Gunman wounds guard in attack on Canadian parliament

Although details are still sketchy an armed man emerged near the National War Memorial on Parliament Hill. He then shot four times wounding a guard. He then apparently was able to enter the parliament buildings.

The shooter is still said to be on the loose although one MP Bernard Trottier had tweeted that the gunman was shot and killed inside the Centre Block. The area has been sealed off by police and the guard who was shot has been taken to hospital. Police locked down parliament. Tactical Ottawa police arrived pointed guns at journalists and ordered them to the ground. Reporters were in lockdown in the foyer at the front of the House of Commons.
Stephen Harper, the prime minister, is reported safe and has left the parliament buildings. One Calgary MP Michelle Rempel tweeted to her mother that she was safe but that there were shots outside the caucus room. One body was reported visible from the Library of Parliament that is about in the middle of the Centre Block. It was not clear if the body was of the suspect or a law enforcement officer.
 This attack occurs after another incident Monday in Quebec in a hit and run event that ended up killing one soldier and injuring another. Martin Couture-Rouleah was being tracked by police as a person with potential terrorist links.The suspect was later shot and killed after a chase in which his vehicle overturned. He had deliberately run over the two soldiers and then sped away. Police had arrested Rouleau-Couture last July and confiscated his passport as he was about to leave for Turkey. He had converted to Islam about a year ago. The police did not have evidence sufficient to lay any charges at the time but he was under surveillance.
 Another report claims that two MP's said that the gunman had been killed but that this had not been confirmed. The attack came just hours after the government had raised its terror threat level from low to medium. Ottawa police tweeted: "Shots fired at War Memorial at 9:52 AM today; one person injured." However, it is clear that several shots were also fired within the parliament buildings themselves. Earlier this month Canada decided to take part in the coalition fighting against the Islamic State in Iraq.

Canadian government grants greater powers to spy agency

The Canadian Conservative government of Stephen Harper has announced that it will increase the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service(CSIS) the main spy agency in Canada.

The Minister of Public Safety Stephen Blaney said the legislation would give the CSIS more power to investigate terrorist threats outside Canada — and also to protect the identity of informants working for CSIS. Blaney referred to the advance of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq as showing the need to increase the powers of CSIS:"The events in recent months in Iraq and Syria have shown us that we cannot become complacent in the face of terrorism. Now more than ever, a motivated individual or a group of extremists with access to technology can do significant harm to Canada from thousands of miles away." Blaney claimed that the new legislation will allow CSIS to track and investigate potential terrorists when they travel outside Canada which could ultimately lead to prosecution.
Blaney claims that the government as of early 2014 the government knew of 130 individuals with connections to Canada who were suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Eighty of these suspects had already returned to Canada and were being investigated. The legislation would allow CSIS to work more closely with the Five Eyes spy group that includes Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. The legislation would allow CSIS to obtain information from the other four "eyes" on Canadians suspected of fighting with terrorist groups abroad. In turn CSIS could provide other members with information on their citizens in Canada.
The FIve Eyes(FVEY) is described by whistleblower and former US National Security Agency contractor as a "supra-national intelligence organisation that does not answer to the laws of its own countries." : Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been intentionally spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on spying. The new Canadian legislation will make legal what CSIS had been doing all along even though it was against the law. CSIS has been subject to a number of criticisms. The Maher Arar report criticised CSIS for not sufficiently subjecting material obtained through torture to critical analysis. A CSIS mole infiltrated a Canadian white supremacist movement from 1988 to 1994 the Heritage Front. Not only was the mole, Grant Bristow, one of the founders of the group, but he ensured that CSIS funds came to the group.
The new CSIS headquarters in Ottawa will be the most expensive government building ever built in Canada. As an October 2013 CBC article noted: While the Harper government is preaching government austerity, it is spending almost $1.2 billion on a new Ottawa headquarters for a little-known military spy agency. The expenditure shows the priority that the government gives to its spy agency.
Two lawyers with a great deal of experience defending clients involving security told the CBC that the blanket protection given to protect sources might cause court proceedings to be unfair to those accused. Lawyer Norm Boxal, who represents an Algerian refugee in a security case, said: "These types of privileges can have far-reaching effects, and can close off information in cases where it would be important to have.There is no problem to have a secret source — that can be done all the time, and within the existing law. The problem is when you have secret information and you choose to act on it, and that's the difference. If they want to use the secret information to enforce things — [for] deportation, or in criminal trials — they should have to produce the source." Paul Copeland, a Toronto lawyer agreed that giving class privilege to intelligence informants would be "highly dangerous" and claimed that the only way to test evidence was to be able to cross-examine on it.
 Steve Hewitt, a senior lecturer in Canadian and American Studies at the University of Birmingham notes that in passing this legislation Canada is following the UK model rather than that of the US where informants are often brought into court in terrorism cases and subject to rigorous cross-examination. He notes that some informants act out of self-interest and for money. Failing to provide a fair trial for suspected terrorists is not likely to hurt the Harper government politically. The appended video shows the type of overseer Stephen Harper appointed for the CSIS.

Canada-Europe free trade deal is about expanding corporate power and shrinking democratic control

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is busy promoting CETA, the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement while on his travels in Europe. Critics claim that the agreement is less about free trade and more about extending the power of huge global corporations.

The deal has been criticized ever since negotiations began. Among the claims of critics is that the deal could add up to $3 billion to the price of Canadian drugs by extending patent lengths. It could also restrict the manner in which local governments are able to spend money and also ban any buy local policies. The Wall Street Journal reports that Canadian negotiators have agreed that their will be no investment review on any European firm's takeover or investment in a Canadian firm unless it is over $1.5 billion. Currently any deal over $330 million is subject to review. The higher amount would be phased in over several years. As it liberalizes the rules for giant global European based corporations Canada has at the same time increased the scrutiny of international state-owned enterprises. The rules are for the interest of global capital not enterprises that might further the interests and agenda of a particular country. This is seen by the fact that much of the deal has to do with copyright and ensuring that both sides enforce intellectual property laws. As an article in Wikipedia puts it: Part of the Agreement is stricter enforcement of intellectual property, including liability for Internet Service Providers, a ban on technologies that can be used to circumvent copyright, and other provisions similar to controversial ACTA, DMCA, PIPA, and SOPA..., Electronic Frontier Foundation stated that this "trade agreement replicates ACTA's notorious copyright provisions". Americans should take notice since a similar deal is planned between the US and Europe. CETA would ban both 'buy local' or even "buy Canadian policies. In March of this year a UN report on poverty in Canada suggested that poverty reduction measures could be "undermined by the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, currently in draft form, which would prohibit municipal governments from using procurement of goods and services valued over $340,000 in a way that favours local or Canadian goods, services or labour." Several municipalities from Nanaimo in BC to Toronto in Ontario have requested they be excluded from CETA provisions. The agreement would set up an investor-state dispute settlement process that could stymie attempts to legislate environmental protections or other measures that were regarded as interference in trade. Some Canadian banking regulations could be challenged by European banks. Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister said that although there difficulties within the negotiating process: ".. both of our countries look to considerable gains from an eventual agreement, and we will continue to work with that objective in mind." Canadian Trade Minister Ed Fast claims that the deal could boost the Canadian economy by $12 billion a year and create 80,000 jobs. A joint study by Canada and Europe in 2008 shows that Europe would benefit even more. The negative effects pointed out by critics are conveniently left out of the picture. Global capital is busy promoting other "free trade" deals as well including the TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership. The article on the TTP notes:Anti-globalization advocates accuse the TPP of going far beyond the realm of tariff reduction and trade promotion, granting unprecedented power to corporations and infringing upon consumer, labour, and environmental interests.[56][57] One widely republished article claims the TPP is "a wish list of the 1%" and that "of the 26 chapters under negotiation, only a few have to do directly with trade. The other chapters enshrine new rights and privileges for major corporations while weakening the power of nation states to oppose them."[57] As with CETA negotiations they take place behind closed doors and terms being negotiated are often known only through leaks.

Republicans should flee the U.S. to Canada

Writing in Foreign Policy, Naheed Mustafa, invites disgruntled Republicans, Real Americans as he calls them, to come to Canada. Mustfa lists the reasons why Canada would be an appropriate refuge for those fleeing another Obama term in the U.S.

Mustafa understands that losing one's traditional power is scary and losing to a "coalition of minorities" is scary, even though he personally sees the key difference between Democrats and Republicans as being public relations.

As a Canadian, he feels it is his duty to help. Canadians are, Mustafa claims, just like that. His solution is for disgruntled, fearful Republicans to flee to the Great White North. As you can see from the enclosed video, the flight phenomenon also took place when Obama first won. Mustafa realized that Canada at first blush seems the last place to flee. Honduras with its right wing ruling class opposed to reforms would seem more natural and Real Americans would be protected by U.S. marines based near the capital. However, Real Americans would probably not want to learn Spanish.

Canada has universal single-payer health care, and a small military. However, Mustafa could point out that, just as in the U.S., we are scheduled to pay inflated prices for U.S. F35 fighter planes. However, Mustafa points out that there are numerous features of Canada that should make the Republican Real Americans feel at home.

We have Hollywood North in Toronto. Although it is far from being like Hollywood, at least a lot of movies are made there. Toronto has led a double life as both New York and Chicago in movies.

We also have the University of Toronto or Harvard North. It is far cheaper than Harvard South. When film makers want to make a film featuring Harvard South or MIT but cannot get permission or cannot afford it, they come to Harvard North. Canada even used to have a Guantanamo North but it attracted little attention and was quietly closed at the end of 2011. Our Conservative prime minister had no problem closing Kingston Immigration Holding Centre and Real Americans should be happy because this was a conservative saving money. When Real Americans come to Canada they need to lean how to spell certain words such as "centre" and "defence". But where should Real Americans settle in Canada?

Toronto is a world class city but Mustafa notes that there are quite a few gays in Toronto, so that may be a problem. Perhaps another problem is that Toronto has now a majority of minorities! Montreal is a thriving city too but it is in Quebec. No doubt Real Americans might be a bit put off by all that French in their ears. The best place for Real Americans claims Mustafa is the province of Alberta.

Alberta, is Texas North, replete with oil and ranchers. Alberta has its own Calgary Stampede, with cowboy hats and chuck wagon races. Big Oil has a huge influence on politics. Conservative politics loom large in Alberta. In a recent provincial election, the big battle was between two conservative parties. Mustafa does note that the mayor of Calgary is Muslim but that is just the exception proving the rule. The premier happens to be a woman too.

Canada like Real Americans hates Iran and loves Israel. Here are three quotes from our Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Each quote provides good reason for Real Americans to come here where we have a prime minister they could surely admire.

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status ..."

"[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."

"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"

Stephen Harper in India with two of our own armoured vehicles

Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, shipped two armoured cars to India for the use of himself and his entourage, including an armoured Cadillac.

While visiting the city of Agra, Harper was driven around in a black Sport Utility Vehicle with Ontario licence plates. No doubt this would be a novelty in India! When he arrived in New Delhi, he was transferred to a black armoured Cadillac sedan.

When reporters asked about the reason for shipping these armoured vehicles to India for the visit, the Prime Minister's Office referred them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Spokesperson, Cpl. Lucy Shorey responded with a statement:

"The deployment of RCMP resources are dictated by operational requirements, including public and officer safety considerations, and a threat assessment of the events/environments.For security reasons, details on the security plans will not be discussed."

The prime minister has also used his own vehicles in visits to Haiti and Afghanistan. However, in a recent trip to Kinshasa in the Congo he was seen being driven around in a Toyota Forerunner that did not seem to be from Canada. Ordinarily, on his Indian visit, he would be driven around in a Hindustan Motors Ambassador. Probably the government provided transportation would be free, but traveling in imported armoured cars no doubt will cost the Canadian taxpayer a pretty penny.

Perhaps Harper is trying to keep up with the U.S. president. Barack Obama flies in his own armoured vehicles when he goes on foreign trips. He used them even when he visited Canada back in 2009.

Andrew MacDougall, spokesperson for the prime minister, said that the total price for these security measures will be disclosed once it is known. He said:

"I don't have the costs in front of me. We won't know that for a while."

Security for Harper was tightened even during trick or treating . Children had to pass through metal detectors and leave their plastic swords etc. at the checkpoint at the end of the drive before getting their goodies at the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa.

While in India, Harper at a business round-table in New Delhi, touted 14 new trade and investment agreements which he claimed "demonstrate the increasing depth of the Canada-India relationship." International Trade Minister Ed Fast said that $2.5 billion in new business deals with India are planned although some are still in the form of memoranda of understanding. Harper has been trying to diversity Canadian exports so as to take advantage of developing Asian markets. He has also encouraged Asian capital to invest in Canada.

Former Canadian Ambassador to Iran criticizes breaking of diplomatic relations

John Mundy former Canadian ambassador to Iran said that breaking off relations with Iran is a strategic mistake at a time when the international community needs to know what is going on in the country.

John Mundy is a retired Canadia diplomat who was sent as ambassador to Iran in 2007. He wonders why Canada is cutting ties to Iran when the international community needs more not less information about what is going on. Of course the ambassador does not mention that the closing of the embassy will make it difficult for Iranians in Canada to make arrangements to return to Iran or for Iranians to come to Canada. The Canadian role in Iran is no doubt to spy as we have done previously.

Consider this report from the Globe and Mail:

Ken Taylor, the Canadian diplomat celebrated 30 years ago for hiding U.S. embassy personnel during the Iranian revolution, actively spied for the Americans and helped them plan an armed incursion into the country.

Mundy also points out that closing the embassy also will make it difficult for Canada to play any role as an international player in any negotiated deal to prevent Iran from making and deploying nuclear weapons. Mundy, who is a visiting associate at the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa, said:

“It’s a grave step and it can’t easily be reversed...I know from experience it’s very, very tough to understand what’s going on in the country.”

Mundy suggested that Prime Minister Harper might be preparing Canadians to support a military strike against Iran. Mundy had written earlier:

“This is the first time in decades that a Canadian prime minister, Liberal or Conservative, appears to be advocating approaches that reduce diplomatic opportunities for peace during an international crisis,”

Canada has obviously given up any possible role as mediator in a negotiated and peaceful resolution. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird referred to the security of Canadian diplomats as a reason for closing the embassy now. But why now and not earlier? Is this a sign that there is to be an imminent attack by Israel.?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has praised the Canadian decision. Mundy hoped that there would be a debate in the house about Canadian foreign policy towards Iran. While that is a good idea, it is unlikely to change the Conservative government's love affair with Israel. Harper has repeated the sort of alarmist rhetoric that Israel also uses in describing Iran. In aninterview with the CBC Harper said:

“I’ve watched and listened to what the leadership in the Iranian regime says, and it frightens me...In my judgment, these are people who have a fanatically religious worldview..Their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes.”

Of course Harper sees nothing amiss with Israel having nuclear weapons or attacking Iran or assassinating its nuclear scientists, or infecting centrifuges with viruses.This is all legitimate pre-emptive self-defense. If Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel it would be wiped off the map. I doubt that Iran is interested in mass martyrdom.

Chinese giant CNOOC pays over 15 billion U.S. for Nexen

Calgary based oil producer Nexen approved a takeover bid of $15.1 billion U.S. by Chinese state-owned oil producer CNOOC Ltd. The price per share would be $27.50 a full two thirds higher than the average price over the last twenty days. Nexen is the 12th largest energy producer in Canada with an output of about 213,000 a barrel oil equivalent per day. Nevertheless the company has not been doing that well of late. 

The company has a global presence. North Sea production has just been hit by a new UK tax. Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was delayed by the huge BP oil leak. It was also forced to abandon a project in Yemen. Even in Canada at Long Lake planned output has not been reached. In the second quarter net income for Nexen fell to only $109 million, a decline larger than analysts predicted. The company earned just 20 cents a share in the second quarter down form a year earlier. Never mind the gloom, China needs oil and is willing to pay a premium price to guarantee a secure source of supplies.

 The troubled Long Lake project provided China the first stage of the later bid. Back in November of last year CNOOC bought OPTI Canada Inc. a company that held a 35 per cent stake in the Long Lake project. CNOOC has already spent 2.8 billion in Canada. China has been moving cautiously with takeovers after a failed takeover bid for UNOCAL corporation in 2005. No doubt there will be considerable debate about the Nexen takeover. The deal will have to pass through a process of evaluation under Canadian foreign ownership rules

  CNOOC said it would retain the existing staff and management and also make Calgary the headquarters for North and Central American operations. The company also promised it would list shares on the TSX and fund oll sands research at Canadian universities. All of these moves may help the company gain approval for the takeover. Already a number of Asian companies have invested in Canadian energy projects. Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. earlier this year sold a 40 per cent interest in two projects to PetroChina Co. Last fall Sinopec bought Daylight Energy Ltd. for a price tag of $2.2 billion U.S. The giant Malaysian firm Petronas bought Progress Energy Resources for $5.5 billion in June of this year.

The Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is very much pro-business. Harper has often been a critic of China but of late he seems to be interested in tapping into Asian markets and pools of Asian capital to help develop Canadian resources. Canada has traditionally been a supplier first and foremost for the U.S. market. NAFTA cemented this relationship. However Harper seems to have realized that diversifying markets and sources of investment would be beneficial for Canada. The Nexen deal will be a test of these policies. 

The Nexen takeover must be approved by two thirds of shareholders. It is subject to an almost half a million dollar break fee. Not all foreign takeovers are approved. When BHP Billiton of Australia tried a hostile takeover of Saskatchewan-based Potash Corp the deal was eventually blocked by considerable resistance from Potash management and the Saskatchewan premier. Some corporations are supposedly strategic assets for Canada. Perhaps Nexen will be another strategic asset although the government has not yet defined what the term means.

 Harper is likely to receive the most pressure to block the bid from the U.S. The U.S. will not look kindly on its Asian competitor securing supplies of scarce resources from its northern neighbor. The question is whether business prevails over politics or perhaps whose business interests prevail. For more see this article..

Canada: Nude portrait of Prime Minister creates a stir.

n Kingston Ontario a nude painting of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was submitted by Kingston artist Margaret Sutherland to the Arts Council's Annual Juried Art Salon.

The painting is titled "Emperor Haute Couture" . Its on display in a Kingston Public Library. I presume that the entrance to the library has some suitable warning about this library contains adult content etc..However the library decided that the painting would be removed when children's events are held in the room where the painting is displayed. The artist objected to this so a compromise was reached. The nude is now covered with a cloth making it opaque to the naked eye when children are present.

The painting is a political satire and is a takeoff on an 1863 painting by Manet called Olympia.which features a Venus like nude attended to by a slave. In the Sutherland painting the nude Harper is attended to by a headless woman in a power suit who gives him a Tim Hortons coffee on a silver plate. There is a dog in the painting.

The prime minister's office issued a release pointing out that everyone knows that the prime minister is a cat person. An opposition member said that this was one time when he was in favor of a Conservative coverup. For more see this article and here in the local paper.

UPDATE: You are too late the painting has been sold for 5,000 dollars. The buyer's identity has not been revealed. Probably a good investment.

U.S. and Canada only countries in favor of excluding Cuba from Summit of Americas

Canada and the U.S. stand alone on the issue of excluding Cuba from the Summit of the Americas and the two united also against decriminalizing drugs. The host country and a U.S. ally Colombia spoke out against excluding Cuba. President Juan Santos said that holding another meeting while excluding Cuba would be unacceptable.

Canada and its faithful ally Canada were the only two countries not to lobby for including Cuba. Interesting that a die hard conservative Stephen Harper and liberal Barack Obama see eye to eye on the matter. At one time Canada developed relations with Cuba in spite of U.S. objections. Even now we do not have travel or trade restrictions as does the U.S. Sherrit Gordon mines has extensive investments in Cuba.

Santos said: "The isolation, the embargo, the indifference, the looking the other way don't work," . "It's an anachronism that keeps us anchored in a Cold War era that was overcome decades ago." No doubt the U.S. position has to do with internal politics and expatriate Cuban voters.Canada's position is probably a function of Harper's wanting to curry favor with the U.S.

President Santos also wanted to have a debate on decriminalizing drugs. Stephen Harper said that he would not entertain any policy changes that would decriminalize drugs. In Canada Harper has consistently opposed even harm reduction strategies such as safe injection sites. Obama also claimed that legalization was not the answer. This liberal president again follows the same policies as our reactionary Canadian prime minister.

Harper waas mainly trying to sell Canada as a good source of natural resources for Latin America's growing economies. He stressed the fact that he has streamlined environmental regulations to make it easier and quicker for projects to be approved.

Of course Harper spins his "reforms" positively:"We cannot allow valid concerns about environmental protection to be used as an excuse to trap worthwhile projects in reviews without end," He also noted that Canadian banks were among the strongest in the world.

Meanwhile Latin American leaders have founded their own group that excludes Canada and the U.S. The group is called the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states. No doubt this will be a competitor to the Summit of the Americas In fact a number of nations have said that they will not even come to the next meeting of the Summit of the Americas if Cuba is still excluded. For more see this article.

Fidel Castro: "Stephen Harper's Ilusions"

Fidel Castro and Jimmy Carter at funeral of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau

A CBC report here by David Common comments on Fidel Castro.s recent remarks called ""Stephen Harper's Illusions". Common trying to be fair and balanced calls the remarks a rant. While it is true that it is rambling and sometimes polemical the meaning of most of it is not difficult to grasp. The parts critical of the environmental records of Canadian companies in South America are certainly not off base.

There is a video interview with John Kirk a professor of Latin American Studies at Dalhousie which is far more balanced and informative than Common's commentary. Among the comments on the Common's piece is this:"Did anybody actually read Castro's writing? Whether you agree with it or not, what Castro was getting at is really simple to understand." This commentator gives a link to Castro's actual remarks translated into English. You can read for yourself.

David Common finds Castro's ending bewildering and apparently not connected to anything. Here is a quote from Common's article.

""The topic, it seems, is the upcoming Summit of the Americas that Cuba has evidently not been invited to.

"Who could hold back from laughing?" Castro poses, "We must hurry up and tell Harper."

Tell him what exactly? ""

Apparently the meaning of the rambling old man escapes Common who surely must have all his faculties but somehow misses what Castro implies in his ending. Harper has the illusion that he is accepted as an equal by the U.S. But when push comes to shove and Canada is no longer of use to the U.S. or goes against U.S. policy--not a likely scenario under Harper-- he will find out he is not. No doubt the U.S. president could wear a beaver skin hat made in Canada to the summit of the Americas but Harper would not be invited to the meeting. Here is what Castro said on the issue. This puts the ending with reference to Harper in the context necessary to understand what it implies.

"""The guayabera shirts to be worn by Obama in Cartagena has become one of the main issues covered by the news agencies: "Edgar Gomez [...] has designed one for the U.S. President, Barack Obama, who will be wearing it during the Summit of the Americas," said the daughter of the designer, who added: "It is a white, sober guayabera, with a handiwork that is more striking that usual..."

Immediately after that, the news agency added that the Caribbean shirt was first made by the banks of the Yayabo River in Cuba; that is why they were originally called yayaberas.

The curious thing about this, dear readers, is that Cuba has been forbidden to attend that meeting, but not the guayaberas. Who could hold back from laughing? We must hurry up and tell Harper. ""

 Actually there are many views as to where these shirts originated. Some say the Philippines, others Mexico, others still Spain. At any rate they are quite popular in those countries as well as Cuba. See this wikipedia entry. Certainly Castro has to tell us a story to together with his message but it is hardly that opaque and it fits in quite well with the title Stephen Harper's Illusions.

Prime minister Harper and Jean Charest still battle on behalf of asbestos industry

Even though there is plenty of evidence of the health risks of asbestos our Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest have been trying to have two Quebec mines reopen to export even more of the material to countries such as India and Indonesia.In those countries working with the asbestos often brings misery or even death to poor workers. The asbestos is a known cause of a type of lung cancer.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has supported the industry and in particular Christian Paradis a Conservative MP who represents a riding that contains Canada's last two remaining asbestos mines. The mines are both closed at present. Paradis wants them re-opened.
Paradis dismisses the evidence of international health experts on the matter. Many Canadian miners suffered from ailments caused by contact with asbestos and many died as a result. To show his support for Paradis Harper promoted him to Industry Minister.
The Liberal provincial government of Jean Charest went even further and approved a 58 million dollar loan to help open the mines if another 25 million will be put up by private investors. In spite of optimistic announcements that the money is forthcoming the negative reaction to the idea of reopening the mines may have frightened investors away.
The health agencies in Quebec, the national Canadian Labour Congress, the CNTU all oppose opening the mines. The Quebec Federation of Labour supports the re-opening although many of its individual unions have opposed this For much more see this Globe and Mail article.

Canada signs multiple trade deals with China

  Given the large number of high profile business representatives who accompanied Stephen Harper on his visit to China the results are not surprising. This was meant to be a business trip. China needs our resources and Canadian companies are eager to expand markets especially into the rapidly growing Asian economies such as China.
      A CBC article here list ten of what it calls a blizzard of deals. However a main framework agreement is the FIPA (Foreign investment production and protection agreement). The agreement is simply a statement of intent and would need to be ratified by both governments. The agreement when completed will protect Canadian investments in China and Chinese investments in Canada. The agreement will give investors in either country confidence that their investments will be safe in the other country. Such agreements are common. Canada has such agreements with 24 other countries already.
    As well as this overarching agreement there were many agreements in specific areas. I will just mention a few. In agriculture there are agreements to restore Canada as an exporter of beef to China. Also, industrial beef tallow (fat) will now be allowed in. Until now Canada was excluded. China imports about 400 million in tallow each year. China has agreed to purchase more Canadian canola.
    There is agreement as well for collaboration between the two countries on sustainable research. Another welcome move is to collaborate on research to develop and protect National Parks with China's state forestry administration. For much more detail see the entire article. Of course China is very much interested in investing in Canadian resource industries such as the oil sector.
   

Brian Stewart on American prison nation

    Brian Stewart is a Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. Stewart has a long history as a senior reporter covering conflicts around the globe for about four decades now. In a recent CBC article he discusses the high rates of incarceration in the U.S. Finally, he notes that the Canadian government with a Conservative majority under Stephen Harper is following a similar path.
     Stewart calls the mass incarceration of millions of Americans one of the greatest scandals of our times. Yet little attention seems to be paid to it. The deficit and jobs are major domestic problems in the U.S. but the fact that the U.S. jails people at a rate seven times that of other developed nations seems neither here nor there.
     The U.S. with less than five per cent of the global population has 23 per cent of the prison population. At present 2,284,000 Americans are in prison with millions more under correctional supervision. Ron Paul with his campaign that would decriminalize recreational drug use is one of the few candidates to give even much thought to the problem.
     While Newt Gingrich has in the past advocated prison reform he has been notably silent on prison issues during debates. A common problem about even talking about reform for any politician is that they will depicted as soft on crime. Many fear this label could lose them support.
    In Canada the conservative government of Stephen Harper seems to be following in the U.S. path by building more prisons,  increasing penalties, and jailing more people. This is happening even as crime rates have been in decline. Some in the U.S. claim that declining crime rates there are a result of harsher penalties and more imprisonment. However as Stewart points out the declines are similar in both states with harsh criminal laws and those with less harsh laws.  In fact many studies suggest that crime rates depend much more on other factors than the severity of punishment whether harsh or relatively mild.
  Often rates of certain crimes can be altered by methods that have nothing to do with punishment. For example decriminalization of marijuana use and possession would eliminate one whole class of crimes. The Manitoba Public Insurance Co  has mandated anti-theft devices for many vehicles that have lowered the rate of auto theft substantially in Manitoba.The company pays for the devices since they save far more money than it costs to install the devices.  The devices make stealing the vehicle exceedingly difficult and this results in far fewer thefts For much more see the entire article here.
   

Kyoto framework still best

The Canadian Prime minister, Stephen Harper, has allied himself more closely with the US on many issues than the former Liberal Government. Anderson was in the former government. Although the government signed on to Kyoto it did little and in fact emissions grew. So the former govt. took the moral high ground and then in practice made the environment worse. Stephen Harper blows hot air at very high temperatures and his idea of fairness is to not do anything as long as developing countries such as China and India do not sign on to targets even though as the article points out they certainly have quite legitimate complaints and suspicions about the US and Canada idea of fairness.

Kyoto framework is still best hope for the world

Nov 30, 2007 04:30 AM
David Anderson

The major objective of President George Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Bali Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that begins Monday is to replace the emission reduction Kyoto targets for the developed countries with an agreement that also includes targets for the developing countries.

Unfortunately, by abandoning the Kyoto approach of starting global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with the developed industrial nations, Bush and Harper make the chances of getting the developing countries to accept emission reduction targets less likely, not more so.

The starting point for the developing countries is their firm and correct understanding that the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past two centuries overwhelmingly has been caused by the use of fossil fuels in the developed countries of the world.

The global warming problem thus is a problem created by those developed countries, not by them. This belief then leads to the not unreasonable conclusion that if the atmosphere now has a dangerous level of greenhouse gases, then those responsible for those emissions should be the first to step up to the plate and do something about it.

The position of Bush and Harper, by contrast, is not based on that increase in the contamination level of the past two centuries, but rather on the emissions currently occurring. It is not a two-century buildup of the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that they focus on; instead, they talk of the current rate of flow of contaminants into the atmosphere. Thus, the responsibility of the developed nations for the acute nature of the current problem is not, in their view, relevant to the current question of reducing emission levels today.

We have a dialogue of the deaf. Canada and the U.S. are talking of current flows of greenhouse gas emissions, while the developing countries are talking of accumulated stocks of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as each ignores the argument of the other, the likelihood of agreement is nil. One is talking of the contaminated pond, the other of the contaminating stream.

The Kyoto process bridged this gap by introducing a staged approach to emission reductions. The developed countries that ratified (essentially the European Union countries, Japan and Canada under the Chrétien government) agreed that the developed nations of the world should be the first to implement serious reductions. Then, after their good faith in dealing with a problem that they were responsible for had been demonstrated through significant reductions in emissions, discussions would take place on emission reduction programs for developing countries as well.

The key was overcoming the suspicion of developing countries that international greenhouse gas emission reduction programs would be used to hamper the development of their economies and their efforts to provide a better life for their citizens.

An important component of the developing countries' argument was the issue of international fairness. The atmosphere surrounding our world is equally necessary to the survival of each and every one of us. Therefore, fairness dictates that we each have an equal share of this common resource. Why then, they ask, are the per capita emissions of the developed countries so flagrantly in excess of the global averages and why are the developed countries not reducing their per capita emissions to that global average?

The question of equal share of the common global resource was sidelined by the agreement of the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, as the reduction targets they accepted implicitly recognized the validity of the fairness claim of the developing countries.

Without Kyoto, this fairness or moral question will come once more to the fore. Indeed, the failure to achieve the Kyoto emission reduction targets that we in the developed world committed ourselves to 10 years ago will increase the suspicion of the developing countries that emission targets are not in their interests, and make this issue even more difficult to handle than ever.

The Kyoto Protocol was the result of extremely difficult negotiations, took a very long time, was a compromise, and is by no means perfect. Unfortunately, it was and still is the best the international community, working together, has been able to come up with.

The central problem with Harper's and Bush's proposed changes for a system with emission targets for all countries is that if they return to that starting point and ignore the difficult factors that Kyoto took into account through so many painstaking compromises, they will likely achieve far less in Bali than was achieved at Kyoto. The Kyoto approach, imperfect though it may be, is still the world's best hope.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Anderson is director of the Guelph Institute of the Environment at the University of Guelph. He served from 1999 to 2004 as the federal minister responsible for the climate change file, and during that time represented Canada at the international meetings on climate change.

Bush and Harper on Missile Defence in Eastern Europe

This article is by James Laxer
I wonder if anyone really believes that this defence system is directed against Iran and North Korea! Does Bush really think of the consequences of his actions ever! He really doesn't seem to care if he restarts a global arms race. I guess he thinks that the US must win!

Dumb and Dumber: Bush and Harper on Missile Defence in Eastern Europe

Why has the Bush administration decided to provoke Russia by announcing that the United States will install a part of its anti-ballistic missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland?

One could imagine that such a strategically important move was the outgrowth of penetrating thinking in the White House and the Pentagon. But, it is no such thing. It’s just plain dumb.

First, some background on anti-ballistic missiles.

To many, the idea of an anti-ballistic missile system may sound benign. After all, it’s a defensive weapon, whose only capability is to intercept incoming missiles.

In reality, defensive weapons have offensive implications. The distinction between them is a phony one. That is because the deployment of a defensive weapon that negates a potential foe’s offensive weapons, upsets the military balance and can trigger an arms race. What the Bush administration has in mind with missile defence is precisely to change the military balance in its favour.The Bush administration believes that if the United States is successful in developing and deploying a system that can reliably shoot down approaching enemy missiles, it will protect the U.S. from attack. But it will do much more than that. A workable missile shield would liberate the United States to do what no power has been willing to do since the last days of the Second World War---use nuclear weapons as a viable policy in certain extreme circumstances.In March 2002, the details of a secret Pentagon report were revealed on the front page of the New York Times. In its Nuclear Posture Review, the Pentagon pointed to the need to produce new nuclear weapons with a lower yield than strategic nuclear weapons, weapons that would produce less radioactive fallout. The Review spelled out the possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States against non-nuclear powers, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya, all of them signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What made this so shocking is that the Review countenanced an explicit violation of the treaty, which was signed by 182 countries, including Canada.In 1978, to give nations an incentive to sign the non-proliferation treaty, the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain formally pledged never to launch a nuclear attack on signatories to the treaty, except in a case where a non-nuclear state attacked a nuclear state in tandem with another nuclear state. Again in 1995, France and China joined these three states (with Russia in place of the Soviet Union) in reiterating this pledge. As former U.S. Defence Secretary Robert McNamara and Thomas Graham Jr. wrote in a newspaper column "the Pentagon plan undermines the credibility of that pledge, which underpins the Nonproliferation Treaty. To strike directly at this pledge of nonuse is to strike at the treaty itself." "If another country were planning to develop a new nuclear weapon," said the New York Times in an editorial "and contemplating preemptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state."To develop new nuclear weapons that can be used with impunity behind the protection of the missile shield is the reason the Bush administration opposes the U.S. signing on to the nuclear test ban treaty. Make no mistake about it----the deployment of a missile defence system is being done largely for offensive, not defensive, reasons.

Flash forward to the U.S. plan to deploy anti-ballistic missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland. (Mind you these anti-missile missiles don't even work yet.)

Such a move can only be interpreted as an aggressive act against Russia. To set up weapon systems on Russia’s doorstep whose only conceivable use is to degrade the value of the Russian nuclear capability as against that of the U.S. is the kind of act that would prompt a rebuke from any Russian government. Now we have Putin saying he will deploy Russian missiles to target European cities. Technically, that doesn’t mean much since they can target European cities already, but the political signal to Europeans is not one they want from a nuclear power on whom they depend for so much of their oil and natural gas.

What makes this even weirder is that Bush claims these anti-missile missiles are meant to protect against Iranian and Korean nukes. That you would put a missile shield in eastern Europe to protect against Pyonyang’s nukes doesn’t even pass the laugh test. And to use Iran as your rationale is just as peculiar. Everyone agrees that Teheran is at least a few years away from having a nuclear bomb let alone one it can mount on a missile. To prevent Iran from proceding to develop nuclear weapons, the U.S. needs the cooperation and collaboration of Russia. An angry Kremlin is highly unlikely to put pressure on Iran to help the Bush administration out of a jam in the Middle East.

I can only conclude that having overstretched its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps on the verge of attacking Iran, the U.S. has decided to pick an entirely unnecessary fight with the Russians. How would Bush like it if some nuclear power set up a missile shield somewhere in Latin America, in Venezuela for instance?

And then there’s Stephen Harper.

This guy goes to Paris and makes a comment siding with Bush on the anti-missile deployment in the Czech Republic and Poland. I used to think Harper had brains. But here he’s playing “dumber” to Bush’s “dumb”. As the leader of a middle power, the prime minister of Canada is not required to support Washington on this kind of thing. What Harper did will not even be reported by the U.S. media. But it will make the Putin government mad at Canada. Surely, our role ought to be to encourage the nuclear powers to cool their behaviour and their rhetoric, not to further enflame the situation.

I guess Harper’s reflexive pro-Americanism kicks in before his cortex even gets hold of what’s at stake.

Offical news release and apology by Canada to Maher Arar

This is an offical government news release. Straight from the horse's mouth or perhaps the donkey's ass.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper today released the letter of apology he has sent to Maher Arar and his family for any role Canadian officials may have played in what happened to Mr. Arar, Monia Mazigh and their family in 2002 and 2003.

"Although the events leading up to this terrible ordeal happened under the previous government, our Government will do everything in its power to ensure that the issues raised by Commissioner O'Connor are addressed," said the Prime Minister. "I sincerely hope that these actions will help Mr. Arar and his family begin a new and hopeful chapter in their lives."

Canada's New Government has accepted all 23 recommendations made in Commissioner O'Connor's first report, and has already begun acting upon them. The Government has sent letters to both the Syrian and the U.S. governments formally objecting to the treatment of Mr. Arar. Ministers Day and MacKay have also expressed Canada's concerns on this important issue to their American counterparts. Finally, Canada has removed Mr. Arar from Canadian lookout lists, and requested that the United States amend its own records accordingly.

The Prime Minister also announced that Canada's New Government has successfully completed the mediation process with Mr. Arar, fulfilling another one of Commissioner O'Connor's recommendations. This settlement, mutually agreed upon by all parties, ensures that Mr. Arar and his family will obtain fair compensation, in the amount of $10.5 million, plus legal costs, for the ordeal they have suffered.

The text of the Prime Minister's letter to Maher Arar is attached.

* * * *

Dear Mr. Arar:

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to apologize to you, Monia Mazigh and your family for any role Canadian officials may have played in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in 2002 and 2003.

Although these events occurred under the last government, please rest assured that this government will do everything in its power to ensure that the issues raised by Commissioner O'Connor are addressed.

I trust that, having arrived at a negotiated settlement, we have ensured that fair compensation will be paid to you and your family. I sincerely hope that these words and actions will assist you and your family in your efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in your lives.

Yours sincerely,

Harper apologizes to Arar--and his family

I just finished watching Harper on CBC TV. Much as I am opposed to many of his policies I must admit that I thought he did an excellent job. He was calm but forthright in stating his opposition to the US position and backed up what Stockwell Day had said without the slightest hesitation. He defended Day's actions as an attempt to right a wrong against a Canadian citizen, a position that is eminently reasonable.


Harper apologizes to Arar
Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 12:40 PM ET
CBC News
Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a formal apology Friday to Maher Arar and his family for their suffering after Arar was detained in the U.S. and deported to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured for nearly a year.

Harper, who made the announcement in the foyer of the House of Commons in Ottawa, said the apology is an acknowledgement of the role that Canada may have played in the U.S. decision to deport Arar to Syria.

"I sincerely that these words and action will help you and family begin a new chapter in your lives," he said.

The compensation package negotiated by Arar was reported to be about $12 million, $2 million of which was intended to cover Arar's legal fees.

Harper said Canada has sent letters to U.S. and Syrian governments to object to the treatment of Arar.

Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, had originally sought $37 million in compensation and an official government apology.



Arar, who now lives in Kamloops, B.C., is in Ottawa on Friday and plans to speak to the media after Harper's announcement.

In 2002, the engineer was living in Ottawa and coming back from a vacation when he was arrested during a stopover at New York's JFK Airport. U.S. authorities deported him to Syria, where he was tortured.

Ottawa set up a judicial inquiry into the case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.

More to come