Trudeau Has Some Explaining To Do

While our 'new' government continues upon the Harper neoliberal path, apparently never having met a free trade agreement it doesn't like, one issue that never seems to be honestly addressed by either Mr. Trudeau or his most ardent acolyte, Chrystia Freeland, is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions.

Thanks to always astute Toronto Star readers, this contentious issue is being kept in the public forum.

It seems if we look behind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ‎”sunny ways” persona, we find he is perpetuating the agenda of the Harper government.

The hearings and meetings being held across the country are a sham, as the PM’s G20 remarks on European trade and the Trans Pacific Partnership ‎show the Liberal government is right in line with the Harper regime, promoting flawed so-called trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Consultation with Canadians on the TPP has consistently raised concerns and objections over the same issue that concerns Europeans – the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses that give corporations power above that of the federal government and bypass our judicial court system‎.

The PM states that Canadians are largely supportive of international trade, but, like Stephen Harper’s omnibus bills that contained lots of hidden, usually objectionable, legislation, the TPP is only partly concerned with trade.

Justin Trudeau seems intent on ignoring Canadians concerns over increased corporate powers as well as the relatively toothless and unequal protections the TPP offers for workers’ rights and the environment‎.

He misleads Canadians by characterizing those who are opposed to the “hidden” aspects of the TPP (and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA) as being “anti-trade.”

In this respect, he is simply following in Stephen Harper’s shoes, albeit with a sunnier disposition, placing corporate interests above those of the Canadian people.

Terry Kushnier, Scarborough

What is missing in this news report is that most people, in fact most Americans as well as Canadians, are not against the enhancement of international trade. They are against the dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) that is included in most trade agreements, which requires dispute settlement by non-governmental arbitration panels.

Historically these are loaded toward corporations that sue sovereign governments, which are legislating on behalf of their citizens. Abuse of this system abounds, for example tobacco companies suing Uruguay for loss of income due to anti-smoking campaigns. They lost that one in the end but the inhibition of social (and environmental and labour) programs, and the cost to governments in worrying about and fighting such “disputes” so that corporations can do international business unfettered, is inexcusable. Much of the opposition to recent draft trade agreements such as CETA by social democratic countries in Europe is for this reason.

Roger H. Green, Brighton

Apparently, Justin Trudeau is going to continue the foolish initiative of Stephen Harper and grant investor protection rights to powerful corporations in order to sign CETA, the Canada-Europe trade deal. These rights would allow foreign companies to sue the Canadian taxpayers for billions of dollars if our elected Parliament passes laws regarding, for example, the environment, health or financial regulations, that adversely effect their bottom lines.

What twisted ideology would inspire any thoughtful politician to undermine our democracy in this way? That Justin would even consider this trade-off is proof that corporations already possess too much power. And these are the same corporations that protect billions of dollars through tax avoidance and evasion.

Stop this madness. Mr. Trudeau, please refuse to sign any trade deal that would erode our sovereign rights.

Cliff Lelievre, Burlington

In addition to the above letters, there is a wealth of information readily available demonstrating the folly of embracing deals that elevate corporations over citizens. What happens next is up to all of us.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

Given the viscerally-stimulating ort that Kellie Leitch has lovingly lobbed to a certain core of the Conservative Party's constituency, it might perhaps be timely to remind the leadership hopeful of the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for." And despite a new poll that suggests many Canadians favour screening would-be immigrants for 'anti-Canadian' values, she would be well-advised to proceed with extreme caution.

As The Mound of Sound suggests, she should start by looking closer to home. Consider, for example, something that recently appeared in Press Progress, which included a clarification of what Leitch means when she advocates screening newcomers:

"Screening potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values that include intolerance towards other religions, cultures and sexual orientations, violent and/or misogynist behaviour and/or a lack of acceptance of our Canadian tradition of personal and economic freedoms is a policy proposal that I feel very strongly about."

While I encourage you to read the entire article, here are a few of the things Press Progress pointed out about some of the Conservatives within Leitch's political ambit:

Leitch says personal "freedom" is not only a Canadian value – it's a proud "Canadian tradition."

A proud and avid anti-abortionist, Kenney apparently doesn't hold with some personal freedoms:

Kenney even tried to suppress a women's group from spreading awareness about abortion rights on campus, claiming that if they allowed women to talk abortion, there would be no stopping the Ku Klux Klan, pedophiles or the Church of Satan from peddling their ideas too.

So much for freedom.

Another worthy addition to what could be a lengthy rogue's gallery would be fellow-traveller Candice Bergen:

Leitch vows she won't let anyone in who doesn't believe in "equality of opportunity."

If that's true, then being a good Canadian mean supporting an affordable national childcare program too, right?

Two big barriers preventing kids from starting off life on an equal footing are skyrocketing child care costs and lack of affordable child care spaces.

Unfortunately, Conservative MP Candice Bergen once said she opposes child care (like the rest of her party) because it is her "core belief" that "big, huge government-run daycares" should not "dictate to families how to address their child care needs" – a set of talking points that perfectly mirrors Republican Tea Party arguments opposing Obamacare.

Now that doesn't sound very Canadian, does it?

An indisputable Canadian value is acceptance of a wide range range of values and orientations. A test for oppositional values might send someone like Brad Trost fleeing.

This spring, Trost reacted to his party's decision to drop its opposition to same-sex marriage in favour of a neutral position on the question by publicly announcing "gay marriage is wrong":

"I will say homosexual marriage, gay marriage is wrong. I'll be public about it ... The language of equality and comparisons, to me that's socialist language, the way they do it. The same way they talk about equality of income where they want a tax from the rich to bring them down to the level of the poor. So I completely reject the underlying philosophy behind this."

Personally, I am waiting for a reporter to ask Leitch whether she would apply her screening criteria to those fundamentalist Christians (who incidentally comprise a large cadre of the party's base support) wishing to come to Canada.

Neoliberalism In Four Easy Panels

This probably says all we need to know about neoliberalism.



Should you have the stomach for it, you can read more here.

Kellie Leitch's Canada?

Thanks to Alison for this:



Meanwhile, Leitch's colleagues don't appear to favour her approach. Deepak Obhrai, who filed his own leadership candidacy papers yesterday, had this to say:

What I am really concerned about is the tone and the message this question puts forward. As you know, right now, there has been, during the British exit, Donald Trump, those anti-immigrant parties in Europe and everywhere have been giving a negative message about immigration. Nobody's talking about the merits of immigration. This country was built by immigration. USA was built by immigration. So immigration has been completely a positive thing in a country. It has been a strength for that country. Yet, we have seen this negativism going into the fears that somebody has about immigration.

In response to Leitch's sudden 'passion' for Canadian values, Obhrai opined,

They are world values, everywhere. When immigrants come here they already have those values. [...] Most immigrants are already following them at their own homes. There is nothing new about Canadian values. Which is why everyone is having trouble with what is a Canadian value. A Canadian value should be what is in the Charter of rights -- the right for religious freedom, the right to speak, the press and all your basic rights. That is the Canadian values that is not in many countries. But being anti-violent, being anti-abusing women...these are values which are universal.

Expect the condemnation of Leitch's approach by Obhrai and several other leadership contenders to have no impact on the psyche of this strange, strange leadership hopeful. She appears to be deaf to everything, save the shrill sound of the dog whistle.

Is This Kellie Leitch's Constituency?

As Montreal Simon's recent post makes abundantly clear, Kellie Leitch is a pathetic human being. Her recent embrace of divisive 'dog-whistle' politics leaves no doubt about her manifest unfitness to hold public office, let alone lead the Conservative Party.

Perhaps The Soldiers of Odin, now setting up shop in Edmonton, is her new but limited constituency?

About 10 men, all are wearing matching insignia on their backs, a Norse horned helmet with a Canadian flag for a beard, have been seen patrolling the city's streets at least twice, on July 23 and Aug. 28.

While some see them as protectors, others consider them glaring examples of the worst in society.

As a response to the influx of refugees, the group was founded in late 2015 in Finland by Mika Ranta, a self-proclaimed white supremacist. Since that time it has become international, with local chapters forming in cities and provinces across Canada this year.

According to social media posts by the group, marches have also taken place in B.C. and Ontario.

The cancer is, in fact, spreading:

Soldiers of Odin — a group critics denounce as a racist hate group that is anti-Muslim and anti-immigration — is setting up in Hamilton.

But apparently there is no cause for alarm. SOO national president Joel Angott

denies that the group is anti-immigration, or anti-Muslim, although the group's bylaws lament the government "accepting refugees from countries that hate us" and "letting illegal aliens into this country and giving them the ability to vote and drive."

But perhaps a clearer definition of their orientation is needed. To elaborate on the above, consider more of what the bylaws and the 'president' of this 'organization' have to say:

We believe that the higher authorities are failing the Canadian citizens. Between the allowing of illegal aliens into this country and giving them the ability to vote and drive, accepting refugees from countries that hate us while Canadians are on the streets, releasing confirmed terrorists back to their organizations to cause more havoc against Canada and demonizing anything that has to do with European Culture to try and create racial tensions to turn citizens on one another' we as Soldiers Of Odin realize that it is time to take back our streets, provinces, and country.

Angott said the group is "for sustainable immigration," meaning that the government thoroughly screens new immigrants, and they "want to come in and follow Canadian law."

"We don't want people coming in and pushing any kind of agenda on Canada," he said.

This kind of thinly-disguised racism needs to be widely and loudly condemned. There is no middle ground here, simply because this ilk insists on dealing in absolutes and popular prejudices. They are not to be reasoned with, understood, justified or condoned. To do any of these is to be complicit in their evil.

I shall leave the final word to Hamilton city councillor Matthew Green, who expresses his own thoughts on the need for vigilance in the protection of the values balanced, fair-minded Canadians hold:

On Corporate Plundering

H/t makaycartoons.net

Having written previously on the breath-taking legalized theft of our groundwater made possible by an Ontario Liberal government that has yet to meet a corporate entity it doesn't love, I avidly follow public reaction to this outrage. Today's Star offers an excellent series of letters on the topic, two of which I reproduce below:

Re: Let's stop being suckered by water-bottling giants, Aug. 27

The long-standing practice of allowing our fresh water supplies to be drawn by huge private commercial multinational companies like Nestlé and bottled for profit is egregious. In the ultimate perverse and twisted irony of capitalism a free, publicly owned resource is privatized and then sold back to those who previously owned it.

For decades the Ontario government has allowed Nestlé and other private companies to draw Ontario’s fresh water from our aquifers at literally no charge so that it could be bottled and sold back to us at a massive profit in the form of bottled water, beer and soda pop. After an outcry at this practice by environmentalists many years ago, they then placed an insultingly low token fee on the water of $3.71 per 1 million litres and quietly allowed Nestle to continue taking an average of 3 million litres a day of our publicly owned finite resource for bottled water.

Recently, without fanfare the Ontario government renewed the agreement. This should have been a large front-page headline in the Star but was not even noted.

As Ontarians we should all be outraged that a large multinational private enterprise is given our water without charge and under secrecy by our own government in what amounts to nothing more than legalized corporate theft with the willing collusion of the province.

Ontarians gain absolutely nothing from these arrangements while losing our finite supply of fresh water; Nestlé gets everything.

What possible motivations or explanation could the government have for agreeing to such terms while they are struggling with a large cumulative debt and an ongoing deficit and cutting government funding for a variety of critical services? What obligation does the government feel to a faceless mega-corporation that is happily stealing our water for its own enrichment with the blessing of the government? This is corruption at the highest level. Would Nestle agree to the deal if the terms were reversed?

The Ontario government is willingly forgoing billions in water revenues that are desperately needed. Why would the government at the very least not bottle our own water and sell it on the open market to recoup full value for Ontarians for this precious resource while eliminating the middle-man? Water bottling is not a sophisticated, expensive or complex process.

This is yet another example of the corruption of free enterprise and the willing collusion of our own public officials in its practice much like the recent revelations about offshore tax havens. The Minister of the Environment should resign. These agreements should all be cancelled.

We are regularly treated to egregious examples of governments selling off public assets to the private sector in perpetuity at fire-sale prices. It happened with Highway 407, it is happening with Hydro and it has been going on for decades with our water. The private sector is licking its chops over the LCBO. Where will it end and when will we have and demand a government that is truly a steward of the shared resources we all own.

The sale of any public asset should be placed under the lens of critical public scrutiny. These public resources are not theirs to sell to the lowest bidder! There should be a public inquiry into the privatization of public assets. If this keeps up soon we will have water, water everywhere but not a drop that we own.

Robert Bahlieda, Newmarket

Martin Regg Cohn’s evaluation of Nestlé’s right to bottle large quantities of Ontario water at a cheap price, then to sell it back to us, reveals an insidious corporate profit-making ploy that has gone on for several years. It happens in the U.S., too.

I suppose that Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne believes that $3.75 per million liters of water is better than nothing, but she fails to note the effect on rural aquifers. Farmers depend totally on water they draw from their expensive wells, and resent bottling companies drawing down their valuable resource so city folk can sip from costly plastic bottles.

I hope that this report will persuade some Torontonians to revert to tap water, thereby reducing Nestlé’s profits and water draw. Meanwhile I suggest Mr. Cohn investigate the many government-instigated restrictions that cause farmers to wonder why we should keep working as farmers.

Charles Hooker, East Garafraxa

Our Paradoxical Species

Anyone who reads this blog regularly probably knows that I am something of a cynic when it comes to our species. Sure, there are many exceptions, but as a whole, we seem oblivious to our obligations to the world around us. Cossetted by our conveniences, our technologies and our bloated lifestyles, we far too often prefer to ignore all the evidence of the toll such indulgences take on the world.

I doubt that yesterday's message from the Pope will have much effect on us, given our endless capacity for kicking the ball down the road. The CBC reports the following:

In the message, Francis said the faithful should use the holy year to ask forgiveness for the "sins" against the environment that have been committed by the "irresponsible, selfish" and profit-motivated economic and political system.

He called for all of humanity to take concrete steps to change course, starting with repaying what he called the "ecological debt" that wealthy countries owe the poor.

"Repaying [the debt] would require treating the environments of poorer nations with care and providing the financial resources and technical assistance needed to help them deal with climate change and promote sustainable development," he wrote.

But on a personal, more local level, we all have a role to play, he said:

For example: “avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can reasonably be consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices”.

Each of the above is easy to accomplish, but my hunch is that most can't be bothered, consumed as they are by the busyness of their lives.

Is our collective indifference because we can't personalize the existential threats we face (until, of course, we are flooded or burned out, of course)? I pose the question as I acknowledge the deeply paradoxical and conflicting facts of our nature. When, for example, we are called upon to act to help individuals, our courage can reach heroic, almost mythical proportions, as witnessed in the following:





How can we simultaneously be so selfish and so selfless? And more importantly, how can we harness what we are truly capable of for the common good? I wish I had some answers.