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

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...ntalists-religiously-inspired-terrorists-rcmp

Canada more at risk from environmentalists than religiously inspired terrorists: RCMP
Carlos Tello Sep 16th, 2014

photo of Enbridge protest by Mychaylo Prystupa

Canada’s energy sector is more at risk from domestic environmental extremists than from religiously inspired terrorist organizations like Al Qaida, warns an RCMP report recently obtained via an Access of Information request.

“The Canadian law enforcement and security intelligence community have noted a growing radicalized faction of environmentalists who advocate the use of criminal activity to promote the protection of the natural environment,” alerts the document written by the RCMP’s infrastructure intelligence team. The 22-page report from 2011 was only recently released.

“It is highly probable that environmentalists will continue to mount direct actions targeting Canada's energy sector, specifically the petroleum sub-sector and the fossil and nuclear fueled electricity generating facilities, with the objectives of: influencing government energy policy, interfering within the energy regulatory process and forcing the energy industry to cease its operations that harm the environment,” the report adds.

Criminal activity associated to environmental extremism can include “unlawful protests, break and enters, mischief (damage to property, sabotage), arson, and use improvised explosive devices," according to the report.

Normalization of monitoring environmental groups

For Carleton University instructor Jeffrey Monaghan, who obtained the document, the report demonstrates how normal it has become for national security agencies to monitor environmental groups.

“This report is another indication of the wide net of surveillance, and allegations of criminality, targeting environmental groups,” he said in an email interview.

Organizations under watch by the RCMP include Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, EcoSociety, LeadNow, Dogwood Initiative, Council of Canadians and the People's Summit, the Vancouver Observer reported in 2013.

Disruption of business a concern

But not only environmental groups have been in the RCMP’s radar lately. Last year, news reports showed how average citizens participating in protest activities have become targets of surveillance by the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Montreal’s La Presse, for example, reported in January that the RCMP was watching a group of shale gas opponents on the belief that anti-fracking activists might one day become “radicalized.”

For Monaghan, the reports indicate an effort to ensure that activists don't get in the way of federal strategies on pipelines and oil extraction.

“It is interesting to see the tone of the document, and how the RCMP underlines the oil sands and pipelines are 'essential' for the Canadian economy,” he said.

“Taken into consideration with the [report’s] conclusion that stress the threat of ‘unlawful incursions', the document underlines that the major concern from these national security agencies is the disruption of business operations -- not terrorism.”
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-bombed-oil-site-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-1.188599

RCMP bombed oil site in 'dirty tricks' campaign
CBC News Posted: Jan 30, 1999 11:08 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 10, 2000 11:53 PM ET

The Mounties bombed an oil installation as part of a dirty tricks campaign in their investigation into sabotage in the Alberta's oil patch.

The revelation came at the bail hearing Thursday of two farmers who the Crown says have turned their complaints that oil industry pollution is making their families ill into acts of vandalism and mischief.

Their lawyer produced evidence that the RCMP bombed a wellsite and that they did it with the full support of the energy company that owned it. The Crown admits the allegations are true.

The police have been under pressure from the industry and the government to put an end to two years of attacks which have caused millions of dollars in damage.

Lawyer Richard Secord told Court of Queen's Bench that when Alberta Energy Co. and police blew up an AEC shed last Oct. 14, they blamed it on his client, farmer Wiebo Ludwig.

Secord also claims AEC offered to buy a neighbour's property for $109,000 if he gave them information about Ludwig.

Ludwig and Richard Boonstra face nine charges involving vandalism at energy installations.

They were denied bail.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-bombed-oil-site-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-1.188599

RCMP bombed oil site in 'dirty tricks' campaign
CBC News Posted: Jan 30, 1999 11:08 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 10, 2000 11:53 PM ET

The Mounties bombed an oil installation as part of a dirty tricks campaign in their investigation into sabotage in the Alberta's oil patch.

The revelation came at the bail hearing Thursday of two farmers who the Crown says have turned their complaints that oil industry pollution is making their families ill into acts of vandalism and mischief.

Their lawyer produced evidence that the RCMP bombed a wellsite and that they did it with the full support of the energy company that owned it. The Crown admits the allegations are true.

The police have been under pressure from the industry and the government to put an end to two years of attacks which have caused millions of dollars in damage.

Lawyer Richard Secord told Court of Queen's Bench that when Alberta Energy Co. and police blew up an AEC shed last Oct. 14, they blamed it on his client, farmer Wiebo Ludwig.

Secord also claims AEC offered to buy a neighbour's property for $109,000 if he gave them information about Ludwig.

Ludwig and Richard Boonstra face nine charges involving vandalism at energy installations.

They were denied bail.

wow, just wow.
nothing suprises me this day and age. sad.
 
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/just...minalize-canadas-anti-pipeline-protesters-342

Justice Minister Admits New Bill Could Criminalize Canada’s Anti-Pipeline Protesters
December 8, 2014
Justin Ling
by Justin Ling

Protesters gathering to stop Kinder Morgan from drilling at Burnaby Mountain could face prosecution under a new bill. Photo by Jackie Dives.

Federal Minister of Justice Peter MacKay says it "would be up to a judge" to decide whether or not to lock up protesters who stage blockades against energy pipelines or hold protests on railroad tracks if a bill introduced by a Conservative Party backbencher becomes law.

On Friday, I reported that Bill C-639 would slap mandatory minimum fines and up to ten years in prison on anyone caught damaging or blocking "critical infrastructure."

Critical infrastructure, the bill stipulates, is any public or private thing, "the disruption of which could produce serious adverse economic effects or endanger the health or safety of Canadians."

That could include hospitals, energy plants, or digital infrastructure—such as public transit systems, which rely heavily on the web—says Wai Young, the Conservative MP who introduced the bill. Young's reference to digital infrastructure also implies that her bill would be strengthening penalties for hackers who go after cyberinfrastructure or government systems, which is timely, given the recent hack of various government sites.

But outside Question Period on Monday, MacKay acknowledged that pipelines could also fall within that definition, leaving the door open as to whether or not this bill could be used to punish the protesters currently protesting a Kinder Morgan pipeline on Burnaby Mountain.

When asked whether the bill would apply to pipelines and railroads, MacKay acknowledged that both fall under the definition of critical infrastructure, adding that "harming that kind of infrastructure would be illegal."

MacKay left out, however, that the bill doesn't just slap fines on those who damage infrastructure—it also criminalizes those who block its construction and use. C-639 singles out anyone who "obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of any part of a critical infrastructure."

The Criminal Code already includes sanctions for "mischief,"which uses some of the same language as Young's bill, though police haven't bothered applying those laws, which usually doesn't come with any mandatory fines or jail time, with any sort of consistency.

C-639 mandates minimum fines of $500 or $3,000 and maximum sentences of two or ten years, depending on whether prosecutors elect to try a case as a summary or indictable offense.

VICE asked MacKay whether the protesters on Burnaby Mountain—which is located just a few kilometers from Young's riding—would have been arrested under this law. MacKay said that it "would have to be examined in the formulation and the interpretation of the bill, and it would be up to a judge to interpret if it would become law."

When the NDP's justice critic, Françoise Boivin, asked about the bill in Question Period, arguing that it paves over Canadians' right to free expression, MacKay would only say that his department examined the bill, and concluded that it's constitutional.

Private member's bills, of course, don't have to be examined by the Department of Justice to ensure that they're constitutional and, as the federal government admitted recently after getting sued by the former head of his legislative affairs division, it has no problem introducing legislation that has a 99 percent chance of being declared unconstitutional by the courts.

MacKay did say that a committee would analyze the bill and didn't rule out the possibility that it would be amended to ensure that peaceful protesters aren't rounded up.

@Justin_Ling
 
wow, just wow. nothing suprises me this day and age. sad.
I agree with both of your comments, bigdogeh. Unfortunately, that is how this fascist government is getting it's way with us - desensitizing us to what they are doing.
 
daily-cartoon-150202-measles-1200.jpg
 
http://globalnews.ca/video/1808212/edward-snowden-warns-against-harpers-anti-terror-bill/
<iframe width='670' height='437' frameborder='0' allowfullscreen src='http://globalnews.ca/video/embed/1808212/'>Your browser does not support frames. <a href="http://globalnews.ca/video/1808212/edward-snowden-warns-against-harpers-anti-terror-bill">Click here to view the frameless video.</a>.</iframe>
Edward Snowden warns against Harper’s anti-terror bill

Edward Snowden, the man wanted for leaking U.S. security documents in 2013 says Canadians should be “extraordinarily cautious” in reference to an anti-terror bill proposed by the Harper government. Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald spoke to a group of Toronto students Monday evening.
 
http://allthecanadianpolitics.tumbl.../virtually-all-mainstream-media-outlets-think

Virtually all mainstream media outlets think Harper’s new “anti-terrorism” bill is insane
cdnpoli:

image

On 30 January 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his new “anti-terrorism” bill (C-51), which he claims will keep Canadians safe. The omnibus bill seeks to make sweeping changes to Canadian law, including: extending unprecedented powers to the secretive Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) “to disrupt” activities, lowering the threshold for detaining terror suspects, increasing sharing of private information about Canadians, and criminalizing the speech of anyone who “advocates or promotes” terrorism. On this last point, advocacy and promotion of terrorism are not defined in the legislation so it’s anyone’s guess which speech might be criminalized. What we do know, however, is that the Conservatives have previously labelled Canadians actively advocating for the environment and opposing oil and gas pipeline construction as “eco-terrorists”. So it seems this law could cast a disturbingly wide net; for example, it’s conceivable that an activist advocating direct action to protect the environment could be thrown in jail for five years under C-51.

Moreover, extending to CSIS the legal mandate to engage in disruptive activities represents a potentially serious rejection of the conclusions of the McDonald Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP. The Royal Commission was set up in 1977 to investigate systematic illegal activities carried out by the RCMP, including break-ins, arson and theft, and it recommended in 1981 that the RCMP’s national security functions be separated into a new civilian agency in order to break the vicious cycle of illegality. Hence the birth of CSIS in 1984, and its mandate to collect intelligence and alert police when security threats arise. By giving CSIS itself the power to undertake disruptive activities, though, the Conservatives are essentially recreating the situation that the McDonald Commission and subsequent legislation sought to change.

The bill does all the above without improving oversight mechanisms to ensure CSIS and other security agencies do not abuse their powers. (Indeed, the existing mechanism—the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC)—is suffering a serious crisis of credibility after its Harper-appointed chair, Arthur Porter (pictured above right), was charged with fraud and money laundering as part of a bribery scandal connected to the construction of a new Montreal super-hospital.)

Despite the profound changes contained in Bill C-51, Harper was not in Parliament when the new bill was introduced to face the Members of Parliament who ostensibly represent Canadians; apparently, he thought it was more appropriate to be making a speech in Richmond Hill, just outside of Toronto.

It didn’t take long, however, for major news outlets in Canada to heavily criticize the proposed legislation. Here’s a sample.



The Globe and Mail editorial board: Parliament should reject the bill



Prime Minister Stephen Harper never tires of telling Canadians that we are at war with the Islamic State. Under the cloud of fear produced by his repeated hyperbole about the scope and nature of the threat, he now wants to turn our domestic spy agency into something that looks disturbingly like a secret police force. Canadians should not be willing to accept such an obvious threat to their basic liberties. Our existing laws and our society are strong enough to stand up to the threat of terrorism without compromising our values.
Link to Globe & Mail editorial (1 February) »


Ottawa Citizen editorial board: The bill is appalling for many reasons

There are many reasons to be appalled by the haphazard, overbearing and ill-defined provisions criminalizing the general promotion of terrorism that were presented by the federal Conservative government on Friday, but worst of all is the potential they have to actually increase the likelihood of radicalization and terrorism in Canada.
So let’s say the police determine that a young man with a poisoned mind posts a questionable YouTube video. Some antidotes might be community, parental or religious intervention in an effort to present a better path. A good way to further poison that mind, though, might be a short stint in a federal correctional system that has seen, under this government, a drastic reduction in rehabilitation programs and resources. Worse, jails in Canada and around the world have become breeding grounds for radical jihadis, with experts here pointing out that the Correctional Service of Canada doesn’t have appropriate resources to deal with these unique offenders. What prisons do provide, though, is easy access to people who’ve actually tried to carry out terrorists acts.
Link to Ottawa Citizen editorial (30 January) »


National Post editorial board: No reason to further police speech and greater oversight of intelligence agencies is needed


When it comes to provisions banning “promoting” and “advocating” terrorism, furthermore, the threat to civil liberties may well not be minor. Neither term is defined. Where such laws exist, they tend to be abused. In 2001, France prosecuted a cartoonist (ironically enough) for a depiction of the 9/11 attacks with the caption, “We all dreamed it … Hamas did it.” As part of a massive recent speech crackdown, French comedian Dieudonné was arrested for saying he “felt like Charlie Coulibaly” — a cryptic reference to Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the kosher supermarket attacker.
Such statements will offend many, but they fall miles short of incitement to violence, which is the proper threshold at which law-enforcement ought to concern itself with people’s freedom of speech. Needless to say, counselling someone to commit terrorism is already a criminal offence in Canada. There seems little justification to go any further than that, and little reason to trust that prosecutions in this country will not go too far as well. Once the horse is out of the barn, it’s awfully difficult to corral — especially without proper democratic oversight.”
Link to National Post editorial (31 January) »


Toronto Star editorial board: We should not surrender our cherished freedoms; opposition MPs need to fight this


The sheer level of public concern that Ottawa may not be getting the balance right between security and civil rights argues for a higher, more sophisticated level of scrutiny than this government is disposed to consider.
Rather than limply wave these new measures through the Commons for fear of looking “soft” in an election year, the New Democrats and Liberals should press vigorously for the creation of a panel of MPs and senators from across party lines to vet Canada’s security laws and the operations not only of our spy agencies but also of the military, police and other agencies, as the Star has urged before.
Link to Toronto Star editorial (30 January) »


Even the Toronto Sun editorial board was critical and called for changes to the bill


A no-fly list should be reserved for the worst of the lot. Not something used arbitrarily.
A big concern is freedom of speech. George Orwell noted free speech is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to say things others hate.
Clean up this language so it’s clear that this is about going after people urging or planning attacks, not just despicable losers tweeting thumbs up to the Islamic State.
Link to Toronto Sun editorial (30 January) »
 
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/0...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=030215
With Anti-Terrorism Act, Tories again Fail to Protect Canadians
Beyond eroding our rights, Bill C-51 ignores key root causes of past alleged 'terrorist' actions.
By Bill Tieleman, Today, TheTyee.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: 'We do not buy the argument that every time you protect Canadians, you take away their liberties.' Photo: Government of Canada.

"If you want to... start throwing people into the clink because they're waving the wrong flag at a protest... you're going to have a huge free speech case." -- University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese on the new Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act

The security system is very impressive and not easily penetrated.

A guard must open a locked glass door for anyone to enter the lobby. Entry to the elevator requires a coded keycard. Upstairs, another guard and eight sets of security sealed doors must be passed to get into the heart of the operation.

And where is this veritable bunker? Parliament Hill?

No, it's the Vancouver studio of CTV, where I went to film an interview about Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's highly hyped new Anti-Terrorism Act.

Ironically, the TV station is far more secure than our House of Commons was when Michael Zihaf-Bibeau, a mentally unwell, drug-addicted man with a Winchester lever action rifle murdered an unarmed soldier on honour guard and invaded the heart of our democracy through open doors and past equally unarmed guards.



And so the government that after nine years in power failed to protect even Parliament now claims it will save all of us from terrorist threats.

How will that happen? With serious infringements on our democratic rights.

Among the Conservatives' proposed mighty new powers in Bill C-51 is the right to twist terrorists on Twitter and faze them on Facebook through internet intervention.

That's not a joke. The Act would let the Canadian Security Intelligence Service "disrupt" and "counter-message" suspected terrorists' websites and Twitter accounts.

Before the Act was introduced, Harper said that it would "criminalize the promotion of terrorism," and this legislation gives government the power "to order the removal of terrorist propaganda" from the internet.

But who defines "terrorist propaganda," and how? And will that only drive dangerous people underground where they can't be traced?

The Act also sends CSIS agents to make house calls on would-be terrorists to smarten them up. CSIS "could meet with the individual to advise him they know what he was planning to do and what the consequences of taking further action would be," government documents state.

But would a CSIS visit really intimidate those planning violence into inaction? Or would it spur them to attack the closest possible target?

The Act also includes new restrictions on passports. But remember that authorities had already confiscated or blocked the passports of both Zihaf-Bibeau and Martin Couture-Roleau -- who killed soldier Patrice Vincent with a car before being shot dead by police -- to stop them from possibly going overseas to join terror groups.

It's clear that our right-wing, defence-oriented Conservative government has fallen down on what should be its primary responsibility of protecting Canadians and their democratic institutions.

And with this Act, a clear reaction to its own obvious failures, the government is now taking further, likely ineffective measures that, beyond eroding our democratic rights, also ignore key root causes of past alleged "terrorist" violent actions: mental illness and drug addiction.

BC's 'terrorism' example

Take for example John Nuttall and Amanda Korody, who are among the alleged Islamic-inspired terrorists that police allegedly "stopped" from attacking Canadians at home.

But as detailed in The Tyee previously, the couple, on welfare and using methadone to treat their addictions while living in a ratty Surrey basement suite, were likely incapable of insurrection on their own. Their lawyer Tom Morino has publicly questioned whether they could have been "entrapped" by police covert actions.

The pressure cooker bombs the two allegedly placed at the B.C. Legislature in Victoria to explode on Canada Day were never going to go off, police said.

"In order to ensure public safety, we employed a variety of complex investigative and covert techniques to control any opportunity the suspects had to commit harm," RCMP assistant commissioner Wayne Rideout said in a July 2013 statement announcing the arrests.

"These devices were completely under our control, they were inert, and at no time represented a threat to public safety," Rideout said, without detailing how that occurred. Nuttall and Kurody have plead not guilty in a trial that started Monday.

The BC Civil Liberties Association responded by asking how police were so confident that the devices never presented a threat.

"The question is, how could the police be so confident that the explosive devices wouldn't work?" said the BCCLA's Michael Vonn in July 2013. "The surmise is they knew that because they either provided or provided portions of them, or somehow had been actively involved with the accused in developing or facilitating the alleged plot."

These matters remain unresolved as the trial begins.

Real protections missed

The biggest action the Conservative government could've taken to combat terrorism is to dramatically increase medical assistance to those struggling with mental illness or drug addiction, who have unfortunately been responsible or accused in many violent incidents and terrorist attempts in Canada.

Australian terrorist Man Haron Monis, who kidnapped customers and staff at a Sydney coffee shop, leading to three deaths in a police rescue operation, was another sad case. He had multiple run-ins with police as well as documented mental health issues long before his attack.

The key figure in another alleged Australian terror plot, Mohammad Baryalei, also had a history of mental illness and drug abuse.

Yet none of this clear evidence of the link between mental illness and the violent "lone wolf" attacks by individuals claiming to be "Islamic" warriors was addressed by the prime minister.

Instead, Harper asserted: "We do not buy the argument that every time you protect Canadians, you take away their liberties."

This from the prime minister that prorogued Parliament to avoid democratic defeat at the hands of the majority opposition party MPs, silenced scientists from talking about their research, and ratified a 31-year investment deal with the military dictatorship of China.

Talk about taking liberties with our protection.

Now he wants to suspend fundamental rights, like facing charges before detention and freedom of speech, by claiming that removing them does what the Conservative government has failed to do -- protect our country. Beware.
 
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XQeRppIguas" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
RMR: Rick's Rant - Fighting Veterans
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ralph-goodale/harper-fiscal-reputation_b_6591064.html

Ralph Goodale
Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Member of Parliament for Wascana and former Finance Minister

Harper Should Not Brag About His Fiscal Reputation
Posted: 02/02/2015 12:36 pm EST Updated: 02/02/2015 12:59 pm EST

With Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) actually shrinking and despite having the worst economic growth record of any Prime Minister since R.B. Bennett, Stephen Harper seems keen to brag about the fiscal reputation of his Conservative Party. Well, let's take a close look.

To begin with, here's an interesting question: How many Conservative Prime Ministers in all of the 20th century presented Canada with balanced budgets?

Answer: Only one! It was Robert Borden in 1912. Like Mr. Harper, he inherited a surplus from his Liberal predecessor (Wilfrid Laurier) and, again like Mr. Harper, it was quickly gone.

On his first day as Prime Minister in 2006, Stephen Harper was handed a thriving economy that was growing at 3 per cent per year or better. Close to 3.5-million net new jobs had been created over the previous 10 years. We had a consistent trade surplus. Both consumer and business confidence were high.

The federal government's books were solidly balanced. The country had ended a quarter of a century of chronic deficits and had recorded a decade of surpluses. As a result, both taxes and debt were falling faster than ever before. In fact, Canada's debt ratio (i.e., the size of the federal debt compared to the size of the economy overall) had been slashed in half -- down from nearly 70 per cent of GDP in the mid-1990s to about 34 per cent by 2006.

The Canada Pension Plan had been rejuvenated on a sound actuarial foundation for the next 75 years. The Canadian banking system was the strongest in the world.

Federal Transfer Payments to the provinces were at an all-time record high, and the country was making transformative new investments in benefits for children and families; the renewal of medicare; better access to higher education and advanced skills; ground-breaking science, research and innovation; more modern public infrastructure; a more secure and healthy environment; effective global trade and marketing; and novel measures to narrow the painful life-gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

The "new" Harper government trashed a number of these initiatives and walked away from others. On the financial side of things, they quickly squandered Canada's hard-earned fiscal strength.

Mr. Harper overspent by three times the rate of inflation. He eliminated all the contingency reserves and prudence factors that had served as fiscal "shock absorbers" to get Canada successfully through untoward events like international currency crises, the SARS pandemic and 9-11. And he put this country back into deficit again BEFORE the recession arrived in the latter part of 2008.

Mr. Harper likes to claim the recession "created" his deficit, but that's not correct. He put Canada into the red all on his own. The recession a bit later no doubt made it much worse, but Mr. Harper was the one who left Canada exposed and vulnerable.

After a few months of denying the recession, insisting on more austerity as his only policy and projecting five years of fictitious surpluses, Mr. Harper finally had to concede (in early 2009) that he had been all wrong. He launched a belated stimulus plan. But it got so bogged down in hyper-partisanship that most of it didn't get delivered until after the recession was officially over.

The legacy of this travesty is nearly $160-billion in new Harper debt. That makes Stephen Harper responsible for fully one-quarter of all the outstanding federal debt created since Confederation. It works out to just under $5,000 for every man, woman and newborn child in Canada today.

And how has he tried to deal with that burden?

By clawing-back funds that had been promised by the government and approved by Parliament to help vulnerable groups like Veterans.

By fire sales of federal assets like community pastures across the Prairies and a valuable, historic tree nursery in Saskatchewan.

By undermining environmental protection, disaster management, search and rescue, food inspection, police and security services, forensic labs, even the supervision of Canadian spies, and other elements of public health and safety.

By cutting and postponing urgent investments in municipal infrastructure, housing and even National Defence.

By pulling back future investments in health care and old age security.

By hiking and then freezing Employment Insurance premiums at excessively high levels.

By increasing -- by billions of dollars -- the federal taxes extracted from Canadians in every one of his last five budgets.

And what is all this in aid of?

So Mr. Harper can concoct a "balanced budget" for the 2015 election and proceed with his pet project -- Income Splitting for wealthier families.

To judge this scheme, it's wise to recall the insightful criticisms of Mr. Harper's former Finance Minister, the late Jim Flaherty, who said this particular tax break is just too expensive and unfair.

Income splitting will cost more than $12-billion over the government's current planning cycle, and it's benefits will go to just 14 per cent of Canadian households -- 86 per cent can never qualify. The wealthy will gain the most. The biggest winners will be those earning $233,000.

This is not a fiscal record to boast about.
 

Attachments

  • 1510709_1042203962462458_4128984391020455026_n.jpg
    1510709_1042203962462458_4128984391020455026_n.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 76
  • gdp.jpg
    gdp.jpg
    84.1 KB · Views: 74
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/paul-f...l?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada Alberta

Paul Franklin Become a fan
Father, Veteran, Activist, Motivational Speaker

Each Year, Veterans Affairs Makes Me Prove I Lost My Legs
Posted: 02/05/2015 3:19 pm EST Updated: 3 hours ago

paul franklin

In regards to Rick Mercer's rant from the other day, I was contacted by Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole for a request for a telephone conversation about my file.

Here's my response:

Minister Erin O'Toole,

I have had many issues in my nine years as a wounded soldier and as a vet.

After returning in 2006, the Department of Defence (DoD) did amazing things and worked tiredly on the issue and where VAC (Veterans' Affairs) failed to deliver they stepped up. Upon my retirement "my file" of course went to VAC and to quote a great writer "and this is where my trouble began."

The legion wrote a piece about my struggles in the beginning called the "The Quiet Fight." I personally prefer that method but alas even that method is being taken from me. It would seem that if I fight for myself things may change for me, but not sadly for the 700,000 others.

I have had my wheelchair taken away from me twice. First while in hospital due to lack of payment when DOD and VAC were in argument about who pays.

The second was just last year when upon getting a new chair it was felt by VAC that I didn't get the appropriate paperwork -- which was a doctor's note saying "Due to transformal amputations, Paul Franklin needs a new wheelchair."

During the recent Manulife lawsuit, I was approved of a pension but was not to receive it until a doctor confirmed my limb loss. This is something that has to be done every year presumably until age 65.

My ex and I have separated and I obviously pay child support and help her out. Every year, VAC challenges that fact with an incredibly disturbing letter that implies that I am a dead beat, that asks if my child still lives, and what I do for them. In response, my ex has to write a horrible letter stating what I do.

She suffers horribly from secondary PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), a condition not widely recognized in 2006 and very misunderstood even today.

This is but a glimpse into what is laughingly called "my file" too which in reality is actually "my life."

As to my friend Rick and his rant the other day, I let him tell my story not for my benefit, but for all vets and their families that fight through this horror every day of their lives.

I fear that a conversation with me about "my file" may solve "my concerns" but not the concerns of the 700,000 others. Until we are treated by all parties with the respect, dignity, honour, and compassion we deserve, then I can't in good conscience take a phone call regarding my issues.

-- Paul Franklin, Mcpl (ret)

Amputee Coalition of Canada
Soldier On
Heros Hockey Challenge
 

Attachments

  • o-PAUL-FRANKLIN-570.jpg
    o-PAUL-FRANKLIN-570.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 71
http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publi...5/harpernomics-101-oil-debt-and-fantasy-math/

Harpernomics 101: Oil, debt and fantasy math

On Thursday, February 5th, 2015 in Articles by Elizabeth
Share
Stephen Harper’s fiscal strategy is being undermined by an economic nightmare. This one isn’t coming out of the eurozone or the United States. No, this time it’s the prime minister’s own policies that are the nightmare.

True, Canada rode out the 2008 financial meltdown better than most. Our prime minister was quick to take credit for that, but the credit should have gone to the previous administration for rejecting the banking industry’s demands for deregulation. Ironically, had Harper’s party succeeded in persuading the government of the day to accede in the banks’ demands, he would have had a much rougher ride.

He was lucky – lucky that our banks were regulated and unable to join in the high-risk global derivatives market, lucky that he had inherited large surpluses. Even before the financial crisis hit, Harper shifted our budget from surplus to deficit. That’s bound to happen if you slash revenues while spending more. Our first quarter in deficit arrived before we had spent a single cent in stimulus investments in response to the recession.

While the media, pundits and politicians focus on the relatively minor question of whether we’ll have a small surplus or small budgetary deficit this year, they’re ignoring the problem of the national debt. Stephen Harper – a person who likes to call himself a fiscal conservative – has increased the national debt to its highest level ever – over $600 billion.

Twenty-four per cent of that debt was accumulated by Stephen Harper as he borrowed money to give out economically foolish boutique tax cuts. It’s one thing to bribe voters with their own money. It’s a step beyond shameless to borrow money to do it. The interest payments on the debt will cost Canadians $29 billion this year alone.

One might imagine that Harper’s high-spending ways would come to an end in tough times. Not so: The current federal civil service is larger than it’s ever been before. While spending on environmental science and support for veterans was slashed, more bureaucrats were hired to audit environmental groups, to work in Corrections Canada and Canadian Border Services. One big growth area in federal employment has been in information officers; their numbers are up by 15 per cent as they work to control – and limit – our access to government information.

Since Harper became prime minister, productivity has fallen, innovation has grown stagnant and our exports have tilted back to what previous industrial strategies sought to avoid. For years, successive governments sought to move us away from relying on raw resource exports, to create wealth through value-added production. To use a Conservative-branded turn of phrase, Harper’s “laser-like focus” on putting all our eggs in the bitumen basket did not include processing the bitumen before shipping it out.

And now, it seems, his luck has run out. Maybe he didn’t see Saudi Arabia coming. But the OPEC oil shock of the early ’70′s was not that long ago. Of all global commodities, oil is the one that is most open to manipulation, creates the most security threats and launches the most wars.

Anyone who understands economics knows that an economy is more resilient to nasty shocks when it is diversified. Truth is, Canada was never all that dependent on the oil sands, which amount to only two per cent of GDP. It’s not that large a contributor to our national revenue. And many sectors of the Canadian economy will benefit from the lower dollar.

If I were prime minister right now, I would be finding every policy tool available to give those sectors that benefit from an 80 cent dollar some rapid ramping-up to expand their workforces. One prime example is tourism. For some inexplicable reason, Harper appears to hate tourism. Policy after policy has hurt the sector – from eliminating the GST-HST rebate for foreign visitors (a cheap goodwill gesture), to added visa requirements, to slashing the budget for tourism ads, to undermining seasonal employment through the EI system.

Over the last few years, not one penny was spent in the U.S. market to promote Canada as a dream vacation. Where ten years ago Canada was in the top seven for world tourism destinations, we’re now 18th.

The only spectacular photographs of Canadian wilderness paid for by the Government of Canada in the U.S. were used to promote the Keystone pipeline. Just one Keystone ad in the New Yorker last year cost over $200,000. Still, tourism employs over 600,000 Canadians and contributes over $30 billion to our economy.

It was announced recently that Harper is prepared to spend over $20 million for a major ad campaign targeting Europe, the U.S. and Asia. The international PR firm FleishmanHillard has won the contract. And the ads will promote the oil sands.

When will someone stand up to say “the economist is naked?”
 
Federal election coming next fall..
 

Attachments

  • 10944195_10150487944209957_818203379152534680_n.jpg
    10944195_10150487944209957_818203379152534680_n.jpg
    94.1 KB · Views: 60
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ant...r-and-obama-sound-like-yin-and-yang-1.2949175

Anti-terrorism talk: Harper and Obama sound like yin and yang
White House refers to warped interpretation of Islam, Canadian PM warns of 'great evil'
By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 07, 2015 12:50 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 07, 2015 12:50 PM ET
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, left, said 'a great evil has been descending upon our world,' in a Jan. 30 speech on Bill C-51. President Barack Obama, in a letter released Feb. 6 outlining his national security strategy, said the U.S. has to 'resist the overreach that comes when we make decisions based upon fear.' (Reuters)

The last few days have shown vivid differences in the way the leaders of Canada and the United States discuss terrorism and the threat posed by Islamist fighters.

One raises the alert level. The other dials it down.

'Basically they'll be allowed to break the law': New terrorism bill slammed
Anti-terrorism powers: What's in the legislation?
Anti-terrorism bill to be supported by Liberals, Justin Trudeau says
It's been like a linguistic laboratory, with the chance to compare the choice of words from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama over a similar time period.

In a one-week span, the American leader issued his 2015 National Security Strategy and spoke to religious leaders, while the Canadian leader introduced new anti-terror legislation.

Harper wants people to know that the danger's on the rise. In just one snippet of one speech, the prime minister referred two or three times to an escalating threat.

"A great evil has been descending upon our world, an evil which has been growing more and more powerful: violent jihadism," the prime minister said in a Jan. 30 speech on new anti-terror legislation.

"(It) is one of the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced. In parts of Asia and Africa, jihadists are finding shelter in failed states and ungoverned territories.

Bill C-51 aims to 'remove terrorist propaganda' from internet
Terrorism: A look at what other countries have done to combat the threat
Muslim groups 'troubled' by Stephen Harper's mosque remark
"And under their influence, attacks and plots outside these regions have become more frequent and more dangerous in Australia, in France and in Belgium just recently, and of course here at home in Canada. We cannot avoid the stark reality. Jihadist terrorism is not a future possibility, it is a present reality."

That same stark message was driven home in the latest weekly video posted online by his office, the narrator describing a "growing threat" to Canada and Canadian families.

The U.S. administration, on the other hand, warns against fear.

In introducing the latest U.S. National Security Strategy, Susan Rice said she knows the risks because she begins every morning with a briefing on issues like terrorism, the Arab uprisings, Russian aggression, Ebola, and cyber-attacks.

U.S. security adviser warns against 'alarmism'

"But too often, what's missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective. Yes, there is a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War Two or during the Cold War," the national security adviser said in a speech.

"We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism in a nearly instantaneous news cycle."

Obama National Security Strategy
U.S. National security adviser Susan Rice outlined Barack Obama's foreign policy priorities on Friday. The 29-page document, meant to serve as a blueprint for the president's final two years in office, forecasts no major shifts in the military campaign against Islamic State militants. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

Terrorism figured prominently in the security strategy, but only as one big issue among many others. It mentioned terrorism 37 times. It also mentioned other destabilizing issues, like climate change 19 times, cybersecurity 19 times, poverty 15 times and disease or Ebola 17 times.

The president wrote the introduction to the document. He mentioned leading a coalition to defeat the jihadist threat, then issued a request — for America not to over-react.

"As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite," he wrote.

"And in a complex world, many of the security problems we face do not lend themselves to quick and easy fixes. The United States will always defend our interests and uphold our commitments to allies and partners. But, we have to make hard choices among many competing priorities, and we must always resist the over-reach that comes when we make decisions based upon fear."

When talking about Islam, both leaders have been careful to avoid slandering an entire religion.

Harper has in the past referred to the threat of "Islamicism," but in his recent remarks he has spoken more specifically of violent jihadists. For its part, the White House talks about people with a warped interpretation of Islam.

Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada
Obama was criticized by opponents this week for the way he made that distinction, between violent individuals and their faith. He blasted ISIL as a "death cult," then explained why it wasn't specific to Islam.

He said history offers plenty of examples of people using religion to justify ugly deeds. He mentioned post-independence India, and examples from Christianity during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Jim Crow era.

War on terror not winning issue for Obama

"No god condones terror," Obama said.

The leaders do face different political realities.

In the U.S., terrorism is a losing issue for the president's party — voters prefer Republicans by 20 percentage points on that issue, according to Gallup pollsters. Obama promised to wind down the war on terror when he was first elected, and his presidency is in its final phase.

In Canada, yet another polling firm this week described terrorism as a winning issue for the prime minister's party. And Harper faces re-election in nine months.

© The Canadian Press, 2015
 
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pgZVjmafQME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Canada: 'Be extraordinarily cautious' Snowden slams Harper's terror bill
 
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/0...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=090215

Harper's Police State Law
Passing it means 'death of freedom' writes Green leader Elizabeth May.
By Elizabeth May, Today, TheTyee.ca

HarperFear_600px.jpg
Cartoon by Greg Perry.

I remember the events of Oct. 22. While I was in lock-down on Parliament Hill, I remember who hid in a closet and who ran toward gun fire. The guy in the closet is now planning to concentrate the powers of the state in his own hands while converting the Canadian spy agency into a secret police with virtually unlimited powers.

And, at the same time, he has decided to demote the security team that performed its role heroically, the House of Commons Security, led by former Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, and put the RCMP in charge of Parliament Hill. Of the two moves, clearly creating a secret police is the most dangerous, but upending the constitutional principle that the government reports to Parliament is no small matter (and, as a member of Parliament, I would prefer security to be in the hands of the people who paid attention that day and not the RCMP who somehow missed an armed man running past their multiple idling vehicles.)

Here is what Stephen Harper wants Canadians to think:

We are at war. We face a massive terrorist threat. We must be very, very afraid and we must not question any law brought in allegedly to fight terrorism. Anyone who raises finicky, lily-livered concerns about civil liberties is a fellow-traveller of ISIS.

Here's the truth:

We are not at war. We are at peace. (Would Harper's most trusted lieutenant and minister of foreign affairs quit if we were really at war?)

Acts of terrorism are a threat. They are criminal acts of horrific cruelty and sadism. Luring of disenfranchised, disenchanted, alienated Canadians into their barbaric crusade must be addressed, but the new law, C-51, is not primarily an anti-terrorism law. And legal experts are already pointing out it "undermines more promising avenues of addressing terrorism." (See Bill C-51 backgrounder by professors Kent Roach and Craig Forcese.)

In terms of Canada's future, the climate crisis is a much larger threat.

We must not be afraid.

We must be smart. It's really hard to think when paralyzed by fear. Any thinking person will stand up and oppose C-51 with every ounce of their strength.

Harper claims to believe Canada is a freedom-loving country. If he's right, he miscalculated in hoping we could be scared out of our wits.

We already have anti-terror laws. Terrorism, treason, sedition, espionage, proliferating of nuclear and biological weapons and other offences repeated in C-51 are already illegal. The police already have expanded powers in relation to terrorism. RCMP have powers to disrupt terrorist plots. That's how they broke the Toronto 18, the VIA rail plot and ISIS sympathizers in Ottawa, before they could move their plots into action. Full marks to the RCMP for these proactive successes. Those suspected of terrorism already have a second set of Kafka-esque laws to allow their detention through security certificates. Oversight of the operations of Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was reduced in the 2012 omnibus Bill C-38.

Put simply, Canada has already significantly intruded on charter rights to give the RCMP, CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) broader powers and less oversight.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know that CSE has been gathering millions of internet communications every day from Canadians -- even though CSE's mandate was supposed to apply only to foreign activities. Under project "Levitation" CSE collects as many as 15 million records of uploads and downloads every day.

Case for expanded powers: none

No one from the security establishment has made a case for requiring expanded powers.

C-51, the so-called Anti-Terrorism Act, creates new powers for the CSIS. CSIS was created to keep the RCMP policing functions separate from intelligence work after the fiasco of burning down the barn in an FLQ sting operation. This bill gives CSIS the power to do anything. (Okay, not anything. It specifically says CSIS cannot directly kill or harm people or "violate the sexual integrity of an individual," but otherwise, CSIS will have a vague set of sweeping powers).

CSIS will be able to conduct any operation it thinks is in the interests of protecting the security of Canada. The definition of "undermining the security of Canada" is more a list of suggestions than a definition, using the word "including" before listing nine types of threats. Using "including" as the heading for its list leaves open the possibility that CSIS may think something else should have been on that list.

Most listed activities are already illegal, such as treason, espionage, causing serious harm, etc. To this is added "interference with critical infrastructure," raising legitimate concerns that the bill is targeted at First Nations and environmental groups opposing pipelines. There is a caveat in the act: "For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression."

Asked for assurance, Tories mum

I have now twice asked the public safety and justice ministers in question period to clarify if the act will apply to non-lawful, non-violent civil disobedience, such as blockading along a pipeline route. Neither Stephen Blaney nor Peter MacKay would provide that assurance.

This act could apply to Rosa Parks sitting in the "Whites Only" section of the bus. It could apply to anyone who talked with her about it ahead of time. It could apply to journalists who wrote she should be commended for breaking the law.

The vaguest of those things that undermine the security of Canada reads as follows:

"Interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations or the economic or financial stability of Canada."

That list of vague activities has the same status as terrorism in launching CSIS operatives into a murky world with powers to "take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce the threat."

So, Saudi Arabia pumping out enough oil to cause the dropping price? Global currency speculators? Judges' decisions the PM doesn't like? Calling this section vague is an understatement. And CSIS only needs to go before a judge for a warrant in cases where it decided for itself that its actions will violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then it goes to a judge for a secret warrant process. The warrant can allow break and enter to take anything and to install anything.

Death of freedom

Here's what I could do with this section as prime minister. Climate change is surely a threat to public safety and the economic stability of Canada. So let's launch CSIS at messing with the heads of all those in the fossil fuel business. Install malware. Implicate them in bogus child porno charges. Break and enter and see if they have been hiding the patents for photovoltaic, electric vehicles, better batteries. A secret police at the PM's beck and call. Of course, if I ever were prime minister, one of the first things I would do is to repeal this act.

It's not enough to call for better citizen oversight as one opposition party urges. And it is certainly an act of egregious cowardice for the other opposition party to support this bill.

It is trite to say that when we surrender our freedoms, the terrorists win. Even to level that charge at this bill is to fall into the Harper trap of making this bill about terrorism. It's not. It's about creating a secret police. It's the death of freedom.
 

Attachments

  • HarperFear_600px.jpg
    HarperFear_600px.jpg
    61.9 KB · Views: 49
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eve...d-tense-meeting-with-stephen-harper-1.2950708

Eve Adams's defection followed tense meeting with Stephen Harper
Sources say she told PM she was finished with fiancé Dimitri Soudas, former Conservative Party exec
By Hannah Thibedeau, CBC News Posted: Feb 09, 2015 5:14 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 09, 2015 5:14 PM ET

Only weeks before she sat beside Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to announce her defection from the Conservatives, Eve Adams sat down with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a last-ditch attempt to stay in his party, CBC News has learned.

Sources tell CBC News Adams met with Harper on Jan. 5 to get his blessing to run for the Conservative nomination in the new riding of Mississauga-Malton, west of Toronto.

Conservative sources said Adams assured Harper she wanted to get past her previous nomination issues and would bring new members to the party if he let her run.

According to sources, she also assured the prime minister that she and her fiancé, Dimitri Soudas, were finished.

The sources said Harper leaned towards Adams and told her he knew Soudas was sitting in the hotel lobby waiting for her. He then informed her that the party's national council deals with nominations and, with that, the meeting was over.

Soudas will have no formal role with Liberals

Soudas, Harper's former communications director, was kicked out as executive director of the Conservative Party in March 2014 for helping Adams in the nomination battle for the riding of Oakville-North Burlington. Soudas had agreed he wouldn't get involved in the race because it gave Adams an unfair advantage.



On Jan. 29, Conservative Party president John Walsh sent a letter to Adams saying she wouldn't be allowed to run for the party in the next election.

Soudas fired as Conservative Party executive director
Inside Dimitri Soudas's last days atop the Conservative Party
"I communicated clearly that our party takes our nomination rules and procedures seriously, and we made a commitment to run fair and open nominations, and any misconduct from candidates, including caucus members, would not be tolerated," Walsh wrote in a news release.

Sources tell CBC News Soudas helped to broker the deal between Adams and the Liberals.

In a tweet Monday, Soudas said, "Fully support Adams's decision. She is smart, hard working & caring."

Senior Liberals on Monday were saying that Soudas's role in the party will be limited to helping Adams in her campaign in the next federal election.

"To clarify: Soudas will not have a formal role in the LPC but he, like her whole family, is supportive of @MPEveAdams's decision and her run," spokeswoman Kate Purchase tweeted.

A tweet from Gerry Butts, Trudeau's principal adviser, was more direct:

"Conspiracy theories are fun. But @D_Soudas role with LPC is to put up lawn signs on @MPEveAdams campaign. That's it, that's all folks."

In an interview with CBC News last year at the height of the controversy over his departure from the party director job, Soudas said, "I'll rip up any contract that says I can't help my family. I will breach any contract that says I can't help my family."

With files from Laura Payton and Sharon Musgrave
 
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...r-brings-american-style-right-wing-agenda-job

New Tory employment minister brings American-style right-wing agenda to the job
Jenny Uechi Feb 10th, 2015

File photo of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)
The Harper administration has just appointed Pierre Poilievre, the former Conservative Minister for democratic reform, to Minister of employment and social development.

Maclean's magazine once described the controversial and fiercely partisan 35-year-old MP as "the baby face of Canadian conservatism." For the past few years, he has pushed right-wing policies similar to those advocated by the American Koch brothers and the Tea Party movement they fund.

Minister Poilievre expressed his desire to implement anti-union "right to work" legislation in 2012, at the same time that U.S. states such as Wisconsin and Michigan passed legislation that undermined unions.

“I am the first federal politician to make a dedicated push toward this goal,’’ he said in an interview with The Toronto Star at the time.

He argued that he wanted federal workers to have "free choice" to not pay union fees, and said countries around the world were starting to move away from "forced unionism."

“I am going to work with cabinet and caucus colleagues to build support," he told the Star. "Over time I believe I can convince people of its merits. And hope springs eternal that one day we will have free choice for workers in Canada.’’

The purpose of so-called "right to work" laws, according to York University law professor David Doorey, is "to make it more difficult for unions to collect revenues, and thereby to weaken the labour movement." Their origins can be traced to right-wing advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Both organizations receive significant funding from Exxon-Mobil and oil billionaires David and Charles Koch. In the documentary Citizen Koch, which examines the role of the Koch brothers in attacking unions in the traditionally progressive state of Wisconsin, an ALEC representative explains that without strong unions, the Democratic Party's fundraising capacity would be radically reduced.

The Center for Media and Democracy described ALEC as a "bill mill" because of its agenda aimed at uniting conservative politicians and corporate leaders to draft "model" legislative bills that are later introduced to U.S. state lawmakers. The Progressive magazine notes that a "'Right to Work Act'... has been in the ALEC library since at least 1980."

"Right to work" legislation is now law in 24 U.S. states.

In addition to right-to-work laws, the organizations pushed for strict voter ID requirements in 2011 that threatened to exclude lower-income individuals from voting, an issue Poilievre has also championed.

Poilievre's proposed reforms didn't go as far as Republican voter ID laws, but the Minister advocated removing vouching as a means for voters to prove their identity. Critics said the changes would discourage students and lower-income voters, who were more likely to vote for the NDP or Liberal parties. Similarly, ALEC's voter ID laws have been slammed for discouraging poorer voters who don't have drivers licenses with photo IDs and tend not to vote Republican.

In a 2014 Globe and Mail op-ed titled "Are Conservatives lifting tactics from the GOP?" Lawrence Martin questioned why Poilievre and the Conservatives were using similar tactics to the Republican Party.

Poilievre's website is replete with policy points and quotes that reflect his belief in small government and free-market capitalism, themes dear to the Libertarian Koch brothers. "Government cannot give anything, without first taking it away," and "small government makes for big freedoms" are among the quotes topping his site.

He expresses a wish to to "deliver more of our public services through free enterprise and competition."

Poilievre did not respond to questions about whether he'd continue to pursue right-to-work legislation in Canada, now that he is Minister of Employment.

In Canada, the Supreme Court recently sided with labour unions in a dispute over right-to-work legislation in Saskatchewan, ruling that the workers have a right to strike.
 
kinda says it all..
 

Attachments

  • 10993098_781791775241130_2475104332542480714_n.jpg
    10993098_781791775241130_2475104332542480714_n.jpg
    70.1 KB · Views: 36
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top