Harper Hypocrisy on Full Display

In his column this morning, The Star's Tim Harper points out something that I think many of us are all too aware of: Stephen Harper is a hypocrite. There really is no other way to describe the despicable partisanship that permeates our Prime Minister's deformed soul, most recently on display in London when he took the opportunity to exploit the tragedy of the Boston Marathon deaths and grievous injuries from a terrorist bombing.

As Tim Harper tartly observes, the usual protocol of not criticizing one's own country while abroad depends on who’s talking. There is one rule for Stephen Harper and another rule for everyone else.

The columnist reminds us of how Tom Mulcair, during his recent trip to Washington, offered some trenchant criticism when responding to questions by Canadian reporters:

When Mulcair questioned Canada’s commitment to fighting climate change, raising the Conservative decision to abandon Kyoto and its inability to meet its Copenhagen greenhouse gas emission targets, the government went apoplectic.

Mulcair was accused of “trash talking’’ Canada, killing Canadian jobs, ignoring Canadian interests, refusing to, as Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver put it, “leave politics at the border.”

Yet, of course, while in London on Wednesday to attend the Thatcher funeral, Harper refused to 'leave politics at the border'; even though he was not even asked by reporters about Justin Trudeau's remarks to Peter Mansbridge, our national disgrace launched into a broadside against him in an attempt to score a few political points.

While most of us were taught to show some respect when death and serious injury occurs, apparently Stephen Harper sees such occurrences as opportunities to promote his political 'brand,' one that, I sincerely hope, is becoming increasingly odious to more and more Canadians.

Harper Becomes An International Embarassment

Time to cut our losses?

Allan Gregg on Attack Ads

I have written about Allan Gregg on this blog before; probably his most noteworthy recent contribution to political discourse came in his speech to Carleton University’s School of Public Affairs, in which he denounced the Orwellian bent of the Harper regime in its promotion of ignorance in place information and knowledge.

Gregg offers his thoughts on attacks ads in this morning's Star. In contrast to the blood sport that it has become under the Harper regime, Gregg defines politics this way:

For good or ill, politics is the process by which we organize civil, democratic society. It is used to allocate a nation’s scarce resources. Through it, we confer a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Because of it, we are able to represent the wishes of the majority and at the same time protect the rights of the minority. And at bottom, politics creates a state that has the potential to do immense good or infinite harm and, as such, we all have a vested interest that the best and brightest and only those who are motivated by the public good are encouraged to enter public life.

By this definition, the Harper government has abjectly failed the public whose interests and well-being they were charged with protecting and promoting. Gregg readily admits that attack ads do work because they play to people's innate cynicism about politicians. And as I have asserted before, I believe that the additional purpose behind Harper's 'politics of denunciation' is the discouragement of people from voting, thereby allowing the 'true believers' (whoever those benighted souls may be) to have disproportionate influence at the polls.

I consider Gregg as one who knows of what he speaks. The 'brains' behind the 1993 campaign ad ridiculing Jean Chretien's facial deformity, he must have at some point experienced a Damascene conversion, no doubt facilitated by the Harper regime's relentless practice of politics that bespeaks a depraved indifference to the health of our democracy, of which attack ads are only a small part. Gregg now seems to be spending much of his time trying to atone for those past mistakes, and today's Star article seems very much a part of that process of penance.

So I will leave the final word with the former pollster:

... those who believe that this (the public good) is “what politics are really about” have a responsibility to draw attention to its virtues and not just its shortcomings.

Incoming Editorial Cartoon

Oh, I do so savor The Toronto Star.

Is Nothing Sacred?

Apparently not to Stephen Harper, who used the tragedy of the Boston Marathon bombings to try to attack Justin Trudeau.

Apparently the Prime Minister discourages any rational consideration of crime in favour of his well-known modus operandi, knee-jerk reactions and demagoguery.

Watch the following and decide for yourself:

For Your Further Consideration

Pondering The Dark Arts

For those as weary of political attack ads as I am, The Star's Carol Goar has an interesting column in today's edition. Entitled Debating ‘dark arts’ of political campaigning, Goar relates her experience of moderating a panel over the weekend comprised of

... Jaime Watt, the primary architect of former Ontario premier Mike Harris’s two election campaigns in the ’90s; David Herle, co-chair of former prime minister Paul Martin’s two election campaigns a decade later; and Chima Nkendirim, the strategist behind Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s victory in 2010.

While each had his own definition of his role during a political campaign, Herle and Watts defended the use of what they called 'negative ads'. While averring their distaste for attacks on a person's personal life, and agreed that mocking physical appearances/disabilities, they both feel it is fair game to question a candidates motives and fitness for office, which, to me, despite their rationalizations, is tantamount to endorsing character assassination, probably in many ways much worse than mocking of physical attributes. Nkendirim was the only one who felt his prime duty is to defend his candidate vigorously.

Rather disingenuously, Herle professed to being deeply troubled by low voter turnout:

“When 40 per cent of the population isn’t voting, the results are wildly unrepresentative of the people,” he acknowledged. “But we don’t know what the driver of that is.” He suggested it might be the reduced relevance of government in an age of globalization and market economics.

I suspect a bit of willful ignorance on Mr. Herle's part. As political observers far more astute than I have observed, there is little doubt that political attack ads, by the very fact that they lower political discourse to the level of schoolyard taunts, are a disincentive to voter participation.

And as I have suggested before, that is precisely the outcome desired by those who have proven to be such adept masters of these dark arts, the Harper Conservatives.

Harper Hate-Mongering

The latest attack ad, this one against newly-appointed Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, serves as a timely reminder of the Harper government's seemingly endless capacity for hateful and divisive propaganda. In this, I make an all-too obvious observation. But I have, for some time, wondered about the audience for those ads, and searching my blog archive, I don't think I have commented upon this aspect previously.

No matter which Conservative attack ad one chooses, and there have been many, it seems that a standard template for the imagery and the narration predominates, both always out of context and derisive in tone. Designed to inspire fear, resentment and mockery towards their targets, they reveal something very significant about their collective architect, the Harper regime: a morally bankrupt and debased view of the electorate.

I have often wondered whether the target audience, the general electorate, has ever stopped to think about the implications of having a government that regards them as little more than Pavlovian dogs, deficient in intellect, general awareness, and sensibility, poised to respond to the latest offering from their 'master'. Consider the ad against Justin Trudeau, which I posted yesterday. There is a kind of carnival music playing in the background, suggestive of frivolity and lightness, the image they are trying to instill of Trudeau in the viewer's mind. The Liberal leader is shown doing a kind of striptease and behaving in an exaggerated, almost effeminate way. Cue the contempt.

The other ad released yesterday listed Trudeau's experience as a camp counsellor, rafting instructor and drama teacher for two years, the later delivered with particular derision (the message: a real leader has contempt for the arts). While its message is blunt and obvious, that very bluntness makes the intended audience manipulation more than obvious, something that Canadian citizens should be offended, outraged, and disturbed by, inasmuch as it is a bald admission that power is the regime's only raison d'etre.

And yet we are told that attack ads are very effective. I can only hope that more and more people begin to exercise their innate critical faculties and see these ads for what they really are: a blatant expression of contempt for the voters of Canada.

Pernicious Effects of Harper Politics on the Young

This, I assume, requires no further comment:

Conservative Attack Ad - UPDATED

I suspect many will agree that this ad says more about the Conservative Party behind it than it does about its subject:

UPDATE: This Star editorial provides some useful context for and analysis of this attack ad.

Jesus Christ, Still a Figure of Controvery

Many years ago, the iconic writer and broadcaster Pierre Berton wrote a book entitled The Comfortable Pew. Yapdates gives the following summary of the book, commissioned by the Canadian Anglican Church in 1965.

... the author accuses the church of forgetting its main identity and what it first stands for. Broadly speaking, there are two main issues with church. Firstly, the church has become institutionalized in the sense that it is more concerned about conformity and keeping the status quo. Secondly, the church is in danger of being fossilized because of its inability to stay relevant to the people and the society at large. Both of these contribute to the crisis of the church.

Those who visit my blog regularly may be aware of how highly cynical I am about institutions. Whether we are talking about bodies that exist to protect us, educate us, spiritually revitalize us, represent us politically, etc., all seem to inevitably fall victim to a kind of self-promotion, complacence, conservatism and careerism that ultimately subvert their primary purpose. Indeed, such decay was probably best explored in Chris Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class.

I couldn't help but think of these things yesterday when I read a story in The Star entitled Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches.

Sculptor Timothy White created a piece depicting Jesus as a homeless person, an outcast, sleeping on a bench:

It takes a moment to see that the slight figure shrouded by a blanket, hauntingly similar to the real homeless who lie on grates and in doorways, is Jesus. It’s the gaping wounds in the feet that reveal the subject, whose face is draped and barely visible, as Jesus the Homeless.

Despite [the] message of the sculpture — Jesus identifying with the poorest among us — it was rejected by two prominent Catholic churches, St. Michael’s Cathedral in Toronto and St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.

Initially it was enthusiastically embraced by the rectors of the two churches, but higher-ups in the New York and Toronto archdiocese turned it down, feeling that it might be too controversial or vague. The artist was told that “it was not an appropriate image.”

I can think of no more damning an indictment of institutional cowardice than the previous sentence. But perhaps the last word on how the message of Jesus has been so distorted and perverted over time should best be left to Wood Guthrie:

On Insincere Apologies

I'll probably have more to write later, but for now, here are some always reliable insights by Star readers on the 'apology' from RBC CEO Gord Nixon:

Royal Bank chief executive makes public apology, April 11

An open letter to RBC President and CEO Gord Nixon:

Don't outsource jobs at your Canadian operations at the expense of your Canadian employees. That's the message we RBC customers want you to get and act upon. Your Canadian customers and shareholders are the ones who made your bank rich enough to expand around the world. Show us and your loyal hard-working employees some respect by not jumping at every strategy to enhance your profits even further. It's not like the bank is strapped for cash. How much is enough for you?

John Bruce, Niagara Falls, Ont.

Businesses have a right to find ways to reduce operating costs, and if it means lowering labour costs, so be it. However, displacing local workers and shifting them onto the ranks of the unemployed will increase the number of recipients and the cost related to the EI benefits program. It is well known that governments in Canada have being gifting banks and many other corporations with all kinds of largesse at our expense. So perhaps now is the time for them to shoulder some of the responsibilities to support the resulting social and economic upheaval that their choices have caused. All levels of government should levy a hefty tax per job lost on those businesses that choose to farm out jobs.

Frank Arturi, Etobicoke

Why would anyone consider a formal apology from RBC acceptable when the jobs in question are still being outsourced? There is something morally wrong with a business model that financially rewards executives for taking good jobs away from Canadians under the guise of exceeding shareholder expectations. Outsourcing decisions to drive corporate profit and executive compensation come with a significant ongoing cost to our society.

Jean Binns, Burlington

So Typically Classless

But then, why would anyone expect anything different from the Harper regime?

H/t Sol Chrom

Appeasement at the BBC

Whenever I travel, especially when a Canadian television station is not available, I tend to tune into the BBC, which generally practises the kind of hard-hitting journalism that the CBC was once known for, before embarking upon a policy of trying to appease the right-wing. Sadly, that virus of appeasement now seems to have been caught by the British national broadcaster, reflected in its decision to air only a five-second clip of Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead, the song which, in the wake of Margaret Thatcher's death, is likely to rise to number three on Sunday, in time for BBC Radio One's The Official Chart show.

The BBC has apparently been influenced in its decision by the howls of outrage from the British right-wing, upset by the implied disrespect of their patron, St. Margaret, that airing the full song, the usual practice of the show for rising songs, would demonstrate.

Compounding the craven capitulation is this disingenuous and self-serving remark by Tony Hall, the BBC's director general (italics mine):

"I understand the concerns about this campaign (the massive purchasing of the song to celebrate the week's major event). I personally believe it is distasteful and inappropriate.

"However, I do believe it would be wrong to ban the song outright as free speech is an important principle and a ban would only give it more publicity."

So in Mr. Hall's world, a little betrayal of public trust and integrity is okay. Hmm, sounds like just another politician ascending the ladder to me.

For those who cannot muster any sorrow for Maggie's passing, enjoy the following video which, I think, rather effectively captures the animus the Iron Lady was so adept at fostering:

Two Blogging Recommendations

With so many things of note to comment on, today is one of those days when, if I had the time, I suspect I would spend most of the day writing blog posts. Instead, allow me to direct your attention, if you haven't already read them today, to Alison over at Creekside, and Owen at Northern Reflections.

Alison has been doing an excellent job tracking the murky details surrounding outsourcing. In today's post, she lambastes the CBC's Amanda Lang for her enthusiastic and disingenuous endorsement of outsourcing practices in The Globe and Mail.

As I noted in my comment on her post,

Thanks for following this issue so closely, Alison. The fact that Amanda Lang is staunchly defending the bleeding off of Canadian jobs does not really surprise me, nor does it surprise me that hers is a voice given prominence on the CBC, which has capitulated to the forces of the right in a misbegotten effort at appeasement - all of course, under the rubric of 'balanced reporting.'

There is a similar apologia written by The Globe's Doug Sanders, who suggests xenophobia and wage fears are at the root of the opposition to these abominable practices, and laments the fact that foreign workers have no easy route to citizenship in our country.

Over at Northern Reflections, Owen does his usual excellent job, this time exploring the dark side of outsourcing, aided and abetted by compliant politicians, through an article by Michael Harris.

These are but two of the many excellent and conscientious bloggers who help me retain some hope for a better tomorrow.

Remembering Jonathan Winters

If you are of a certain age, you will remember Jonathan Winters, probably the most nimble comedic mind that the twentieth century produced. As a lad, he was one of the few people that could make me genuinely laugh out loud. The inspiration for people like Robin Williams, another comedic genius, Winters had a long and successful career. It ended yesterday when he died at the age of 87. For those who enjoyed his work, below are some video compilations that I hope you like

As with so many others who have recently passed away, we shall not look upon his like again:

But wait. There's more! Here is his famous skit from an appearance on Jack Paar, here Winters extemporizes with a simple prop - a stick:

Puncturing Right-Wing Mythology

I hope everyone will take five minutes to watch this video, originally considered too controversial for TED Talks. The speaker, entrepreneur Nick Hanauer, very deftly cuts through the mythology perpetuated by the right wing that the super-rich are our job creators and hence must be treated with taxation kid gloves.

And Now, A Word About Kellie Leitch From The Salamander

The question of personal integrity is one that is very near and dear to my heart. Since literature at its best is a reflection of some of the deepest truths about human nature, during my teaching career, it was a topic I explored with relish every time the curriculum permitted it. In so-called real life, questions of personal honour and adherence to principle become central to the conduct of our society, especially because of its presence or absence (the latter all too often the case), in public life.

Yesterday I posted a video from Evan Solomon's Power and Politics featuring the comments of Kellie Leitch, a physician before she embraced the Conservative banner, and now a Conservative M.P. and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour. Like a good and faithful servant of Harper, Leitch, in response to Solomon's questions, was content to parrot the party lines about the Temporary Foreign Workers Program that has been so much in the news of late. This is the same Dr. Leitch who, after her election, staunchly defended the government's position that exporting asbestos to the developing world was just fine, much to the consternation of her former medical colleagues and millions of Canadians.

So the surrendering of principle for political expedience and power both fascinates and appalls me. In this vein, I am, with permission and thanks, reproducing an analysis of Leitch that The Salamander offered on yesterday's post:

Kellie Leitch is a dead end .. Her political psychosis is likely identical to that of Stephen Harper. She is a classic over achiever, with salt of the earth roots, in Manitoba and Alberta.. Fort McMurray fer gawds sake ! A medical and clinical exemplar, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon who fixes little kids injuries and broken bones. Probably a Mensa level brain or higher.

There's a huge lesson to be learned by looking at this woman's professional arc. But then there's huge lessons to learn examining other Conservative arcs.

At the risk of being extremely blunt.. she may be no different than ethical and moral losers such as Harper, Oliver, Flaherty, Kent, Clement, Ashfield, Baird etc ad infinitum. After all, she defended asbestos exports to construct third world schools, even when 300 fellow clinicians requested that she honor her Hippocratic medical oath to do no harm.

She comes across robotically on TV/Web like a female version of Pierre Poiievre but without the smug conceited sneer. But her pedantic defense and sidetracking evasions of un-defendable ethics and twisted policies is certainly common to all the anointed Harper spokespersons.

Do you want her in the emergency room when your child has a severe fracture or worse? Yes. Do you trust her to do what's right for Canada ? No .. There's that Conservative Conundrum .. the nasty aspect that makes any sane person question how these people get elected.

Ms Leitch is OK with asbestos, Grassy Narrows mercury poisoning, denying Fort Chipewayn's poisoned fish and water, good with exterminating boreal caribou, fine with electoral fraud, mingling with Rob Anders & defending Peter Peneshue or Dean Del Mastro, closing the Experimental Lakes Area, comfortable with gutting environmental laws .. Does she have an ethical or moral line in the sand ?? If so.. what is it ?

Does anyone in the Harper Government or Conservative Party have such a line in the sand ?

Apparently not ...

Outsource Canada

I'm not sure who is actually responsible for breaking down these outsourcing statistics according to province and company, but we certainly owe him or her a real debt of gratitude.

Speaking of Political Integrity ...

See if you can detect even a modicum of it in Kellie Leitch, who starts talking at about the 9-minute mark of this video dealing with the massive abuses in the Temporary Foreign Workers Program:

Somehow, I don't think this is what Judith Timson meant when she talked about authenticity.

H/t Sandra Harris

More Reflections on Leadership

The other day, in my post on political leadership, I chose Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as the figure to contrast what I consider to be the much more mature and thoughtful approach of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. My exclusion of the more obvious figure of comparison, Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, was intentional, given that I have written so much about him in the past, each post essentially observing the same thing: his addiction to ideological bromides as substitutes for real policy.

That dearth of vision was much in evidence in Hudak's fundraising dinner in Toronto the other day. Saying all the 'right' things to those for whom real thought on policy issues is not an option, young Tim trotted out the usual 'solutions' to all of Ontario's woes, including:

...bringing unions to heel, getting rid of “expensive gold-standard” public pensions, new subways, introducing performance levels for bureaucrats, freezing public-sector wages for two years, and giving tax breaks for employers.

“We will modernize our labour laws so that no worker will be forced to join a union as a condition for taking a job. And no business will be forced to hire a company solely because it has a unionized workforce,” he said.

To regard Hudak as anything more than a tool of the business agenda is difficult, and I am only taking a bit of time to even refer to him here because of a column in today's Star by Judith Timson on how we crave what she calls authenticity in our leaders, which she describes in the following way:

Authenticity does not seem to be about being someone voters want to have a beer with, or even one with whom people always agree. It is about being a leader who comes across as authentically in his or her own skin, not spouting platitudes or panaceas, but one whose words and actions, in a very cynical age, people can believe.

While I don't agree with all of the candidates she cites for their authenticity (Rob Ford, Margaret Thatcher, Justin Trudeau), her other choice, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, resonates with me, for the reasons I gave the other day.

Here is what Timson has to say about her:

Ontario’s new premier, Kathleen Wynne, has brought a different kind of authenticity to her office. For one thing, she has an extraordinary voice — one that is intimate and knowledgeable. Asked about public transit during a CBC radio call-in show not long ago, Wynne first launched into an affecting anecdote about riding Toronto’s brand new subway system back in the 1950s with her grandmother, wearing her “little white gloves.”

It was not only touching but brave, because Wynne dared to come across first as an ordinary person with memories others might share and not as a politician with a spiel about transit. Mind you, she’s also not afraid to deliver the bad news — if citizens want better transit, they will have to pony up in taxes.

So while others are content to talk about gravy trains, union bosses and the need for the euphemistic workplace democracy in their appeals to the passions and prejudices of the masses, Wynne is trying to set a higher standard for political discourse based on reason, fact and guilelessness.

Let's hope she succeeds.

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.