Category Archives: conservative government

Advocates take Harper to court over ‘pattern of muzzling’ energy critics

Posted on by

By David P. Ball
Published August 14, 2013    From:  http://thetyee.ca

One of Canada’s top constitutional lawyers is taking the Conservative government to court over increasing restrictions on who can speak at energy board hearings — and what they are allowed to say.

Decrying federal changes to the National Energy Board Act as a “chilling effect” and “breach of constitutional free speech,” Clayton Ruby launched a court challenge yesterday on behalf of ForestEthics Advocacy, an organization he chairs.

The lawsuit, which has not yet been given the go-ahead by a judge, is challenging increased limits on who can address the board on applications for such projects as oil sands pipelines. The reforms force participants to prove they are directly impacted by a project, for instance if it crosses their property.

“This is part of a pattern of muzzling to keep the Canadian public from getting concerned,” Ruby told The Tyee. “These are vital issues, and the government wants as little discussion about them as possible; they want silence… you can no longer talk about certain subjects, they narrowed the scope of what you can say, they will not hear you if you are indirectly affected, and the process requires a nine-page application form, even for a one-page submission.”

Ruby cited as proof of the “muzzling” rules barring citizens from discussing climate change or impacts of the oil sands in general during pipeline or tanker hearings, even when they transport bitumen proven to escalate greenhouse gas emissions.

Compared to the more-than-thousand submissions to the board’s Enbridge Northern Gateway hearings — completed earlier this year, and almost exclusively in opposition — current hearings into the Line 9B oil sands pipeline through southern Ontario allowed only 175 submissions, despite blockades and growing public protest. 

But Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver retorted that the board has not impinged on free speech, since it “permits submissions from individuals impacted by the project.”

“The democratic right to express a public opinion is honoured in Canada,” Oliver said in an emailed statement. “The board must hear from those who are directly affected and may choose to hear from those with information or expertise relevant to the scope of the hearing.

“Focusing submissions ensures the review is informed by the facts material to the scope of the hearing and protects it from being used as a tool to delay decisions. This concern arose in the context of the Northern Gateway hearing when over 4,000 people registered to be heard, but only 1,179 actually showed up at the hearings.”

Oliver came under fire in 2012 when he accused some Northern Gateway critics of being “foreign-funded radicals” in a widely reported open letter. That allegation started a firestorm where organizations such as Tides Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation were ordered to appear before a Senate committee in Ottawa and faced tax scrutiny over their pipeline advocacy.

Ruby described the government’s approach as creating a “chill effect on free speech,” because small organizations are scared of losing their charitable status, and increased hearing restrictions will dissuade citizens from participating.

“These hearings — which they view as troublesome — will no longer cause them any trouble,” Ruby claimed. “They’ve turned the National Energy Board from a final decision-maker into an advisory board. The final decision is now made by Mr. Harper and his cabinet, not by the board.”

David P. Ball is a frequent contributor to The Tyee.

Canada needs a jobs and training strategy: Georgetti comments on disappointing July job numbers

Posted on by

 
Friday, 9 August 2013

 

OTTAWA ― The President of the Canadian Labour Congress says that the job numbers for July are a big disappointment and he is calling on the federal government and employers to invest in both job creation and training.  

“Our economy lost 39,400 jobs in July and the unemployment rate is up. This is a wakeup call and we want governments and private sector employers to invest in job creation and training. 

Georgetti was commenting on the release by Statistics Canada of its Labour Force Survey for July 2013. There were 1,380,300 unemployed Canadians in July and the overall unemployment rate was 7.2%. In the 15-to-24 age group, unemployment stood at 13.9%, and 47.9% of young workers are employed only part-time.

Georgetti says that the federal government should assist in creating good jobs by participating in a long-term program to replace and extend Canada’s ageing physical and social infrastructure in roads, rapid transit and child care. “We have cement chunks falling off of bridges and tractors falling into city sinkholes. There is a lot to be done and the government should get at it.”

He adds that Ottawa has provided billions in corporate tax giveaways in the expectation that companies would invest in job creation and training. “Our research has shown that those companies are generally sitting on the cash instead of investing it in job creation and training. It’s high time for them to put that money to  work in the economy.” 

Quick Analysis from CLC Chief Economist Sylvain Schetagne

Government austerity measures and job cuts hurt employment growth in Canada in July 2013. The number of people working decreased significantly by 39,400 in July 2013, and another 14,200 simply quit looking for work and left the labour market. As a result, the unemployment rate rose 0.1% to 7.2% and the percentage of the population working decreased (from 61.9% to 61.7%). Jobs were lost mainly in the public sector, with 74,000 fewer jobs in this sector as a result of declines in health care and social assistance (-47,000) and public administration (-22,900). Growth did occur in the private sector but the number of jobs in manufacturing remains lower than a year ago in July (-59,500). Young workers were hard hit in July. Compared to the previous month, there was decrease of 45,600 jobs among workers aged 15-24, while another 48,800 left the labour market. As a result, their unemployment rate is 13.9%, up from 0.1% from last month.

The Canadian Labour Congress, the national voice of the labour movement, represents 3.3 million Canadian workers. The CLC brings together Canada’s national and international unions along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils.

Web site: www.canadianlabour.ca
Follow us on Twitter @CanadianLabour

Contacts:  Sylvain Schetagne, CLC Chief Economist, 613-526-7445.
Dennis Gruending, CLC Communications: Tel. 613-526-7431.
Cell-text: 613-878-6040. Email: dgruending@clc-ctc.ca

The middle class: The battleground of all politicians

Posted on by

Monia MazighBy Monia Mazigh August 9, 2013 http://rabble.ca

Photo: Peter Klein/flickr

In the U.S., the “M” word has been on the lips of politicians from the left to the right of the political spectrum, albeit for different reasons. President Obama is not an exception. Indeed, he made the mention of the middle-class part of his electoral rhetoric immediately after the 2008 financial crisis and after hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their houses, their American dream.

Last February, in his State of the Union address, Obama declared it was “our generation’s task” to “reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth — a rising, thriving middle class.” A few days ago, on August 5, he spoke in a gathering and he again pondered the same message, to “secure a better bargain for the middle class.” Whether we agree with Obama’s plan to revive the middle class or not, one must admit that he has been quite explicit about it. It includes measures affecting child care, dependent care, college expenses and retirement savings.

Here in Canada, Justin Trudeau is on the footsteps of Mr. Obama and his talk is all about the middle class. The only difference is that we don’t have any idea how Justin Trudeau is going to tackle the middle-class issue. Is he going to continue to give free rides to corporations as both Liberal and Conservative governments did in the past, or will he be offering a real program with fiscal and economic measures specifically targeted to the fading middle class? (Even though a lot of words are being said about the new Liberal star candidate in Toronto Centre and how her book might make up the next platform for the Liberal Party campaign). Or is he only interested in the votes of this class and then will turn his back and continue to help the big corporations instead?

But in reality, do we still have a “real” middle class? Where does the political opportunism start and where does the economic reality end?

In the last two decades, generations of politicians watched the erosion and the crushing of the middle class. Some denounced the situation and stood by their principles but many nodded and acquiesced to all the economic and social measures making the poor poorer and the rich richer, effectively shrinking the middle class.

According to a report prepared by Canadian bureaucrats and presented to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and recently released by Postmedia, Canada’s middle class improved its average income only by seven per cent between 1976 and 2010. This is equivalent to 0.2 per cent per year. The median income of this class did not do better. From 2007 to 2011, it grew from $66,700 to $68,000, a mere 0.5 per cent per year.

This assessment is confirmed by another report that was prepared by TD Bank. The report documents the fact that low-wage and middle-wage jobs in Canada have been shrinking as a share of the economy as job growth focuses more and more on high-skilled, high-end jobs. Meanwhile, the spending by the middle class didn’t decrease. To the contrary, it continued to increase and the funding comes from the larger amount of debt Canadian families are contracting from the banks and other financial institutions, making the Canadian household one of the most indebted in the OECD countries with a debt-ratio of around 161 per cent for the first quarter of 2013. 

Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, never missed an opportunity to speak against the high amount of debt that is contracted by Canadians. The government never raised an eyebrow (until they changed the rules for mortgages). They barely reacted to the horrifying numbers of children who now live in poverty. Canada’s child poverty rate increased between the mid-1990s and the late 2000s. These are not only children born to single parents of low-income families but also to working parents who can’t make enough annual earnings to afford all the basic necessities for their families. The Conference Board of Canada reported that Canada scores a “C” grade and ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries. Moreover, more than one in seven Canadian children live in poverty.

Last July, the city of Detroit in the U.S., where the middle class was first formed by the autoworkers and later by public employers running city services, went bankrupt. The fall of the auto industry, the cuts to public funds, the fiscal structure of the American government and many other socio-economic factors took Detroit to the cliff; it was forced close shop. It is interesting nowadays to watch the Conservative government trying so hard to dismantle the unions in Canada and to slash thousands of jobs in the public sector. Yes, it would be both stretched out and simplistic to draw similarities between Detroit and the path Canada is following. Nevertheless, it is crucial to study the effects of recent public sector cuts and their impacts on the Canadian middle class, and the state of our economy in general.

The middle class today is like a beautiful woman, desired and solicited by everyone but insidiously feared and despised by all. The politicians are no exception.

Monia Mazigh was born and raised in Tunisia and immigrated to Canada in 1991. Mazigh was catapulted onto the public stage in 2002 when her husband, Maher Arar, was deported to Syria where he was tortured and held without charge for over a year. She campaigned tirelessly for his release. Mazigh holds a PhD in finance from McGill University. In 2008, she published a memoir, Hope and Despair, about her pursuit of justice, and in 2011, a novel in French, Miroirs et mirages.

Photo: Peter Klein/flickr

Corporate elite grumbles over possible CETA failure

Posted on by

By Stuart Trew   | August 5, 2013   http://rabble.ca

Corporate elite grumbles over possible CETA failure

John Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister and current mouthpiece of Canada’s corporate elite, wants Prime Minister Harper to send a “high-level” political mission to Europe to save the stalled Canada-European Union free trade negotiations. Manley made these comments in an interview with The Canadian Press last week, a few days after publishing an op-ed in the Globe and Mail that argued “quitting [the CETA] is not an option.”

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched the talks on Canada’s behalf, and he is the only person with the authority to make the hard choices that inevitably arise in negotiations this complex,” he wrote on July 25. “On the EU side, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso must summon the political courage to carry his 28 member states over the finish line. No new issues or backsliding can be tolerated. The only acceptable direction is forward.”

It is typical Manley — not a second thought for democracy, just big, strong leaders making tough decisions that will help us all in the end because they help Big Business.

Manley also doesn’t explain what would make this urgent political delegation different from the past two or three attempts to seal a deal, including Harper’s multi-country trip to Europe before the G20 summit this June.

But cut the guy some slack. The CCCE has not been paying as much attention to the CETA negotiations as past trade efforts or Canada’s current Asian trade and investment talks like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and bilateral negotiations with Japan. At least that’s how it seemed until now.

Is corporate Canada getting nervous? Maybe. And it’s probably not because of the actual payoff from a deal with Europe, which is flimsy. (See Public Citizen’s recent assessment of the value to the average American — a chocolate bar a month, starting in 2029 — of a proposed U.S.-EU trade deal.) This is about free trade machismo.

“Canada needs to demonstrate that it can reach an agreement with Europe if it is to have much hope of making headway in trade negotiations with emerging markets in Asia,” wrote Manley in the Globe and Mail. “The government’s trade policy is dependent on this,” he later told CP. “If we don’t do Europe, there’s not a lot to show for our trade policy.”

The CP article explains that that the problems facing the Canada-EU talks include “counter-balancing Europe’s need to win greater access for cheese producers, with Canada’s demand that Europeans open the gate to Canadian beef and pork exports.” As well, “Canada is being asked to accept stricter European standards on patent protection for pharmaceutical drugs, which provinces have resisted because it could push up drug prices by as much $2 billion annually.”

The article also quotes trade lawyer Laurence Herman suggesting the government and business sector have not done enough to sell the benefits of CETA to the masses, “particularly as the critics — such as the Council of Canadians and other civil society groups — have been successful in underscoring the concessions Ottawa and the provinces must make.”

So when might a Manley-endorsed high-level meeting be possible? Not until after the European vacation month of August, according to iPolitics.ca.

“One challenge that we face is that in the summer — August, usually — the Commission…this is their period where they usually close down, so it is more challenging right now to engage with them,” Frédéric Seppey, Canada’s chief agriculture negotiator, told iPolitics at the U.S. Grains Council Annual Board of Delegates last week. “But we’re hopeful that in September it can resume and conclude in a timely fashion.”

Take action

Two billion bucks in extra drug costs is not chump change. The drug patent demands of the European Union are unacceptable. They render any modest economic benefits almost meaningless to Canada. The new limits CETA would put on provincial and municipal public spending, on the creation new public services, on telecommunications policy, on financial services regulation — all of this already in Canada’s offers to the EU, which have leaked — are also already too much to pay for small potential market access gains in Europe for Canadian agricultural products.

Manley says quitting CETA is not an option. We think it’s the best one. Whichever you believe, we can’t let Corporate Canada’s rush for an EU deal get in the way of democracy and our right to have a say in the CETA negotiations before anything is signed. You can tell the PM and opposition parties how you feel by using our action alert, WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH EUROPE? As always, let us know what you hear back from the government and opposition parties.

Opinion: Canada’s labour model is broken

Posted on by

By Brian Dijkema, Edmonton Journal July 16, 2013

 

Opinion: Canada’s labour model is broken

The Harper government needs to reshape labour relations to reflect that workers and capital both win when they work together.
Photograph by: Jacques Boissinot , THE CANADIAN PRESS

 

Pop quiz: which Canadian politician was responsible for the first piece of legislation allowing trade unions in Canada? J.S. Woodsworth? Tommy Douglas? Ed Broadbent?

The obvious answer — one might say the conservative Canadian answer — would be one of the above. The correct answer is, in fact, none of the above.

None other than Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, passed the Trade Unions Act in 1872. You read that right: it was a Conservative prime minister who first legally recognized trade unions in Canada.

That this would come as a surprise to many reflects our assumptions about the way conservatives react on the labour file, instead of leading in step with their principles. Recent efforts are a case in point.

For those who haven’t been following, the current government’s efforts in labour relations reform have been limited to nibbling at the edges via private member’s bills. Bill C-377, which sought to force labour unions to disclose to everyone, not just their members, all spending over $5,000, loans over $250, and wages of employees making more than $100,000.

The other attempt at reform was Bill C-525, which would require unions to achieve a threshold of support in workplaces of 50 per cent plus one of all employees (not just those who vote).

In other words, it would require unions to receive a mandate not currently enjoyed by any current governing party in Canada, or any government in Canada ever.

Bill C-525 didn’t make it to second reading, and Bill C-377 was deemed — by the normally compliant Senate, no less — so poorly written that it was infamously sent back to the House of Commons with amendments.

Both of these bills are efforts to solve real problems with Canadian labour unions. Union spending on fringe causes — Israel apartheid week anyone? — is worthy of scrutiny. So are many of the deceptive practices unions use to get members in the door.

But what both bills have in common is that they buy into the very adversarial mentality that many of the socialist labour unions in Canada have against conservatives. In doing so, the federal Conservatives (and conservatives) are letting the left frame the conversation instead of taking a page out of Macdonald’s book and charting their own course.

Canadian labour law has not fundamentally changed since 1944 when Canada adopted the American model based on the Wagner Act of 1935. That model is based on the false premise that workers and owners are adversaries rather than parties with different, yet entwined interests.

There are rumours the government is considering bringing back a version of C-377 this fall. Let us all hope it is not so.

The choice facing the federal government over the summer is whether to continue symbolic tinkering with a broken model that diminishes mutual respect and trust, or to substantially reshape labour relations to account for the fact that workers and capital both win when they work co-operatively.

The latter approach reflects values inherent to Conservative governments: recognition of the entwined nature of labour and capital, respect for the limited role of the state, and the value of private associations.

Framing the debate according to conservative principles of limited government with a view to increasing competition between unions would break up the current anti-conservative labour monolith and, paradoxically, lead to the development of more unions.

In other words, it would be good for workers, and good for the country. It would be a legacy worthy of Sir John A. Macdonald himself.

Brian Dijkema is program director for work and economics at Cardus, a think-tank that researches renewal of North American social architecture.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal