.jpg)
Multiple sources within CBC News have revealed to CANADALAND, under condition of anonymity, a shocking campaign Amanda Lang undertook in 2013 to sabotage a major story reported by her colleague, investigative reporter Kathy Tomlinson.The story that Lang tried to block was uncovered by reporter Kathy Tomlinson and her Go Public team. It revealed that the Royal Bank of Canada was
using an outsourcing firm to bring in temporary workers for its Canadian employees to train... in order to sack those Canadian employees and ship their jobs overseas.Canadaland reports that as CBC journalists across the country were gathering more information to follow up on the story, they were summoned to a conference call with Tomlinson and Amanda Lang:
Lang, they recall, relentlessly pushed to undermine the RBC story. She argued that RBC was in the right, that their outsourcing practices were “business as usual,” and that the story didn’t merit significant coverage. She and a defiant Tomlinson faced off in a tense, extended argument. Two of the CBC employees we spoke to recall a wave of frustrated hang-ups by participants.Lang's efforts did not end there, and extended to on-air efforts to undermine the story, as you will see if you read Canadaland's full report.
“I cannot emphasize enough how wrong it was,” said one CBC employee we spoke to. “That another journalist, not involved in a story, would intervene in the reporting of others and question the integrity of her colleagues like that. I haven’t seen anything like it before or since.”
CANADALAND can now confirm that CBC Senior Business Correspondent Amanda Lang’s ties to RBC go beyond sponsored speaking events.Predictably, CBC management is circling the wagons.
Sources close to Amanda Lang, who spoke to CANADALAND on the condition of anonymity, confirm that she has been in a romantic relationship with RBC Board Member W. Geoffrey Beattie since January 2013 at the latest. This relationship is ongoing, and the two were involved in April 2013, when Lang acted within the CBC to scuttle a colleague’s reporting on abuses of Canadian labour law by RBC.
CBC News Editor-in-Chief Jennifer McGuire said in a memo to staff Monday that the allegations about business reporter Amanda Lang’s involvement in the story on RBC’s use of temporary foreign workers were “categorically untrue.”End of story. Or so the CBC might wish. But with the kind of fine investigative work being done at Canadaland (they were, in fact, the first to uncover the Jian Ghomeshi accusations), I suspect that this story is far from dead.
Newly-appointed Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole has informed an advocacy group for wounded and psychologically injured veterans that it is no longer a stakeholder adviser to the Veterans Affairs department.Mr. Blais' group, which had been part of a Veterans Affairs Canada Stakeholder Committee established in 2012,
Mike Blais, who helped launch Canadian Veterans Advocacy in 2011 to advocate for veterans and serving Canadian Forces members who did combat tours in Afghanistan and their families, told The Hill Times that Mr. O’Toole (Durham, Ont.) gave the bad news to the group in a voicemail he left on Mr. Blais’ phone service Jan. 7.
had been one of the most vocal critics of the department’s treatment of injured veterans and Canadian Forces members in the months leading up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) decision to shuffle former Veterans Affairs minister Julian Fantino (Vaughan, Ont.) out of the post last week, following scathing criticism from Auditor General Michael Ferguson for delays in treatment for veterans.What prompted the termination, which the 'classy' Mr. O'Toole left in a voicemail message to Mr. Blais? Here is what the former said last June in the House:
“As a veteran myself, I have been quite offended by some of the work that group does. It is not sincere. It is not based on sound policy. I understand, at committee, that they have acknowledged that their funding has come from unions”.Setting the record straight, Blais offered the following:
The advocacy group lobbied against government budget plans in 2012 that would have resulted in job losses at Veterans Affairs Canada, he said, after which the union representing the employees provided Canadian Veterans Advocacy a donation of $2,000.Julian Fantino may have been replaced as Veterans Affairs minister, but his malignant, vindictive spirit clearly lives on.
“Every department at that time took a 10-per-cent hit except Veterans Affairs Canada,” Mr. Blais said.
“We worked hard on that and the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees made a donation of $2,000, no strings attached, just a donation to the war chest. There is not tit for tat, no, nothing, right. As a consequence to that, even though it was three years ago and a meagre $2,000, they’ve been attempting to label us,” Mr. Blais said.
Officer assaults citizen, causes serious, permanent injury. Officer charges citizen with assault and obstruction. SIU investigates officer but lays no charges. Judge dismisses charges against citizen, condemns officer’s actions.
Sadly, this case is not unique; it demonstrates the double standard that exists when the citizen victim of the assault is charged while the police perpetrator suffers no legal or disciplinary consequences. By setting the bar for charging police far too high, the SIU is failing its duty to protect Ontarians from the “bad apples” who perpetuate a culture of violence in police forces across the province.
How many more victims will it take before citizens take to the streets to demand accountability?
M. Goldstein, Mississauga
I was appalled to read about OPP Sgt. Russell Watson’s life-shattering assault on Tonie Farrell, and even more appalled to hear that he will face no consequences. This is another in a long line of incidents proving that our police are a law unto themselves.And about that curious provision in the law that allows the police to obstruct SIU investigations by refusing to turn over to them their investigation notes:
If they are particularly stupid or their acts particularly egregious, judges may scold them, but the SIU will find there’s no grounds to lay a charge, and their superiors will not even discipline, much less dismiss them. Evidently Watson’s OPP superiors consider punching and kicking women to be all in a day’s work.
When police officers lie under oath, they are not charged with perjury. When they conspire to cover for each other and subvert the course of justice, they are not charged with conspiracy. That “blue wall of silence” seems to reach around the entire justice system.
If an individual’s safety is based on happening not to cross a police officer’s path at the wrong moment (or in the “wrong” skin), we’re in serious trouble. Governments at all levels must take steps to bring police under the rule of law. We cannot trust our justice system or our police if they can break the law with impunity.
Nina Littman-Sharp, Toronto
As I read this article, I became ever more appalled as Tonie Farrell was transformed from Good Samaritan to an abused victim to an accused defendant and then the SIU finding of no wrongdoing. Truly a disgrace.
The most infuriating and confusing aspect of this sorry tale is present in the following passage from the Dec. 30th article: “The SIU conducted a month-long investigation in 2013 and interviewed Watson, but he did not provide his notes, as is his legal right.”
This is a mind-boggling situation. I have never been a police officer nor faced violent danger in my employment. Nonetheless, I have never for one second considered the notes that I took with the pen and paper or computer (supplied by the employer and used during a paid workday) to be my property or facts that I could keep secret.
I worked as a quality assurance manager, and as such I performed investigations into quality issues, and as a member of the joint health and safety committee also conducted investigations on safety incidents. I cannot imagine a circumstance where my refusal to fully co-operate with my co-workers and management supervisors would not result in disciplinary action, which would appear on my HR records and, if there were repeat infractions, result in my dismissal.
My wife and close friends with whom I discussed this issue were similarly confused at learning that the rules appear to allow police officers to withhold information and not fully and completely assist and comply with investigations.
I wish to request the Star to prepare an article to explain to readers like myself the legal logic behind the ability (or “right”) of officers to withhold their field notes. This article should include a complete review of the pros and cons of this “right.” It would be very enlightening to learn of situations where the exercising of this “right” is clearly the correct course of action as well as the flip-side, such as the Farrell vs. Watson case and others like it.
Stan Taylor, Brampton
.PNG)
Since he became prime minister in 2006, Harper has displayed a stunning disrespect for democracy in Canada, either approving or turning a blind eye to decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions and our faith in democracy.
Over the years, Harper has taken advantage of Canadians’ waning interest in federal politics to implement his anti-democratic initiatives and to run roughshod over Parliament and campaign rules and practices.Hepburn then goes on to pose a series of questions that are far from rhetorical:
How does Harper get away with dismantling the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which promoted democracy and human rights around the world for 24 years?And those are just a few of the reminders Hepburn provides us with.
How does Harper get away with cutting funding for organizations such as Kairos, a coalition of church groups that advocated for human rights?
How does Harper get away with introducing a fair elections act that was so unfair it should rightly have been called the anti-democratic elections act?
How does Harper get away with slapping gag orders on public servants and scientists, preventing them from speaking to the public?
How does Harper get away with letting cabinet ministers restrict freedom of speech and information tenets, withhold and alter documents, and launch personal attacks on whistleblowers?
How does Harper get away with slamming the chief electoral officer for doing his job?
While some pro-democracy groups have raised alarms in the past about Harper, most Canadians have just shrugged their shoulders, albeit in disgust. They are disengaged, discouraged by government scandals and believe politicians don’t listen to them and aren’t interested in the issues that are important to them.So, my friends, read, weep, and then disseminate Hepburn's information widely.
But Canadians cannot take democracy for granted.
During the next 10 months leading up to the October election, voters can let Harper and other politicians know they they’ve had enough.
For all Canadians, the stakes are huge. That’s because this election may be the last real chance for years ahead to restore faith in our democracy.
Kudos to Eric Balkind for telling it like it is. Without a doubt there are many Canadians who agree with what he writes as well as his prescription for what ails Canada: forming a new party of political moderates ahead of the coming election in order to defeat the Harper Conservatives.
Since these politicians no longer call themselves “Progressive Conservatives,” let alone govern in that spirit, it would be fitting to call the new party the “Progressive Party of Canada.” This would clearly distinguish the party and include the Green Party — which has much to contribute to a worthy vision of Canada — rather than exclude it with the name “Liberal Democrats.”
To echo Balkind, Canadians desperately need party leaders Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May to put the country’s well-being ahead of their parties’ interests. Many of us fervently hope that these honourable politicians are including that conversation in their new year’s resolutions.
Salvatore (Sal) Amenta, Stouffville
It is unrealistic to think that the NDP and Liberal parties would even consider amalgamation. Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau became leaders of their parties only to oversee the demise of his party.May what is best for Canada prevail over personal ambition!
With the election looming the Conservatives are in a commanding position and will probably win because they have a large bank account ready to finance the many vicious attack ads they will use against their opponents. There will be 30 new federal seats and, because of demographics, the Conservatives will win at least 14 of them and possibly more — vote splitting will give the Conservatives many more seats. Add this to their core vote and Harper will win quite possibly with a majority.
What the NDP and Liberal parties need to do is not amalgamate but co-operate on those seats that the Conservatives will probably win due to the split vote. If the NDP and Liberals co-operate and field just one candidate in such seats then there is a good chance of getting more than the 35 per cent who voted Conservative.
This would almost certainly lead to a minority government whose first order of business should be the introduction of a voting system that truly reflected the voting intentions of the people of Canada.
Toronto lawyer Sandra Zisckind of Diamond and Diamond has often been a Global guest, sitting at the anchor table with newsman Roberts with both her name and the name of her law firm in a bold caption on the television screen as she comments on legal issues. The spots, connected to the news of the day (a high profile arrest or liability issues related to something in the news) run for about three minutes — a boon for any company trying to build a business. What Roberts said he has never revealed, to viewers or to Global, is that he is “creative director” and part owner of BuzzPR, which provided Diamond and Diamond lawyers with media training and helped them get featured on Global news.His defense of such practices is weak:
Roberts said he never directly accepted payment from a client to be a guest on his show. However, he acknowledged that each business client pays BuzzPR to get media exposure on Global and other networks.
.jpg)
Previous federal elections have allowed a second person to vouch for the identity of a voter who lacks documents that contain an address. But last year’s controversial Fair Elections Act essentially ended the practice after the Harper government said it was open to abuse.
The act substitutes a new procedure — called “attestation” — which makes it more difficult and complicated for a second voter to declare that a prospective voter resides in a riding.
Critics of the Fair Elections Act warned the elimination of vouching would particularly hurt First Nations communities, where ID with addresses is hard to obtain.In response, Elections Canada has budgeted up to $1 million to try to reduce the damage done to First nations people by this odious act.
is planning a series of outreach projects, including through the Assembly of First Nations, to spread the message that people without ID at polling stations “don’t have to give up and go away”.
The contract with the AFN includes an effort to hire more indigenous people for election work, and a post-mortem after the vote, now scheduled for October.While the efforts by Elections Canada are commendable, it faces an uphill battle, given the traditionally poor participation in elections by aboriginals, who bear an historic alienation from the democratic process.
He must keep voter turnout low because his supporters are more committed and likely to cast a ballot. A flood of new, Trudeau voters will doom him.Given their well-known voter suppression tactics, as well as the provisions of the 'Fair' Elections Act, we can be certain that the Harperites will be indefatigable in their efforts to ensure the above.
He must soften his stand on climate change and the primacy of energy and resource extraction. He is an outlier on the world stage and Canadians know it. Worse for Harper, his jobs-first, environment-second mantra makes him an outlier in his own country, even in the Alberta oilpatch, which realizes a little greening could help get their bitumen to market.The success of the Harper cabal's attempts to 'green' their master, of course, will depend largely on the credulity of the Canadian electorate. One hopes that voters have paid more than scant attention to the ongoing duplicity of Harper on this file.
He must maintain the support of new Canadians who, Conservatives believe, will remain loyal to a government that creates the atmosphere for success, but stays out of their face.This could be Harper's strongest suit, given his bellicose but essentially empty rhetoric on the world stage.
He must again convince Canadians that change is risky, champion his trade deals, and argue that putting the economy in the hands of an untested poseur or a job-killing socialist would bring ruination.Anyone paying attention to the precipitous drop in oil prices should be able to question the myth of Harper as some kind of economic genius, given how he placed almost all of Canada's proverbial eggs in one basket.
Whether it is the Harper autocracy, his environmental record, his demonizing of opponents, Supreme Court spats, omnibus bills, back-of-the-hand treatment of natives, dictatorial treatment of the premiers, ethical stumbles, treatment of veterans or an unyielding lack of collaboration, the list of grievances against a government verging on 10 years in power adds up.It is those crippling Harper-engineered failures of democracy that all of us have a responsibility to repeatedly remind often amnesiac voters before they go to the polls this October.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
As we begin a new year, I suspect that many Canadians can hardly wait for the next federal election to be called. I am also convinced that most folk want to see a change in Ottawa; under the current regime we have watched as this great country has been downgraded as the result of PM Stephen Harper’s narrow, single-minded approach to governance.
Massive omnibus bills that conveniently hide unjust and narrow policies are routinely presented and passed in the Commons, scientists are muzzled, veterans are treated as irksome problems, and First Nations people continue to live in Third World conditions and the matter of the 1,000-plus missing and murdered aboriginal women is “stuffed under the political carpet.”
Provincial premiers receive little attention and essentially, the country is run by just one man. Moreover, the list of affronts to a true democracy grows longer almost by the day.
We can change this lamentable state of affairs but our opposition parties must wake up to reality because there is every chance that a Conservative government will be returned, once again, to an entirely undeserved new term in office.
Time for the opposition parties — Liberal, New Democrat and Greens to put differences aside and amalgamate. Time for their leaders to put aside personal egos and begin to work for what is best for Canada. Time for them to hammer out a common, left-of-centre platform and form a new party called perhaps, the Liberal Democrats.
As long as each and every riding in the country is contested by one just conservative candidate and at least three or more more liberally minded hopefuls, the conservatives will continue to gain the advantage of the split vote. If these three groups have the resolve and the drive they can rid us of the Harper scourge and begin to remake our country into a fairer and more egalitarian place in which to live.
I suspect that Mr. Harper’s biggest fear is that such a move might happen because, if it did, he would certainly be swept from power. His greatest hope is surely that the opposition will remain divided and allow him another majority although he commands the allegiance of far fewer than 50 per cent of the population.
Now is the time for Liberals, New Democrats and Greens to think, first and foremost, of the country rather than of their own, narrow political perspectives; the future of one of the most decent countries on the planet is very much at stake!
Thomas Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May, please, for all of our sakes, get your acts together. If you don’t make the effort I shudder to think what our Canada will look like five years from now.
The first Canadian volunteers to reach Britain in the First World War soon gained a reputation as bloody-minded, disrespectful and insubordinate. Today's Canadian is defined as the kind of person who says "sorry" when you step on their foot; the Canadian of a century ago would have punched your lights out.Kilian notes that our formerly insouciant ways extended beyond soldiers' disdain for pretentious officers to politicians themselves, and continued well into the last century:
In the midst of Trudeaumania in 1968, the great man was already being lampooned in books, opinion columns and cartoons. Journalist Stanley Burke and cartoonist Roy Peterson collaborated in the 1970s on Frog Fables and Beaver Tales and a sequel, which portrayed Pierre Trudeau as a frog -- amusing many and scandalizing none.Nor were Conservatives granted an exemption, as
the CBC's Max Ferguson made his reputation with a sendup of John Diefenbaker's pompous, wattle-shaking speaking style. The Royal Canadian Air Farce skewered Brian Mulroney's oily good cheer, Joe Clarke's awkward laugh, and Preston Manning's Prairie whine.The writer suggests that somehow, things gradually changed, and not for the better:
In interviews, journalists began to speak with excessive respect to prime ministers and their cabinet officers, as if the politicos were the bosses and not the servants. Mulroney, Clarke and Manning lived to become statesmen, not jokes.One need only note the recent deferential year-end 'interview' the most reverent Peter Mansbridge conducted with Stephen Harper for an egregious illustration of that fact.
So Pierre Poilievre had us rolling in the aisles with: "The root cause of terrorism is terrorists." He and his Conservative colleagues have themselves become punchlines, like Paul Calandra and Dean Del Mastro.Kilian concludes with this observation:
Stephen Harper must wonder how long he can keep a straight face. For eight years he's been the guy with the boffo gags (Prorogation! StatsCan! Vic Toews! The F-35! Robocalls! Julian Fantino!) while seeing off a string of inept straight men like Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.
It's going to be a very solemn 2015 indeed if the NDP and Liberals (and the media) don't lighten up and start giving the ridiculous Conservatives the ridicule they deserve for running this country into the ground for the past eight years.I suspect there are few among us who could disagree.
.png)
An undated video about the Nutrition North program available for use on the News Canada website states as fact that it has increased access to fresh foods in remote areas, leading grocery retailers to pass on the subsidy to consumers by reducing pricesYou can access the video by clicking on the link below:
A quick Internet search for any real news story about Nutrition North might turn up results about how the auditor general said the aboriginal affairs department does not actually know whether that is true.
The use of News Canada Ltd. by the “Harper Government” to “create and distribute government-approved news items” is compelling evidence that the Conservative Party of Canada is acutely aware that something fundamental is missing from their ability to effectively communicate with Canadians. That something is credibility.
Credibility must be earned and it must be maintained through honesty, integrity, competence, sound judgment, empathy, and fairness. The Conservatives have amply demonstrated that these values are sadly missing from their partisan culture.
Our economy is suffering because of a lack of vision and diversification. Our veterans cannot get the help they so desperately need while budgets are cut and $1.1 billion is returned to government coffers. The gap between rich and poor grows ever wider ever more rapidly. Environmental groups and left-leaning think tanks that question government policies are audited. Northern Aboriginals scavenge in the dump for food while the minister reads her newspaper and refuses to answer questions. The list goes on.
There are two ironies in the credibility crisis the “Harper Government” now faces. The first is that the Conservatives have brought this upon themselves. Years of “truthiness,” cheating, bullying, and hypocrisy have eroded their credibility with Canadians to the point that the Conservatives now believe the only viable way they have to get their messages out is through deceit.
And therein lays the second irony. This attempt to deceive Canadians will only serve to further erode what little remains of the “Harper Government’s” credibility.
Lyle J. Goodin, Bowmanville
Harper has stolen another page from Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels’ book. Harper’s advisers then created an enemies of the PM list as did field marshall Hermann Goering with his blacklist to warn Hitler of his enemies. Meanwhile Canadians receive weekly propaganda leaflets from their Tory MPs across the country telling of their accomplishments.
Bill Tuer, Cobourg
Fox News reported on Pope Francis' upcoming action on climate change by promoting climate change denial and suggesting that the pope is aligning with "extremists who favor widespread population control and wealth redistribution."The segment exposing the Pope's 'dastardly plan'
also featured climate "skeptic" Marc Morano -- who is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate change-denying website ClimateDepot.com -- to falsely claim that there has been "no global warming" for "almost two decades".
With Stephen Harper’s Conservatives intent to push science back to medieval times, it may be time for Canadians to embrace those efforts and get with Harper Times. Issue all conservatives a bell to be worn in public. They have become pariahs of society, like the lepers of old, and should be treated as such.Inse subsequently sent me the following, which I post with thanks, clearly reflective of the spirit of Tyler Lindsay's missive:
How a party representing less than 40 per cent of the electorate can be allowed to systematically dismantle our democracy and scientific institutions shows the current first past the post voting system is a relic that has long passed its expiry date.
Tyler Lindsay, Niagara Falls
A lack of national science policy is fallout from the Conservative strategy of pitting one end of the nation against another, favouring pipeline-rich Alberta and shunning Ontario, for example.
There is no mechanism for uniting Canadians against this divisive, undermining approach. Stephen Harper has made clear that those who do not subscribe to his views are on his “enemies” list, and this would include scientists and other intellectuals who would challenge his free market doctrine.
The disrespect Harper has shown scientists, Statistics Canada, and others such as veterans and aboriginal peoples, is a form of contempt all Canadians should note come the next federal election.
Unlike the openness and enthusiasm for science joyfully brought forth to Canadians by Commander Chris Hadfield, Harper has silenced the dialogue about any policies Canadians value as fundamental to our democracy and impeded the future of Canada’s membership in a worldwide community of scientific research.
One has to wonder about his motives. It is time for Canadians to stand up.
Diane Sullivan, Toronto
The Harper government has taken us back several decades in our understanding of our relationship with the natural world, decades we may not be able to recover. Degrading our natural systems — wetlands, lakes, rivers, forests, wildlife, diversity of species and atmosphere — and calling the resultant increase in GDP a benefit to society is counterintuitive.
Instead of reveling in the exploitation of the sources of our water, food, air, flood protection, erosion control, soil fertility, resilience to diseases or invasive species, and protection from climate change, it would be far more productive to develop National Accounts that place a value on the assets of our natural world.
We continue to devalue the natural world of which we are a part and is essential for our existence, at our own peril.
Melanie Milanich, Toronto
With Stephen Harper’s Conservatives intent to push science back to medieval times, it may be time for Canadians to embrace those efforts and get with Harper Times. Issue all conservatives a bell to be worn in public. They have become pariahs of society, like the lepers of old, and should be treated as such.
How a party representing less than 40 per cent of the electorate can be allowed to systematically dismantle our democracy and scientific institutions shows the current first past the post voting system is a relic that has long passed its expiry date.
Tyler Lindsay, Niagara Falls
I normally do not use pejorative nicknames for politicians, hell, I don't generally use nicknames at all, but this requires one, and I am torn between Captain Closet or The Closet Commando. I'm leaning towards the former, because it resonates to the image of Captain Canada which Harper loves to portray him as, and as much as I hate to say it, when I say it I hear in the back of my head that old Hanna Barbara cartoon Character "Captain CAVEman!" shout as well, and I hope that also might resonate in the older voting crowd.While I very much like both of Scotian's suggestions, I want to extend naming rights for the 'illustrious one' to all Canadians.
I believe it is important to get this into common use as much as possible as soon as possible to combat the revisionism Harper has been doing on this subject, because this moment in his life showed his true character, as moments of crisis will do in the heat with human beings. Given his bellicosity on the international stage, given his branding himself as a strong domestic leader the fact that his first instinct was the abandon his closest people and hide by his own choice needs not to be forgotten!
Finally the Harper government plays a positive role on the world stage, by helping the U.S. and Cuba end over 50 years of hostility. This is the role Canada should be playing, and the role we used to play in the good old days – not the hectoring, finger-wagging, holier-than-thou lecturing of foreign leaders that is Stephen Harper’s preferred modus operandi.
Our Prime Minister should follow up this diplomatic triumph by re-opening Canada’s embassy in Tehran, pursuing serious dialogue with Vladimir Putin and putting some energy into resolving the crisis in Syria – which of course would involve actually engaging with Bashar al-Assad.
And while Harper’s at it, what about having a word or two with his buddy Benjamin Netanyahu about treating Palestinians like human beings?
None of this is any more likely to happen than a fat old white guy dressed in red fur coming down your chimney, but hey – this is a Christmas wish list. Canada’s instrumental and uncharacteristically statesmanlike role in the U.S.-Cuba deal was most likely a singularity, perhaps committed in a fit of absent-mindedness.
Too bad we can’t have more such lapses.
Andrew van Velzen, Toronto
.jpg)
The shooting heralded the end of Trudeau’s long honeymoon, bringing him down within polling range of Stephen Harper for the first time since he became leader of his party.But it is not a lack of data that prevents our understanding of those terrible events; two videos exist, one of which would either confirm or refute the narrative about Kevin Vickers, the sergeant-at-arms, who, we are told, finished Zehaf-Bibeau’s rampage by heroically diving, James-Bond-style, to shoot him dead.
... we don‘t know where that story comes from. On the day of the shooting — when the world desperately needed a story — anonymous sources told TV journalists that that’s what happened. We later learned that the shooter had been shot several times by a number of people.The second video is one that Zehaf-Bibeau recorded to explain himself.
a week after the shooting, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson told reporters that he wanted Canadians to see it [the second video] “as soon as possible.”
In December, he took that back, and said that he might not be able to ever release it because of the “intensity of the investigation,” whatever that means.Maher sees nothing good in this:
It’s possible that between October and December, Paulson’s political masters let him know that he should not release the video.But of course, this kind of secrecy and the speculation it engenders is par for a government that has shown consistent, pervasisve and egregious contempt for almost everything that a healthy and thriving democracy demands.
It suits the government to behave as if the RCMP is independent, but Paulson appears to be more like a deputy minister than a police chief.
And Harper wants to portray this attack as an example of why we must be led by him, not Trudeau or Tom Mulcair, who are too soft-headed or weak-willed to protect us from terrorists.
Manulife Asset Management is the specific part of the company that hired her. Unprompted, Lang says this at 4:54:.
“...one of the things that Manulife has done is grown its asset management business in a big way in the last few years.”
The entire segment casts Manulife (and its stock) in a positive light, giving Guloien an uncritical platform to boast about his big deal.
CBC News aired Lang’s interview segment with Manulife’s CEO without any disclosure of her financial relationship with the company. The segment can still be streamed on the CBC’s website without any mention of the conflict of interest
To recap: Lang (a contender for Peter Mansbridge's chair as anchor of The National) is CBC News' Senior Business Correspondent, the top business reporter in the organization. She hosts the CBC's flagship business affairs show, which regularly covers the insurance industry. And Manulife is a giant insurance company.And this takes place despite the fact that after the Rex Murphy and Peter Mansbridge conflicts came to light,
Yet Lang took their money twice, moonlighting at their corporate events. Then she had their CEO on her show. And then she praised, to him, the specific department of his company that had hired her.
CBC News Editor-in-Chief Jennifer McGuire announced that from that point on when journalists asked her permission to speak for cash, she would "reject requests from companies, political parties or other groups which make a significant effort to lobby or otherwise influence public policy."
In November 2014 alone, Manulife held official meetings with two government cabinet ministers and Members of Parliament from each major opposition party.Lang was also paid for a Sun Life speech in November. Just six weeks before, she conductd this interview with Sun Life CEO Dean Connor:
