Well the S.O.B. Did it. Canada Officially Out of Kyoto

The US announced their energy strategy in 2001 which was largely developed by Vice-President Dick Cheney and the large fossil fuel and nuclear industry companies. Capitalizing on the California energy crisis, which had been brought on by the market manipulations of another close Bush crony, Enron’s Ken Lay, the US Administration called for more of everything — coal, oil, gas, nukes. The only energy item excluded was energy conservation. As Cheney said, “While conservation may be a personal virtue, it has no place in an energy strategy.” Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources at the time, Ralph Goodale, commented that conservation was an essential part of the energy planning of “any intelligent society.” Where will the US find the vast amounts of energy it demands for its massively inefficient and polluting economy? George W. Bush has stated, “We’ve got a plan to make sure that gas comes — flows freely out of Canada into the United States.” (The Energy Onslaught: The Impact of the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan on Canada’s Wilderness. the Sierra Club)

If then energy minister Ralph Goodale, was challenging Dick Cheney by promoting conservation, what was the climate change denial industry going to do?

In her book It's the Crude, Dude; Linda McQuaig discusses the debate around Kyoto. Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration of course hated it, but they also hated any talk of conservation, something Cheney sneered at.  McQuaig reveals how a Canadian anti-Kyoto group sprang up overnight, sponsored by the oil companies, to defend Dick Cheney's position. (p. 133)

Some of Ernie Eves’s top cabinet ministers partied last week with Kyoto-bashers the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, a lobby group with close ties to both Ralph Klein and the energy industry ... It took place in the Queen’s Park dining hall and was a very chummy shrimp-and-wine gathering, a chance for members of the coalition -- the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, etc -- to schmooze Tory heavies.

There were speeches by coalition organizers, and a particularly passionate Ontario energy minister, John Baird, made his anti-Kyoto rallying cry. Needless to say, the audience was very receptive. Baird’s parliamentary assistant, Scarborough MPP Steve Gilchrist*, who at one time helped block developers’ plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine, was busy propping open doors with chairs to give relief to a very hot and stuffy room. I couldn’t help remarking to him that perhaps the room was so unbearably hot because of climate change. He was not amused.

While Eves has been slightly slippery on just where he stands on Kyoto, it was interesting to learn that this meeting was organized by Guy Giorno, Mike Harris’s old chief of staff and ultimate Tory party insider. Giorno now works with National Public Relations (NPR), the coalition’s high-priced lobby firm. (Big Oil's Kyoto Party: Harris whiz kid pulls strings at wine and shrimp fete, By Josh Matlow, NOW Magazine, October 24, 2002)

A decade ago John Baird and Harper's former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, were sweating at a shrimp fete and rallying the climate change deniers.

The Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, was an AstroTurf group created by Giorno and funded by the industry that he lobbied for.

Given that we have had a decade of this nonsense, is it any surprise that Canada is backing out of Kyoto?

The only problem with the billboard at the Copenhagen climate conference, is that Stephen Harper will never, ever, ever, say he's sorry for anything.  His job is to make as much money as possible for the oil industry, and he's doing that job.

I just wish he'd do the one he was elected to do and start standing up for the people of Canada.  We already have enough black eyes, did he need to give us a bloody nose and fat lip too?

The sad thing is that in their search for "balance" the media will somehow make this a good thing, allowing the figures that Harper has pulled out of his butt, to stand as fact.  I wish they'd remember that this is their country too, not to mention their planet.

*Steve Gilchrist was the former boss of Harper MP Paul Calandra

Tony Clement and the Crime of the New Century

As Tony Clement sits in stony silence, like a petulant child, refusing to admit he was the one who stole the cookie, despite the crumbs on his face; others are having to defend the indefensible.

The 50 million dollars that was misappropriated and spent lavishly in his riding with little or no oversight.

Many of the projects were questionable, though John Baird claims to have approved everyone of them, and that everyone of them is backed up with the proper paperwork.

Nonetheless, a receipted lighthouse on a stump, is still just a lighthouse on a stump.

Not to diminish the veritable theft of taxpayers money, there is a more serious crime here that should not go unpunished.  This is the crime committed against the people of Parry Sound - Muskoka.  The ones that Tony Clement is supposed to be representing, and whose interests should be his concern.

The area's picturesque shorelines, captivating scenery and tranquil settings, provide a backdrop for one of the poorest regions in the country.

The District of Parry Sound Poverty Reduction Network, addresses issues that are in direct contrast to the extravagant lifestyles of the often  famous summer residents.

And as is often the case, in an economic downturn, those already suffering are further victimized by cuts to essential services.  Even those working full time often "cannot meet basic costs of safe shelter and healthy food".   And while housing costs in the area are comparable to many larger urban centres, the salaries are not.  Most work is seasonal, in the hospitality sector, serving the needs of the summer well to dos.

Yet the money spent by Clement went to the benefit of the temporary residents, not to those struggling to survive year round. 

How easy will it be for them to acquire additional funding, when they've already blown the bank on things that only favor an elite few?

What good is an expensive new sign to a parent out of work and out of options?  A gazebo to a family unable to secure adequate housing?  Or a paved road to nowhere, that could have at least been built to provide a more comfortable trip to the nearest food bank.

I spoke with Tami Boudreau of the DPSPRN, and she described the many hardships facing the people in her area.  But she also spoke of their enormous generosity and strength of character.  The anguish in her voice was palpable as she related the frustrations of trying to help so many with so little.

Boudreau is a "transplant" to Parry Sound-Muskoka, but you'd never know it.  Her soul is there.

The DPSPRN, has a website, where you can download a copy of  The District of Parry Sound Speaks Out on Poverty: A Call to Action.

The site is currently down for renovation, but I'm told will be up and running again soon.  Boudreau sent me a copy of their report and it's absolutely heartbreaking, making Clement's actions all the more appalling.

Watching him and Baird together, promising to do better and taking the report of the Auditor General under advisement, is deja vu for Ontario residents.  A similar scene played out when they were in the government of Mike Harris, and again the money was stolen from those who had so little of it.

When John Baird tried to privatize social services, money flowed to Anderson Consulting, the firm that destroyed Enron.  After they were exposed, Anderson quickly changed their name to Accenture, but their questionable actions in the name of profit continued.

In Ontario the money fell out of the holes in the pockets of those who needed it, and landed right in the pockets of the Valentino suits, of those who didn't.

For the third time since 1998, Ontario's provincial auditor has sharply criticized the government's dealings with Accenture. Auditor Erik Peters called the firm's social assistance system "seriously flawed" and "a bad deal for taxpayers." The contract has cost more than $400 million - and counting. The original cost was supposed to be capped at $180 million. Peters called payments to Accenture "questionable" because savings on which the payments were based "were exaggerated."  (1)

Yet those on social assistance were deemed to be the criminals.  Government posters sought help in tracking down "welfare fraud", and neighbours were encouraged to turn in neighbours.  Even the staff at social services were suspect, creating even bigger profits for Anderson/Accenture.

In early March 2000, the Ontario government fitted social services workers with tracking devices in a 16- week trial to track their activities virtually every minute of every day. These "Big Brotherish" boxes, the brainchild of Accenture, would beep several times every hour, and workers would have to punch in a code to indicate what they were doing at that moment. (1)

How could they possibly find the time to help those seeking help?

Under the Ontario Government's Business Transformation Project (privatizing of services), Auditor Erik Peters revealed that:

... the cost ratio of having Accenture do the work rather than public servants was 6 to 1 and that in 2000 the Province realized savings of $89.5 million [much of this from the continued gutting of access to welfare payments], but the government had paid Accenture $193 million. This statement of the Auditor General was part of a larger condemnation of the Tory government's overuse of private consultants throughout its Departments. (2)

(Some things never change).

The Harris government created no less than 800 new rules for welfare recipients, cutting thousands from its ranks.  Yet not only did Accenture keep the $89.5 million that should have gone to the disadvantaged, but charged us an additional $103.5 million to do it.

Peters noted that many of the expenditures were not only "questionable and unnecessary" but were "unreceipted".  He also complained of how slow it was for the Harris government to address the alarming situation, including the issue of the expensive computer that Accenture sold to us, that never worked. (3)

Of course, addressing these issues might have stopped the flow of money from Accenture to the Conservative re-election campaign. ("Tory Welfare Donations Under Fire", Hamilton Spectator,  October 25, 2001 and "Consulting Firm Boosts PC Coffers",  Richard Brennan, Toronto Star, October 25th, 2001)  Couldn't have that.

So just as Baird ignored the Auditor's report then, he will ignore the Auditor General's report now.

I'm glad that Charlie Angus is on top this, (though it was the NDP who blocked the release of the report before the election).  He knows how these guys operate.

He helped to expose a similar scandal involving a land deal with Adams Mine/Cortellucci Group.  Tony Clement was involved with that one as well, netting $40,000 from Cortellucci for his provincial leadership bid.  Jim Flaherty was paid $47,000.

Tim Hudak sat in the Ontario Legislature at the time, so is well aware of what "cronyism" really looks like.  He is promising to once again get tough on "welfare fraud", from the bottom, not the top, where it is actually perpetrated.

There is no honour in being poor, and most would prefer not to wear the label.  However, the real shame is in being someone in a position to help, but instead choose to simply add to the misery.

No, this scandal will not destroy the people of Parry Sound - Muskoka, but they have been victimized just the same, with the added burden of being labelled "greedy".

They didn't ask for the extravagance, but are paying for it in the worst possible way.

Sources:

1. ACCENTURE: A snapshot of cost overruns job loss and dissatisfaction, CUPE, June 24, 2003

2. Anderson Consulting and Accenture, Polaris Institute, June 2003

3. Tories ignored computer warnings, By Trish Hennessey and Peter H. Sawchuk, University of Toronto Press, July 13, 2004

We Don't Want an Apology From Tony Clement. We Want an Investigation.

Embezzlement - To take (money, for example) for one's own use in violation of a trust.

Fraud - deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

I watched the news coverage last night on the G-8 spending in Tony Clement's riding. John Wiersema, the acting auditor general, who has worked in the department for 33 years, claimed that he had never seen anything like this.

The Conservatives misappropriated funds and used those funds on cosmetic surgery.

Bike racks, carvings and lighthouses on stumps. All going into one of the wealthiest ridings in the country, without receipts or oversight.

I then watched as NDP Charlie Angus, asked Tony Clement to apologize.

Are you kidding me? Apologize for the theft of almost $50 million dollars? If this had been in the private sector, Clement would not only lose his job, but could also be facing jail time.

What happens if the government steals $100 million? Will they have to write lines?

I will not get caught, I will not get caught, I will not get caught ...

This is fraud boys and girls and demands an investigation. Who got what and how did they spend it? I looked at the crap sprinkled around his riding, and there's no way they can account for $50 million. No way on earth.

This is not just about pork barrelling. This is about missing funds. Our funds. We demand more than a damned apology.

It was nice that in the debate, Thomas Mulcair brought up the Sponsorship scandal. I see the NDP are picking up where they left off, allowing the Conservatives explain away every misdeed, because apparently the Liberals did it first.

Grow up.

I've been doing a lot of research into the sponsorship scandal, that involved no elected officials, unlike this one. I think I'm going to have to publish some of it, because that scandal started with Conservative Brian Mulroney.

However, Mulcair is only further turning people off politics. What must the young people in his caucus think? This is a lot of money and it must be taken seriously.

And yet what do we get from the Conservatives?

John Baird accusing the opposition of engaging in uncivil behaviour, and Stephen Harper arrogantly claiming that they used more misappropriated funds, if Bob Rae had only done his homework.

Openly admitting to being crooked, knowing that they were going to get away with it.

Unbelievable.

Where is the right-wing noise machine? In 1995 the Canadian Taxpayers Federation were all over the sprucing up of Nova Scotia for the impending G-7 summit.

The federal government was wrong to put next month's G-7 summit in Halifax because the city needs too many government-funded fixups, says a national taxpayers' lobby group. The heads of the leading industrialized nations meet in the Nova Scotia capital June 15-17 and the federal, provincial and local governments are spending $8.1 million to spruce it up.

The federal government "should have chosen a location which wouldn't cost that kind of money ... There are conference facilities available, I'm sure, in that part of the world as well as across Canada that could have hosted an event like this without spending several million dollars to upgrade them." (Halifax wrong choice for G-7, By Steve Lambert, Canadian Press Newswire, April 30 1995)

And who was this tax dollar watchdog, quoted in the article?

...said Jason Kenney, spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a watchdog group promoting cuts in taxes and government spending.

Never Seen Anything Like It? I Have. Mike Harris all Over Again

Why can't taxpayers press charges against politicians who steal our money?

Tony Clement deliberately misled Parliament, suggesting that he needed money for border security and instead used it for his re-election campaign. And listening to John Baird trying to defend it, is deja vu. These two criminals learned their craft when they stole from the Ontario taxpayers.

Same old, same old.

The big question is, why did the NDP not want this report to be released before the election? Puzzling.

Victimizing the Victims

An item appearing in the Huffington Post today, is almost too shocking to believe: FEMA To Demand That Hurricane Katrina Victims Return Aid Money

Nearly six years have passed since Hurricane Katrina drowned New Orleans in misery, but many residents haven't forgiven the Federal Emergency Management Agency for its sluggish response to the storm. Now another delayed reaction by FEMA – a stop-and-start push to recoup millions of dollars in disaster aid – is reminding storm victims why they often cursed the agency's name.

As a new hurricane season begins Wednesday, FEMA is working to determine how much money it overpaid or mistakenly awarded to victims of the destructive 2005 hurricane season. The agency is reviewing more than $600 million given to roughly 154,000 victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and is poised to demand that some return money.

And if that isn't horrifying enough, we also learn that in Haiti, victims of the devastating earthquake are now being forced out of their temporary shelters.

Since 23 May, more than 300 homeless families have been forcibly evicted from two makeshift camps in the Delmas municipality of Port-au-Prince, continuing what seems to be a wave of forced evictions in the Haitian capital. Hundreds more are facing imminent eviction in the next three months.

Victimizing the victims. How did it come to that?

A Harper Majority and the Future of the FTAA

The Free Trade Area of the Americas, was supposed to be a follow up to NAFTA, with a trade agreement that extended from Alaska to Chile.

An extension of the corporate dream as markets would be open to every country in Central America, South America and the Caribbean.

The deal was to be finalized January 1, 2005, but has been delayed because of strong social movements across the hemisphere, bringing the debate to the public's attention.

After the destruction of the Southern Cone by Milton Friedman and his "Chicago Boys", many South American countries are not so eager for a repeat.

Friedman had turned the area into a laboratory for the Chicago School of Economics, at a heavy human toll.

The Chicago School also begat the Calgary School, and the Calgary School begat Stephen Harper, a man still determined to complete the free marketeer agenda.

Why else would he unleash John Baird on the world?

Canada and the FTAA

According to Todd Gordon in Imperialist Canada:

Canada has been the most vociferous proponent of the FTAA. The U.S. Congress cooled on free trade in the latter half of the 1990s, making it harder for successive American presidents to successfully pursue the FTAA.

Canada took the lead negotiating role in the early stages, chaired the Summit Implementation Re?view Group, hosted a trade ministerial meeting and several other Summit of the Americas (of which the FTAA is a part) meetings. In this leadership role, Canada has tried to exploit its image as a benign international force to push the agreement through. "We do not have the baggage," one trade negotiator notes when assessing the prospect for FTAA negotiations led by Canada."

And the Harperites are hoping to use that image of a "benign international force", to push through an aggressive agenda.

They have established an advisory panel and are trying to recreate a "democratic" movement, according to University of California's Michael Allen, modeled on existing foundations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (2).

According to the New York Times: "The National Endowment for Democracy is a quasi-governmental foundation created by the Reagan Administration in 1983 to channel millions of Federal dollars into anti-Communist 'private diplomacy.'"

And it was fashioned after Milton Friedman's Chicago style gangster diplomacy.

Pamela Wallin's appointment to the new advisory panel is fitting. According to Michael Byers:

Ms. Wallin, who served as consul general in New York, played a central role in persuading American opinion-makers that Canada was fully supportive of the "war on terror." She now works as a senior adviser to the Council of the Americas, a free trade-promoting organization that counts some of the largest U.S. corporations among its members. (3)

The problem facing these free marketeers, is that Latin America is not as keen on the FTAA and all that "democracy". They want to create their own trading bloc, setting their own terms.

They still bear the scars of the "Authoritarian Democracy", while Canada is now in the process of receiving the blows from our own. According to Wikipedia, Brazil is taking the lead as they try to establish a new foundation.

With a Harper majority, we may see an attempt to thwart such a move, with full military force. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that Canada recently dropped 240 bombs on Libya and is in the market to buy 1300 more.

For what purpose?

We have got to start paying attention to what is being done in our name. Harper may be trying to exploit our reputation to pursue his agenda, but that good name is wearing thin. We are increasingly being viewed as an aggressor nation.

Is this really your Canada?

Sources:

1. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 154-55

2. The D-word out of favor? Don’t tell the Canadians, By Michael Allen, Democracy Digest, December 4, 2009

3. Why I said no to Manley, By Dr. Michael Byers, Ottawa Citizen, December 13, 2007

Why John Baird May be the Best Choice as Foreign Affairs Minister

Aztec legend spoke of a great god, named Quetzalcoatl, who was bearded, ugly, dressed in black with silver armour. It was predicted that he would arrive on their shores on a particular day, to destroy them all.

As luck would have it, the butcher Hernando Cortez, arrived on the very day in 1519, with his group of "fair-skinned bearded strangers", prompting Emperor Montezuma II, out of fear, to offer great riches and hospitality, hoping to spare himself and his people.

I don't know if there are any ancient legends predicting that a loud mouthed buffoon, would arrive one day demanding riches, but given Canada's current foreign policy, that is exactly what is going to happen.

In his book Imperialist Canada, Todd Gordon speaks of the systematic plundering of the Third World, and Canada's role in it.

Just like the other major capitalist powers, Canadian capital is driven by a logic of expansion. The insatiable drive to seek out new markets and territories in which to accumulate wealth in the capitalist game of survival of the fittest drives it deeper into sovereign indigenous lands within its borders and increasingly beyond its own borders. This expansionary process is made possible by the aggressive policies of the Canadian state.

... Driving Canadian foreign policy, for instance, is the goal of creating the conditions for the successful international expansion of Canadian corporations, at the heart of which is forcibly opening up the markets and resources of the Global South. The list of options in its imperialist toolkit is varied, as I will show, and includes both bilateral and multilateral (with its imperial partners) policies. Canada actively pursues one-sided trade and investment agreements with poor countries, forcibly liberalizes markets in the South through International Monetary Fund-imposed structural adjustment policies, ignores flagrant human rights violations committed in defence of Canadian investments and is pouring increasingly large sums of money into the development of a military with the capability to project its power abroad. (1)

This explains the purchase of the F-35s, deemed unsuitable for the Arctic.

When the 2010 budget was brought down, David MacDonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy, questioned our "Foreign Policy shift"

... Canada is cutting foreign aid and increasing spending on expensive military equipment. "Our foreign policy is moving more toward combat military operations and away from the kind of reconstruction operations that are really what's necessary ... The question going forward is once Afghanistan ends, what are we going to do with these choppers?" (2)

Our foreign policy is no longer about protecting human rights or providing needed assistance, but about bullying smaller nations into allowing us to exploit their natural resources and labour force.

There is no bright side to Canadian investment in the South. It is accomplished by displacing indigenous people and poor peasants from their land (to get at mineral and oil deposits, for example), destroying ecosystems and ruthlessly exploiting the sweat labour of typically poor women in the region's export processing zones, where workers' rights are minimal if they exist at all. We can also add to this the steep burden of debt obligations Third World governments are forced to pay Canadian banks, money which otherwise could go to social programs for their own citizens. The significant increase in corporate earnings in the Third World, in other words, is happening on the backs of some of the world's most vulnerable people; it is matched by a corresponding increase in displacement and misery. (1)

Researcher Ellen Gould also spoke of Canada's new aggressive foreign policy.

On the international stage, Canada is a major proponent of financial liberalization. At the WTO, Canada heads a group of delegations pressing developing countries to open their economies to the supposedly superior services of foreign financial institutions. ... The enormity of what's at stake in the WTO financial sector negotiations is revealed in a February 2006 bargaining request sent from Canada's Department of Finance to developing countries. Canada asked that foreign financial institutions be guaranteed rights to "establish new and acquire existing companies" in all financial sectors. This would mean among other things that countries would have to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of their banks and insurance companies. (3)

Of course much of this is being done under the guise of "spreading democracy", even after many American groups realized that this spreading of democracy was no longer as profitable as it once was.

In December of 2009, Michael Allen from the University of California wrote:

Canada is poised to set up a new democracy assistance organization, based on the experience and structures of existing foundations, but reflecting distinctively Canadian characteristics and priorities. A proposal has been tabled in the House of Commons, with legislation likely to follow next month, to form a Canadian Centre for Advancing Democracy, funded by an annual parliamentary appropriation of $30-70 million. A new poll by the US-based Council on Foreign Relations suggests that supporting democracy has fallen out of favor with the US foreign policy elite. (3)

The Harper government will appropriate 30-70 million a year to spread "democracy", whether recipients of all this democracy like it or not.

So given Canada's new aggressive foreign policy, fast becoming the Third World's bully, John Baird is a perfect choice to act as the "enforcer".

While Canadians may be left dealing with Montezuma's revenge.

Continuation:

Friedman's Gold and Argentina

A Harper Majority and the Future of the FTAA

Sources:

1. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 9-13

2. Straight Goods, March, 2010

3. The "D" Word out of Favour? Don't Tell the Canadians, By Michael Allen, December 2009

What Could we do With 500 Million Dollars?

That seems like a lot of money. Could we put it toward helping seniors who are living in poverty? Building homeless shelters? Improving healthcare? Fighting hunger?

Or are those goals too lofty and would $500 million be enough?

OK. How about 6 billion dollars? What could that do to alleviate the suffering of Canadians?

I know you're waiting for me to say that's how much money the Conservatives are wasting on prisons and pork. You would be right about the waste but wrong on where I'm heading.

Because that is how much money the Canadian taxpayer gives to the American treasury every year. A gift with nothing in return, because we ask for nothing in return.

I've written of this before, but yesterday, Munir Sheikh had an op-ed piece in the Globe: A Canada-U.S. tax gap means a Canada-U.S. tax transfer

Under Article XXIV of the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, any U.S. citizen, resident or company earning income in Canada is subject to U.S. tax, with a credit for Canadian tax paid or accrued.

This means that our lower corporate tax rate is not an incentive for American companies to invest in Canada, because there is no net benefit. Any savings here are paid there.

A rough estimate concludes that there is a "$500-million annual tax transfer from Canada to the U.S. for every point reduction in the Canadian tax rate."

Their corporate tax rate is 34.2% and Harper and Flaherty are attempting to reduce ours to 15%, roughly half. And under the current agreement, the difference goes directly to the American treasury. $500 million annually for every point difference.

The Conservatives and their think tanks are suggesting that our public healthcare system is no longer sustainable. But it could be, if we kept some of that money here.

Erin Weir of the Progressive Economic Forum, has estimated 'that Jim Flaherty’s target of a 25% combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate would transfer between $4 billion and $6 billion annually from Canadian governments to the U.S. treasury."

4 to 6 billion annually. Absorb that for just a moment. Now absorb this.

Under Stephen Harper Canada has gone from sixth to 24th place in infant mortality, out of 26 nations. In a country with our wealth, our infants are dying at a faster rate than many poorer nations. What could 4 to 6 billion annually do to reverse that?

We have seniors living in poverty and Baby Boomers aging into poverty. What could 4 to 6 billion annually do toward changing that?

One in ten Canadian children live in poverty. This increases with aboriginal children, where one in four are growing up poor. What could 4 to 6 billion annually do toward changing that?

According to a new report: Hunger on the rise in Canada. What could 4 to 6 billion annually do toward changing that?

Neoconservatives, like Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, believe that if we just work hard, we too can become rich. But that's not true. Generational poverty, unemployment, underemployment and precarious employment, keep too many living day to day. Paycheque to paycheque. Pension to pension.

According to a study by the Ontario Institute of Foodbanks, in 2008:

Where the economic roots of poverty show up in low levels literacy, skills and educational attainment – all of which impede productivity and the ability to earn income – growing up poor can, in turn, deprive children not only of the nourishment, health and family resources than enable learning, but of the sense of self-esteem needed to succeed in school. Layered on top of these family-based roots of poverty are a variety of systemic and institutional obstacles that help to keep many people poor.

And the "The remedial costs of poverty related to health care and crime are substantial."

Yet the Conservatives law and order agenda, provides nothing to fight poverty, one of the root causes of crime. And nothing to tackle illiteracy, one of the root causes of poverty.

In fact one of the first actions of John Baird when he was head of the Treasury, was to cut funding to literacy groups.

Ontarians were not surprised. When he was with the Mike Harris government, he tried to write into our welfare program, a clause that would disallow benefits for those who were unable to read or write. It was so outrageous that it made the New York Times.

The notion of corporate taxes having a trickle down affect is not new. It was tried in Canada before Harper. At the time it was thought of as plausible, now it is only laughable.

There is no trickle down, only a gusher upward to the wealthiest citizens.

And corporations do not reinvest the money to create jobs. They hoard it. And they use it to buy our media, with a gaggle of "journalists" (?) who try to sell us on the notion that this fairy tale is real.

And in the case of Canada, the money not hoarded or used to manipulate public opinion, is flowing South.

So the next time someone tells you that corporate tax cuts create jobs and expand our economy, you need to take them by the arm and lead them to the nearest rehab.

But on the way, vote and vote wisely.

Because I can think of so many better ways to spend 4-6 billion annually, can't you?

Conservatives Lied About Auditor General and Summit Costs

If you ever wondered where the Conservatives moral compass was, wonder no more.

The Conservatives' report, presented as a dissenting opinion to the Commons the morning Parliament was dissolved last month, quotes Fraser giving high marks to the Harper government for prudent spending on the summits. The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”

But in her letter addressed to members of a Commons committee on Friday, which was received by the clerk and members on Monday, Fraser said the quote had nothing to do with the summits. Instead, she said, the Conservatives recycled an old comment she made on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago.

“The comments attributed to me in the [Conservative] report are completely unrelated to G8/G20 spending,” Fraser writes in her letter. “I would appreciate it if the report could be modified as it is clearly erroneous.”

John Baird did the same thing when he misquoted Al Gore, who has been critical of Harper's environmental policies.

They will stoop to anything.

New Survey: Who is Your Favourite Cartoon Character, John Baird or Dimitri Soudas?

Just when you thought Dimitri Soudas couldn't say anything more stupid, he outdoes himself. With John Baird shoving a pair of socks in Bev Oda's mouth to avoid accountability and transparency, Dimitri Soudas referred to Bob Rae's comments about Harper's backroom boys being Jihadists, as an insult to victims of terrorism.

Go right for the jugular.

This from a man who called environmental activists "terrorists", and created a "crisis" in Vancouver over peaceful protests against closing down the safe injection site. He only got involved because the wonderful Libby Davies stood with her constituents.

But Bob Rae has a very valid point and one we should be paying attention to. Those young boys in the backroom do control everything, while the people elected to represent us have lost their voice. Their only function is to read lines and take part in ridiculous little skits.

And Rae was not the first to sound the alarm.

In May of 2006, Bruce Champion-Smith wrote a piece for the Toronto Star: How Harper controls the spin

"What we're seeing here is a degree of control within the government, within the caucus ... that we haven't seen for a very long time .... That control extends to every corner of government.

Even the military

At a recent news conference, senior military officers were under government orders to answer reporters' questions only on the condition that they were not identified."I have to live within that limitation," Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, vice-chief of defence staff, told reporters.

And from our former ambassador to Afghanistan

Arif Lalani, Canada's ambassador in Afghanistan, is not allowed to speak with reporters without having each individual request approved by Ottawa, sources say. The Canadian International Development Agency has no one in Kandahar authorized to speak with reporters, even though development is ostensibly the focus of the extended mission.

And this tight messaging control caused a delay in the reporting of detainees. According to Brian Stewart of CBC:

All three of the independent military commands at that point (in 2007) — the Canadian, Dutch and British — knew that under international law they were responsible for the well being of all Afghans they picked up, even after they were handed over to Afghan prisons and interrogation centres. The Dutch were concerned enough to report immediately any handover to the local Red Cross
officials. Britain acted within 24 hours.

But Canada? hen Canadian soldiers brought in the usually hooded and tightly bound detainee, our military police on the spot would first inform the colonels and generals in the Kandahar mission control centre. But instead of alerting the Red Cross right away, like the Dutch and British, these commanders, following orders, sent the information to CEFCOM, the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command in Ottawa. his information would then be passed over to Defence Headquarters and to Foreign Affairs.

By the time the information was vetted, no one knew where the detainees had gone.

And in 2007 evidence revealed that Stephen Harper's office was already engaged in a cover up.

WASHINGTON–Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office used a "6,000-mile screwdriver" to oversee the denial of reports of Afghan detainee abuse when the scandal first erupted in 2007, according to a former senior NATO public affairs official who was then based in Kabul. The former official, speaking on condition his name not be used, told the Toronto Star that Harper's office in Ottawa "scripted and fed" the precise wording NATO officials in Kabul used to repudiate allegations of abuse "at a time when it was privately and generally acknowledged in our office that the chances of good treatment at the hands of Afghan security forces were almost zero."

"It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally," said the former official, who is not Canadian.

"The lines were, 'We have no evidence' of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister's Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver."

And even more alarming, according to Rick Hillier, Stephen Harper's backroom boys want to now run our wars from behind the safety of their junk food laden desks. (Hillier slams 'field marshal wannabes' in revised edition of his memoir, By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, October 11, 2010)

Canada's former top soldier is warning that "field marshal wannabes" are angling to take a bigger role in directing the day-to-day operations of military forces in the field. Retired general Rick Hillier says a policy paper is circulating around senior levels of the Harper government that suggests the Clerk of the Privy Council and the deputy minister of defence take a greater role to "guide" the military.The former chief of defence staff writes, in a new postscript for the softcover edition of his memoirs, that there is a growing movement within the federal government to establish a system of micro-management that could extend from the highest reaches of Ottawa all the way down to individual combat units.

...The notion that the military needs greater guidance on how to conduct operations irked Hillier. "What crap!" Hillier writes in the new edition of A Soldier First, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

So when Bob Rae uses strong language to sound the alarm on Harper's Jihadists, we need to pay attention. This is a very serious issue. These young men are not elected and therefore don't have to be accountable to anyone except our dictator.

Will Canadians Have to Adopt the Rapporteur Model to Combat the Corporate Welfare State?

When Mike Harris became premier of Ontario in 1995, everything changed. It was one of the first attempts at neoconservatism in the country and a province was blind-sided. Because instead of addressing social issues they scorned them, and instead of fighting poverty, they fought the impoverished. Poor bashing became a spectator sport.

There was no longer a social welfare state but a corporate welfare state, and it became clear that unless you were already very rich, this government had nothing for you but contempt.

Riot police were a normal scene around Queens Park, and were used vigorously to stifle dissent. But friends of Mike Harris needn't worry, because they had Julian Fantino in their corner, and he could fix anything. Allegedly, with his own version of the game show The Price is Right.

Given the new change in direction, and with the Common Sense Revolution drafted by Republican strategist Mike Murphy, it came as no surprise that Harris chose a corporate lobbyist to 'clean up' our social services.

And that corporate lobbyist would prove to be the most hyperpartisan politician the province had ever seen. His name: John Baird. And he was ruthless. He cut thousands off assistance and reduced benefits by 42%. All without notice.

But a multinational corporation got very rich off John. In his attempt to privatize social services, he paid them four to one what it would have cost to keep the civil servants he laid off. And while another Harris henchman, Tony Clement, earned the nickname "two-tier Tony" for trying to privatize our healthcare, John Baird became known as 'Enron John'.

When it was reported that many Ontario seniors had been eating catfood, the Harris government produced a meal plan of tuna and beans. And when Mike Harris was asked about the unprecedented need for foodbanks, he callously replied that the foodbanks were good and that he and his wife had just dropped off a bag of groceries.

Can you imagine the premier of a province suggesting that he had done his part to reduce poverty by dropping off a bag of groceries?

When it was brought to their attention that homelessness was also increasing at an alarming rate, another Harris boy, Jim Flaherty, came up with a solution. He would just throw them all in jail, as if being poor was a crime.

But there was something else happening In Ontario during those years, which is unthinkable in a developed country. There was a large segment of the population living in fear. Fear of speaking out against a government who had the ability to cut off their livelihood, or have them beaten for their efforts.

And human rights abuses became so bad that an interfaith group assisting the poor, was forced to adopt the United Nations Human Rapporteur" model, to conduct their investigations, and get help to those who needed it the most. This was a special mandate under the UN Commission on Human Rights, that allowed for "secret" interviews, for those suffering the effects of inhumane actions.

There is a new book, Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, that speaks of those days in Ontario.

Back in 1998 the atmosphere in Ontario had been so poisoned by poor-bashing and punitive attitudes that many people were afraid to speak up at public hearings. In 2003 ISARC [Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition] decided that all future audits would use the "United Nations Human Rapporteur" model.' This is a model used in oppressive countries, with hearings generally held only in places in which people are accustomed to gather. The news media are not invited; governments are not notified. UN rapporteurs listen to participants' words and submit written reports. The process ensures safety, confidentiality, and truthfulness. (1)

"A model used in oppressive countries" was having to be used in the largest province in Canada, so that human rights abuses could be heard.

With those same key players now planted in the federal government, and an even more callous and vindictive leader, we are all starting to feel the effects of oppression. The G-20 in Toronto was a perfect example of what happens to people who oppose the decisions made by the Harper regime.

And when a senate committee produced a report on how to address poverty, Stephen Harper barely gave it a glance before throwing it in the trash. But when one of the 'victims' of his corporate welfare state needs help, he's there with our cheque book.

And just as with Harris, people are terrified of speaking out. We saw this with KAIROS, another interfaith social justice group, who had their funding removed for speaking out against government policy. Public servants work in an atmosphere of distrust, and as one of them said, 'welcome to Harper's world'. But only on the promise of anonymity.

Do we need to create a "Human Rapporteur" model to address concerns of the victims of the corporate welfare state's economic meltdown? Those who would challenge the 'rosy' jobless figures? Who would describe their lives after losing good paying union jobs and now having to work two at minimum wage, and still not able to survive?

There is an atmosphere in this country now. The fear is palpable, but familiar to those living in Ontario under Mike Harris. And if you look at the roster of Conservative candidates for the next federal election, many have been handpicked by Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement and John Baird.

Heaven help us.

Sources:

1. Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, by Jamie Swift, Brice Balmer and Mira Dineen, Between the Lines Toronto, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897071-73-1

Glass Shatterer? LMAO. Jenni Byrne is Stephen Harper's Jabba the Hutt

In 2003, at the national conference of the Civitas Society, Guy Giorno gave a presentation entitled "Transplanting Provincial Successes to Ottawa".

The Civitas is the policy arm of the Harper government and many members move back and forth. Ian Brodie, a director at Civitas, was formerly Harper's chief of staff, and many others, founding members of the Reform Party.

But Guy Giorno is a stickler for details, so when he spoke of "transplanting" the success of Ontario's Mike Harris, he meant transplanting every single thing.

So you might call it a "remake", where a script written in 1995, would be followed line by line. Only a few of the actors would be replaced.

If you google 'Guy Giorno and Ontario Legislature', you'll find that many of the complaints raised by the opposition then, are eerily similar to those being raised in federal Parliament today.

ORAL QUESTIONS: GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING, Ontario Hansard - October 28, 1998

Question: What you are doing is unprecedented. Your current $4-million spending spree is just the latest. It comes on top of millions spent on education propaganda. It comes on top of millions spent on wasted welfare propaganda. It comes on top of millions wasted on business propaganda. In total so far, and it's early going yet, early days yet, you have wasted over $42 million worth of taxpayers' money in a desperate attempt to save your own skins.

Minister, why should taxpayers be involved in this plot to fund your re-election campaign? Minister, you're wasting $42 million of taxpayer dollars on PC Party propaganda. It doesn't matter how you slice it and how you dice it, that's what it's all about. Let's understand what this would have meant in terms of health care dollars for patients: $42 million would have allowed you to hire almost 1,000 new nurses; $42 million would have allowed you to wipe out the entire deficit of the Ottawa Hospital, which right now stands at $41 million; $42 million would have allowed you to pay for your share of 40 MRIs desperately needed by communities right across this province; $42 million would have allowed you to pay for your full-year funding commitment to attract doctors to under serviced areas in communities right across the province. How can you justify wasting taxpayer dollars that ought to be devoted to health care and putting them into your campaign to re-elect Mike Harris?

Answer: There's nothing that I think is more important than communicating to the public about major changes that are taking place.

Feds spent $42M promoting stimulus spending, documents show, By Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen: April 27, 2010

Federal departments have spent nearly $42 million promoting the Harper government's economic stimulus programs. Documents introduced in Parliament
detail the massive wave of print, radio, TV and online advertising intended to highlight the Economic Action Plan launched in January 2009.The advertising blitz includes everything from $110,000 in newspaper ads for the Agriculture Department's slaughterhouse improvement program to the $44,000 spent to wrap two Go Transit commuter trains in the Toronto area with the distinctive green and blue EAP logo.

Critics charge that the promotion of the unprecedented government spending is a form of political advertising but the government defends the ads as critical to communicating with Canadians as the country navigates its way out of the economic downturn.

See. They are following a script, and a plot line. It now just involves a lot more money, with the Harper government spending 45 million on signs and over 100 million on self promotion ads. And it's not about to end anytime soon.

The Liberals have made a weekly event out of highlighting what they perceive to be wasteful spending measures on the part of the Conservative government. On Friday, the target of their ire was the half-million dollars the government spent on “partisan-style” backdrops from press conferences and meetings and $6.5-million promoting tax measures that were introduced in 2006.

“Following Haiti’s earthquake last year, rather than delivering aid as quickly as possible, the Conservative government wasted $27,000 on single-use backdrops, conveniently coloured Tory blue, when they were coordinating a response to the earthquake,” Liberal MP John McCallum told a news conference. “To put that in context, it’s about 55 times the income of the average Haitian.” Mr. McCallum also said the government spent $10,000 on backdrops to unveil the G8 logo. In total, he said, in just over a year, the government has spent more than $500,000 on backdrops alone. Documents explaining how he reached those figures are available here. And he pointed to a Globe and Mail Story published Thursday that said the government is spending $6.5-million of public funds to promote its tax-cutting record in an advertising campaign centred on what is shaping up as a key election issue.

In the private sector these actions would be called embezzlement. But in the neocon world it's business as usual.

One Actor Eliminated

The only thing different between the original movie How Guy Giorno Stole Millions From Taxpayers for Mike Harris and the remake How Guy Giorno Stole Millions From Taxpayers for Stephen Harper, is that they have eliminated one character. Deb Hutton and Leslie Noble from the original, are now embodied in the character of Jenni Byrne.

Like Guy Giorno, Leslie Noble was a top lobbyist who had her own gold plated cheque book. But she used to berate, ridicule and taunt elected MPPs, because she knew that she had more power than them. And she also kept them all election ready.

Noble has no official job with government but regularly briefs Harris, his cabinet ministers and Tory MPPs on what needs to be done politically to stay in power ... One pipeline [Leslie] Noble has to influence government decision-makers is the unelected cadre of political aides in the offices of the Premier and his top ministers. These aides, many of whom report to Noble during the election campaign, wield tremendous power in government, a reality acknowledged by some Tory MPPs. Tory backbencher Bill Murdoch says they openly flaunt their power. ``They say, `Hey Murdoch, we didn't even have to go through an election and we're running the place.' '' Queen's Park Speaker Chris Stockwell, a Tory MPP, calls them a "cabal'' and says they make decisions without input from elected politicians.

Jenni Byrne:

It has not gone unnoticed by some staffers that a hakapik, the weapon used to club to death baby seals, sits on her desk. “She has cultivated a reputation where most people are terrified of being on the wrong side of her,” says a senior Conservative official who knows her well. No wonder then that many of her colleagues who were interviewed for this article asked not to be identified. Ms. Byrne refused to be interviewed.

The other female character that has been absorbed by Byrne is Deb Hutton, now married to Tim Hudak, the man we have to make sure doesn't become our next premier in Ontario. Hutton was called Jabba the Hutt, because if you wanted to talk to Mike Harris you had to go through her, and few got through.

Meanwhile, Deborah Hutton, who remained as the premier's legislative assistant, was given the nickname "Jabba the Hutt" by ministerial aides terrified of her legendary tantrums. One of these aides, like those working for the Conservatives, was willing to be more specific, only on the condition of anonymity. According to the disgruntled staffer, Hutton was and remains "a one-person Blitzkrieg against party morale. (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 170)

Jenni Byrne

Described by colleagues as possessing a volcanic temper with a penchant for yelling at cabinet ministers, staffers and senior bureaucrats alike, Ms. Byrne is fiercely loyal to the Prime Minister...

So to Gloria Galloway, do your homework. If you think Jenni Byrne is a ground breaker ... or glass breaker ... she's about 15 years too late. I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends. The leader resigns because of corruption, and when they are voted out of office, they leave not only a bare cupboard, but a province (and now a nation), with a record deficit and swimming in debt.

The Defrauding of Taxpayers II.

Corporations Line Up to be the First to Tap Into New Legal Cheating

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." - George W. Bush, June 14, 2001 (speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling)

When the story was sent to me about the new accounting rules, that allow corporations to legally misrepresent their financial picture to lure unsuspecting investors, I've been reading everything I could find on the subject, even going out and buying forensic auditor Al Rosen's new bookSwindlers. And the story is an alarming one. Rosen starts out by saying:

Judging from the stories that run in the newspaper, you probably think that Canada is a pretty safe place to invest your money. After all, we just survived one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. Some of the biggest names in the world of banking and finance have disappeared, but not a single Canadian bank collapsed*. Canada must be doing something right, right?

If you believe that, we have some bad news. The risks you take by investing in Canada have never been greater. And the so-called protection that Canadians think they receive from regulators, lawmakers, and auditors has never been weaker.

The bluster over tackling white collar crime with stiffer sentences, was all for show. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have removed all stumbling blocks that prevented corporations from playing fast and loose in the market place. And this is not simply about wealthy people risking some of their bags of gold, but it effects anyone whose savings or pensions are tied up in mutual funds.

Jim Flaherty has always been a gambler. He gambled with sub-prime mortgages and AIG. He's gambling with derivatives, something Warren Buffet refers to as "Weapons of Mass Destruction". And he's using a Goldman-Sachs employee to handle the impending disaster.

Now he's gambling with allowing the falsification of documents to help the corporate sector potentially destroy our once sound financial system.

Flaherty and Harper are Canada's answer to George W. Bush. According to Rosen:

Corporate lobbying power and the absence of an organized investor voice in Canada means that most regulatory actions favour corporate interests. Canada is the only major country in the world that allows the same people who audit public companies to financially control the process that sets the auditing rules. This basic and fundamental conflict of interest means that auditors can set rules that cater to their paying corporate clients over the needs of investors.

There's a lot of money involved in these financial cons. Based on our extensive experience with auditor negligence and executive dishonesty, we estimate that investors have lost hundreds of billions of dollars to scams in Canadian financial markets. Even if you haven't invested a penny in the stock market yourself, these losses affect you. Anyone who collects a pension, saves for his children's education, or simply pays her taxes like an honest citizen suffers from the disinterest of our regulators and lawmakers in prosecuting dishonest corporate executives, aided by acquiescent auditors. (1)

When Enron collapsed under the weight of it's own corruption, 85,000 people lost their jobs and any avenue to collect severance or pensions they had paid into. And instead of toughening the laws, the Harper government has broken down the barriers to more corruption.

Thanks to our self-regulated auditors, Canada will soon adopt** new accounting and auditing standards called International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Under IFRS, corporate managers will have even more freedom to distort and manipulate their financial reports to make themselves look better than they really are. Despite the devastating impact it will have on investors and the utility of financial statements in general, auditors succeeded in pushing through the change because of complete disinterest from lawmakers and a lack of recognition by investors that auditors have no interest in upholding their needs. Canadians simply assume that a self-regulatory body like the auditors would look after public interests, not just their self-interests. (1)

Being Honest Costs too Much

The fact that Enron was able to commit fraud on such a level was through having friends in the White House. Not only George Bush, who received millions in campaign contributions from them, but also his appointed Secretary of the Army, Thomas White.

The indiscretions of former army secretary Thomas White (2001-03), the vice president of Enron Energy Services before his appointment by President Bush, include actions he took after joining the administration—such as conducting eighty-four meetings and phone calls with Enron while in office, many taking place before he divested himself of Enron stock and in the weeks after September 11, when one would have thought him busy with other matters. .... According to the Washington Monthly, Enron booked profits up-front from multiyear deals made during White's tenure as vice president over Enron's Energy Services, which allowed executives like White, "whose bonuses were tied to performance, to collect millions of dollars before the company had realized any profit."

Jeff Skilling, succeeding to the CEO position after Ken Lay, was most proud of convincing the SEC to allow Enron to count projected earnings from long-term energy contracts as current earnings, despite the possibility that the money wouldn't be collected for as long as twenty years, if ever. This enabled Enron to meet analysts' estimates at will by claiming future revenue as current revenue whenever the company needed it. (2)

And this is exactly the kind of practice that the Harper government has now made legal. And Canadian auditors and corporations are lining up, hoping to cash in at the expense of the vulnerable. They claim that being honest is far too expensive.

The main reason that auditors pushed through the change was for money. They are in the process of raking in untold millions for switching all public companies over to the new accounting rules. And the auditors do not bother mincing words about it either. They plainly state that continuing to maintain Canadian accounting rules is "no longer cost effective" for them. After all, since they no longer have any incentive to act on behalf of investors, why take on the added cost to maintain and improve accounting standards at the annoyance of their paying corporate clients?

In a move that's the envy of capitalists everywhere, the auditors turned what was previously a cost centre into a very lucrative profit centre. And they now have their sights set on converting non-public companies and private enterprises to IFRS. Auditors just continue printing money at the expense of investors and business owners for no discernable benefits in return.

And though Harper and Flaherty are behind the changes, Rosen also lays some of the blame for this potential financial tsunami on an "uninterested and conflicted media." But then the corporations who own 99% of our media, are hardly going to risk losing such a gift.

Footnotes:

*Courtesy of 125 billion dollars from the Canadians taxpayer. Hush money so they didn't blow the whistle on Flaherty's sub-prime mortgage scheme.

**Came into effect on January 1, 2011　

Sources:

1. Swindlers: Cons and Cheats and How to Protect Your Investments From Them, By Al Rosen and Mark Rosen, Madison Commerce, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897330-76-0, Introduction

2. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 67

It's All About the Spin Baby. It's All About the Spin.

George Bush had included environmental concerns, as part of his 2000 election campaign, promising aggressive action to roll back carbon emissions.

Not long after being elected into office, his administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman, announced: "This president is very sensitive to the issue of global warming.... There's no question but that global warming is a real phe­nomenon ...." (1)

I could have told the American people then that it was balderdash. Nonsense. Spin.

See, I live in Ontario and following politics, know who Christine Todd Whitman is. I should. She helped to inspire the neoconservative Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris, that was indeed revolutionary, but totally lacking in sense, common or otherwise. It was just mean and short sighted.

But the Harris team worked with Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who had just come off a successful campaign for Whitman, as she became the freshly minted governor of New Jersey.

Whitman defeated a popular Democratic incumbent, Jim Florio, primarily on the basis of a Murphy-inspired campaign using a "common sense" slogan and pledging a 30 per cent tax cut. Since her victory, the activities of her government in implementing this plan had been carefully charted by Harris aide Bill King. In March 1994, Harris actually travelled to New Jersey to meet Whitman and discuss strategy. Two months later, the "Common Sense Revolution" with its 30 per cent tax cut was unveiled. (2)

You have to look at the big picture of neoconservatism. There are few traditional Republicans in the United States and few traditional Conservatives in Canada. Most are now part of a big tent. They move back and forth across the border, a border that they hope to soon erase, sharing strategy and war stories and feeding off each other.

Harper's Reform Party - Newt Gingrich

Reform Party- Mike Harris

Jason Kenney- Grover Norquist

Pierre Poilievre - Jim Sensenbrenner

Stephen Harper- George Bush, Frank Luntz, Art Finklestein (Nixon's former guru), etc., etc., etc.

There can be no Canadian sovereignty if neoconservatism has any chance of success. And we can have no environmental policy if it does succeed.

The Conservatives talk a good game, but simply using the right language is no guarantee that they will do what they say.

Bush's former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, had described ".. the threat of global warming as being equal to that of a nuclear holocaust. In 2001 a report from the nonpartisan National Acad­emy of Sciences concluded that carbon dioxide and other gases spewed from such man-made sources as factories, power plants, and motor vehicle exhaust pipes were indeed being trapped in the atmosphere and beginning to cause global warming. This study warned that global temperatures could rise anywhere from three to ten degrees Fahrenheit over the coming cen­tury, risking catastrophic damage around the globe." (1)

And yet Bush did more to reverse action to fight Global Warming than anyone before him. Stephen Harper now holds that dubious title, as he continues to sabotage any hopes of a binding international agreement.

So when WikiLeaks reveals that former environmental minister Jim Prentice, was "shocked" about how the world views the tar sands, I say"

Balderdash. Nonsense. Spin.

The gravity of Canada’s predicament first came clear to the respected cabinet minister during a trip to Bergen, Norway, where he attended a carbon capture and storage conference in late May, 2009. Norway, then in the run-up to a parliamentary election, was debating the involvement of government-owned Statoil in the Alberta oilsands, which had been deemed a source of “dirty oil.”

“As Prentice relayed it, the public sentiment in Norway shocked him and has heightened his awareness of the negative consequences to Canada’s historically ‘green’ standing on the world stage,” said a U.S. embassy cable that recounts the meeting.

This government knew full well how the world felt about the tar sands, and feigning ignorance just doesn't cut it. So when WikiLeaks also reveals that Prentice was going to "get tough" with the tar sands, I again say:

Balderdash. Nonsense. Spin.

Former environment minister Jim Prentice privately told U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson more than a year ago that he was prepared to impose new regulations on the oil sands if the industry and province did not improve their environmental performance, newly released Wikileaks documents reveal.

The WikiLeaks cable also hinted at "tensions between Prentice and Lisa Raitt. That's where the real story is. When the embarrassing tape of a conversation between Raitt and her aide, was made public, we discovered where Prentice's allegiances were:

Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.Mr. Prentice is the MP for Calgary-Centre North, home to much of Canada's oil industry. (3)

Like the Bush Administration, the Harper government says the right things, but then does the polar opposite.

I for one am sick of being played. How about you?

Sources:

1. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 13-14

2. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 166

3. Wind money given to oil producers instead, Raitt tape suggests, By Stephen Maher, Chronicle Herald, June 10, 2009

Conservative MP Running Side Business Under Baird's Protection

After learning that an employee of Conservative MP Kelly Block leaked information to investors, our elected Opposition wanted answers.

However, we have since learned that that employee may have been running a side business from Block's office.

And she knew nothing about it? Did she sign off on "copy" expenses?

Typically the Cons refuse to be accountable, shutting down the investigation and forming a human shield around the woman.

The Conservatives forcefully objected when opposition MPs tried to steer questions to Mr. Ullyatt’s private printing company, which has boasted of sending more than five million pieces of mail in the past two years as “Canada’s only completely political mail provider.”

New Democrat Thomas Mulcair, who says he’s seen a “very elaborate printing machine” and pallets of boxes outside Ms. Block’s office, tried to ask why the Saskatchewan MP would need these materials. But he was shut down by Joe Preston, the Conservative chairman of the committee, who said the questions were irrelevant to the leak of the budget report.

Remember folks, that's our money. More than five million pieces of mail!

Who says crime doesn't pay?

Common Sense and Hookers. How Mike Harris Stole my Vote

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I came across something the other day, that I hadn't realized I had kept. (I really having to start throwing stuff away)

It was a videotape with a white cardboard cover, and the dire warning to 'View Before June 8' [1995]; the [former Ontario premier] Mike Harris's campaign video when he was flogging his so-called Common Sense Revolution.

So I popped it in the VCR last night, in an attempt to understand what drove me to vote for this party through their local candidate Bill Vancoughnet. And I realized that it was as much about the language used to sell it, as the product.

The art of ambiguity helped to mask their true intent.

Mind you at the time, few Canadians understood the concept of neoconservatism, so we trusted the basic good of the Canadian identity, not realizing that much of this campaign was imported from the United States.

The two key elements that were hammered out by Vancoughnet and Harris on the tape, were taxes and the reduction of government waste. They promised four billion dollars in "tax rebates", a much better choice of words than "tax reduction", since they imply a cheque in the mail.

They also promised to "eliminate the barriers to job creation" - the removal of environmental restrictions.

"Cut the size of government by involving the private sector" - costly and service reducing privatization

"Arms length involvement by eliminating red tape" - the removal of health and safety concerns.

Welfare Reform

In 1975, Andrew Armitage wrote one of the first comprehensive books on Canada's social welfare system, and he stated that the way that Canadians view welfare or social assistance, is not with an eye to eliminating it, only to making it fairer.

He said that it had to be about not simply a transfer of funds, but an "exchange". That is why we liked Harris's notion of Workfare. The able bodied expected to pull their weight.

But the way this was presented to Ontarians was fundamentally flawed, and yet Harris was able to sell it not only to the working class, but to those receiving assistance.

He flogged it to the first group as getting "those lazy bums off the couch", and to the latter, as finding them jobs. But what we got instead was one of the most vile attacks on struggling citizens in modern history.

They cut the welfare rolls in half and drastically reduced benefits. The McGuinty government has attempted to raise the rates since then, but they are still far below pre-1995 levels. Thousands of people were thrown into the streets as a result, many freezing to death in their cars or in allies. The use of food banks rose and for many it was a return to depression era conditions.

And the promised jobs never materialized. Those on assistance were told they had to work, but also had to find their own employment in an already overstretched job market.

But a handful of people got filthy rich. A neoconservative success story.

Transfers and Exchange

The Harrisites were able to find willing accomplices to their inhumane policies because of stories. We all knew some.

Like the cab drivers who told of welfare recipients using their taxi chits to have them deliver cigarettes. Or the single moms with eight kids receiving thousands of dollars a month. Or welfare cheques going for booze or drugs.

The stories were true but not as common as we were led to believe.

I recently spoke with a woman who has worked in the system for three decades. She remembers the Harris era well and said that she can't remember a day during that time, when she didn't feel sad. Many of her clients were axed and she worried about what became of them, fearing the worst.

And as to the lazy "welfare bums", she told me that most of her clients wanted to work and hated having to accept what they thought of as "charity".

But we allowed a few "cheats" to define the entire system, and few raised a hand to stop "Chainsaw Mike" (those who did felt the wrath of the "Riot Police", a common view in Harrisland).

So maybe it's time to tap into the notion of "transfer and exchange". What are we getting from our government in exchange for the enormous amounts of our money we entrust them with?

In Ontario back in the day, we entrusted John Baird with millions to fix the welfare problem. In exchange we got a boondoggle computer system that never worked, and a contract with Anderson Consulting of Enron fame, who charged us 4 to 1, what the job would have cost using a civil servant.

In exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects, transferred to the Harris government, we got signs, glossy pamphlets and self-promotion advertising. In other words, taxpayers funded his re-election campaign.

And yet we transferred the same hundreds of millions of dollars to the Harper government, for the same signs, pamphlets and self-promotion advertising.

We have also transferred billions to the war in Afghanistan and have no idea what we got in exchange. Or maybe we do. A request for more billions.

Ontarians were lured into complicity, because the Harris government focused on the cheats. Yet any system involving money is always open to exploitation.

And that includes John Baird billing us $61,000 for his vacation to Bali (since he did nothing to address climate change), or Tony Clement $11,000 to deliver a cheque that he could have mailed. Or Christian Paradis presenting a claim of $5,000 for an $800 coat.

Cheats are Cheats

We will now be transferring more funds to Stephen Harper for an extension of stimulus money, and what will we get in exchange? Nobody knows because nobody asks. Tom Walkom believes it is to help pay for Harper's re-election campaign, and has nothing to do with the jobs he's promising.

In fact, job figures are looking better, because many out of work Canadians are simply giving up. In exchange for this transfer of funds we should demand that the money go to areas hardest hit by unemployment, but we know it won't. It's going to the 905 in an attempt to buy 10 seats.

In the United States the Republicans have blocked plans to cancel further tax cuts for the richest Americans, while the U.S. unemployment rate remains high and thousands are set to lose their benefits. What will the American people get in exchange for this enormous transfer of funds from the working class to the ultra-rich?

What will Canadians get for the enormous transfer of our tax dollars to the ultra-rich (60 billion in total come January)? An abstract promise of job creation.

But a handful of people will get filthy rich. Another neoconservative success story.

Epilogue

Another man appearing on the tape was Mark Mullins, referred to simply as an economist. He said that he had reviewed the Harris plan and confirmed that it would create 725,000 jobs.

Mullins went on to become an advisor for the Alliance Party and CEO of the Fraser Institute.

Bill Vancoughnet would be forced out of politics for soliciting an undercover cop in Toronto. The charges were dropped on the promise of his attending 'John' school.

Mike Harris's lap dog, Tim Hudak, husband of the infamous Debbie Hutton (Harris's gate keeper), is now heading the PC Party in Ontario, hoping to be our next premier.

Another neoconservative success story.