silencing."

While there is no question that extremist networks use the internet to communicate and promote their causes, mounting evidence has shown online activity is not always a driving force on the path to radicalization.

Bob Paulson RCMP
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson in October outlined his force's plan to lead an anti-radicalization program in communities nationwide. These kinds of preventive measures are more effective than clamping down on speech, legal experts say. (Blair Gable/Reuters)

"The internet might be a facilitator, but it’s not the cause," says Forcese, who argued in his paper with Roach that contact with a charismatic thought leader is almost certainly the strongest influence on those moving toward extreme viewpoints.

The RCMP has already begun developing an anti-radicalization program in conjunction with local police forces, and if a community leader was inciting people to join extremist movements, their actions are already illegal under the Criminal Code.

Making 'martyrs' of ideas

Similarly, stifling speech plays into the narrative promoted by many extremist groups that Western societies are hypocritical to espouse free speech values while repressing contradictory views. In essence, says Forcese, these kinds of laws can make "martyrs of ideas" and speech that lie within the definition of protected speech.

The ultimate result is to provide propagandists and recruiters in foreign groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, which are far out of reach of Canadian law, another weapon in their arsenal.

"Sometimes these things can become wins for extremists and terrorists," says Scott Stewart, vice-president of tactical analysis at Stratfor, a U.S.-based private intelligence and consulting firm.

'It seems to me that Canada’s legal house is pretty much in order. The problem in Canada is not that the laws aren’t on the books, but rather the enforcement of those laws. '
- Kent Roach, U of T law professor
"They are trying to provoke further attacks and if the response reinforces their perspective on the state of the world, then it ends up helping their cause."

On the other hand, it can be helpful to provide resource-strapped counterterrorism forces with additional tools in the uphill battle against homegrown threats. That was the fundamental basis for the laws that were passed in the U.K., and Stewart says Canada’s new legislation could be sculpted in the image of those laws.

While critics of the U.K.’s approach to glorification offences argue there is room for abuses, particularly when it comes to the expression of political and religious ideologies, "the British have addressed the possibility of overstepping by surgically applying the laws," says Stewart.

Enforcement of existing laws

While the U.K.’s efforts have arguably been effective, "Canada can already accomplish what the U.K. has done in terms of most prosecutions" under laws already in place, Roach and Forcese wrote.

"It seems to me that Canada’s legal house is pretty much in order," says Roach. "The problem in Canada is not that the laws aren’t on the books, but rather the enforcement of those laws."

London bombings 2005
The U.K. enacted a series of laws that criminalized the "glorification" of terrorism following the 2005 attacks on London's public transit system that killed 52 people. (Dylan Martinez/Reuters)

For example, Canadian legislation allows for a judge to issue a warrant that would force internet service providers or individual websites to take down material if it can be shown that it falls outside of constitutionally protected speech.

The kinds of terrorist propaganda targeted by U.K. law could largely fall under this category in Canada, according to Roach.

Interestingly, there’s no publicly available evidence that the provision has ever been used by Canadian law enforcement since being enacted shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

He points to a history of co-operation between MI-5, the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agency, and police forces throughout the country as the primary reason for the U.K.’s ability to keep tabs on homegrown extremism.

'Political posturing'

CBC News reported earlier this month that the new anti-terror legislation will likely include provisions to allow increased information-sharing between federal agencies, currently limited by privacy laws.

Ultimately, pushing the limits of criminalized speech in the digital age "is not going to stop the spread of information and it’s not going to reduce the flow of propaganda," asserts Dawson.

Rather, it is intended to convey the message that Canada as a nation is trying to do something to combat domestic threats.

"It’s really more political posturing than sound counterterrorism policy."

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/01/28/C...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=290115

'Smoking Gun' Snowden Docs Show Gov't Spies on Canadians, Says Advocate
CSEC sifts through millions of downloaded files each day to track extremists.
By Jeremy J. Nuttall, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca

Edward Snowden
Documents obtained by American whistleblower Edward Snowden show that CSEC is sifting through millions of files downloaded by people worldwide every day.

Revelations about the work of Canada's agency in charge of online spying are the "smoking gun" that show the federal government is spying on Canadians, according to a privacy advocate.

As reported by CBC News this morning, documents obtained by American whistleblower Edward Snowden show that Communications Security Establishment Canada is sifting through millions of files downloaded by people worldwide every day.

The CBC report said the documents are part of project "Levitation" aimed at tracking down extremists and terror plots. The project is capable of securing information on up to 15 million uploads and downloads per day.

The CBC report worked from a PowerPoint document prepared by CSEC that showed two IP addresses linked to a Montreal server company as being used for suspicious downloads.

David Christopher of the Internet rights organization OpenMedia said the IP addresses included in the presentation prove that Canada is spying on its own citizens, which is illegal and a "worrying" revelation.

"You can be pretty sure that's the tip of the iceberg," Christopher said.

He said a simple IP address can help authorities quickly learn an "awful lot" about the person it is connected to, and in some cases they can even examine what the person was looking at online up to five hours before or after the flagged material was downloaded.

'Collecting the haystack'

According to transcript from the House of Commons in June 2013, then minister of National Defence Peter MacKay was asked by NDP leader Thomas Mulcair if Canadian authorities were "monitoring the phone and email records of Canadians."

The question was in response to revelations, also from the Snowden files, that the U.S. government was spying on Internet users. MacKay said Canadians were not being spied on.

"This program is specifically prohibited from looking at the information of Canadians," he said. "This program is very much directed at activities outside the country, foreign threats, in fact. There is rigorous oversight. There is legislation in place that specifically dictates what can and cannot be examined."

During the exchange MacKay repeatedly insisted Canadian law enforcement was operating within the law.



But OpenMedia's Christopher said today's revelations show that isn't true, and that Canadian authorities are not only playing a larger role in international spying than previously thought -- they are breaking their own laws in the process.

"They're really collecting the haystack, and then searching for the needles later," Christopher said. "Even if the file is something dodgy like militant propaganda. Probably most of the people downloading that material could be academics, could be researchers, could be journalists." [Tyee]

Read more: Politics, Federal Politics,

Jeremy J. Nuttall is The Tyee's Parliament Hill reporter in Ottawa. Find his previous stories here.

This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.

 

[agentaqua]

yep...tell me again stevie?...

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Culture/2015/01/3...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=300115

Mark Bourrie: This Election, Demand Your Politicians Represent You
Eight years of Harper's information iron grip has hobbled Canadian democracy, author argues.
By Tomas Hachard, Today, TheTyee.ca

Last week, after declaring her intention to run for the Conservative candidacy in the Montreal riding of Mount-Royal, former journalist Pascale Déry told The Globe and Mail that she hoped to disabuse Quebecers of the notion that the Conservative Party of Canada is "hostile and non-transparent." It's a particularly appropriate ambition for Mount Royal, where Stephen Harper's crew has shown some of its more hostile tendencies.

In 2011, residents there got calls from a Tory-commissioned polling company falsely declaring that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler was planning to quit politics -- at a time when Cotler was actively fighting the Conservatives' crime bill. The Conservatives were also accused of hiring a shadow MP for the riding who helped municipal politicians work with the federal government.

Mark Bourrie recounts both these incidents in Kill the Messengers, an exhaustive account of a prime minister and Conservative party that have deployed increasingly ruthless attacks on political enemies, and steadily tightened their grip over information access in ways that benefit their policies.

Kill the Messengers doesn't reveal any new scandals, but as a compendium of the government's shadier actions it makes for a riveting, if somewhat soul-crushing, read. Bourrie details the most widely reported transgressions, like the robocall scandal and cancellation of the long form census, as well as more forgotten incidents like the government's plan to build a media centre from which it could best control journalists' access to information. He also focuses on Harper's ambition to reshape the history and identity of Canada.

"We never hear the word peacekeeper anymore," Bourrie said, reflecting on the last eight years. "Things that used to be taken for granted as being very Canadian aren't even part of our national discussion."

As much as he lambasts Harper, Bourrie's worries extend beyond the current government. Examining a Parliament now micromanaged by party whips, MPs who see no reason to attend the House of Commons to debate bills, and a media seemingly no longer able or willing to report on Parliament Hill in scrupulous detail or with a critical lens, Kill the Messengers paints a portrait of a democracy that's hobbled or, as Bourrie puts it, "on autopilot."

The result is a book that doesn't allow us to merely sit by and stew in outrage. Bourrie argues forcefully that without substantial pressure from the public demanding fundamental changes, Parliament is likely to retain its hostile and secretive qualities no matter which party is in power.

The Tyee spoke to Bourrie on the phone this week about the upcoming election, the Conservative government's information control, and why we need to put pressure on MPs to actually do their jobs.

Sadly, I think many people would say that facts and in-depth policies are no longer necessary in running a successful campaign in Canada. Would you say that's a legacy of the current Conservative government? Or does it reflect a broader problem?

"I think that a lot of what [the Conservatives] do they import directly from the States, especially from the Tea Party side of the Republican Party. They didn't invent it, but certainly they have brought it to the most extreme [level] that we've ever seen in Canada. The scary thing is that it's not just watching, it's bringing people in from the States to teach Harper's people how to do this stuff."

I think the NDP and the Liberals have brought in people from Obama's team for this election.

"Yes, they have. That's a bad trend in Canada. We have enough problems maintaining our independence without really setting up branch-plant political parties. We already imported the political strategists system -- which is really too bad for democracy -- where we have people who basically are paid to run campaigns, people who are professional marketers or strategists.

"These people have a lot more say than the people who join political parties. When I was a kid in the 1960s, my parents were members of political parties and were very active. I went to political party meetings. I went to see Pierre Trudeau when I was 10 years old. I saw politics in those years as something that Canadians were really involved in, if you wanted to be. Now I'm not quite sure what you get from joining a political party. Maybe you get to be used as a foot soldier, but you certainly don't get a lot of say in actually doing election work, like really interesting election planning. And that's really too bad."

In the book you briefly mention the "gotcha" culture of politics, but point out it isn't necessarily that new of a phenomenon. If you have these pseudo-scandals and they captivate so many people, how much can you blame politicians for trying to make sure they don't say anything wrong if it could completely derail their campaign?

"I don't think I could be a politician, because I shoot my mouth off all the time. It's a real skill to have the discipline that it takes to be a politician. The other side of the coin is that with most TV sound bites being down to seven or eight seconds, it's hard to make any kind of argument in the space that a politician is given. So it becomes a game of how you manipulate images and television footage, and also manipulate that little wee-bit of sound that you get.

"What we've seen the Harper people do is just make sure that everything is scripted, every image is planned out, every event planned to the nth degree to make sure there's no spontaneity, no real interaction with people other than people who are chosen. Even during election campaigns. They've shown that they're more than willing to muscle people out of rooms if they don't like what the audience is saying.

Did you read the op-ed that [Harper's former director of communications] Andrew MacDougall published in the CBC, where he tried to explain why politicians circumvent the media these days?

"Yeah, that was a beauty. Oh, would I ever love to talk about that. Talk about a piece of propaganda. The idea that Harper wants to set up his own media because Canadian media doesn't care enough about him to cover his every waking moment! That was one of the most absurd things ever written. I put it on Twitter. I just called it ********. This is not even worth analyzing more than that. It's just straight ********.

"It's just appalling that the CBC would run that on their webpage. It really makes you wonder. First of all, nobody watches 24 Seven [the government-produced web series about Harper], which is paid for by you and me. Nobody wants to watch it. The media in this town would do handstands to get a chance to film Harper doing stuff. I mean, one of the things that really drives the media's anger with Harper is the lack of ability to show this guy in any situation other than him standing with a lectern or a bunch of flags behind him. So the idea that the media doesn't care enough about Harper, so we have to have this propaganda, sort of like North Korean trash on the internet, is completely absurd."

...continued...

 

[agentaqua]

But in your book you do seem to suggest that there's a double problem of the media not having enough money to cover Ottawa properly, and then Harper not presenting himself to journalists...

"Oh, but we certainly have enough TV camera people around who would love to have real chances to film Stephen Harper in his office, meeting people, talking with people, walking down the street, if he ever does. That's just a complete red herring. We're not that far gone. I mean, this is a guy who sneaks into the building through the back door and then has one of his flacks say that the media doesn't care enough about him to film him."

But MacDougall says the Conservatives are doing all this because the newspapers don't serve as intermediaries any more. He's able to use that as an excuse.

"That's the world they would like, where the newspapers aren't necessary anymore. It hasn't worked out that way for them because they haven't been able to get the viewership on 24 Seven -- partly because the product is so lame. But the upside of that MacDougall piece is that he actually does say what I say in the book, which is they would like to replace the media, they would like to delegitimize the media that exists, prevent it from doing its work physically, and replace it with propaganda. And it was really nice of him to prove that point."

Harper is obviously a huge part of your book. But you also argue that there's a problem with Canadian democracy that goes beyond him. So I wanted to ask you up front: How important do you think the upcoming election really is?

"I think it's really important, but not because of who will win and who will lose. I think it's one of the last chances, the way things are going, for voters to buttonhole their local candidates and say, why aren't you in Parliament debating bills? Why are you acting 24 hours a day as a PR person for your political party? I think that's a question every MP should be asked. There's almost no importance placed by MPs on actually being members of Parliament, which is what they're supposed to be.

"I think people should demand all candidates' meetings, which is something we've seen withering away. I think [this election] is a chance for civil society to get out to all the leaders and put them on the spot and say, what are you going to do about, for lack of a better term, the democratic deficit in this country? Because it's real, it exists. Our Parliament doesn't work, our political parties are becoming professionalized, and marketing is taking over. Our government doesn't tell people what it's doing. And this is something that's becoming engrained in the bureaucratic culture of Ottawa: the default setting for access to information is to say no. On the most trivial material.

"If people don't care about that, then basically the bad guys win. Because the press can't win that war. The scientific community can't win that war. The NGOs are getting their asses kicked. So it's a matter of people saying, do we really want to know what's going on? Or do we just want to hire somebody, once every four years, to put all their friends into power and do what they want with the country? And we'll hope that we don't go broke or that people don't steal too much or that taxes don't go too high."

Let's go back to the MP problem. There's the private member's bill that would at least give members a little bit more power in relation to their party, by giving members the power to initiate leadership reviews and removing a leader's ability to veto riding candidates...

"Oh, I would love it if Michael Chong's bill passed. That would be such a good start."

Is that enough? How much further would we have to go after that?

"It would sure be a good start. I doubt it will pass, but I think it's something that anybody who really wants to raise these questions can hook on to, to ask their local candidate, what did you think of Michael Chong's reform bill? And if they didn't vote for it, [ask] why didn't you vote for Michael Chong's reform bill? It's not the answer to all the problems, but it's the first time I've seen a real chance for this thing to start to roll back and start to be unwound."

You seem to have doubts about Trudeau and Mulcair as well...

"There's a lot of reasons why I think it's going to be really hard for them. One is that it's hard to beat an incumbent. There are also 30 new seats -- almost 10 per cent of the House of Commons in new seats. We're going from 308 to 338. And almost all those 30 seats are in suburban Toronto areas, suburban Vancouver, and Western Canada like Alberta and Saskatchewan. So that gives [the Conservatives] a sizeable advantage even compared to 2011.

"I also think that the strategy for both the NDP and the Conservatives is to grind Justin Trudeau between Tom Mulcair and Stephen Harper, both of whom come across as not very nice people, but at least they're smart and they know their file. I think you'll see Trudeau's handlers trying really hard to keep him out of debates and things, even to the point of refusing to be a part of a debate unless Elizabeth May is allowed or something -- some sort of pretext that they wouldn't have used last time around."

Given your criticisms of the Conservatives, Trudeau's strategy might also seem depressing. He doesn't want to lay out any policies because he's afraid of having anything that could be attacked. And that makes for elections that aren't based on anything substantial.

"The wild card in this election is that Trudeau is a celebrity, and this is the first time we've had a real celebrity run in a long time. You know a guy who could fill a hall even before he became a politician? Just because of who he is and how he talks? So that is a wild card: how much do you use his celebrity and his drawing power? And how much do you worry that he's going to say something stupid? I think that's the real challenge that [the Liberals] have right now."

At the beginning of the book, you lament how Canadians tend to tune out politics in between elections. But it seems like the counter to that is the constant electioneering of the U.S. system, the constant politics. How do we get to a political culture that isn't defined, constantly or every couple of years, by elections?

"Maybe if we look more at things in a very local way. That's why we need a strong local press. The difference between our system and the American system is that we have these members of Parliament who in theory are really quite important to the system. The prime minister's job depends on the support of members of Parliament. And I think if we really push them a lot harder on what they're doing as members of Parliament and for the constituency, that might help alleviate our national political discourse where it's all about polls and who's ahead.

"We have very little real discussion about what's happening in Ottawa for our cities or even our neighbourhoods. Everyone goes big picture in Ottawa simply because it's cheaper and it's easier to cover. So I think that we need to be a lot more demanding in what we know about our MP and our issues. And I think if we bust it up a little in that way, sort of like take a rock to the mirror and break it, it might be better."

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2007/10/15/pm_plans_own_media_centre.html

PM plans own media centre
The Prime Minister's Office has been working on a secret project to build a new, government-controlled briefing room at the cost of $2 million, documents obtained by the Star show.
Share on Facebook

Reddit this!
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, pictured on Oct. 3 during his one and only visit to the National Press Gallery, which has been shunned by “Canada’s New Government.”
FRED CHARTRAND / CP FILE PHOTO

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, pictured on Oct. 3 during his one and only visit to the National Press Gallery, which has been shunned by “Canada’s New Government.”
By: tonda maccharles ottawa bureau, Published on Mon Oct 15 2007

OTTAWA–The Prime Minister's Office, which has long had a rocky relationship with the national media, has been working on a secret project to build a new, government-controlled briefing room at the cost of $2 million, documents obtained by the Star show.

Long kept under wraps, the plan – codenamed the Shoe Store Project – is in the works by the Privy Council Office and the PMO to establish a new government-controlled media briefing centre near Langevin Block.

The yellow-brown building that now houses Stephen Harper and his senior staff would supplant the current National Press Theatre, just a block away.

The National Press Theatre, used by prime ministers and cabinet ministers since Lester B. Pearson opened it in 1965, is a venue with simultaneous translation where on-the-record news conferences are moderated by press gallery executive members – not Harper's political staff.

Save for one surprise visit by Harper Oct. 3 (a visit that shocked even his senior staff) the National Press Theatre has been shunned by "Canada's New Government."
Now, documents obtained by the Toronto Star under the Access to Information Act reveal that government planning for a "special project for the PM, otherwise reffered (sic) as the Shoe Store Project" has been underway since at least last year.

Civil servants were asked to investigate the possibility of renovating an old shoe store location on the Sparks Street pedestrian mall "for the possible use of the PM."
"The rental sign will stay in place for now," says one memo, written in advance of a meeting with PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch, effectively Harper's deputy minister.


One document says the "dedicated press availability facility" is part of efforts to "put in place robust physical and information security measures to protect the Prime Minister and Cabinet."

Its estimated cost: $2 million.

Since the Conservative government's relationship with national media is already fraught with tension over curtailed access to ministers and Harper, the project was clearly deemed highly sensitive.

So sensitive, in fact, Public Works and PCO staff who scheduled a "walk-through" last fall of the National Press Theatre to scout out the "functional requirements (ceiling heights, technical equipment, etc.)" were ordered at the last minute to cancel "due to concerns expressed by Communications Branch."

Small wonder. A gaggle of public works officials checking out the press theatre on the first floor of the National Press Building would likely catch the eye of reporters whose offices are in the same building across from West Block. One document obtained shows staff came up with a working list of what to put in the Shoe Store Project, including "a stage or riser; comfortable seating for 40-80 people, security at the back and front door, electronic feeds for sound, sound boards, simultaneous translation space, phone-in capacity, proper lighting for cameras (may require drapes for windows), tables for handouts, products, etc., glasses, water, flags, backdrop, photocopier, full work station/internet hook-up, printer (large-capacity) in the back for officials to use, washroom facilities."

The result would be a little fancier than the National Press Theatre and, most important, give the PMO a lot more control over who gets in and, quite possibly, what gets filmed and broadcast.

A hand-drawn sketch of the PM's renovated shoe store/press theatre indicates a space for "maybe permanently installed cameras with feeds to media."
That could put the news cameras in the hands of government-employed camera operators, not independent photojournalists employed by the television networks. It suggests the Prime Minister's communications people would send broadcast feeds to the TV networks for their use in reports, or as most politicians prefer, live-to-air broadcast.

The Harper government has had several run-ins with the national press gallery. When Harper came to power, he changed the rules governing press conferences, insisting his staff decide which journalists pose questions. It is an American practice, which Paul Martin attempted to use on the 2006 election campaign trail.

But when the Conservative government made clear it would be the new norm, the national media objected. Harper told interviewers it gave him more control, which is precisely why the press gallery for years has run press conferences, to depoliticize exchanges between the media and government. The moderator is held accountable by his or her peers for playing favourites.

The media's concern has been that the PM's staff might sideline reporters deemed unsympathetic.

The Star, Globe and Mail, The Canadian Press and CBC's English-language services still follow the practice of participating in independently moderated news conferences.

Meanwhile, many details in the Shoe Store Project documents are blacked-out or withheld for reasons related to "international affairs and defence," "security," and cabinet confidentiality.

But concept drawings and preliminary cost estimates were to be completed by last December.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-or-unchanged-take-the-poll/article22696816/
Stephen Harper's Canada: Better, worse or unchanged? Take our poll
Under the Harper government, Canada's economy has:
Canada’s environmental record over the past decade is:

 

[GLG]

[h=1]Damage from cancelled census as bad as feared, researchers say[/h]The cancellation of the mandatory long-form census has damaged research in key areas, from how immigrants are doing in the labour market to how the middle class is faring, while making it more difficult for cities to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, planners and researchers say.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...er-long-form-census-scrapped/article22695286/

Statistics Canada developed a voluntary survey after Ottawa cancelled the long-form census in 2010. Many had warned that the switch would mean lower response rates and policies based on an eroded understanding of important trends. Now researchers – from city planners to public health units – say they have sifted through the 2011 data and found it lacking.

Their comments come as a private member’s bill to reinstate the mandatory long-form census will be debated in the House of Commons Thursday. The bill, expected to be voted on next week, has slim odds of passing, given the Conservative majority. But it is drawing attention to the impact of the switch, which has created difficulties in determining income-inequality trends, housing needs and whether low-income families are getting adequate services.
The impact isn’t just on researchers. Cities, such as Toronto, say it’s become more expensive and requires more staffing to obtain data that’s of lower quality. The key areas of concern are tracking long-term shifts and understanding what’s going on at the neighbourhood level.
The last census in 2011 cost a total of $652-million, including an extra $22-million due to the change to the voluntary National Household Survey. The total budget for the 2016 census won’t be decided until February or March, Statscan has said. But the current plan is to hold another voluntary survey. All told, 35,000 people will be hired for this effort.
“It has certainly impacted my own work on what has been happening to middle-class earnings in Canada,” says Charles Beach, professor emeritus of economics at Queen’s University.
More broadly, it has “inhibited research into inequality and identifying winners and losers in economic growth, research into understanding the national problems of the have-nots in the economy, and research into how best to provision local government services.”
In the private sector, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose network represents 200,000 businesses across the country, is publicly calling on the federal government to restore the mandatory long-form census.
Some researchers – such as those working on a sweeping long-term study on income polarization in Canadian cities – are choosing to abandon using the NHS altogether. They may be settling for less-detailed tax-filer data, while others, such as some public health units, are still using outdated 2006 census data.
In Canada’s largest city, “it has definitely had an impact in the way we plan for services” for people such as seniors, single parents, youth and immigrants, says Harvey Low, manager of social research at the City of Toronto. “We are less sure ” about the characteristics of people served in communities.
It’s now tougher to know whether free programs, such as swimming lessons or skills training, are being offered in the most high-need communities. It’s more difficult to plan subsidized child care. And there are now “huge gaps” in the ability to understand health trends in Toronto’s population.
The change has affected the city’s finances. “We definitely have to spend extra dollars on pursuing other sources of data … and the staff time to assess whether we can use it to compare over time.”
Hamilton, too, is grappling with changes. It’s less clear whether the city’s poverty rate is declining and who is falling behind. The national household survey also showed a puzzling decline in its Chinese population, even though Hamilton, like most other cities, is seeing a broad increase in visible minorities. Social planners don’t know whether this decline is due to people moving, an aging population – or low response rates.
The effect hasn’t just been in urban centres. Canada does not regularly gather unemployment statistics on First Nations people living on reserve, so the mandatory long-form census provided the best picture of a situation that all federal parties identify as a policy priority.
In Atlantic Canada, economics professor Ather Akbari has used every census since 1981 to scrutinize how immigrants have done in the labour market and see whether this performance has changed over time. That long-term understanding has been hurt. Dropping the long form means “it is difficult to derive reliable conclusions,” said Prof. Akbari of St. Mary's University. This is especially the case for smaller provinces with lower populations and response rates, he said.
He says he can no longer analyze whether some groups – Acadian communities in Nova Scotia, Chinese immigrants in Halifax or Indian newcomers in Yarmouth – are landing jobs or improving their earnings over time.
Sara Mayo, social planner at the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, says the result of the census changes has been less data for more money. “In terms of fiscal prudence, this made no sense. Why would any government want to pay more for worse-quality data?”
With a report from Joe Friesen

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...arper-friend-or-foe-of-democracy-hepburn.html
Is Stephen Harper friend or foe of democracy?: Hepburn
The 2015 election is critical for Canadians worried about open and accountable government.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, right, and then Treasury Board president John Baird tabled the Federal Accountabilty Act in the House of Commons on April 11, 2006. It was the first piece of legislation Harper tabled after assuming power.
FRED CHARTRAND / CP FILE PHOTO

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, right, and then Treasury Board president John Baird tabled the Federal Accountabilty Act in the House of Commons on April 11, 2006. It was the first piece of legislation Harper tabled after assuming power.
By: Bob Hepburn Politics, Published on Wed Jan 28 2015

Back in 2006, Stephen Harper rode to electoral victory by promising the most sweeping package of democratic and parliamentary reforms the country had ever seen.

Harper made the campaign pledge in the wake of a controversial series of political scandals and democratic abuses under successive Liberal governments.

While his critics may have doubted his commitment, Harper in fact acted quickly by making the Federal Accountability Act the first piece of legislation he n brought in after assuming power.

At the time, Harper said the act would restore Canadians’ trust in government, limit political donations, restrict lobbying by former cabinet ministers, decrease the control of leaders over party nominations, reduce secrecy and ensure protection for whistleblowers.

Today, most of those promises are sad jokes.

Indeed, Harper has introduced some positive changes in government accountability since he was sworn in as prime minister some nine years.

However, he didn’t act on nearly 50 per cent of those 2006 promises, has taken steps backwards on others, failed to enforce his own rules, cut key ethics rules, increased secrecy and ignored other legal and ethical loopholes.

This uneven record raises questions about whether Harper is a friend or foe when it comes to protecting our democratic institutions and traditions.

They are questions that could play a key role in the Oct. 19 federal election.

Already, the parties are pursing voters who fear for the future of our democracy. To that end, Harper’s Conservatives recently unveiled an “action plan on open government” that they hope will convince voters in October that they are serious about reform.

Meanwhile, both the New Democrats and Liberals are talking big about the need to shore up our democracy. It may be just talk, though, because both parties failed miserably when they had the chance during the 2006-2011 minority government years to work together to force Harper to get serious about democratic reform.

On the positive side for Harper, his initial reform act and other decisions have increased accountability in about 30 ways, according to Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch, a respected non-partisan organization that focuses on democratic reform.

Among the moves were the creation of a parliamentary budget officer, an expansion in the scope of the Access to Information Act to cover more Crown corporations and federal agencies, and the establishment of the office of conflict-of-interest and ethics commissioner to watch over MPs.

But Conacher believes that overall the Harper Tories have failed to live up to their promises. He feels the situation is so bad that a new accountability act is required regardless of which party wins in October.

Conacher cites nearly 30 cases of broken Harper promises, eight moves that weakened government accountability and some 100 cases of ignoring loopholes and flaws in the accountability system. In addition, Harper hasn’t even bothered to respond to the 2010 Oliphant Commission, which looked into the controversial dealings between businessman Karlheinz Schreiber and former prime minister Brian Mulroney. The commission made four recommendations to close ethics rules loopholes and 14 proposals to increase ethics enforcement.

The Harper government’s enforcement of democratic rules and accountability is so weak that it’s “a scandal,” Conacher said this week.

For example, the Tories removed a rule requiring ministers, their staff and senior government officials to “act with honesty” and failed to strengthen enforcement for unethical activities.

Also, the Harper government slashed funding to some citizen groups working on democracy and human rights issues, broke a promise to protect and compensate whistleblowers properly, and refused to ensure full independence of and an adequate budget for the very parliamentary budget office that it established.

In addition, the Conservatives have broken almost all their promises for open government and to bolster the Access to Information Act.

The latest instance came just last month when Treasury Board President Tony Clement admitted Ottawa “has run out of time” to review Canada’s Access to Information Act before the October election. The act hasn’t been updated since it was introduced 35 years ago and Clement didn’t say why the Conservatives have done nothing about it since they took power in 2006.

Clearly, the coming election will be critical for Canadians worried about the state of our democracy and hoping for honest, ethical and open government.

That’s because this election will give voters a chance to decide whether Harper has been a friend or foe of democracy.

Bob Hepburn’s column appears Thursday. bhepburn@thestar.ca

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post...hen-harper-will-tell-you-during-2015-election
JAN 27, 2015 by PressProgress
6 deceptive stories Stephen Harper will tell you during the 2015 election

With a federal election less than nine months away, Stephen Harper is already polishing his stump speech.

The prime minister just offered an early indication of the themes -- and track record -- he will trumpet on the campaign trail.

But from banks to budget watchdogs, second-guessing the government has become a popular hobby these days.

On Tuesday, the parliamentary budget officer estimated the government could face an $8.2 billion revenue shortfall this year, and run a deficit even after they use up their contingency fund.

We offer a fact check of the campaign cards Harper -- and his government -- are likely to repeatedly play in the months ahead:

1. Stephen Harper is creating "full-time, high-paying" jobs

At his first campaign-style event of 2015, here's what Harper had to say about his jobs record:

"We have had steady economic growth in Canada for over five years, and employment has risen considerably ...

Since the worst of the recession, the Canadian economy has created nearly 1.2 million jobs – overwhelmingly full-time, high-paying, private-sector jobs."

Let's take this one apart point-by-point:

(a) Since Harper came to power in 2006, workers in two of Canada's biggest provinces – Ontario and British Columbia – have seen their wages go down. In the rest of the country, wages have largely been driven by the price of oil, a boom that has since gone bust.

(b) Last year, Canada only created 32,000 permanent jobs. Meanwhile, temporary jobs skyrocketed to 110,000:

(c) Employment has not "risen considerably" over the last five years. The percentage of Canadians who have a job is as low as it was at the worst point of the recession:

2. Stephen Harper is investing "big time" in infrastructure

The prime minister is talking big on infrastructure:

"We’re also investing, big time – the biggest federal investments ever – in infrastructure.

We’ve launched a massive program – over 75 billion dollars – in contributions to all manner of provincial, territorial, community, and, of course, our own federal infrastructure projects."

Actually, that money is spread out over 10 years -- so $75 billion becomes more like $7.5 billion per year.

Provinces have also said it isn't enough, and called additional funding "overdue" at a finance ministers' meeting in December.

3. Stephen Harper has a child care plan

Harper would also like you to believe he has a child care plan:

"Effective this spring, we are increasing and expanding the Universal Child Care Benefit. Families will receive an additional 60 dollars per child under six, for a monthly total per child of 160 dollars ...

Friends, our opponents have been clear. They would take away the Universal Child Care Benefit ...

And, of course, they would, because they need the higher taxes to pay for their gigantic spending promises. And what they take from your families they will give to a child-care bureaucracy."

Here's a few things to know about that:

In many places across Canada, child care costs can now range in the area of between $800 - $1,200 per month.

The expanded UCCB of $160/month is still a drop in the bucket of what most parents pay in child care costs. With median child care costs in Toronto are $15,888 per year, the UCCB still leaves parents paying $13,968 – that's only 12% of parents' overall costs.

The "child care bureaucracy" (a line borrowed from American Tea Partiers in their fight against Obamacare) Harper worries about (meaning a national day care program) would actually be less expensive than the UCCB, boost the economy and create jobs.

As for Harper's "opponents" plan to "take away the Universal Child Care Benefit": the NDP's Mulcair has said categorically he will not cancel the UCCB (instead allowing parents to collect the UCCB in addition to $15/day child care). The Liberals, meanwhile, have not offered a position one way or the other on the UCCB.

4. Stephen Harper has a tax cut for families – just probably not your family...

And Harper wants you to believe your family is getting a $2,000 tax cut:

"And we are, at the same time, honouring our promise to deliver the Family Tax Cut by introducing income-splitting for families with children.

That’s a benefit of up to another two thousand dollars annually!"

What he doesn't tell you is those in line to get the $2,000 are the highest income earners with a stay-at-home spouse. Low and middle-income families with two working parents will see little to nothing:

A new Tuesday report from the CCPA shows that families earning more than $233,000 will benefit the most from the income-splitting plan.

5. Stephen Harper's tough-on-crime policy spree

And don't forget the part where Harper claims he ended crime!

"Friends, our Government is also proud of all we have done to keep Canadians and our streets and communities safe.

We have been cracking down on violent crime ...

Canadians expect us to protect them from the worst kind of criminal, those people who truly deserve to be called a menace to society."
Postmedia's Stephen Maher recently argued the declining crime rate can largely be attributed to demographics -- the aging baby-boom echo has meant a shrinking population of men ages of 15 and 24.

But the Tories tough-on-crime policies have led to higher incarcaration rates -- even as crime is falling, Maher argues: "It’s likely that his policies — more incarceration — have made us less safe, since prison often makes criminals worse, not better."

Oh, and also on the crime front, Harper trumpeted an anti-prostitution law that has been roundly criticized by legal experts, criminologists and sex workers' advocacy groups:

"To protect vulnerable women, our anti-prostitution law targets pimps and johns."

6. Stephen Harper's leadership

In his Sunday speech, Harper set his own parameters for good leadership:

"As I’ve said before, the measure of good government – the true test of leadership – lies not in achieving success in times of stability and peace, but doing so during times of risk and danger."

Of course, risk and danger are exactly what the Canadian economy faces thanks to the collapse of oil prices. And critics say the Conservatives overreliance on a boom-and-bust resource economy is one of the key factors that has placed Canada in such financial uncertainty.

Hence the delayed budget, lowered interest rate and gloomy Tuesday outlook from the parliamentary budget officer. None of those stories fit with Harper's narrative of "prudent choices" that "have secured economic opportunities now, and for future generations."

So, about that "measure of good government"...

Photo: PMO

 

[agentaqua]

Harper's legacy...