More Corporate Arrogance From Porter Air -UPDATED

I recently wrote a post on Porter Air and its shameful treatment of its fuel handlers, most of whom start that crucial position at about $12 per hour and are currently on strike while the airline uses scabs in their stead. Its corporate arrogance was once again on full display in Toronto today as it announced its desire (intention) to begin flying jets out of the Billy Bishop (or as it is known regionally, the island) airport, despite this inconvenient fact:

an existing tripartite agreement, signed in 1983 by all three levels of governments, which runs until 2033. That agreement prohibits the use of jet aircraft at the island except in certain circumstances such as medical evacuation flights or during the CNE.

The above agreement was put into place for a number of reasons, not the least of which was to avoid having noisy jets flying directly over downtown Toronto. As well, the airport itself in its current configuration is too short to accommodate jets. And much has transpired in terms of extensive albeit aesthetically questionable condo development along Toronto's waterfront, the owners of which will be obviously negatively affected by an amendment to the agreement.

And yet that is exactly what Porter president and CEO Robert Deluce expects, saying that Porter will ask three governments “shortly” to amend the tripartite agreement — to allow jets and permit a “modest 168 meter” extension at each end of the existing main runway.

Predictably, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, who has never met a development he hasn't liked (casino, casino, casino!) is enthused over the prospect, as is his always-present brother, Doug (he who explains away every criticism of Rob as 'a left-wing conspiracy'). Where the rest of Toronto's City Council stands on the issue remains to be seen.

Whether or not one cares about Toronto is largely irrelevant here. More germane is whether or not this situation will turn out to be just another rubber-stamp of the corporate agenda. Indeed, will the wishes of the taxpaying citizens of Canada's largest city fork any lightning at all? The answer could provide a template of things to come for the rest of us.

UPDATE: There are two columns in this morning's Star on the issue, one moderately in favour of Porter's plan, (Royson James), and one vehemently opposed, Christopher Hume. Each make some interesting points, but given my own bias against corporate arrogance, I find myself more disposed to Hume's piece. Take a look and see what you think.

More On RBC's Outsourcing From Star Readers

I have a busy morning ahead, so for now I take the liberty of reproducing two letters from this morning's Star that make some excellent points as to how to apportion blame for the outrageous corporate practice of outsourcing Canadian jobs, most apparent in the current RBC imbroglio. As well, if you have the time, check out this column by Heather Mallick, who writes on the same topic.

Royal Bank faces heat over foreign worker plan, April 8

The outsourcing by the Royal Bank of Canada of work done by Canadians to foreigners is the logical outcome of the Conservative government's policy of allowing temporary workers into Canada and generally supporting the large-corporation agenda put forth by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and their ilk. The bankruptcy of these policies is brought into sharp relief when one of the most profitable corporations in Canada enhances its already huge profitability a little bit more at the expense of Canadian employment.

The government's Economic Action Plan should be retitled “Corporate Welfare Plan.” The government has no coherent approach to dealing with the twin job-reduction forces of globalization and technology, other than tax cutting, cost cutting and making Canada safe for corporations.

As for RBC, shame on you. Their stated defence for their action is the usual meaningless corporate blather about “reducing cost to reinvest in initiatives that enhance the customer experience.” Really? When did any of the large Canadian banks put customers ahead of profits?

John Simke, Toronto

RBC's decision to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers under the faulty new federal legislation is an affront to Canada and Canadian workers. Profits at all costs shows a disrespect to Canadian workers.

Since RBC is doing quite well financially, this move is troubling. With five unemployed workers in Toronto for every job, many of them low paid, this is a further slap in the face.

It is clear that RBC shows no moral responsibility to the country and its people, who made them rich. While the executives of this company make millions, they have lost touch with the rest of the population.

Joan Dolson, Toronto

Bad Corporate Behaviour Abounds

As fellow blogger LeDaro pointed out to me the other day in a comment on my post about the Royal Bank's outsourcing of jobs, such practices are common among all of our banks. Further research by the CBC has come up with ample evidence to verify LeDaro's observation. You can read the complete sad and ugly truth here.

H/t David Doorey

A Rogue's Gallery

Just two pictures, so perhaps not a real gallery, but I think the descriptor is accurate.

Reflections on Political Leadership

Inveterate cynic that I am, I have long believed that most politicians see us, to borrow a phrase that I think originated in The Depression, as 'easy marks,' people who are especially susceptible to manipulation and victimization. The fact is that as a species we are a mass of contradictions, at times incredibly weak and at times surprisingly noble; and it is a rare politician indeed who chooses the path less traveled by appealing to our better natures through logic, respect, and conviction instead of rhetoric that plays on our fears, prejudices and attraction to easy 'solutions'.

So it seems only fitting to use two quite disparate politicians to illustrate my thesis, and although both are from the Ontario political landscape, I believe what they represent has widespread application.

Let's start with Rob Ford, mayor of Canada's erstwhile world-class city, Toronto. While his buffoonish antics are well-known, why does he continue to be very popular with a significant proportion of Toronto's citizens? Clearly, his message of low taxes, the elimination of gravy trains and his simplistic and disingenuous promise of ending gridlock painlessly (casinos, casinos, casinos!) resonate with a substantial segment of the populace, no matter how absurd his 'vision' may be or how socially expensive it would be to implement. Indeed, Ford poses as 'everyman,' understanding the travails of the average person - he 'feels their pain.'

I think it is clear which side of human nature Rob Ford is appealing to.

Then we move on to another neophyte leader, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. Here is a lady I find myself liking and respecting more and more each day, and for one reason only: she is treating us like adults, not talking down to us, not talking to distract us, but talking to make us think, and in the process, appealing to our nobler instincts.

Despite the fact that an election is likely sooner rather than later, Wynne has taken the bold step of initiating a frank (and hopefully mature) discussion on how to pay for the infrastructure needed to deal definitively with the perennial problem of gridlock in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area. Her message is refreshingly frank: There are no free rides in improved transit. Billions in revenue are needed, and there is only a limited array of funding options.

No sugarcoating for the sake of political expedience. No promises of a painless panacea for gridlock. No shirking the responsibilities of real leadership.

A risky approach to take, as noted by Martin Regg Cohn in today's Star, one fraught with all manner of pitfalls thanks to a political opposition all too willing to continue offering platitudes rather solutions, rhetoric rather than substance.

I may very well not ultimately agree with the funding measures the Wynne government decides upon. But at least I will feel that I have been respected, I have been listened to earnestly, and probably most important of all, not been lied to.

In 'the corrupted currents' of this political world, that is as much optimism as an inveterate cynic can muster

The Royal Bank Responds With An Attempt At Damage Control

Somehow, I don't think George Orwell would be too impressed by the RBC response to its public relations nightmare over the outsourcing of Canadian jobs:

Said Zabeen Hirji, RBC’s chief human resources officer:

“We recognize the impact of this situation on our employees and we continue to remain focused on assisting our employees through this transition. We are working diligently to find suitable roles for those affected and it is our hope over the next few months to transition them to other positions.”

My hope would be that RBC and the other banks making record profits immediately transition to a policy of employee retention instead of dismissal through outsourcing.

More On Wealthy Tax Cheats

As noted in a previous post, many of our more prosperous citizens feel no obligation to the country that made their great wealth possible. Rather, they are quite happy to hide it in offshore financial institutions, which, while being ethically questionable, is not illegal. However, many of them are also committing crimes by not declaring profits that accrue to them in those faraway places, and tax evasion is most definitely illegal.

Today's Star readers weigh in on the issue in their usual insightful manner. I am taking the liberty of reproducing their letters below:

Rich can no longer hide millions; Crack down on tax havens, Editorial, April 5

Regarding the recent articles about tax havens and governments world-wide saying they will now put more effort into getting those public monies back from the super-affluent. Well, the world’s supposed democratic governments have been aware of these billions of dollars illegally absconded by the rich and powerful for a long time. It has only been through the efforts of private citizens (journalists, authors, the Tax Justice Network) that this information has become common knowledge. Why is it that, as the editorial states, “. . . until recently there has been little political will to crack down on the super-affluent”?

The U.S. Republican party, our own Conservative government and democratic governments world-wide have been crying their “austerity” mantra ad nauseam, claiming massive shortfalls in revenues as their reason for cannibalizing tax-funded social programs. Yet they cogently and deceitfully failed to mention or address the flagrant abuse (tax evasion) by the world’s 1 per cent in causing these monetary shortfalls. Collusion between our elected officials and the super-rich is common knowledge. So now the question is why do the super-affluent and their political lackeys seem so determined to undermine the finances, wealth, health and security of The People (99 per cent) in our democratic systems of society?

Al Dunn, Kingston

Any Canadian with money in tax havens should be treated like the holders of accounts in Cyprus banks — charge them 60 per cent when they are found out. Tax havens should be made impossible through international laws. They work to the detriment of society.

Tony ten Kortenaar, Toronto

Now It All Makes Sense

RBC CEO Gord Nixon

I just knew there had to be a logical explanation. This explains that.

Empirical Evidence Versus Bluster

Although this is just a brief clip, it does, I think, show why the 'right' prefers ideology and 'talking points' to empirical evidence:

The Royal Bank's Abasement of Its Employees

It may be helpful to remember the following video the next time you see an RBC ad portraying the bank as the solution to everyone's problems. Forty-five soon-to-be-former employees (after they have trained their replacements) would beg to differ with the characterization. I suspect if I had an account with RBC, I would be closing it very soon in protest.

H/t Kev

More Praise for Kevin Page

Readers of this blog will know that I have a deep and abiding respect for people of real integrity, those capable of moving beyond narrow self-interest to embrace ethics and principles in the conduct of their lives. Kevin Page, of whom I have written several times, is one such individual who has set a sterling example for all of us.

Today's Star has several letters of praise for the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, several of which I am reproducing below. Please be sure to check out the full array of them on the Star website. The respect accorded him in the letters suggests his example will be remembered long after Harper and his ilk are but historical footnotes.

The job no one wanted, Opinion April 1

Not only does this reveal a man of courage, but it highlights the courage we all need to resist “the consolidation of power at the expense of citizens” taking place in our time.

Whenever privilege becomes concentrated to a few, whether we are talking wealth, political power or mass communication, nations fail. Canada is failing because political, economic and educational privilege is being consolidated to a few rather than dispersed among many.

But the remedy doesn’t lie within Parliament, or with big business or with the media conglomerates. It lies as Kevin Page rightly diagnoses, in our “need to wake up.”

Not only is ‘Canada’s Parliament losing its capacity to hold the government to account” but we are losing our capacity to hold our markets to account for making a few wealthy at the expense of the many, and our capacity to ensure the vulnerable are provided for by our social programs and our institutions of care.

To speak up against this trend is a job nobody wants, especially if job security is threatened. But without that courage, our democracy and prosperity are at stake. Not just for the vulnerable, but for all of us.

We need to wake up.

John Deacon, Toronto

Wow! What a letter. I am blown away by Kevin Page. Now here is a guy who gets it. He understands his role and does so with integrity and professionalism and with the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer in mind.

One may reasonably think that the Conservatives would do everything possible to ensure he stays on board instead of showing him the door and replacing him with someone nice but “not so efficient.”

This reminds me of Dalton McGuinty balking at the rehiring of Ombudsman Andre Marin in 2010. It turned out fortuitous for the provincial leader as his government needed transparency after the G20 debacle and Marin’s office was there to help.

Maybe Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his tired cloak and dagger routine.

Jeff Green, Toronto

Kevin Page and the PBO have made a great contribution to Canada in the past five years. What Canada needs to succeed in the future are more Kevin Pages and fewer Stephen Harpers. On behalf of Canada, thank you Mr. Page.

Charles Campisi, Oakville

Thank you Mr. Page for sharing your thoughts with Canadians. In spite of continual stonewalling from the present federal Conservative government, you, as head of the PBO, were truly a very conscientious, thorough, “sticking to the facts” and “no axe to grind” type of civil servant and we all Canadians should be proud of you. Best wishes in your future endeavours. Aquil Ali, Toronto Kevin Page is one of my heroes. I copied his letter in the Star and sent it, along with my own cover letter, to 20 of my family and friends. I asked them to contact their MPs and demand that they support even more power to the position to the PBO’s position in the future.

I sincerely hope that we have not heard the last of Kevin Page. We need his courage, character, skill and sense of right in this country. I hope that his service to Canadians will be recognized with an Order of Canada. (It certainly won’t be given by the Conservative government with Harper as leader!)

Listen up Justin Trudeau! Kevin has gifted his sons with an amazing legacy and has given “We The People” an incredible example to follow. This is a wonderful example of turning a tragedy into something very positive.

Kathryn Walker, Toronto

My sincere thanks to Kevin Page for his dedicated service to Canadian taxpayers like me. Under difficult circumstances, he has shown himself to be a man of integrity, class, and principle. It’s a shame his political masters in the Conservative government couldn’t manage something similar. Bravo, sir.

Susan Sterling, Toronto

Just Trust Us

We all remember the abortive attempts by Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer, to find out specifically how federal budget cuts were going to affect programs. The Harper regime was of the view that such detailed information wasn't to be shared, despite the pesky expectations that a putative open democracy tends to foster among its citizens. Essentially, the answer we were given was, "just trust us."

A detailed analysis of recently released spending reports conducted by the Globe and Mail suggests two things: thanks to cuts in the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we can trust the regime to render our food system less safe, and thanks to cuts to Aboriginal Affairs, we can trust that the concerns of natives will continue to be only a political irritation for Ottawa.

But hey, the regime is well on its way to keeping its promise to balance the budget by 2015, and as we should all know by now, our function is to serve the economy, no matter the unfortunate consequences that may ensue.

The Scourge of Wealth- UPDATED

I often think of the famous line from the New Testament in which Jesus says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Some say the reference is to a gate in Jerusalem called the Needle''s Eye through which a camel could enter only by getting on its knees. Many progressive biblical scholars regard the term 'kingdom of heaven' as the inner peace and happiness that arises when we are in harmony with the will of God, treating our fellow humans with compassion and justice.

Whatever the precise intended meaning, the analogy proclaims a truth that is hard to deny: the more affluent one becomes, the more difficult it is to resist the impulse to expand that wealth at the expense of others. This is, of course, a truth that the Occupy Movement recognized, and it is a truth that is getting widespread exposure thanks to recent news stories. For example, prominent Canadian lawyer Tony Merchant and his wife, Liberal Senator Pana Merchant, have been discovered to have set up an offshore account with $1.7-million in the Cook Islands.

According to documents obtained by the Washington, D.C.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the Merchants were among 130,000 people from around the world to have stashed money in accounts in the Cook Islands, a self-governing New Zealand territory in the South Pacific.

While there is nothing illegal in such set-ups, they are often used as mechanisms of tax avoidance, usually through the illegal failure to report income accruing from those assets. According to the Consortium of Investigative Journalists,

A recent report by the Tax Justice Network found that the equivalent to the total combined GDP of U.S. and Japan is being hidden away by those rich enough to use offshore accounts.

As revealed in today's Star editorial,

The Tax Justice Network, based in London, estimates that some $21 trillion to $31 trillion is stashed away worldwide in unreported income. That’s a potential tax loss of $190 billion to $280 billion, based on a 3-per-cent return and assuming a 30-per-cent tax rate, the network reckons. The “black hole” of unreported wealth is vast and it has a major impact on public finances, political influence, the distribution of the tax burden and inequality.

Will these crimes of tax avoidance soon be addressed? While the editorial acknowledges that Jim Flaherty has recently declared his intention of going after these tax cheats, the fact is that the Canada Revenue Agency is expected to be substantially downsized over the next three years, calling into question the Finance Minister's sincerity. And the editorial makes clear how serious a problem this is for our country:

Canadians for Tax Fairness, a group that campaigns for sharing the burden equitably, estimates affluent Canadians have stashed $160 billion into offshore havens, costing us nearly $8 billion a year in foregone tax revenues. That’s many times what Ottawa hopes to recapture. And even that may understate the problem.

All of which brings to mind something Leona Helmsley once said: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.” Her view, I suspect, epitomizes the kind of disdainful and contemptuous thinking that many of the rich in their splendid isolation fall prey to. We should be equally wary of their enablers.

So I think we are right to be very suspicious and cynical about Ottawa's intentions. Recovering billions in tax avoidance dollars might not only disrupt its very cozy relationship with the corporate world, but also derail the Harper regime's relentless drive to reduce government's presence by starving it of the tax revenue needed to fund the many programs that help to define the Canadian quality of life, a quality of life that may not resemble that of the rich and famous but does frequently offer surprising and profound moments of grace.

H/t Alex Himelfarb

UPDATE: Click here for Linda McQuaigs lacerating assessment of the Harper regime's 'efforts' at recovering the aforementioned lost monies.

Internet Interruptus

Today is the second day I have been without direct internet access owing to some sort of problem on the Bell network. Yesterday I was in the midst of writing my daily post when it went out, and I later went down to my local library to upload it. Similarly, this morning I was at a grocery store with free Wi-fi where I checked my email and uploaded a comment on yesterday's post.

While my topic today is unlikely to offer any profound insights, I do want to write about the nature of community. Like many, I have long denigrated the notion of any real community existing in the virtual world. Facebook, for example, abounds with the trivial or egocentric (worst sleep ever last night), the treacly (if you love your mother, even if she is no longer here, share this), and the inane (click on this to see the funniest cat video ever); as well, the depth of friendships on that platform tends, in my experience, to be at the shallow end of the pool.

That is why I was a bit surprised to discover yesterday how much I missed my 'community' of fellow-bloggers whom I read regularly. Unlike when we go on vacation and have little or no internet access, during which time the suspension of contact with the larger world is a nice respite, this current unanticipated disruption of that contact has been unsettling, to say the least. While I have always felt a certain affinity with those I read and those who post comments on my blog, it wasn't until yesterday that I realized what a significant part of my life they occupy.

I suspect there are several reasons for this, one of the most compelling being that I am comforted in the knowledge that there are many people involved in blogs and Internet organizations who have both political awareness and passion, knowledge that is heartening given its frequent absence in the general population. As well, I am often led to new facts and perspectives through these people, who take me well beyond the usual newspapers and journals that I read for information.

Related, I suspect, is the same affinity that any community feels that arises from shared values. That is not to say that I read only those who reinforce my worldview and that I am closed to new ideas; rather I read those whose minds and sensibilities I respect, people who by and large do not fall into the frequent right-wing trap of name-calling, ad hominems, and shrill base emotionalism. Indeed, even when we do not agree, I respect the difference in perspectives because I respect their minds and character as revealed in their writing.

I don't see anything superficial or unreal about these virtual relationships. Although it is unlikely that I will ever meet these people 'in the flesh,' I feel a definite kinship with them. And I guess, when all is said and done, that is the most important basis of community.

Pondering Pandering Political Parties

I am long past the age where I expect very much from politicians of any stripe. While it is easy to target (and I frequently do!) the Harper-led Conservative Party as the party of the corporate agenda, it is also sadly true that both the Liberal Party and the NDP have as their greatest priority the acquisition of power, frequently at the expense of principle. For example, putative messiah of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, is shockingly shallow when it comes to policy pronouncements, the better, I assume, to form them closer to the next election according to perceived public preferences, the reflection of which could lead to victory at the polls. The NDP, with their frequent references to 'the middle class' and their middle-of-the-road policy orientations under Thomas Mulcair are no better.

There is an excellent piece by Glenn Wheeler in this morning's Star that reminds us of these political realities. Entitled Liberal party and the labour movement need each other; the author, a lawyer for the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and a member of the Liberal Party’s National Policy and Election Platform Committee, reflects on the fact that while the union he works for is trying to discourage the public from flying Porter Air due to the fuel-handlers' strike, the Liberal Party is pushing discount rates it has negotiated with the carrier for the upcoming Liberal Leadership gathering in Toronto.

This situation, he suggests, is emblematic of the abandonment/downgrading of union concerns by the aforementioned parties at a time when labour is under unprecedented attack both by the Harper regime federally, and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who are championing 'right-to-work' legislation that would essentially be the death knell of the union movement.

Because I am experiencing some Internet problems right now, I will end with a strong recommendation that you read the full article to see why Wheeler believes that strong unionism and a healthy political climate are complementary, not contradictory objectives. One can only hope that in their race/lust for power, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair bear that fact in mind.

Some Misplaced Right-Wing Anger

The 'lady' in this video, so agitated by the number of Americans on food stamps, is right to be angry, but for the wrong reasons:

H/t Eric Dolan

Some Inspiration From Kevin Page - UPDATED

There is an excellent piece in this morning's Star by outgoing Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. In it, he talks about how his son's death was the catalyst for his abandoning a natural desire for job security and his subsequent pursuit of the job which has incurred so much Harper wrath while at the same time endearing him to millions of Canadians. Unfortunately, the piece seems to be only in the print edition, but should it become available online, I will provide a link.

At the end of his article, Page urges all of us to write to our M.P. and let them know how they feel about the government's purposeful and myriad efforts at concealing information essential to a healthy democracy and informed Parliamentary debate. Inspired by his words, I have sent off an email to my Conservative M.P. David Sweet. I reproduce it below. If you find any part of it useful, feel free to use it in your own communications with your representative:

Dear Mr. Sweet,

Having read outgoing Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's column in this morning's Star, I have decided to take his advice and write to you. As his five-year tenure made abundantly clear, your government has consistently betrayed its commitment to openness and transparency in a number of ways, not the least being its refusal to provide the kind of financial information to Parliament that would have allowed for a full and informed debate and evaluation of government policies. While examples abound, the true costs of the F-35 fighter jets and details on how the government will meet its deficit-fighting targets are but two. A true democracy does not conceal information as a kind of precious commodity to be guarded at all costs.

I have written to you several times in the past, not so much with the expectation that my words would in any way influence you or your government but rather to make you aware that there are many who oppose Mr. Harper's policies in general and your constituency representation in particular. I am writing now to ask you to look within and ask yourself why you went into politics in the first place. Have the goals, methodology, and policies of your government, which have done so much to impair democracy and disaffect so many citizens from its processes, been consonant with your original purpose?

If they have not, then I call upon you to try find the kind of moral courage shown by people like Mr. Page and the former head of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, and do the right thing by speaking out for the needs of Canada and not just your party's narrow interests.

I know that what I am asking is not easy, but I firmly believe that the future of this country depends upon M.P.s who are willing to risk their careers for the betterment of all citizens. Otherwise, our democracy will continue its descent into a sad parody of what it once was.

Sincerely,

Lorne Warwick

UPDATE: Kevin Page's article is now available on the Star's website.

Conservative Equilibrium

Ever wonder what would happen to the reactionary conservative sense of identity if it ever ran out of things to be outraged about? Happily for its psyche, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

More On Harper's Dereliction of Environmental Responsibilites

As is so often the case, Star readers eloquently speak on issues close to the hearts of many. Reproduced below are two from this morning's edition that address the Harper regime's wholesale abandonment of environmental responsibility.

As well, here is a link to an Al Jazeera video report of our country's shameful closing of the Experimental Lakes Area in Northwestern Ontario. Intended for an international audience, it further solidifies our country's rapid decline into environmental infamy.

Canada quits anti-drought UN group, March 28

A recent study commissioned by 20 governments concluded that almost 400,000 people are dying each year from the effects of climate change. A disproportionate number of those are in the regions suffering most from drought and desertification.

Canada has just become the only country to withdraw from UN efforts to relieve this problem. Effectively, the present government is saying let them die: we have a deficit that is more important than human life.

This just adds to the contempt that Canada is earning in the world after its repeated sabotaging of international conferences to address the issue of climate change, and to being the only country in the world to withdraw from Kyoto.

Action on climate within Canada is a farce federally. If it were not for the concern of a few provinces, Canada would by actual measurement be the worst performing country in the world in mitigation efforts.

John Peate, Oshawa

The Canadian government seems to be preoccupied on so many fronts with cutting, withdrawing, obstructing and otherwise inhibiting concerted international action to help the world's environment. Since Stephen Harper formed a government, Canada is nothing but consistent in pursuing retrograde policies and misguided actions. This is further exemplified by its announced intention of unilaterally withdrawing from the 1994 United Nations convention to combat droughts.

Having been a full-fledged member for the past 18 years, this policy u-turn if implemented will leave Canada as being the only UN member not a party to the convention. Consequently, Canada will lose prestige and influence as it becomes further isolated in the world on matters concerning safeguarding the planet’s endangered environment. Is this really where we want to be?

Dorian M. Young, Minden

We Are Not Alone

Those of us who write in the progressive blogosphere, I suspect, often have a 'dark night of the soul,' fearing that we are only preaching to the converted in our posts, and that those who share our bent for criticizing the status quo are in a decided minority. That is why I always find it heartening when I see indications of a large and varied repository of citizens who pine for a better government, a better country, and a better world.

One of the best sources of such affirming evidence is the letters-to-the-editor page of major daily newspapers. Today I offer a reproduction of missives from the Toronto Star highly critical of the ongoing assault by the Harper regime on science and the environment. There are several excellent letters, a direct response to a recent article by Professor Stephen Bede Scharper entitled Closure of Experimental Lakes Area part of assault on science.

You can access all of the letters here. A few I reproduce below:

Professor Stephen Bede Scharper highlights, as have many other scientists, the seemingly incomprehensible approach of the Harper government to climate change and to scientific investigations of the consequences of industrial-induced degradation of the environment.

Regarding the inexplicable, imminent closing of the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) research facility, one might ask where does Peter Kent, the Minister of Pollution Apologetics, akak the Minister of the Environment,stand on this issue?

Joe Oliver, the Minister of Natural Resources, is the front man for both the down-playing of environmental consequences of tar sands development and its promotion. One wonders if the environment ministry portfolio should be shut down completely. At least then we would not be under the illusion that the environment is given anything but perfunctory consideration in resource development.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper actually does believe in climate change, it certainly does not show. His government’s treatment of the environment does not reflect mere benign neglect, nor even mild resentment for the scientists, engineers and technologists studying environmental degradation and presenting (inconvenient) facts.

No. An explanation for his policies is that he genuinely strongly dislikes this research and the people undertaking it.

Much more harm can be inflicted on environmental research by this government in the coming two years. But from an environmental perspective, the prospect of yet another Harper government is genuinely (even pant-fillingly) scary.

Paul Gudjurgis, Brampton

Scharper argues that shutting down research at Canada’s Experimental Lakes Area would be devastating to our collective health, and, moreover, that “the vitality of our waters and our democracy are at stake.”

Of course he’s right, and if the federal Conservative government didn’t recognize our water’s great value, it wouldn’t be stifling research.

Shea Hoffmitz, Hamilton

I’m just an ordinary Canadian, but I am so outraged at the Harper government’s multi-pronged attack on science, I started a petition on change.org to protest. Tell all your friends.

I also emailed the Prime Minister’s Office to politely inquire how many signatures would be required on a petition to persuade the government to save the ELA by diverting some funds from their Economic Action Plan propaganda campaign.

Closing the Experimental Lakes Area is such an incredibly bad idea that there may be something else behind it. Isn’t anybody out there following the money? What minerals are buried under those pristine lakes, and what mining companies want them? What tour operators want to lift the restrictions on bringing high-paying anglers up from the U.S.?

If it turns out that some campaign contributor benfits from the closure of the ELA, criminal charges might be in warranted.

Heather O’Meara, Toronto

Some Low-Hanging Fruit

My, my, my, they are incorrigible, aren't they?

Can We, In Good Conscience, Allow This To Continue?

There are, without doubt, many justifications and rationalizations that people have for being willfully ignorant of the larger world around them: work pressures, home stresses, lack of time, lack of sleep, etc., etc. I will readily admit that one of the luxuries of retirement is the gift of time and the concomitant freedom to pursue issues and interests as fully as I care to. Yet even in my teaching days, which made relentless demands on my time, I always carved out a bloc during which I read the paper and followed the news. For me, ignorance has never been an option.

It is probably the main reason that I am intolerant of those who bury their heads in the metaphorical sands which, not to be too clever, in the topic of this post. As reported by the CBC, Canada has very quietly, some would say secretly, withdrawn from a United Nations convention that fights droughts in Africa and elsewhere. Known as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, in those Countries Experiencing Severe Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa, its goal, as explained in Wikipedia, is to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought through national action programs that incorporate long-term strategies supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements.

All members of the United Nations are currently a part of the convention, and Canada, increasingly the renegade outlier in so many international pacts, is the first and only member to withdraw from it. The stated reason? This terse response from the government is supposed to explain it:

International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino said in an emailed statement that "membership in this convention was costly for Canadians and showed few results, if any for the environment."

For those interested, the oppressive costs that have been such a 'burden' to Canadian taxpayers amount to a $283,000 grant to support the convention from 2010 to 2012.

Part of the reason it is so important to keep apprised of developments in the larger world is the fact that knowledge facilitates the detection of patterns. This latest affront to environmental concerns by the Harper regime is not, of course, an isolated one, but part of a much larger pattern that includes withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord, the muzzling of scientists, and the dismantling of environmental oversight through Omnibus Bill C-38.

I suppose that the question each of us ultimately has to ask and answer is this one: Do we live only for ourselves, or do we have greater obligations, not just to our children and grandchildren, but also to the much larger world around us?

Porter Air, Pension Funds, and Invisible Strikers

Many years ago, in the midst of my teaching career, there was a movement by a group of us to try to get the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan to divest itself from Maple Leaf Foods when it was in the process of reducing its workers' wages in Burlington by about one-third, the threat being that if they didn't get their way, they would close the facility, as they had earlier done in Edmonton.

In addition to boycotting Maple Leaf products, many of us felt that it was unseemly, contradictory and hypocritical for our pension plan to be supporting a company with such egregiously offensive labour practices. Alas, we were told by the Pension Board that there would be no divestment, as the plan had a 'fiduciary responsibility to earn as much as possible for its members.'

Reading Thomas Walkom's column today about the Porter Air fuel handlers' strike in Toronto reminded me of that time, as the columnist writes about how, despite the fact that it is a unionized environment,

one of the key investors in privately-held Porter Aviation Holdings Inc. is the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), the pension fund for unionized public sector workers.

In fact,

OMERS handles the pension funds of 1,189 members of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, which represents Porter fuel handlers.

Walkom goes on to observe the irony of pension funds:

Employees struggle to win pensions. But once won, the pension funds that are established invariably follow the profit-maximizing rules of the financial marketplace.

Which in many case means these funds are used against unions.

Walkom makes two other disturbing points worth noting: the starting salary for the fuel handlers is a mere $12 per hour, the company having 'sweetened' the deal by offering a 25 cent hourly increase, which led to the strike and helps to explain the rapid turnover of its staff, something one perhaps might not want to dwell upon if one is navigating the friendly skies with Porter.

The second point is that, much to my incredulity, airline strikers have been charged with trespass for leafleting on the sidewalk outside the publicly owned terminal and are now consigned to picketing sight-unseen in a parking lot hidden from public view. I'm certainly no expert on the labour law, but to interdict demonstrations on public property strikes me as a gross violation of our freedom of expression and association.

But then, why am I so astounded? After all, the past seven years, which have seen a toxic social environment aggressively promoted by the Harper regime, have amply demonstrated how easy it is to turn people against people, the result being the steady unraveling of social cohesion and the steady exaltation of the corporate agenda.

The Deteriorating Conditions at Walmart

Perhaps the land of low prices and deteriorating conditions could learn something from Costco, which believes in paying its employees a living wage.

It Certainly Took Him Long Enough

His Mad Face?

Seasoned cynic that I am, I can't help but think that Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair's denunciation of police misbehaviour is little more than a public relations exercise. Almost three years after the G20 debacle, in which over 1000 people were arrested and a mere handful of police hit with the most modest of sanctions for their egregious abuse of authority, the Chief has deemed it prudent to speak to both the public and his own troops on where he stands when 'good' cops go bad.

As reported in today's Star,

An angry Chief Bill Blair is slamming his own officers for “totally unacceptable behaviour,” including turning off dashboard cameras, being untruthful in court and racist remarks.

Included in his video message — which runs about five minutes and shows Blair in full uniform, set against a dark background and speaking directly to the camera — are two short video clips that make examples of individual officers on the force. It’s the first time the chief has used video in such a fashion.

The first clip was captured on a police dashboard camera three years ago, and shows Const. Christian Dobbs repeatedly striking Toronto cook Raymond Costain, who is face down and hidden from view, in front of the King Edward hotel.

I think I would have found this public condemnation much more credible were it coming from another police chief, given that Chief Blair was such an integral party to the abrogation of Charter rights during the G20, concealing, for example, the fact that the so-called emergency laws about 5-meter perimeters around fences were total fiction. This, of course, led to the unlawful searches, seizures and arrests of lawful protesters during that infamous weekend in June of 2010.

A real leader not only 'talks the talk' but also 'walks the walk.' I have seen no evidence of such ambulatory ability on the part of Bill Blair.

Cancer, E.I., and Government Hypocrisy

The Faces Of Common Humanity

Without doubt, to battle cancer must be a grueling and depleting experience. But to face rebuke and betrayal at the hands of one's government because of the circumstances of that battle must be almost as traumatic.

Such is the almost unbelievable tale of Jane Kittmer, diagnosed with breast cancer while on maternity leave and denied E.I sick benefits. Having fought a 2½-year appeal battle over those benefits, an E.I judge ruled in her favour last December, a month after Parliament voted unanimously to amend the Employment Insurance Act to ensure those on maternity and parental leave are also eligible for sickness benefits. Yet despite that ruling and that legislation, the Harper regime is appealing the decision to give the benefits to Kitmer.

This, despite the fact that the precedent for the legislative change in favour of people like Kitmer was established in 2011, when an E.I. judge ruled in favour of Toronto mother Natalyal Rougas, stating that government officials have been misinterpreting the spirit of the original 2002 law.

Rougas, who was diagnosed with breast cancer during maternity leave in 2010, was awarded the maximum 15 weeks of sickness benefits in addition to her combined 50 weeks of maternal and parental benefits. The award amounted to about $6,000, or $400 a week.

Ottawa did not appeal the Rougas decision and began working on a legislative fix, introduced last summer as Bill C-44.

But of course, one should never underestimate the Orwellian cant at which the Harper government has proven consistently adept:

In response to an inquiry from The Star,

... a spokesperson for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley would say only that the government is helping families “balance work and family responsibilities.”

The government is “offering new support measures to Canadian families at times when they need it most,” Alyson Queen added in an email Friday.

It has been said that a society can be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. By that standard, the Harper regime is unquestionably beyond denunciation.

The Face of Uncommon Hypocrisy

Dennis Kucinich: US An ‘Orwellian State’

Some refreshing honesty from an American politician - well-worth watching:

H/t Disinformation

Administrative Hypocrisy

I came across this letter in The Hamilton Spectator yesterday. I consider the topic of feckless school administrators, operating without integrity, to be quite appropriate for this blog, given how it is yet another example of corruption and decay that undermines all institutions, perhaps most egregiously our political ones. But just as the latter's landscape is littered with those who crave power and influence to the detriment of the collective good, so too, far too often, is education, again to the ultimate detriment of everyone.

The issue revolves around a disciplinary hearing involving Matthew John Chiarot, a science teacher at Bishop Ryan Catholic Secondary School. You can read the details of the allegations against Chiarot here, but the most salient aspect is the assertion that the teacher inaccurately recorded grades following a final exam in January 2007. Hermon Mayers, the school principal, is reported to have earlier said, “It’s just fundamentally wrong to give a mark that’s not correct to a student.”

Given my own personal experience, before I retired, of young teachers being increasingly pressured by administration to raise students' marks so as not to have a high failure rate, I found this letter of particular note:

Artificially high marks are nothing new

Accused teacher’s performance ‘good’ (March 21) The statement, “It’s just fundamentally wrong to give a mark that’s not correct to a student,” caught my attention. The school administrator is admonishing the teacher for this. We don’t know what this teacher is accused of doing with the marks, but in my high school teaching career, teachers were routinely ordered, by school administrators or their board bosses’ directives, to artificially change students marks.

This practice has steadily increased since the 1990s. I can only speak to a public board’s practice. In the race to lower the bar to feed the positive PR machine, we were told we weren’t to fail more than 20 per cent of a class, even deservedly. Marks would have to be artificially raised. Students achieving a failing mark of 46 to 49 per cent would have marks raised to 50 per cent.

Now teachers face disciplinary action and potential loss of career for something previously accepted by principals and boards. Teachers face further castigation by the more recently created, already bloated and blinkered bureaucratic organization, the College of Teachers. For this principal to come out with such a statement without looking in the mirror first is hypocrisy of the highest order, if the Catholic boards follow similar practices to the public.

Don Harrington, Smithville

Cross Posted at Education and Its Discontents

A Message from Noam Chomsky

As usual, Noam Chomsky addresses issues whose existence others refuse to acknowledge.

Kafka, The Toronto Police, and Toronto Community Housing

"Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning."

- The Trial, by Franz Kafka

Last evening, I made a brief post which included a quotation from George Orwell's 1984, linking it to a story from The Guardian that dealt with the suppression of freedom of expression rights being experienced by some British public servants. Today, he and another literary icon, Franz Kafka, came to mind as I read a story from the Star detailing a witch hunt conducted by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) that resulted in the suspension of six employees, four of whom were ultimately terminated. Indeed, if one were to substitute the word fired for arrested in the above Kafka quotation, one would have a perfect summary of what happened to these workers.

Their problems began in the aftermath of a much publicized incident of racial profiling in which two Toronto police officers, attached to the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS), stopped four black youth, ages 15 and 16, in a public housing complex. Exercising his rights, one of the lads refused to answer any questions, and the situation quickly escalated to the point where one of the officers pulled a gun, and the teens were arrested. All of the trumped-up charges, including the standard resisting arrest charge police so frequently use against those who exercise their rights, were eventually dropped.

To the police department's chagrin, someone handed over a copy of the surveillance video to The Star that captured the events, which included an unprovoked assault on one of the youths by the police, as you will see in the video below:

The fact that this video and the original story of the police abuse of authority were published by The Star did not sit well with the resume builders and careerists at TCHC. In what I am sure they deemed a remarkably good use of their well-paid time, they set out to track down the heretics who had caused public embarrassment to the police, apparently more concerned with maintaining a cozy relationship with them than they were with the egregious violation of Charter Rights the video reveals.

To make a long story short, since you can read the details in the above links, interrogations took place, and despite an absence of evidence that anyone had leaked anything to The Star, (indeed, you will see stout denials in today's story by the putative 'culprits') terminations ensured.

The abuse of authority, whether at the hands of police, employers or individuals victimizing other individuals, has always outraged me. This case is no exception.

Score Another One For Orwell

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever. - George Orwell

As always, the writer had exceptional clarity about where Western society was headed.

H/t Steve Collett

Two Messages For Tim Hudak

I have a bit of a busy morning ahead, so just a brief post for now. I have written many times about young Tim Hudak, the lad who aspires to become Premier of Ontario through rhetoric that demonizes the public sector, public sector pensions, and unions. Apparently, constructive policy and breadth of vision are beyond his ken.

Here are two letters from today's Star that nicely capture the severe moral and intellectual limitations the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party labours under:

Re: Hudak takes aim at public sector pensions, March 18

I assume Hudak’s ambition is to ensure that no one has any money when they retire, except the rich, and of course the political whores who do their bidding. Hudak is on the same race to the bottom that the Republican Tea-Baggers advocate in the States.

Gerry Brown, Toronto

Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak shows so little interest in facts that I doubt he can be swayed by rational argument when it comes to public sector pensions. But the truth does matter, so here it is.

The pensions my members collect after a lifetime of work are far from lavish. In health care, the average retiree receives less than $19,100 a year. In the public service, it’s less than $21,800. In the colleges, it’s under $22,800. All three of these plans are in surplus. They have no unfunded liability.

Despite what Mr. Hudak says, talks between the government and pension plans cannot “fail” in our case, for the simple reason that they have already succeeded. The government asked us to keep premiums where they are over the medium term, and we were able to do that.

Public sector pension plans are a good deal for the citizens of Ontario. Through prudent investment, our plans provide more retirement security at less cost than private plans ever could.

Tim Hudak’s mistake is that he sees decent pensions as a problem when in fact they are a solution to the very real problem of seniors’ poverty. His attack on public plans masks the fact that he has no plan at all for retirement security for Ontarians — not even the private sector workers he claims to care about. Any fool can destroy a pension plan; it takes grown-up, long-term commitment to build one. Hudak should drop the right-wing blather and voice his support for expanding the best defined-benefit pension plan in the world, the Canada Pension Plan.

Warren (Smokey) Thomas, President, Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Please Forgive Me

Even though I am a man of mature years, I guess I'm really just a kid at heart. See if you can guess this ad's real purpose before you get to the 'end.' I am putting no tags on this post, so as not to give you any hints.

Another Face of Integrity

While we are witness to almost daily examples of greed, venality and dishonour (think of Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Mac Harb and Patrick Braseau as but a few odious examples) in public life, we don't often get to see its obverse, personal integrity. That is why I take particular pleasure in posting this link to the story of Michael Houghton, who holds a $10-million Canada Excellence Research Chair in virology at the University of Alberta.

Dr Houghton has the singular distinction of being the only person in its 54-year history to turn down the Garnier Award, worth $100,000, given to him for his discovery and cloning of the hepatitis C virus. The reason? His two close collaborators, Qui-Lim Choo and George Kuo, were not being similarly recognized.

Enjoy the story, and think about all those in public life who offer such a stark contrast to Dr. Houghton

No Free Ride

I do hope young Tim Hudak enjoys this brief video, directed by Bruce McDonald:

The Face of Integrity

With a transcript of the extended interview.

H/t Alex Himelfarb

The War Crimes of Our Political Leaders

Recently I wrote a brief post directing readers to a story written by Chris Hedges. Hedges' piece, entitled The Crucifixion of Tomas Young, conveyed the very sad story, one that has probably been lived out many times, of a young man, paralyzed in Iraq in 2004, who has made the decision to die by refusing to take nourishment. His is an age-old tale of a naive but well-intentioned response to the patriotic call to war by a government adept at cynically manipulating its populace for its own immoral purposes (think access to oil as an example) and then ultimately washing its hands of the consequences of that manipulation.

Of course, war criminals like George Bush, Dick Cheney and Tony Blair continue on their self-promoting way, enveloped by and insulated within a bubble of self-righteous hypocrisy that few dare to puncture.

Yesterday, The Huffington Post wrote about Tomas Young and his impending death. One of his legacies will be this letter, addressed to Bush and Cheney, indicting them for the great evil they have committed. I am reproducing only a small part below, but I hope everyone will take the time to read the entire missive:

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

It is, without question a letter that all political leaders need to read and consider before they so blithely and heedlessly consign another generation of young people to disfigurement and death. And that includes Messieurs Chretien and Harper, under whose watches 158 young Canadians lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Parsing The Rhetoric

Oh, how I do love it when the rhetoric of the right-wing is exposed for what it is: hysterical hyperbole.

Watch Robert Reich first as he punctures the myths regarding the 'dangers' of raising the minimum wage:

The look at Elizabeth Warren's take on the same topic:

Egomania, Not Trudeaumania: Updated

Checking my Twitter feed this morning, I came upon a link to a story appearing in Sun News, an organization for which I usually refuse to spare the time of day, given its rather robust roster of strident, often hysterical voices desperately seeking to emulate the tone of Fox News. Nonetheless, I can recommend something that strikes me as balanced and fairly reasonable, terms I never thought I would use to describe anything emanating from the lair of people like Brian Lilley and Ezra Levant.

Writing on the subject of a merger between the Liberals and the NDP, a subject upon which I have previously posted in its more benign form, a co-operative pact for the next election, Warren Kinsella reminds us that a year ago, Justin Trudeau seemed open to the possibility of working more closely with the NDP. However, that has now all changed:

A year later, Trudeau doesn't talk like that anymore. He and his team dismiss any talk of cooperation between Liberals and New Democrats. The only Liberal leadership candidate who favours one-time cooperation is Liberal MP Joyce Murray, and she is routinely dismissed as a defeatist crackpot for her trouble.

Ditto for the NDP:

The same thing happened to Nathan Cullen when he ran for the NDP leadership - he favoured bringing together the progressive majority, too. The front-runner, Thomas Mulcair, didn't. End of Cullen's idea.

Kinsella goes on to predict the consequence of this intransigence - another Harper victory in 2015, after which, he wonders, whether ego and nostalgia will be trumped by more practical politics and cooperation/merger will proceed.

Perhaps Kinsella's piece is neither innovative nor particularly insightful; it is, however, another reminder of just how much the leaders of the Liberal Party and the NDP are willing to gamble on Canada's future going into the 2015 election, all for the sake of their lust for power and dominance.

H/t #canpoli

UPDATE: Here is a link to a thoughtful piece by James Heath on the need for cooperation among progressives.

Patterns

Hmm... do I detect a pattern emerging here and here and maybe here? Just wondering.

More On Harper's Censorship of Science

The other day I wrote a post about the Harper regime's ongoing efforts and measures designed to thwart government transparency; the Prime Minister's abuse of power is most flagrant in his suppression of the voice of science, thereby effectively denying information vital if citizens are to have any hope of evaluating government policy. Unfortunately, in a regime driven by ideology, as Harper's is, the end justifies the means, no matter how much those means might violate the basic underlying principles of democratic government.

I am taking the liberty of reproducing the editorial appearing in today's Star that rebukes the regime for this dangerous drift toward an autocratic rule that promotes and extols ignorance over knowledge and manipulation over meaningful deliberation. The bolded parts are mine, added for emphasis:

Apparently Stephen Harper is unmoved by the embarrassment of international reprobation.

It has been a year since Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, chided the federal Conservatives for their antagonism to openness and declared, “It is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.”

Since then, other major international publications, including the Guardian and the Economist, have followed suit, calling on our government to take a more enlightened, democratic approach to scientific findings. Yet clearly not much has changed: the federal information commissioner is now considering a request to investigate the persistent and worsening problem of the government’s so-called muzzling of Canadian scientists.

Since the Conservatives took power in 2006, Canadian media have had little direct access to government scientists. In Friday’s Star, Kate Allen reported on the difficulty this paper has had working around the government’s unusual restrictions. Requests for information are usually routed through communications officials, yielding either perfunctory, inexpert responses, or circumscribed interviews with scientists often days past deadline. One way or another, scientists are kept from sharing their work with the public.

This silencing poses a significant democratic problem. How are Canadians supposed to evaluate energy or fisheries policies, for instance, when we aren’t exposed to even the most basic information about their environmental consequences? Moreover, the muzzling creates a problem for science itself, an endeavour that depends on the widespread dissemination, scrutiny and discussion of data. As Dalhousie University ecologist Jeffrey Hutchings wrote on thestar.com last week, “When you inhibit the communication of science, you inhibit science.”

That ought to be unacceptable. But as the thousands of scientists who gathered in protest on Parliament Hill last summer made clear, this government seems to regard evidence as worse than irrelevant. It regards it as a hindrance. Why else scrap the Experimental Lakes Area, the world’s leading freshwater research centre, despite the steep economic and scientific cost of that decision? Why else do away with the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, the national science adviser or the long-form census, among other integral parts of our scientific infrastructure lost in recent years?

Keeping Canadians in the dark is undemocratic; governing in the dark is reckless. Good government needs good science, and good science needs a level of openness this government may be incapable of.