More From Star Readers

Whenever I need a morale boost, I look to the letters' section of The Toronto Star. There I find regular confirmation that progressive notions are far from dead in this country, despite the best efforts of the Harper regime:

Re: Underemployment reshapes Canada’s job market, Opinion March 14

During the 2008 recession, some of my well-employed friends smugly asked, “What recession?” They would probably say that the trends in today’s job market aren’t troubling at all; they indicate that we are finally realizing the “leisure society” promised log ago by improved production and technology. This view is delusional.

Last year, our society transitioned from well-paying full-time jobs (less than 20 per cent of all new jobs), to lower-paying and “precarious” part time jobs (almost 80 per cent of all new jobs). This is not merely troubling, but cause for concern, if not panic.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ “Seismic Shift” tells us that 125,000 more Ontarians are unemployed today than before the recession, that fully one-third of part-time workers are frustrated by their inability to find full-time jobs, and we know that many Canadians are forced to take on more than one part-time job — just to make ends meet.

Unless these part-time jobs are freelancing gigs or busking at subway stations, this kind of work is not indicative of a leisure society but, rather, of slavery. We are condemning hard-working citizens to a daily grind that leaves them very little time for family, rest and recreation. This is hardly “progress.”
The golden lining on this storm cloud is that it presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to implement a guaranteed annual income. Are political leaders listening?

Salvatore (Sal) Amenta, Stouffville

We can have full employment in bad times if we adapt the German system Kurzarbeit, the largest work-sharing program in the world. The program included 64,000 workplaces and 1.5 million workers at the peak of the recession in mid-2009.

The Economist magazine, the most read magazine by CEOs and politicians, praises the German system, in which employers reduce hours rather than cut jobs in recessions: “Germany’s gross domestic product fell by 4 per cent in the two years to the end of 2009, twice as much as in America. Yet its employment rose by 0.7 per cent while America’s plunged by 5.5 per cent.”

Joseph Polito, Toronto

It's Definitely Not Democracy

That's the conclusion fundraising expert Harvey McKinnon draws in this interview during which he discusses the Harper regime's targeting of groups that oppose the Tory policy of environmental despoliation, about which I wrote previously.

McKinnon also offers this startling information: Statistically, one in 100 charities are audited each year. This Revenue Canada has gone after seven out of 12 charities this year. According to a statistician on his staff, the odds of this happening randomly are one chance in a billion.

Draw what inference you will from that.




H/t Occupy Canada

Bye Bye, Zach

I have a busy day ahead, so for the time being I shall offer a brief update on the fortunes of young Zach Paikin, about whom I wrote earlier. It appears that Zach has bid farewell to the Liberal Party over what he perceives as Trudeau's interference in the nomination process. You can read all about it here.

Perhaps the young man will now gravitate to the party of his true ideological calling, the Conservative Party of Canada?

Another Informed Star Reader

Christine Penner Polle of Red Lake offers some observations that I suspect few but the most ardent ideologues would dispute:

Re: Ottawa plans cuts to climate programs, March 12

Have we Canadians fallen down the rabbit hole? We are living in a Mad Hatter world where our federal government is slashing funding to Environment Canada’s climate change efforts at the same time scientists are raising the alarm about the threat of an unstable climate to our civilization, and where even staid, small “c” conservative institutions such as the IMF and the IEA are urging swift action to decrease emissions from fossil fuels.

This kind of cost-cutting is false economy, for the longer we delay in addressing climate change the more expensive – and dangerous – it becomes.

The federal government could address the climate crisis by putting a straightforward and transparent price on carbon through a carbon fee and dividend policy that (finally!) charges industry the true cost of carbon pollution, and rebates the money back to Canadian households, helping us all make the shift toward the clean energy economy of the 21st century.

At the same time, the market will be allowed to pick winners and losers in the energy race, rather than government through inefficient sector-by-sector regulation. Sounds like a solution that might get Canadians back to a saner, safer reality.

Kevin Page On Canada's 'Grotesquely Wrong Elites'

Former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, about whom I have written many times on this blog, is without question one of Canada's true heroes. The reason? He insisted upon doing his job with the kind of thoroughness and integrity that exemplify the highest ideals of public service. Like Munir Sheikh, who resigned his position as head of Statistics Canada rather than allow the Harper government to use him to legitimize its abandonment of the mandatory long-form census, Page deserves our respect for fearlessness in exposing the lie that is our current regime.

Presumably, once his term ended last year, Page was expected by the Harper cabal to slowly fade away like any former government employee. Happily, that has not been the case as he continues to shine a very public light on the regime's abuses of democracy and criminal withholding of information that would allow our elected representatives to make informed decisions in Parliament.

In a very recent interview in The Tyee, Page shows that he is as concerned as ever about the concealment that has become the modus operandi of our current government. At the same time, he articulates what he sees as the main reasons his office fell into the cabal's cross-hairs.

I am reproducing but a small part of the interview here; I hope you will set aside a bit of time to peruse the entire piece.

Why is an office like the PBO necessary? Why does it matter to the good functioning of our democracy?

"In our Westminster parliamentary democracy, the 'power of the purse' rests with the House of Commons. No money should be spent or tax legislation changed unless the executive gets approval from the House of Commons. We want members of Parliament to have access to financial information before they vote. An independent PBO can help level the playing field between the executive/public service and the legislature with respect to access to financial information before money is authorized. Without this information -- there is no accountability. The system breaks down. The current system is badly broken. We do not have the necessary checks and balances in place. MPs are often forced to vote without the information it needs. MPs have lost the power of the purse. They need to regain it."

On the question of the relationship between Harper's budget-cutting and silencing his critics, Page has this to say:

"I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency, analysis and debate on the choices and impact of government programs and operations that are being eliminated and scaled back in the name [of] deficit reduction. This includes reductions in spending to support information and knowledge at Environment Canada, Statistics Canada and elsewhere.

As a consequence of information being withheld, MPs are voting on departmental spending plans without the information they need to assess austerity impacts. We are closing veterans offices in the name of efficiency but spending more on recreation trails. MPs should debate these issues.

One of the most compelling parts of the interview, for me, was Page's explanation of how the PBO ran afoul of the Prime Minister and his operatives, providing, as it does, a further window into Harper's vindictive soul. It would seem that truth, to Dear Leader, is anathema:

1. A week before a government update that offered a rosy view of the economy, the PBO projected a recession and deficit. When it became apparent the world economy was in a recession, the opposition parties started talking of a coalition government. The prime minister quickly prorogued Parliament and came back with a new outlook and budget.

2. The PBO released a report in 2011 saying the cost of the F35 fighter planes were going to be significantly more expensive than indicated by the defence minister over its life cycle. Despite rabid denunciation of the Office by Harper and his acolytes, the Auditor General confirmed those numbers, suggesting the government had purposely misled the public.

3. Mr. Harper claimed that Old Age Security was unsustainable, and thus the age of eligibility was raised to age 67. The PBO, using similar numbers as the chief actuary, prepared annual long-term fiscal sustainability reports and indicated that the program was sustainable. Harper was caught in his lie a second time when the government released its own analyses and indicated that the federal fiscal structure was sustainable and since OAS was funded by general revenues, it too was sustainable before the government changed the age eligibility requirement."

All in all, a lot for an inflexible martinet to stomach, and hence the animus that persists to this day against Kevin Page.

A Petition Worth Your Consideration

Don Aitken has started a petition on the Care2petition site calling on the government to stop politicizing Canada's Election Act.

Given the abuses inherent in the Fair Elections Act, about which I have written several times, I hope you will consider signing it.

They Tell Tales Designed To Frighten Children

They, of course, are all who comprise the Harper cabal, that conglomeration of feckless, ambitious and disloyal louts who, through their lies, distortions and propaganda, would frighten, confuse and bully the uninformed into surrendering much of what it means to be Canadian.

People will recall, for example, the infamous lie told by Maxime Bernier of the thousands of complaints his office had received about the long-form census and its intrusion into people's lives. A closer analysis suggested that three complaints had been filed.

But of course, ideologues never let logic supplant hysterical distortions, and the mandatory long-form was thus abandoned.

In more recent times there was the whopper told by Tory MP and lapdog, Brad Butt, who, in loyal service to his masters claimed, not once but twice, that he saw people root through garbage and recycling in apartment buildings, then pass on voter information cards to others to be used for wrongly casting ballots. Given such a cautionary tale, the provision in the Fair Elections Act to prohibit the use of vote identification cards and vouching was clearly a justified measure to prevent widescale voter fraud.

Except, of course, Butt later admitted to having 'misspoke' (Toryspeak for lied) and had never actually witnessed such egregious criminal activity. Happily (for him) the good representative of Mississauga-Streetsville escaped unsanctioned, thanks to the parliamentary cover provided by Mr. Harper and his fellow travellers.

But, as noted earlier on this blog, he did not escape the wrath of a Rick Mercer Rant.

The fact that falsehoods are an integral part of the Harper arsenal formed a very interesting piece by Susan Delacourt in this morning's Toronto Star. Entitled Veiled voting furor’s unlikely ending, Delacorut reminds us of the furor that ensued back in 2007 when

Elections Canada ruled that Muslim women were allowed to vote while wearing burkas or niqabs in Quebec byelections.

In perhaps one of the seminal moments when the body first came into the sights of the Prime Minister,

Harper publicly chided Elections Canada (not for the first or last time in his tortured relationship with the organization.) He said he was “very disappointed” with the ruling and presented its decision at odds with the will of Parliament.

Several days ensued of wild stories of masked marauders at the ballot box and what horrors could unfold if we gave the franchise to people who showed up to vote wearing hockey helmets or Darth Vader costumes.

To counter the attempt to whip up the hysteria and anti-Muslim racism so favoured by the regime,

... [Chief Electoral Officer Marc] Mayrand pointed out that Canada’s election law actually does allow people to vote without showing their faces — voting by proxy or by mail, for instance, as tens of thousands of voters have done the past few elections. Singling out one constituency for a show-your-face voting requirement, namely Muslim women, could be problematic in a pluralist nation.

He and various Muslim spokespersons also pointed out that there was no great surge in people showing up at the ballot box with their faces covered — and no demand for it, either. Muslim women had already been removing their veil to vote.

Thus, rationality, logic and empiricism ruled the day, and that particular Tory attempt at frightening the electorate faded away.

Never one to take defeat lightly or graciously, the Harper cabal, apparently converted to the old adage that revenge is a dish best served cold, has bided its time and, with the Fair Elections Act, will be able to both mete out retribution to Elections Canada and achieve its goal of voter suppression.

A shame we can't call in the United Nations to help protect us from this rogue regime.

The CBC Ombudsman Makes Her Ruling

As reported by Andrew Mitrovica on iPolitiics, the CBC ombudsman, Esther Enkin, has finally reached her decision on the many conflict of interest complaints lodged against Rex Murphy and Peter Mansbridge.

Briefly, here is what she said:

“Given that Journalistic Standards and Practices spells out a commitment to independence, and the Conflict of Interest guidelines encompass perception of conflict as well, it is inconsistent with policy when CBC news and current affairs staff accept payment from groups that are likely to be in the news.

She has a somewhat timid suggestion for CBC management:

“But since taking money leads to a perception of a conflict of interest, CBC management might want to consider, in the review they are undertaking, whether even with disclosure, it is appropriate for CBC news and current affairs staff to get paid for their speaking engagements.

“To summarize, in the course of reviewing its policy, I hope CBC management will reconsider the practice of paid speaking engagements for its journalists and, at a minimum, consider how any relevant activity and payment can be on the public record.”

As Mitovica tartly points out,

Enkin’s ruling is a stinging rebuke of Mansbridge and Murphy — who, since the controversy broke in iPolitics, have not only been unapologetic about receiving payment from outside vested-interest groups, but have also vowed to continue the controversial practice despite mounting criticism and condemnation.

The ombudsman's full report can be read here.

Will anything change as a result of this finding? Given the fierce recalcitrance of Rex Murphy, more a legend in his mind than in anyone else's, I am dubious. But one hopes that the CBC will show a shred of its rapidly diminishing integrity and issue Newfoundland's favorite son an ultimatum.

After all, given Rex's apparent popularity with the tarsand enthusiasts, he should have no problem keeping body and soul together by continuing to be a shill for the petroleum industry.

Rick Mercer Denounces Tory MP Brad Butt's Lies

As usual, Rick Mercer offers an unsparing assessment of his target, in this instance Tory MP Brad Butt and his outright lie about being a witness to voter fraud. Thanks to the usual Conservative obstructionism, Mr. Butt escaped his lie unscathed.

An Evening Reminder Of Just How Hostile Stephen Harper Is To Canada's Long-Term Interests

For more information, this link is a good place to start.

Each Day Seems To Bring A Fresh Outrage

I am someone who believes people should never be too happy or contented. Such states breed a complacency that can lead to an indifference, if not downright disengagement, from the pressing issues that citizenship demands. That being said, however, there are days when I almost wish that I could be blithely detached.

As many who read this will likely attest, being a Canadian with a government that betrays us in so many ways is at times very difficult to accept and endure.

Where to start in discussing those betrayals? Since this post would never end if I were to enumerate all of them, I shall deal with only a few of the most recent ones.



There is, of course, the Fair Elections Act, about which I have written numerous times. Despite ever increasing awareness of the real threats it poses to democratic participation and the overall health of our system, and despite increasing numbers of prominent Canadians speaking out against it, the Harper regime, through one of its favorite puppets, the contemptible and oleaginous Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, shows ongoing contempt for all who oppose it.

And probably the most egregious Tory contempt is reserved for the people, given the regime's refusal to hold cross-country hearing on the bill.



Then there is the arrant hypocrisy of the Harper regime.



Harper blithely and steadfastly justifies his uncritical and unwavering support for Israel by calling it the Middle East’s only democracy, surrounded by autocratic and hateful regimes that wish it ill.

But what happens to this ostensibly high-minded commitment to democracy abroad when money is involved? It is revealed as a blatantly empty and hypocritical pose.

What else can explain the fact that Canada recently signed a $10 billion arms deal with one of the Middle East's most repressive regime, Saudi Arabia? As Humera Jabir Murtaza Hussain noted in his recent Toronto Star commentary, the sale is an affront to Ottawa’s alleged commitment to human rights in the Middle East.

In his visit to the region in January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper espoused the high-minded rhetoric that Canadian values of tolerance and human rights would underpin Canada’s Mideast policy. But this unprecedented $10-billion sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, a known human rights abuser, makes clear that these values hold no water when there is a profit to be made.

But it gets even worse, as Hussain notes:

Last year, a Canadian Press analysis found Bahrain, Algeria and Iraq to be new buyers of Canadian-made weapons with weapons exports to Pakistan increasing by 98 per cent, Mexico by 93 per cent, and Egypt by 83 per cent from 2011 to 2012.

So what happens to Canada's oft-declared commitment to human rights? Consigned to the rhetorical ashbin of politics, I guess. Or, as Walter Dorn, the chair of international affairs studies at the Canadian Forces College, put it:

"The danger is that the almighty dollar may become the predominant motivator in trade deals and therefore weapons are more easily shipped."



Then yesterday came news of Harper's latest salvo against the environment and climate change mitigation.



As reported in The Toronto Star, Environment Canada will see drastic reductions in its funding over the next three years.

While the Harper cabal claims that the reduction in funding from the current $1.01 billion in 2014-2015 to $698.8 million in 2016-2017 is largely attributable to temporary programs that could be extended, altered, or enhanced , two statistics pierce the litany of lies we have come to expect from this corrupt regime:

Environment Canada’s full-time equivalent positions will decrease by over 1000 from the current complement of 6,400 to 5,348 in 2016-17. Most alarming and telling is the fact that many of those cuts will come from Environment Canada's climate change division, where FTE positions will be reduced by about half, from the current 699 to 338 in 2016-17.

Said Halifax MP Megan Leslie, the opposition New Democrats’ environment critic,

“Knowing what the situation is with greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, one would think they got the numbers backwards. And that we would be ramping up rather than ramping down...That is a shocking decrease, it really is.”

Shocking, obscene, indefensible... there are many words that one could apply here, none of which seem adequate, especially given the fact that the Harper government has done little to reach its goal agreed upon under the Copenhagen Accord, of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

And of course, no measures have been imposed on the oil and gas sector, which is projected to contribute 200 megatonnes of GHG emissions in 2020 — almost a third of Canada’s target under the Copenhagen Accord.



How can a government be so out of tune with the needs and demands of both its own citizens and those of most of the world?

I suspect Harper has done a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that none of these measures, or the countless others his regime has thus far undertaken, however odious, evil and contemptuous in nature, will rouse Canadians from their comfortable torpor and impel them to go out into the streets en masse.

My biggest fear is that he is correct in his calculations.

Law Professors Are Not Impressed By The 'Fair' Elections Act

Yasmin Dawood is one of 160 professors from across Canada behind an open letter to the government asking for major revisions to the 'Fair' Elections Act. Yesterday, she appeared on Power and Politics. As you will see, Dawood regards the act's provisions as posing a grave threat to Canadian democracy:

A New Post From The Salamander

In response to the letter I posted this morning, The Salamander offers some timely commentary, which I am posting below. While making his usual incisive observations, he also has some suggestions that we would all do well to take to heart:

.. don't wear a poppy .. turn your back or raise your fist.. or your voice..
when confronted by hypocrisy.. obvious deceit, cowardice & secretive government.. Find your own individual and special way to honor our heroes and exemplars and make it blinding clear how you treasure the courage, sacrifice..
the gift they gave all of us

Stand tall.. bold .. feet planted deep in the soil of this fair land
let your heart glow .. and your outraged voices grow ..

Plan a dinner for family or friends.. invite our veterans
& honor those who helped make it possible..
Hoist a mighty toast to our warriors, immigrants, ancestors
our amazing hosts, the First Nations, our forests, streams and shores
the bounty of this land, the invisible winds, the mighty storms
the incredible creatures who embody this land

On a scale of 1 to 1 million where does any Canadian rate S Harper
or one of his minions.. vs one of ours who went to Vimy Ridge ?
Lived among the deer, rode a rocket into outer space,
discovered The Northwest Passage? Ascended to The Plains of Abraham,
survived the Red River floods? Paddled canoes, built our homes

Where is the courage of Terry Fox or Ann Harvey to be found within Parliament?
In Calandra and his pizza? Del Mastro and his bluster? Baird on Israel? Butt?

The diseased tail of a rabid political construct now directs policy to a nation..
and Canadians, and proclaims its shrill values are our Canadian Values..

Excuse me Mr Harper .. you found your ascendancy in a box of cereal?
Or a sandbox.. ? Got it from Tom Flanagan conniving with you?

You find yourself in the wrong country Mr Stephen Harper .. nice try dickhead
We don't support your Queen.. whomever she or he may be..

Your quaint fake grasp on our national game.. is limp and lame
its played with contact and a ball.. lacrosse sticks, stout hearts.. brave hearts
none of which you or your porky pollster crowd could ever grasp

Since you can't recognize Canada or Canadians ..
exactly what do you see in the mirror ?
Some sort of 3rd world Euro reject poseur descendant sociopath ?
Or worse.. .. ?

Its becoming quite evident, that what you see in the mirror
is exactly what you contribute to Canada & Canadians .. disaster
and that you've discovered approx 2,000 to 5,000 dim folk failures
that think you're a genius.. or savior .. or rapture prophet savant

I know of at least 10 crappy bands with larger followings
disco, tribute, thrash.. or gospel ... or drone rant
but none of them pretend to speak for a country called Canada

A Nice Compendium Of Recent Harper Offences Against Democracy

I am preparing to resume work on my flooring, so, in lieu of my own piece, I am posting a letter from the London Community News that offers some thoughts on the 'Fair' Elections Act and other Harper government misdeeds:

Dear editor,

Much noise has been made about what the Conservatives’ euphemistically call the “fair elections act” currently being tabled in the House of Commons. CBC personality Rick Mercer announced that if the bill passes then Canada would forfeit our title as one of the world’s greatest democracies.

Mercer’s televised rant focused on the aspect of the bill that makes it illegal for Elections Canada to encourage young people to get out and vote. Some other controversial aspects of the bill include raising the limits of election donations, eliminating the practice of vouching for people without proper identification at voting stations and allowing polling supervisors to be appointed by the riding’s incumbent candidate or the candidate’s party.

Perhaps even more concerning should be Canada’s Chief Elections Officer Mark Maryland’s response that the bill as an affront to democracy.

The fair elections act, however, is just the latest in a consistent series of attacks originating from Stephen Harper’s Conservative government against the concept of a rich, competitive Canadian democratic system.

One of the first policies implemented by Harper, when he won his majority government in 2011, was to remove a $2 per vote subsidy for political parties. Between this policy change, and raising election donation limits, Harper has made it much easier for money to corrupt Canada’s democratic process.

After all, a party’s election spending budget should reflect the number of their supporters, rather than the size of the pocket books of their constituency, right?

Interestingly, Conservatives won almost 54 percent of the seats in Parliament, a majority, with less than 40 percent of voting Canadians supporting their party.

Also interesting to note is that, of the five parties who hold seats in Parliament, the Conservatives are the only party opposed to reforming our democratic system so that our elected government better reflects the popular vote. All the other parties favour some sort of proportional representation system over the deeply flawed first-past-the-post system we currently use.

For those of us who do not support the most popular candidate in our ridings, showing up to the polls on Election Day is futile. Because of the first-past-the-post electoral system we have, and the elimination of the $2 per vote subsidy, voting for a losing candidate in a riding is essentially inconsequential.

Since it is meaningless to vote for a candidate who does not win, this makes it more difficult for smaller parties to gain enough momentum to break into the scene and compete.

A central tenet of Conservative ideology is that economic competition helps improve the services that businesses offer society and, in turn, free market systems help improve society in general. Imagine what would happen to the Canadian economy if it was not possible for new, smaller companies to compete against the status quo.

So, it should be clear to Conservatives their policies on democratic reform inhibit political competition and, as a result, discourage a strong culture of democracy in this country. Indeed, the robocall scandal, conducted by Conservative Party staffers, was an explicit and illegal effort to discourage non-Conservatives from showing up to the polls.

It should come as no surprise then that the Conservatives have introduced the fair elections act that prevents Elections Canada from encouraging key voting blocks from coming out to vote.

The seemingly endless list of infractions against our democratic infrastructure committed by the Harper Conservatives also includes: unprecedented omnibus bills and other strategies to discourage debate in the house and senate, silencing scientists and suppressing information, criminalizing masks at protests and spying on activists, and a meticulously whipped cabinet.

Some downplay these controversial tactics as a winning strategy implemented by one of the most talented and calculating political leaders ever to represent the right wing of the political spectrum.

However, undermining and weakening the democratic system is a threat to all members of Canadian society no matter what political values we hold. This steady assault on the democratic process makes it difficult for all Canadians to influence the future of this nation.

With only roughly 60 percent of eligible voters showing up to the polls during our federal elections, Canadian democracy is on life support.

Many Canadians openly admit to being ignorant or apathetic about Canadian politics. Some say they are too busy. Others say that there’s nothing we can do to change things for the better and so become complacent.

When we reflect on our sad state of affairs, we should keep in mind that our democratic rights would not exist if Canadian soldiers had not defeated fascism alongside our military allies during the Second World War.

Second World War veterans dodged bullets and bombs and sacrificed limbs and life to protect a free and open Canadian democratic system. Try telling a veteran you don’t have time or don’t see a solution to this erosion of Canadian democracy. If we allow politicians to degrade Canada’s democratic infrastructure, it is an insult to their sacrifice, and an act of self-destruction.

We must become engaged in the democratic process.

Dante Ryel, London Connect event organizer

An Extreme Of Capitalism?

Anyone who reads my blog regularly and has drawn the conclusion that I am anti-capitalism would be completely wrong. I have nothing against business, entrepreneurship, nor corporations, per se. And I do believe that those who take risks should be appropriately rewarded.

What I am against, however, is extreme imbalance. I have nothing but withering contempt for the winner-take-all attitude that sees life as a zero-sum game. Such thinking betrays an unschooled mind and a woefully underdeveloped character, in my view. And that is exactly the mentality pervasive in so many realms today, be they political, economic, social, business, etc. Capitalism, yes. unfettered capitalism, no.

During the weekend I read a story in The Star about the development of drugs to treat what are known as orphan diseases, those maladies that afflict a relatively low number of people. Traditionally avoided due to high development costs and low market potential, pharmaceutical firms are now turning increasingly to them as a potential source of new profits.

Patents expire on drugs that have become standard treatments for afflictions such as heart disease, diabetes, etc., and drugs to replace tried and true therapies are not needed. The revenues arising from treating those standard diseases, while still substantial, have limited growth potential, something that is anathema in a fiscal culture that demands continual corporate profit growth.

The beauty of orphan diseases, from a profit perspective, is that the majority of them are genetically-caused, which means that those for whom the drugs are developed will be life-long customers. It is this fact that makes the development of such drug treatments not only a literal life saver for some, but also an everlasting curse for the governments that will be called upon to fund them.

“There is a big crunch coming in terms of the new (orphan) products being developed and in terms of cost,” says Dr. Michael Rieder, who holds a research chair in pediatric pharmacology at Western University’s Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry.

“We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg and it’s not going to go away.”

The issue came to the forefront again last week when young Madi Vanstone and her mother, Beth, visited Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to seek assistance in getting Madi's drug, Kalydeco, listed so that her costly treatments would be covered under the province's drug plan. It was approved by Health Canada in late 2012, but costs $300,000 a year per person and works only for a certain genetic variant of cystic fibrosis. It’s estimated about 20 people in Ontario need it but do not have private coverage.

Fifteen countries cover the medication, but so far Ontario’s drug-purchasing consortium has failed to negotiate what it sees as a “fair” price with manufacturer Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

Consequently, Madi's family currently must rely on fund-raising for the treatment which has left her symptom-free.

The problem, as you can see, lies in the extreme pricing that big pharma attaches to what can be sometime regarded as miracle drugs. These exorbitant rates are justified by what they claim are the high development costs of the therapies, coupled with their limited market.

Jared Rhines, vice-president of scientific and strategic affairs for the group Rx&D, which represents Canada’s research-based pharmaceutical companies, says,

“The development process from discovery to development to clinical research is the same, whether it’s a drug that treats a high number of patients or a drug that treats a rare population,” Rhines says. “And when you get to orphan drugs, it’s all those same requirements and development costs and profits spread over hundreds of patients versus what is a traditional drug that treats tens of thousands of patients.”

By the way, the industry claims, but refuses to offer any supporting documentation for 'competitive reasons,' that the average cost of drug is $1.3 billion.

This is a figure hotly contested by some:

Some experts, however, say drug companies grossly inflate their R&D costs, with the oft-cited $1.3 billion-per-drug figure out of whack with reality.

Trudo Lemmens, chair of health law and policy at the University of Toronto law school, says industry uses these claims to justify “unconscionable prices.”

He says that a credible New Jersey study claims that average drug development costs could actually be in the $45 million to $55 million range.

“The claim of $1.3 billion or higher costs of drug development is industry mantra,” he says. “But it’s based on things that the industry keeps close to its (chest) and it’s very hard to critically analyze.”

As well, such claims are misleading, if not downright untruthful, for other reasons:

Jillian Kohler, director of global health at the U of T’s Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, has this to say about the issue:

... these numbers, for people who are actually in the field, are highly controversial and industry doesn’t like to be honest about what goes into their R&D.”

Kohler says drug companies may routinely pack marketing costs into their estimates as well as lost investment returns — opportunity costs — from the money they actually do sink into research.

“They (also) don’t talk about the public funding that contributes to some of the development of these (drugs),” she says.

And so to conclude, I repeat what I said at the outset: I am not opposed to capitalism, only the unfettered kind which, it would seem, the charges attached to the treatment of orphan diseases are but egregious examples.

More Food For Thought

I am still working on my flooring, and as someone to whom the term handyman has little application, I am working very slowly. Therefore, in lieu of a post, I offer this wisdom from George Orwell:

A Question To Ask Any Day Of The Week

I'm working on installing some flooring in the house today, so for now, here is a question that deserves to be asked by all critical thinkers:

The Window Of Opportunity Is Growing Increasingly Short

So says Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if we are to take action to limit the global average temperature increase to two degrees Celsius:

Six years ago we said that emissions would have to peak by 2015 if we wanted to hold them to 2C. The cost rises the later you do it. Countries have to decide what would be the implications of inaction."

You can watch the brief video explanation here.

A Timely Reminder

In light of the National Energy Board's rubber stamping of the Enbridge Line 9 reversal with very few safeguards, here is a timely reminder of the inherent dangers of pipelines:

Post by West Coast Native News.

A New Motto For The Liberals and The NDP?

Many political observers and bloggers, including me, have lamented the fact that outside of style, little separates the policies of either the NDP or the Liberals from those of the Harper regime. Given their timidity when it comes to policy proclamations, the biggest clue to their abandonment of a progressive vision for the country lies in their use of language.

The following succinct letter from a Star reader speaks directly to that fact as it pertains to Mr. Trudeau's leadership, but of course is equally applicable to Mr. Mulcair:

Young Mr. Trudeau continually makes reference to the middle class when pronouncing his grand scheme of things. When did the term working class become derogatory?

The political magicians have used their smoke and mirrors to convince ordinary Canadians that everyone can climb through the glass ceiling into the world of the corporate elite. No one wants to label himself as a worker; it has become something very undesirable.

There is nothing wrong with honest work and getting one’s hands dirty; it is time we all pulled together so that no one needs to be without adequate food, clothing or shelter. Social democracy is not a dirty concept nor something to be feared. It is the way of the future.

Larry Rendall, Grimsby

Put another way, as John Kenneth Galbraith once said, Though power corrupts, the expectation of power paralyzes.

UPDATED: David Christopherson Rebukes Disruptive Tory Tactics; Pierre Poilievre Reassures All

Although the Opposition had been guaranteed uninterrupted testimony from Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand on the 'Fair' Elections Act, they didn't get it.

David Christopherson, NDP MP from Hamilton Centre, offered this trenchant rebuke:




Meanwhile, on Power and Politics, Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilevre made it clear that Mayrand's testimony, in which he stated his objections to the Act and proffered suggestions for amendments, fell on deaf ears. His response to all of them was essentially, "Everything is fine. Marc Maynard is wrong. No need for amendments."


UPDATE: In the above clip, among other things, Evan Solomon tries to point out that that there is absolutely no proof of electoral fraud having occurred. Therefore, the disallowance of Voter Identification Cards and vouching as acceptable forms of identification at the ballot box is unwarranted. In typically oily manner, Pierre Poilivre insists that a report commissioned by Elections Canada to review the problem of non-compliance with the rules for casting ballots pointed to wide-scale fraud. The author of the report, Harry Neufeld, former chief electoral officer for British Columbia, says that Poilievre is misrepresenting his report. You can read his rebuttal here.

Climate Change: Lines Of Evidence Part 7

If you missed the previous parts, you can click here to view them:

Part 7: Natural Cycles

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence Parts 5 & 6

If you missed the previous segments, you can click here to see them.

Part 5: How Much Warming?



Part 6: Solar Influence

Few Escape The Bruce Carson Taint

Nigel Wright to Bruce Carson in 2011 as the latter conducted his allegedly illegal lobbying:

“I’ve heard a lot of good things about you. Feel free to give me a call at any time.

You can read all about it here.

Ed Broadbent Addresses The "Fair' Elections Act

I write this blog for a number of reasons, the most important one being the hope that I might contribute a little something to the general body of knowledge on political and social issues. The progressive blogosphere seems especially well-informed, and I often find myself reading sources and commentary that would have otherwise escaped my attention. So in that sense, I write for my fellow-bloggers.

Another audience I always hope to reach consists of those who may have come upon my blog seredipitously; they may see a perspective that offers some food for thought, which in turn may lead some into additional avenues of inquiry. While that may sound like a somewhat grandiose aspiration, one lives in hope.

Finally, I find writing a blog cathartic. Rather than simply allowing passions, anger, frustration and outrage to roil about internally, writing is a way of trying to create something positive out of, let's face it, negative issues (politics, corporate depredations, exploitation, etc. ad nauseam).

I wrote the above preface because my topic today is Ed Broadbent's op-ed piece in today's Star, in which he offers a withering assessment of the 'Fair' Elections Act. While his critique breaks no new ground and his points are likely well-known to those of us well-acquainted with Herr Harper's tactics and world-view, I offer some of them here in the spirit of the above:

Broadbent begins with the following:

For many months the Conservative government has blatantly taken away by fiat the right to strike of union members within federal jurisdiction. They are now threatening to shut down environmental charities that are talking about climate change. And they are ramming through Parliament changes to the elections act that will almost certainly mean that many thousands of Canadians will not be able to vote.

Taken in the aggregate, these measures, he asserts, are an unprecedented attack on our fundamental rights, restricting as they do freedom of association, freedom of speech, and our right to vote.

Inspired by the tried and tested voter suppression tactics used by the Republicans to disenfranchise marginalized groups in the U.S., the new election law would make it harder for certain groups to vote. The law would end the ability to “vouch” for the bona fides of a neighbour, a tool that allowed 120,000 voters — disproportionately aboriginal, youth and seniors — to cast ballots in the last election.

Among the other measures in the Act that will limit, not expand, democratic participation:

- The Prohibition of Voter-identification Cards: Elections Canada had only in the last few years piloted the use of the cards to make it easier to cast a ballot at polling sites serving seniors’ residences, long-term care facilities, aboriginal reserves and on-campus student residences.

Clearly that kind of easy enfranchisement is anathema to the Harper cabal.

- Limiting Elections Canada's Outreach Program will prohibit it from encouraging people to vote. Gone would be its ability to support programs in our schools, like Student Vote’s mock elections, or the outreach work in aboriginal communities.

- Removing Elections Canada's Power to Investigate Electoral Crime will mean that things like robocall fraud will be be beyond its purview.

I hope you will take the opportunity to read Broadbent's entire piece, but I will leave you with two more of his observations:

It is fitting, then, that the new election law is being rammed through Parliament. Once more, Harper is using closure — a way to end debate early — to prevent people asking, for example, why school programs that teach kids how to vote are so bad. Why let MPs actually debate democracy when it’s not valuable enough to educate children about?

Having spent more than two decades in the House of Commons, I can think of no prime minister who has been so focused on undermining electoral participation and public debate.

I suspect few would dispute Ed Broadbent's analysis or his conclusions.

More And More Canadians Are Rejecting The Mores and M.O. Of The Harper Regime

At least these letters from Star readers suggest thus:

Pollster warns Tories their support is slipping, March 1

In addition to the concerns of university-educated male voters between the ages 45 and 64 identified in the article, there is another significant reason that this and many other demographics are deserting the Conservative party. It has to do with the values that have evolved to become associated with the party brand.
Whereas the demographic in question had hoped once that the Conservatives would herald economic prosperity based upon a broad new vision for Canada, what the Conservatives have delivered is a petty, mean-spirited, hyper-partisan, autocratic government bereft of any vision beyond the next election.

In the minds of many Canadians, the values that have become the hallmark of the Conservative party are lying, cheating, bullying, and hypocrisy. As the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words” and because of their actions as a government, these values have become identified as an integral part of the Conservative brand.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, many demographics, not just the 45 to 64 year old males in question, are beginning to realize that, as tolerant and respectful Canadians, they do not share these values.

Lyle Goodin, Bowmanville

Cairo, Bangkok, Caracas, Kiev ... such places may seem remote. But proximity to a Walmart or Pizza Hut is no reliable predictor of civil unrest or calm. I marvel, therefore, that North American and European “leaders” still appear oblivious to the simple fact that people the world over are tired of being stolen from and lied to.

Or maybe they aren’t. Maybe that’s why we are spied upon by our own governments, corporations can buy congressmen, and, here in Canada, Harper’s mob have destroyed the sovereignty of parliament and politicized every aspect of the federal bureaucracy.

As Thomas Walkom nicely points out, elected governments lose their legitimacy when they systematically undermine democratic principals.

Harper and his like may think they are manipulating their power cleverly, but in the end they are writing their own epitaph.

Randy Busbridge, Niagara-on-the-Lake

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence Parts 3 & 4

If you missed the first two parts, you can see them here.

Part 3: Greenhouse Gases




Part 4 : Increased Emissions

Slavery, Then And Now

Not being a regular moviegoer, much preferring the tightly-scripted fare offered on cable that is adult in the best sense of the word, I only know from media reports that 12 Years a Slave won the Oscar for Best Picture. According to the Internet Movie Database, it is about the following:

In the antebellum United States, Solomon Northup, a free black man from upstate New York, is abducted and sold into slavery.

While not intending in any way to minimize the terrible suffering and exploitation suffered by black people in the United States then and now, it would be remise of me not to point out that here in Canada, we have our own form of slavery, which we call unpaid internships.

While I have written about corporate exploitation of young people's desperation before, this seems a propitious time for an update. As reported in The Toronto Star, unpaid internships appear to be on the rise throughout Canada, thanks to a patchwork of regulations and the reluctance of interns to 'blow the whistle' on their corporate exploiters lest they withhold their much-coveted letters of reference.

According to some estimates there are "as many as 300,000 people currently working for free at some of the country’s biggest, and wealthiest, corporations."

Perhaps this egregious example serves as emblematic of the sorts of abuses that are taking place:

Last fall, Vancouver’s Fairmont Waterfront Hotel sparked an uproar after it posted an ad seeking people to bus tables for free.

“As a busperson you will take pride in the integral role you play in supporting your food and beverage colleagues and ‘setting the stage’ for a truly memorable meal.” The ad was quickly taken down amid a social-media furor.

Isabelle Couture and James Attfield, both University of Victoria students in the Master’s of Public Public Administration program, are conducting a survey for the Canadian Research Association. They discovered, much to their surprise, that unpaid internships are being tracked neither at the provincial nor the federal level. And the need for organized tracking is great:

“When you ask a lot of these companies, like Bell — which has a massive internship program — they make it sound like they’re doing people a favour, that they’re generously providing work and experience,” says Attfield.

“But it’s really nothing more than a way to save money; they’re obviously not doing it out of generosity.”

Ma Bell, of course, repudiates such odious suggestions of corporate malfeasance:

A Bell spokeswoman says its internship program, which employs about 300 people a year, “offers learning opportunities in a real-world corporate setting. None of the participants’ activities replace work by Bell employees or support our business operations.”

Hmm. I guess that begs the question of what all those young people at Bell are doing while interning there. Sharpening pencils, perhaps?

There may be some relief on the way. On Tuesday, Ontario New Democrat MPP Jonah Schein introduced a private member's bill (no word yet on whether party leader Howath has yet tested the political winds to see where she stands on the issue) introduced a private member's bill that calls for the following:

- Grant unpaid interns more protections under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, such as regular work day, eating periods, and holidays

- Require employers to provide written notice to the Ontario government when they take on unpaid interns. This would assist the Ministry of Labour with data collection and enforcement.

- Create a complaint system that allows complaints to be submitted by third parties and interns anonymously

- Require employers to post a poster with information about intern’s rights in Ontario in the workplace prepared by the Ministry of Labour

And on the federal level, last fall Toronto MP Andrew Cash introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-542, calling on the government to establish a legal framework for the labour laws that govern what has become the new normal in the Canadian job market: precarious employment. Cash calls his proposal the Urban Workers Strategy.

Will any of these efforts bear fruit? Given the current mentality pervading all political parties (and yes, that includes the NDP) whereby businesses and corporations, not people, are now the chief objects of government ministrations, I am not especially hopeful. But, as with all worthwhile causes, it is crucial that the fights for the betterment of people be vigorously conducted.

Otherwise, we might as well all admit defeat and just give ourselves over totally to the forces that care not a whit for any of us.

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence Parts 1 & 2

The National Research Council has created a series of short videos offering a very clear explication of climate and the irrefutable evidence that it is changing. While you can click here to watch the entire series, which is about 26 minutes in length, for the next few afternoons I am going to post successive parts. That will offer those who can't commit 26 minutes at one sitting the opportunity of viewing brief sequences in a very digestible form.

Part 1: What Is Climate?



Part 2: Is Earth Warming?

On Democracy And Political Leadership

I have a somewhat busy morning ahead, so for the time being I offer the following:

Is the answer to things like this,


this?

Re Manning Takes Aim at Tory Election Bill (March 3):

The Conservatives’ Fair Elections Act is anything but. Instead, it’s about ensuring they’ll form another majority in 2015. There’s only one realistic way to ensure that won’t happen: co-operation among the opposition parties.

Here’s a novel idea: We need leaders who will lead. Elizabeth May has already figured it out; Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair need to hold their noses and go for one-time-only co-operation. Kindergarten students understand the rules that ensure fair play/good outcomes for one and all. For Canada’s sake, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair need to take a lesson from the sandbox.

Debra Rudan, Meikle Turner, Kingston

Gone, But Never Forgotten

Each year, George Carlin's acerbic commentary and observations become more and more relevant.



If we don't want a repeat of what happened last time, then it's up to us to educate those who wilfully or otherwise do not know that Harper & the CONservatives have sold us out.

H/t Politicked - Stop The Harpocrisy

Some Days A Reactionary Just Can't Catch A Break

At least if you are a reactionary in the Harper vein. First came the bad polling news showing increasing numbers of Canadians growing increasingly suspicious and weary of the relentless divide-and-conquer tactics of the so-called master tactician. Then came some stinging rebukes from that old icon of conservatism, Preston Manning, who, over the weekend, suggested that it is time for the Harper regime to start focusing on policy rather than politics, perhaps a veiled way of suggesting it might be time 'to try that sincerity thing.'

Even that once-trusted source of cabal strategy, Tom Flanagan, weighed in as he told an audience at the Manning Centre that the Conservatives are paying a price for the “perceived hyper-partisanship of the prime minister.”

Ah, but the abuse of the reactionary Harper mind-set continued beyond the confines of Manning's think-tank. In yesterday's Star, Haroon Siddiqui showed that he has Harper's number as well.

Entitled How Stephen Harper divides and conquers our many minorities, his piece begins with what many would agree is an accurate assessment of the chief failing of the prime minister:

Stephen Harper governs not so much for Canada as for his Conservative party. He used to do it by stealth. Now he does it openly.

He cites as evidence the following:

The Fair Elections Act, which will gut the power of the chief elections officer Marc Mayrand (who had taken the Tories to court for breaking election laws) and make it more difficult for voters to cast ballots but easier for political parties to raise money.

John Baird’s trip to the Ukraine, which excluded any opposition party members, thereby allowing the Harper regime to take full credit for its 'concern' over events there.

The government’s boycott of the opposition from the Aga Khan’s speech Friday at Massey Hall. As Haroon notes, even Chrystia Freeland, the riding's MP, was frozen out.

And so it goes on. All of this deeply repugnant partisanship is part of a well-established pattern — Harper’s “you are with us or against us” approach to governing; his hijacking of Canadian foreign policy to serve Conservative interests.

Increasing numbers of Canadians seem to be awakening to the truly odious nature of Harper's rule. This can only be seen as an encouraging sign of the possibility of regime change in the near future.

A Good Start To The Week

It is always gratifying to begin the week reading the thoughts of engaged Canadians who see through the thinly-veiled lies of the Harper cabal. In this morning's Star, three letter-writers address the topic of Bill C-520, a 'private member's bill' proposed by Conservative MP Mark Adler, about which I have previously written.

Enjoy:

Watchdogs present united front against Tory disclosure bill, Feb. 26

Conservative MP Mark Adler’s claim that the desire for “transparency” is behind his private member’s bill is completely fraudulent. The bill would require all employees of the so-called “watchdog” agencies – like auditor-general’s office, the ethics commissioner, and Elections Canada — to declare any prior political affiliations or activities, going back 10 years.

It sounds harmless enough, even reasonable. But it’s not. The bill’s real purpose has nothing to do with transparency; it’s to give the government the legal authority to interfere in the business of these agencies – which are already sworn to neutrality – and to expose their employees and their activities to constant partisan challenges from the party in power.

Together with the bill on electoral reform, Adler’s proposal is yet another of the prime minister’s Trojan horses, a devious attempt to undermine the neutrality of the very institutions whose independence we depend on for good governance.

Paul Wilson, Heathcote

As I read this article on Bill C-520 it struck me that we are returning to the Joseph McCarthy era when people who had a Communist Party past or any link to communism were labelled “Commies.” Many wonderful people were grilled about past associations and careers were ruined and jobs lost.

Do we really want a bill that prevents anyone with past “partisan activity” from holding parliamentary watchdog positions? I’m afraid what that bill really means is that only Conservatives need apply.

Elaine Faye, Brampton

Are you sure it was introduced by an MP named Adler and not a senator named McCarthy?

Edward Barber, Unionville

The Little Station That Could

Living as I do close to both Toronto and Hamilton, it is my practice at 6:00 P.M. each evening to flip back and forth between Hamilton's independent station, CHCH, and the CTV Toronto for my local news. Sometimes, despite resources that are constrained compared to those of CTV, CHCH offers some insightful coverage. Friday night offered one such example.

In covering Stephen Harper's visit to a Brampton manufacturing plant, a visit that was billed as “a question and answer session with members of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters” ... “moderated” by Jayson Myers, President and CEO of CME and Jason Langrish, Executive Director of The Canada Europe Roundtable for Business” report Scott Urquart that this billing was essentially a lie:

... the two men read prepared questions to the Prime Minister, and he gave them prepared answers, that neatly emphasized government policies. No questions were taken the floor — and certainly not — from the media.

Not even to clarify — or possibly challenge the accuracy of the Prime Minister’s power point presentation.

While this kind of manipulation, distortion and control is nothing new to those of us who follow the cruel parody that openness and democracy have become under the Harper cabal, it was nonetheless refreshing to see that kind of editorializing and slant happening at the local level.

Here is the video of the news item. Enjoy:

CBC's The Current: The Ethics Of Journalists And Paid Speaking Engagements

While I and others have written about Rex Murphy's close relationship to the oil industry, a relationship that appears to be in direct conflict with his position at the CBC, Peter Mansbridge has also been embroiled in controversy recently because of a speech he give to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). Indeed, and somewhat parenthetically, The Star's Heather Mallick has a blistering assessment today of Peter's moonlighting activities.

So what constitutes proper and improper speechifying? Yesterday on CBC's The Current, a good debate, guest-hosted by Jeffrey Kaufman, took place. Kaufman, a former Canadian journalist now working in the U.S., also had some interesting things to say about the very tight stateside restrictions placed on newspeople when it comes to outside engagements.

You can listen to the entire debate below:

Some Glum Faces At The Manning Centre

Clearly, it was not the kind of news they had gone to the Manning Centre to hear, and, it seems, they did not receive it with particular good grace.

As reported in The Star, presenting the results of a poll he conducted in December, André Turcotte imparted the following to party activists Friday:

“For the first time, Liberals have re-emerged as the party that a plurality of Canadians identify with,” ... “Now the Liberals and the Conservatives are tied almost as the party perceived to be the best to deal with the economy. This is a big change from previous years.”

In fact, even that wasn't quite true, given that

31 per cent of Canadians identified with the Liberals, 26 per cent with the Conservatives, 18 per cent with the NDP, and six per cent with the Green party.

Reacting swiftly, his listeners challenged Turcotte, with one asking him if he polled before Trudeau began making his verbal gaffes.

Alas, no solace was to be proffered, the pollster replying that

the shift in attitudes is a trend that actually began to show up two years ago, has now taken hold, and cannot be attributed simply to “the Trudeau effect” with the election last spring of Justin Trudeau as the new federal Liberal party leader.

Rather, Conservative handling of issues such as the economy, health care, unemployment and poverty, ranked in order of respondents' priorities, did not inspire confidence.

Pointedly, Turcotte said he did not probe the issue of crime in any depth,

as it largely shows up only as a concern for the Conservatives’ base. He said it does not broaden support.

And the bad news for the Harperites doesn't stop there. As reported by Susan Delacourt, another poll, this one conducted by Angus Reid, suggests that Canadians are increasingly waking up to the destructive and unhealthy nature of the Harper regime:

Nearly two-thirds of Canadians believe that the ruling Conservatives are settling political scores with their Fair Elections Act.

Even though only 20% of poll respondents admitted to any real knowledge about the act,

62 per cent said the bill was being introduced because “the Conservative government is motivated politically and dislikes Elections Canada.” Among those more well-acquainted with the legislation, that suspicion rises to 69 per cent.

While it is far too early to begin thinking that the Conservative government's electoral defeat is within grasp, it is an encouraging sign that all progressives should work to exploit in every way we can.

This Just In!

And it is very encouraging, in that it appears Canadians are beginning to wake up to the true nature of the Harper regime:

Nearly two-thirds of Canadians believe that the ruling Conservatives are settling political scores with their Fair Elections Act, a new poll has found.

You can read all about it here.

Harlem Pastor James David Manning Makes Pat Robertson Seem Entirely Sane

If you can get past the particularly offensive homophobia and racism here, I think you will see what I mean:

Last Night's At Issue Panel

The comments of guest panelist Althia Raj, from The Huffington Post, are worth the price of admission here as she declares, in no uncertain terms, that The Fair Elections Act is legislation aimed at voter suppression. In reaction, the attempt at stoicism by Peter Mansbridge, currently embroiled in his own controversy, is also noteworthy, in my view. The fun begins at about the 12:30 mark:

Not Everyone Has Drunk The Kool-Aid: A Doctor Speaks Out On The Health Effects Of Tarsands' Development

As reported in The Vancouver Observer, grave health risks from the Alberta tarsands are both statistically significant and deeply disturbing.

A northern Alberta doctor, John O'Connor, was invited to Washington to brief two U.S. Senators who are against the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta to Texas. O'Connor told them there have been the devastating health impacts of the tar sands on families – effects, he says, that have been willfully “ignored” by the Canadian and Alberta governments.

He sighted statistics for rare cancers – of the bile duct for example – that have shot up 400 times for what is considered normal for a tiny community, such as Fort Chipewyan – which is downstream, to the north of the oil sands.

“These are published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate that the government of Alberta and Canada have been lying, misrepresenting the impact of industry on the environment,” said O’Connor.

Unfortunately, his warnings have, not surprisingly, fallen on deaf Canadian governmental ears. Yesterday, In Washington, he clearly hoped for more open minds.




Without doubt, Doctor O'Connor has a prominent place on Harper's Enemies List.