We Can Do (And Be) Better Than This

While I continue to have a guarded optimism about our new government, there are troubling signs that suggest that it has some conspicuous blind spots. Not only are the Trudeau Liberals showing every sign of carrying through with the very contentious Saudi arms deal, but it appears now they are expanding their Middle East customer base.

The Canadian government is busy promoting Canada’s defence industry in Kuwait even as a United Nations report accuses a Saudi-led coalition, which includes Kuwait, of “widespread and systematic” bombing of civilians in Yemen.

Essentially embroiled in a civil war between the Houthi and the elected government, Yemen has become part of a regional power struggle between Shia-ruled Iran and Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia, which shares a long border with Yemen. Unfortunately, that power struggle is costing many, many civilian lives.

A leaked UN panel report last week attributed 60 per cent, or 2,682, civilian deaths and injuries in the Yemen conflict to air-launched explosive weapons and said the Saudi-led coalition’s actions are a “grave violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution” and violate international law.

Targets in Yemen, the UN report found, have included refugee camps; weddings; civilian vehicles, such as buses; homes; medical facilities; schools; mosques; factories and civilian infrastructure.

Like many countries in the Middle East, Kuwait has a sorry human-rights record:

According to Amnesty International, even peaceful criticism of Islam and the emir, the ruling head of state, remains criminalized. The rights watchdog says human-rights activists and political reformers are among those targeted for arrest, detention and prosecution. Authorities have prosecuted and imprisoned critics who express dissent through social media and they have curtailed the right to public assembly, Amnesty says.

Although sales to Kuwait at this point seem to be limited to a flight simulator, the problem is Canada's openness to other military sales to the country. The head of the business Council of Canada, John Manley,

cautioned that blocking trade with foreign countries is a decision that should not be made lightly.

“It’s grounds to have a conversation,” he said of the UN report, adding, however, that “you’re not going to get the next deal if you can’t be relied upon.”

For its part, the Trudeau government is pleading both ignorance (the Foreign Affairs depart claims not to have read the UN report) and a historical relationship with Kuwait:

... department of Global Affairs spokeswoman Rachna Mishra said, “Kuwait has been a strategic partner for Canada in the Middle East for over 50 years, and we value our close relationship with them.”

So there we have it: a bit of obfuscation, some corporate influence/pressure and a vague departmental justification - not exactly a recipe to inspire confidence in our new government.

Will The Harper Promise Of Tax Breaks Continue To Seduce Canadians?

Recently, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne called upon the Harper regime to commit $12 billion annually in infrastructure funding. This request takes on even greater urgency in light of the challenges we are and will be facing as we reap the consequences of climate change.

Fiance Minister Joe Oliver's response:

Wynne’s request is “divorced from fiscal reality.”

“We are not going to engage in a wild spending spree, which will create massive deficits and increase the debt. . . . We will also not jeopardize our top credit rating and we will not add to the intergenerational burden,” he said.

At the same time Herr Harper's henchman is preaching the virtues of fiscal discipline and ignoring the increasing costs of doing nothing in light of the above-stated peril, he is also pandering to our basest and most selfish instincts.

Yesterday, in a preview of the 2015 budget that will be designed to ensure the regime's re-election, 'Uncle Joe' offered this tease:

“I’m talking about reducing taxes for Canadian families and individuals”.

The words 'false economy' never escaped him ample lips.

In reference to a study done by the regime's ideological allies, The Fraser Institute, which just released a 'study' claiming we are grossly overtaxed and not getting good value in return, the finance minister had this to say:

Ottawa has reduced the federal tax burden and has urged other levels of government to reduce expenses and taxes.

It’s healthy for Canadians to understand the facts when it comes to taxes so the public can decide what’s fair and necessary.

So the Institute is just providing a public educational service, eh?

In that case, be sure to check out this piece, which points out some flaws in both the study's methodology and ideology.

After all, apparently Uncle Joe wants Canadians to be fully informed to decide 'what's fair and necessary.'

The final choice is up to us in 2015. Will we embrace the Harper ideology of selfishness and insularity and re-elect a corrupt and undemocratic government? Or will we rediscover our collectivist traditions and remember that our obligations are not only to ourselves but to each other?

Andrea Horwath, Tim Hudak: Unlikely Allies

“Outrageous proposals for new spending and reckless tax giveaways like these are unacceptable.” So says Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, in high dudgeon over the intention of NDP leader Andrea Horwath, and supported by Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, to introduce a private member's bill to remove the provincial portion of the HST from home heating bills.

According to Duncan, the proposal would cut provincial revenues by nearly $350 million a year and that raising corporate taxes — as the NDP would like to do — is no answer to lost revenue.

Hmm... as I have mentioned before, the key to critical thinking is to have access to an extensive array of information and a willingness to digest and incorporate that information into one's worldview. Here is some information that is vital in assessing Duncan's denunciation:

Despite the fact that Ontario faces a very large deficit and debt, the following tax regimen attends to the business world:

Ontario Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2010 - 2013


General Corporate Income Tax Rate
2010 2011 2012 2013
Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1
Federal 18 16.5 15
Provincial 14 12 11.5 11 10
Combined 32 30 28.5 28 26.5 26 25

Corporate Income Tax Rate for Income from Manufacturing and Processing*
2010 2011 2012 2013
Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1
Federal 18 16.5 15
Provincial 12 10
Combined 30 28 26.5 25
* Also applies to income from farming, mining, logging and fishing

Small Business Corporate Income Tax Rate*
2010 2011 2012 2013
Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1
Federal 11
Provincial 5.5 4.5
Combined 16.5 15.5

You will note in the above chart, taken from the Ontario government's website, that despite Duncan's denunciation of a measure that would benefit untold numbers of ordinary citizens, he is more than willing to cut provincial revenues by as much as 2% to benefit the corporate world.

Oh, I know it would be easy to justify this ongoing and seemingly ineluctable drive to subsidize business as the price of remaining a competitive regime that is attractive to corporate entities, but the problem with that reasoning is that Ontario, as is Canada as a whole, is already very competitive in its rates vis a vis the United States, and offers singular advantages over the latter jurisdiction in terms of infrastructure, an educated workforce, and basic healthcare for all. According to KPMG's 2010 Competitive Alternatives study of international business costs confirmed it again in 2010: Canadian business costs are once again the lowest in the G7.

Perhaps one of the most telling and, from my perspective, damning detail is this one:

Ontario’s corporate income tax rate (provincial and federal combined) is lower than that of any U.S. state, Japan or France and will drop to 10% by 2013.

So, it seems to me that we have a real obligation to critically assess and, when warranted, challenge this government in all of its assertions. To do anything less is to allow a corporate-driven and influenced elected body to make a mockery of democratic principles.

What the Occupy Movement Means for Canada

There is a surprisingly good article (but only online, I think) in the Globe and Mail by an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Armine Yalnizyan, who offers an interesting assessment of the Occupation Movement.

These are a few of the facts the article brings forth:

Raise the top tax rate by 3 per cent on those making over $250,000 -- a round number which marks the entry gate for the fabled 1 per cent - - and, at 32 per cent, you’d still pay less than the 33 per cent rate in the U.S. at that income level. It would raise about $2-billion, the federal share of, say, a national child-care program.

A 35 per cent tax bracket for Canadians whose income is higher than $750,000 -- the U.S. top rate, except there it’s applied on incomes above $373,650 -- would yield $1.2-billion. Over a decade, that could pay for the federal share of fixing drinking-water and waste-water infrastructure across Canada.

Realistically, however, such is not going to happen in the near future. As Yalnizan points out:

But governments are increasingly tangled up in elite interests. The latest example is Finance Minister Jim Flaherty‘s drive to marshall support to scuttle a proposed financial transactions tax, a mechanism that could help slow down the wild gyrations of the stock market we’ve witnessed of late. Flaherty and other G20 finance ministers will be meeting in Paris just as thousands of Canadians gather to Occupy Toronto on Bay Street. He will be protecting certain interests, just not those of the majority of Canadians.

And that will likely remain the status quo, unless and until enough of us join the movement to make both our voices, and our outrage, heard.

Evan Solomon's Explosive Interview Demonstrating Harper Lies

I have made no secret of my absolute disdain for the Harper government and the threat I sincerely believe that it poses to both democracy and our Canadian way of life. While Conservative true believers quite blithely dismiss such concerns as partisan hyperbole, sometimes something comes along that objectively suggests the foundation of lies upon which the Conservative Party is building its campaign.

That something occurred on today's (Tuesday's) installment of Power and Politics with Evan Solomon. Solomon first interviewed Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, who insisted that the Conservatives, despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assertions to the contrary, will be able to buy 65 F-35 jets for $9 billion, including all of the associated infrastructure. He dismissed the objections raised by NDP candidate Jack Harris and Liberal candidate Dominic LeBlanc that this figure cannot withstand scrutiny, and that the costs will be much higher, ($120-$130 billion for each jet), telling them that they didn't understand the math behind the figure.

After the interview, Solomon conducted one with Mike Sullivan, the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office equivalent to both our Auditor General and our Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was during this interview that the deceptions being perpetrated by the Harper regime should have become obvious to even the most ardent Tory supporter who still claims to think independently. Click here to watch the interview.

Critical Thinking: The Assault On Reason

The following is a review I wrote about four years ago of Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, a work that addresses many of the problems arising when the populace at large lacks the capacity for critical thought. Although geared to an American audience, Gore's points are universally applicable, and especially germane to my previous post on critical thinking, the only real defense we have against government manipulation of the electorate:

Having just completed Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, I have to confess to being profoundly disturbed. If his thesis is to be accepted, the greatest threat to the foundations of American society comes not from some shadowy terrorist organization but something much closer to home: the American government itself. It is an assertion that deserves to be taken seriously.

Drawing upon the beginnings of the American Constitution, Gore tells us that the Founders placed a heavy reliance on two interrelated notions: reason and a well-informed citizenry. These, plus the checks and balances implicit in the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), were believed to provide the greatest chances of survival for this new experiment in democracy. However, under the current Bush-Cheney Administration, Gore suggests that these safeguards are failing

In an obviously well-researched effort, the author takes us through a variety of means whereby that administration sidesteps, circumvents, ignores or otherwise contemns the constitutional strictures on the executive branch. Were this a work of fiction, the reader would find the narrative implausible. Sadly, what Al Gore conveys is all too real.

This tale of administrative malfeasance has many facets: there is an indifferent legislative body more intent on raising money to get reelected than debating in Congress; there are the machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney to reward their friends while at the same time ensuring that the average citizen is ill-served; there is the manipulation of people’s fears as opposed to appealing to their reason; all are grim reminders of what happens when people take their government for granted. Whether Gore examines the sinister repealing of pollution laws or the insidious misinformation put out about climate change, the reader quickly realizes that unless citizens promptly re-engage in the democratic process, there is little hope for the future of America’s grand experiment.

He does, however, end the book on a note of real hope. Although the historical notion of the marketplace of ideas, where people shared information and communicated with government in a meaningful way no longer exists, Gore suggests that a new infrastructure has arisen and is evolving whereby that marketplace might once again thrive. It is called the Internet. He points out the current egalitarian nature of the Web, whereby anyone with an opinion can form a group and invite others of like mind to join, whether it is a blog, a community forum, or a national meeting place. Its advantage is the absence of geographical or travel obstacles to forming or joining such groups, meaning that they are open to everyone. The potential to be once again well-informed and active is there, although I think the author downplays the difficulties inherent in having such a cornucopia of choice. How, for example, doe one separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff? Nonetheless, his underlying point is sound, namely that citizens now have a means to begin reinserting themselves in the democratic process in a meaningful way.

This is a book that has implications for all democratic governments and therefore should be widely read. As a Canadian, I couldn’t help but think of my own government under Stephen Harper which has, for example, severely restricted the flow of information about our troops’ mission in Afghanistan; facts that were previously widely available are no longer so, the justification being ‘national security issues,’ but more likely is a response to widespread criticism of the mission amongst Canadians.

A good first step on the journey to becoming an informed citizen who can work toward a renewed democracy is the reading of The Assault on Reason; it is a book alternately disheartening, inspiring, informative and provocative. At no time is it boring.

A Definitive Rejection Of Bill C-51

It is only human nature, I suppose, that when crisis strikes, our immediate reaction is that we would do almost anything to protect ourselves and our loved ones. When Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measure Act in 1970 as a response to the FLQ crisis, the vast majority went along with the measure, I suspect, for that reason.

The world we live in today is vastly different. Thanks to grisly images on the Internet and crass manipulation by 'democratic' governments, many perceive us as being in a perpetual war that threatens all of us. A war without end. A war in which many consider the surrender of certain rights and freedoms as the cost of confronting an 'enemy' that "hates us because of our freedoms." Such jingoistic crap can be pretty compelling when the coin of the realm is fear.

Those able to achieve perspective and resist the demagoguery of their political overlords recognize that these are indeed dangerous times, the greatest peril coming not from external threats, but from those posed within in the guise of protective and proactive measures. Hence Bill C-51.

Two individuals able to see through the fog of hysteria perpetrated by the ruling class are Ed Boadbent, the former leader of the federal NDP, and Roy Romanow, the former premier of Saskatchewan who also served as a member of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee.

A joint essay in The Globe and Mail makes clear their adamant opposition to Stephen Harper's latest legislative initiative to promote conformist thinking and quell dissent within our country. They call for its immediate withdrawal:

Terrorism is designed to provoke governments into making damaging mistakes. It is conducted through brutality and rooted in the belief that killing ordinary citizens will cause nations to abandon their most basic commitments.

Terrorism demands a sustained and effective response. Resources must be allocated to enable police and intelligence agencies to find its perpetrators and to discover potential terrorists. Those who are guilty of offences must then be brought to justice.

Canada already has mechanisms, practices and laws necessary for dealing with terrorism. These include surveillance, immigration controls, preventative detention and incarceration for criminal activity.

The authors cite a lack of resources and funding for our police and security forces as the real problem, but that, of course, is not something that galvanizes people or gives Mr. Harper the political wedge he is always seeking.

The bill attacks the civil rights of all Canadians, and places the protections guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the shadow of wider powers to interfere with lawful and legitimate conduct.

The general tenor of the bill is to expand the definition of threats to national security and add to the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Any interference with financial or economic stability could now be considered to violate national security. Such activities are a daily occurrence and in truth could include just about anything.

Who potentially, could now be considered fair targets under this legislation?

Any interference with financial or economic stability could now be considered to violate national security. Such activities are a daily occurrence and in truth could include just about anything.

Other new national security offences include influencing any government in Canada by unlawful means or “interfering with infrastructure.” Neither of these is a rare practice. Neither is necessarily connected to terrorism.

And now persons can be held in custody as a preventative matter if officers believe that a terrorist activity “may” occur. This makes detention a matter for the purely subjective views of security officials.

One cannot help but remember Joe Oliver's chilling references to "environmentalists and other radical groups".

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that there really is no informed debate being conducted on this bill. One hopes that the efforts of people like Broadbent and Romanow will change that.

He Can Talk The Talk

But his sandal-clad feet cannot walk the walk.


After the disastrous tenure of Paul Wells as national political affairs commentator, it was a real pleasure to see that The Toronto Star has called Tim Harper out of retirement. In his column today, Harper reminds us of some things that Justin Trudeau acolytes would prefer to ignore.

Among Trudeau's less-than-stellar achievements thus far,

Constitutional Debate, Anyone?

... this government is now facing the prospect of having a budget bill split, or stalled, in the non-elected, non-accountable Senate. It has wandered into this muck by tabling the type of omnibus budget bill it railed against in opposition when it was done by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and by appointing independent senators who have taken that label literally.

Sen. André Pratte may have been quite right in pushing to have the government’s infrastructure bank yanked out of the Liberal budget bill for separate scrutiny. And Trudeau’s point man in the Senate, Peter Harder, may have been quite right in arguing that splitting the bill would mean a spending bill would originate in the Senate — powers the upper chamber does not have.

Harper suggests as with other issues, this one will escape the public's scrutiny thanks to the impending summer recess.

But when we all return from our summer holiday, there are other issues that the public will likely notice.

The Federal Deficit

On the economy, they will see that behind what looks to be a chugging locomotive is a federal deficit that goes much beyond — almost three times beyond — the $10 billion or so Trudeau promised in 2015. It conjures memories of a mocking Harper holding his thumb and forefinger almost together and laughing at Trudeau’s plan for those “tiny” deficits.

Indigenous Issues

... the Trudeau Liberals lifted expectations sky high for historic national reconciliation with First Nations.

But they have not walked their talk on spending on health and social services for Indigenous children living on reserves. They have instead ignored a series of non-compliance orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in January 2016 that Ottawa was discriminating against the children. It is also seeking individual hearings for thousands of children taken from reserves and placed with non-Indigenous families in the so-called ’60s Scoop, despite losing a court battle over compensation.

The inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women has turned into a morass, way behind schedule, certain to miss its deadline, sure to seek more money and losing the support of frustrated family members. Thursday, it lost another key member, Tanya Kappo, one of the Idle No More founders, who resigned as a community relations manager, one more dropping shoe indicating the commission is floundering.

The Environment

...the Trudeau government is still operating under the Harper emission targets, and it faces challenges with Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord. So far, the Trudeau environmental package includes a carbon tax in return for a pipeline, and the future of that Trans Mountain pipeline is clouded by the chaotic politics of British Columbia.

I feel bitter about this government, given the fact that it rose to majority status thanks to the promise of doing things differently. Thus far, outside of a more pleasing manner, I see little to distinguish Justin Trudeau from the neoliberal policies of the Harper government.

Time for people to start paying attention again.

It's Getting Worse, Fast, and We're Not Getting Ready

"It" refers to severe storm events of the type that flooded Toronto and Calgary in 2013 and that deluged Burlington just days ago. Environment Canada's senior climatologist David Phillips warns that governments need to plan for a lot more of these wild weather events.

"These [once in] 50-year floods are occurring every 10 years, because our climate has changed," he said.

Phillips added that planning for weather based on the past 100 years "masks" recent events that have dramatically changed how much rain falls. He said in the aftermath of the Toronto floods of August 2013, a look into the last 25 years of rainfall showed that there were three 100-year storms, and six 50-year storms.

Phillips said that in the past few decades, precipitation across Canada has increased 12 per cent, and the "predictable" storms of the past, which used to sweep across southern Ontario, have transformed into "little cells that affect a neighbourhood, a small area."

"It's like these are bull's-eyes," Phillips said. "The reality is that our infrastructure is aging, it's breaking down.… We need to take into consideration the new climate," Phillips said.

Canada is burdened with federal politicians who show no interest in preparing our nation for what's already here and what is yet to come. There's not one, save for Elizabeth May, even willing to have the conversation our government needs to have with the Canadian people. When it comes to this enormous threat looming over our heads, they're a pack of shirkers and shrinkers. Whether it's the Conservatives, the Liberals or the New Democrats in power, we're on our own and good luck with that.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

A Supplement To My Previous Post

As was pointed out by a few commentators, in my previous post I seem to have been unclear in the matter of overall costs for the F-35 jets. I re-watched the interview with Laurie Hawn that I mentioned earlier. To be frank, even after a second viewing I'm not sure I completely understand what he was saying. Here's how I interpret his assertions after that second viewing:

Total Program Cost -$9 billion.
Total Units to be acquired - 65
Per Unit Acquisition Cost of the F-35 - $75 million

Using those figures for my crude calculations suggests a total alleged purchase price of under $5 billion. I therefore can only assume that when he says total program cost, he is including maintenance costs for the plane, acquisition of infrastructure to fuel the planes, since, for example, mid-flight refuelling is not possible using our current equipment, etc.

In any event, please judge for yourself. I probably should have included the link to the Hawn interview which immediately preceded the GAO interview. Nonetheless, I was struck by Hawn's insistence that each plane will only cost $75 million when there seems to be strong evidence to the contrary, as confirmed in the followup with the GAO. As well, his insistence that they will be buying the plane after initial costs come down is refuted by Sullivan. Production of the F-35s may begin by 2016, the year the Canadian Government is saying it will purchase the jets. That will, of course, also be when the plane is most expensive.

I welcome any further clarifications of this that you may be able to offer. Again, apologies for any confusion I might have created in my previous post.

To watch the Hawn interview, click here.
To watch the followup with the GAO, click here.

Putting Things Into Perspective

Many Canadians, including The Star's Heather Mallick, are under the impression that the Liberals are a truly progressive party, intent on offering all of us a better future. Indeed, in today's column, she lambastes people like Jane Philpott, wondering if she is trying to get Andrew Scheer's Conservative Party elected as our next government. Mallick is disdainful of the former cabinet minister's claim that she is acting in Canada's interests:

People in her riding are the same as other Canadian voters. They want a stable future for their children, an effort at preventing and preparing for the climate change that is about to devastate us, good jobs, equity for women, fairness for Indigenous people, and a national pharmacare plan.

A letter in today's print edition of The Star puts into a different perspective the notion that the Trudeau Liberals are making substantive efforts on the climate-change file:

Canada needs green deal to combat climate change
Toronto Star23 Mar 2019

According to UN scientists, we have just over 11 years to stave off the most devastating impacts of climate change.

A Green New Deal would create millions of jobs for Canadians. It would include: massive expansion of public transit, retrofitting of housing and rental units, and building communityowned renewable energy projects.

It is a bold and comprehensive plan to transition to 100 per cent renewable power within the decade, while also tackling social and economic inequality in the process.

The New Green Deal is far cheaper than dealing with unmitigated climate change. Global warming at or above 2 C will result in mass migrations, volatile weather patterns, increased wildfires, food and water shortages, damage to public infrastructure and severe loss of economic output for Canada.

Our community is ready for a climate plan that builds an equitable future.

Jordan Worona, Toronto

The world cries out for real leadership to mitigate the climate disaster bearing down upon us. Sadly, our current government, with its penchant for pious rhetoric and pipeline purchases, is not providing it.