Showing posts with label harper lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harper lies. Show all posts

Thursday, May 23, 2013

The Internet As Lie Detector

Funny thing about the Internet, isn't it? Almost everything that is uttered or printed by public officials cannot, happily, be rewritten à la Orwell's Nineteen -Eighty-Four. But then again, the government depicted within the novel must have felt the need to guard against uprisings by the people and so relied on scapegoating, invective, close monitoring of citizens, etc. While these techniques are certainly used with regularity by the Harper regime, I suspect that our 'government' feels that its greatest defense against repercussions over its corruption and its debasement of democracy is the apparent monumental indifference of large swaths of the Canadian public.

It must be thus, otherwise how can we explain Harper's shameless and very obvious contempt for the truth? For example, last Wednesday on Power and Politics the regime was expressing its full confidence in Nigel Wright's payment of the $90,000 to the disgraced Senator Mike Duffy. Indeed that staunch defence continued until Wright's resignation on Sunday. :

And yet now, in what can only be viewed as a massive middle finger sent from Peru to the people of Canada, the odious Stephen Harper would have us believe that he acted immediately upon learning of the payoff, an "inappropriate deal' that, he says, elicited sorrow, anger and frustration when he learned about the payoff. Left unexplained was why Wright continued to enjoy his full confidence until Sunday, long after the payoff had been revealed:

And if you have the stomach for it, you could watch the video below in which Eve Adams, who has apparently replaced former Harper pet parrot Pierre Poilivre as public defender of all things Harper, launches into a sycophantic justification of 'dear leader.' Her nauseating performance begins at about the 7 minute mark:

So the evidence is there for all to see that our Prime Minister is also our prime prevaricator. As Oscar Goldman used to say on The Six Million Dollar Man, We have the technology. The real question is, do enough Canadians have the will to use it in the interests of beginning the process of restoring our country in 2015?

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

A Change of Heart, Or A Change In Political Winds?

Much has been written and discussed about the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, both on this blog and in various other media; consequently, I suspect that the majority of well-informed Canadians will look with deep cynicism upon the announcement that the Harper regime intends to crack down on widespread employer abuses of the program that has seen Canadians displaced by immigrants being paid up to 15% less in wages.

Those whose acquaintance with Canadian politics is limited only to being able to name the Prime Minister of Canada and perhaps one opposition leader will doubtless feel that the Harper crew is being responsive to the needs of Canadians, now that these wholly unanticipated abuses of the program have become known.

In this, of course, they would be completely deluded.

Consider this about the TFWP:

Critics say it has been misused to recruit foreigners for many low-skilled positions that could have gone to Canadians. With 1.3 million Canadians out of work, the Conservative government was facing charges that it was making it too easy for companies to go abroad for their labour needs.

The article reminds us that the problem was well-known to the government, adding to the suspicion that its purpose all along was to lower labour costs for business. For example last year, HD Mining International Ltd. a Chinese-backed coal mining operation in British Columbia, brought in 201 miners from China under the plan.

Or Consider this observation:

NDP MP Chris Charlton said government’s record so far on the file makes her skeptical they have fixed the problems.

“The reality is that they have made an absolute mess of the temporary foreign workers program,” Charlton said.

“They have systematically loosened the rules to make it easier for employers to hire cheap foreign labour at the expense of Canadian workers.”

Advocates groups are similarly cynical that the Harper regime has experienced a sudden epiphany:

“We have little faith that they would result in anything meaningful,” said Naveen Mehta of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada. “It’s just (smoke and mirrors).”

Using Ottawa’s bad employer list as an example, former live-in caregiver Kay Manuel, whose story of exploitation sparked off new migrant worker protection laws, said the federal government has yet to name a bad Canadian employer on its website since its 2011 launch.

Mehta's doubts are shared by many others:

“The changes announced today are mostly about rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship,” said Chris Ramsaroop, a member of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, a coalition of grassroots advocacy groups.

Calling Ottawa’s reforms “political jockeying,” Deena Ladd, executive director of the Toronto Workers’ Action Centre, said Ottawa could enhance the migrant worker program’s transparency by publicizing Canadian employers using the program and the jobs migrant workers they are bringing in to fill.

Perhaps the final word should go to the business community which, quite predictably, is warning that the sky may fall as a result of these changes:

“One of the worst decisions this government has ever made,” said Dan Kelly, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said of the new rules. “They’re completing ignoring the needs of small firms and the needs of employers who are in need of entry level workers.”

“I’m very, very unhappy with this government for this decision,” Kelly added.

Or how about this apocalyptic morsel from a former Progressive Conservative politician:?

“It’s going to drive up costs and make it more difficult to use the program,” said Perrin Beatty, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

“Nobody benefits from that,” Beatty said adding it could force come employers out of business.

One might tartly add, Mr. Beatty, that no Canadian workers have benefited from the TFWP in its current configuration.

Welcome to the real world, sir.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Is Harper Just A Big Bully?

These Star readers seem to think so:

Tories attack Trudeau on first day in new job, April 16

It is fair to criticize opposing politicians for their political beliefs and policies. It is right to deplore bullying in all its forms. Now we find that the usual unfair, unjust and bullying attack ads of the Harper Tory’s are aimed directly at the new leader of the Liberal party.

They do not attack Mr. Trudeau’s politics but childishly attack him and only him. This takes the usual Harper cyber-bullying to a whole new level. Given the example this sets for other cyber bullies, we should no longer tolerate these unprovoked personal attacks.

Is it time for the Conservatives to find a new leader and a new path?

Bob Sture, Innisfil

Any survivor of sexual abuse knows that the effects last a lifetime. And then there are the victims who don’t survive.

Recently, young perpetrators of rape have added new horrors to their crime, taking pictures of their victim and circulating them in their community as if the photos were trophies celebrating a kill. No wonder the resulting name-calling and degradation lead some girls to commit suicide.

What is happening to our society when vicious attacks on individual integrity, physical and/or psychological, are celebrated as some sort of victory? We have to look to the highest levels in our society for at least part of the explanation.

I refer to the “attack ad” mentality of the Conservative Party in Canada, and of political strategists in other countries as well. They are not to be dismissed as merely tiresome or childish. These chilling, contemptuous, and arrogant messages are casting a shadow over the population that condones and even encourages brutality as legitimate self-expression.

Any society that fails to respect its own and protect its own, that tolerates a government bent on degrading and eliminating those honourably serving as the Opposition, will not survive for long. Our young are already reflecting the harm such a toxic political environment causes.

It’s time Canada’s citizens took more responsibility in demanding a better example from its elected representatives.

Dianna Rodgers Allen, Parry Sound

I am shocked by the Conservative attack ad on Justin Trudeau I just saw on television.

At a time when we are saddened by the suicides of teenagers who have been humiliated and bullied after demeaning representations of them have been posted publicly, at a time when we wonder how teenagers can be so cruel, at a time when we ask what we can do to stop this, we are faced with the same practice at the very highest level of our country.

Terribly sad that all those involved in planning, shooting, approving and subsequently running this ad thought it was OK.

Yvette Laezza, Mississauga

Friday, August 31, 2012

Fact-Checkers Be Damned



It would be comforting to think that the disdain for facts apparent in the current U.S. Presidential campaign ads were confined to that country. Unfortunately, experience with the Harper propaganda machine suggests otherwise.

H/t Ryan McGreal

Sunday, August 19, 2012

CETA - Part Four - Trust No One

Ultimately, the critical thinker has an obligation to educate him/herself. To simply accept government 'assurances' that all is well is to surrender the responsibilities inherent in being a citizen in a democracy.

HARPER SAYS: CETA and free trade deals do not allow foreign investors and foreign companies to challenge Canadian laws and regulations.

WE SAY: NAFTA’s chapter 11 protections for foreign investors have allowed corporations to challenge dozens of Canadian laws and regulations simply because they interfere with profits. Canada is the sixth most sued country under the investor-state dispute settlement regime, which exists in around 3,000 bilateral investment treaties globally. Those corporate lawsuits have attacked environmental assessments, the failure to get approval for unpopular or environmentally dangerous quarries and dumpsites, measures to reduce the use of pesticides, research and development payments from offshore oil and gas production, the way hunting and fishing licences are distributed, and local content quotas in Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Canada has had to pay out or is on the hook for over $200 million in settlements or losses to investors under these extreme investor rights which countries such as Australia are now avoiding in their trade deals.

HARPER SAYS: CETA has been the most open and transparent trade negotiation in Canadian history.

WE SAY: So why did it take the government three years to try to explain the agreement to the public? The fact that the provinces are negotiating a trade deal for the first time says nothing about transparency since the provinces are being even more tight-lipped than the Harper government. There have been and will not be any opportunities to see or modify CETA before it is signed, perhaps as early as this winter. Once it is signed, the Harper government will block attempts to modify it in parliament. This is the antithesis of transparency. If CETA and agreements like it are supposed to be 21st century or “next-generation” free trade deals, they should be negotiated in 21st century ways — openly, transparently, and with broad public input.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

CETA - Trust No One - Part Three

Here are two more CETA myths being perpetuated by the Harper regime, according to the Council of Canadians, that we should be aware of:

HARPER SAYS: Free trade deals like CETA do not prevent governments from regulating standards that protect the public, including in the areas of the environment, labour, health care and safety.

WE SAY: CETA and free trade deals like it are designed specifically to limit opportunities for governments to introduce new rules and regulations that have an impact on trade and investment flows, even if the intention of the rules was to protect the environment or public health. The United States has just lost three World Trade Organization disputes involving meat labelling, a ban on flavoured cigarettes to discourage smoking among children, and voluntary measures designed to protect dolphins from tuna fishing. CETA and other trade deals include language on avoiding new regulation as the best and least trade-distorting option. CETA will provide Canada and the EU with tools to frustrate or delay the introduction of new standards. It will give corporations the right to sue governments in the event that regulations interfere with their profits.

HARPER SAYS: Canada’s FTAs do not force governments to privatize, contract out or deregulate water-related services.

WE SAY: European member states are so concerned about how CETA might affect their ability to deliver public water services that they have proposed to exclude drinking water from their side of the bargain. With only one exception in Yukon, federal government, provinces and territories have not asked for the same protection for water services, which leaves Canada’s public water systems vulnerable to claims by the EU or its large private water companies that their investment opportunities are being undermined either by local water monopolies, or, where there is already some level of privatization, by new water use or other standards.

Free trade? Everything about the CETA deal carries a very heavy cost.

Friday, August 17, 2012

CETA - Trust No One - Part Two

As reported in today's Star, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, after meeting with Stephen Harper, has promised to push for early completion of the gruelling negotiations for a Canada-European Union free trade pact.

While that may hearten those who believe the pact would be an unalloyed blessing for Canada's economy, there are many others, including Canadian municipal governments, that are not so sure:

HARPER SAYS: It’s a myth that CETA would prevent Canada’s municipal governments from sourcing goods and services locally.

WE SAY: The procurement rules in CETA will prohibit any covered government or public agency from preferring one bidding firm over another based on the amount of Canadian or local content in the goods or services that firm is offering. Already procurement, or public spending, is open and transparent in Canada. Already European firms bid on and win major construction and other projects. The only thing CETA does is lock municipalities into one way of spending, where the lowest bid wins every time. It means giving up the right to use procurement as a sustainable development or job creation tool.

Wayne Easter, the Liberal Party's critic for International Trade, expresses similar misgivings about CETA in an article for iPolitics.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Exposing More Harper Lies

Those who believe the Harper propaganda that the changes to environmental oversight contained in Omnibus Bill C-38 are simply 'housekeeping' and 'streamlining' measures may find this notification from the National Energy Board of interest:

As a result of the amendments to section 118, the Board no longer requires applicants for oil and gas export licences and gas import licences to file the following information under the Part VI Regulations:

12. (f) information respecting the potential environmental effects of the proposed exportation and any social effects that would be directly related to those environmental effects;

Information to be Furnished by Applicants for Licences for Importation

13. (e) information respecting the potential environmental effects of the proposed importation and any social effects that would be directly related to those environmental effects;

The full notification can be read here.

H/t Bill Hillier

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Stating The Obvious

I suspect this report ranks right up there with headlines such as Expect A Hotter Than Usual Summer.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Linda McQuaig on Harper Austerity

In case you missed it, today's Star has Linda McQuaig's latest column in which she opines on the Harper austerity program, juxtaposing the P.M.'s insistence that we live in challenging fiscal times and thus must cut spending with his government's apparently cavalier attitude about the extra $10 billion that they now admit will be part of the true cost of the F-35 purchases.

She mentions a certain picture at the beginning of her column, which I am reproducing below: