Category Archives: federal canadian 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.

Old Age Security—Inquiry

Posted on by

From:   http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca

Statements & Hansard  

Statement made on 26 June 2013 by Liberal Senator Catherine Callbeck  of Prince Edward Island.

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck:

Honourable senators, I would like to take a few minutes to close out this inquiry that I have had on the Order Paper for some time. It deals with the eligibility criteria of the Old Age Security Allowance. It is a very simple issue, but it is an important one.

As it stands now, certain low-income seniors are being denied the OAS Allowance under the Old Age Security Program, simply due to marital status.

Under the Old Age Security Program, as it is right now, there are two benefits called “Allowances” available to low-income seniors aged 60 to 64.

For the OAS Allowance, in order to be eligible, a senior must be aged 60 to 64 and his or her spouse must receive the basic OAS pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Together they are considered low-income.

The second one is the Allowance for the Survivor. It is designed for widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 who have a low income.

I am happy that we have these two benefits because they have helped many seniors. In total, almost 88,000 seniors benefit from these allowances right now.

However, we have some low-income seniors aged 60 to 64 who cannot even apply for this allowance. If that person has never married or is divorced, he or she is not eligible to apply for the allowance. It creates a very unfair situation. It means that we are treating some seniors differently from others.

We could easily fix this problem by expanding the OAS Allowance for all low-income unattached seniors between the ages of 60 to 64.

CARP, which is a national advocacy group for seniors, once again called for the expansion of this program in its pre-budget submission in 2013. The submission notes that almost 20 per cent of single older women live in poverty, and that unattached older women as a group have one of the highest rates of poverty in Canada.

It is unacceptable that the federal government is excluding one group of low-income people who really need assistance. They are excluded just because they have never been married or they are divorced.

I would urge the federal government to fix the criteria so that everyone in that age group will be treated fairly.

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

Veterans furious as federal lawyers argue Ottawa owes ex-soldiers nothing

Posted on by

By Murray Brewster and Dene Moore The Canadian Press

July 30, 2013

At least one veterans group promises to campaign against the Harper Conservatives because of a stand taken by federal lawyers, who argue the country holds no extraordinary social obligation to ex-soldiers.

The lawyers, fighting a class-action lawsuit in British Columbia, asked a judge to dismiss the court action filed by injured Afghan veterans, saying Ottawa owes them nothing more than what they have already received under its controversial New Veterans Charter.

The stand drew an incendiary reaction from veterans advocates, who warned they are losing patience with the Harper government, which has made supporting the troops one of its political battle cries.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, told a Parliament Hill news conference that since the First World War, the federal government has recognized it has a “sacred obligation” to veterans — and that notion was abandoned with the adoption of the veterans charter by the Conservatives.

“We are asking the government to stand down on this ridiculous position (and) to accept the obligation that successive generations of Parliament have wilfully embraced,” said Blais, who pointed out veterans of Afghanistan deserve the same commitment as those who fought in the world wars.

“We’re damned determined to ensure (the same) standard of care is provided by this government or we shall work to provide and elect another government that will fulfil its sacred obligation.”

The lawsuit filed last fall by six veterans claims that the new charter, which replaces life-time pensions with workers compensation-style lump sum awards for wounds, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In all cases, the awards are substantially less than what service members would have received under the old Pension Act system, which was initially set up following the First World War.

Veterans advocates, including Blais, see the new veterans charter as a bottom-line exercise.

“We went to war, signed up to serve this nation, nobody told us we would be abandoned,” he said.

“Nobody told us they were going to change the game in mid-flights and that our government would turn its back on us, and put the budget ahead of their sacred obligation.”

A spokesman for newly appointed veterans minister Julian Fantino said he wasn’t able to comment directly on the court case. But Joshua Zanin noted that more than 190,000 veterans and their families received benefits under the revised charter and the “government has taken important steps to modernize and improve services to veterans.”

Even so, federal lawyers argued that the veterans lawsuit is “abuse of process” that should be thrown out.

“In support of their claim, the representative plaintiffs assert the existence of a ‘social covenant,’ a public law duty, and a fiduciary duty on the part of the federal government,” Jasvinder S. Basran, the regional director general for the federal Justice Department, said in a court application.

The lawsuit invokes the “honour of the Crown,” a concept that has been argued in aboriginal rights claims.

“The defendant submits that none of the claims asserted by the representative plaintiffs constitutes a reasonable claim, that the claims are frivolous or vexatious, and accordingly that they should be struck out in their entirety.”

New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer says the legal implication of claiming the government has no special obligation to veterans is far-reaching and he demanded the Conservatives clarify what it means.

He noted that unlike the previous legislation, the new veterans charter — passed unanimously by all parties in 2005 and enacted by the Conservatives in 2006 — contained no reference to social obligation.

Both Stoffer and Blais do not advocate for a complete return to the old pension system, but rather that veterans be given a choice of how the benefit is paid.

Among the soldiers named in the suit is Maj. Mark Douglas Campbell, a 32-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who served in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

In June 2008, Campbell, of the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, was struck by an improvised explosive device and Taliban ambush.

He lost both legs above the knee, one testicle, suffered numerous lacerations and a ruptured eardrum. He has since been diagnosed with depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Campbell received a lump-sum payment for pain and suffering of $260,000. He will receive his military pension, with an earnings loss benefit and a permanent impairment allowance but he is entirely unable to work and will suffer a net earnings loss due to his injuries, the lawsuit claims.

Another plaintiff soldier suffered severe injuries to his leg and foot in the blast that killed Canadian journalist Michelle Lang and four soldiers. He was awarded $200,000 in total payments for pain and suffering and post-traumatic stress.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

The federal government application says policy decisions of the government and legislation passed by Parliament are not subject to review by the courts.

“The basic argument that they’re making is that Parliament can do what it wants,” said Don Sorochan, the soldiers’ lawyer.

He said he receives calls almost daily from soldiers affected by the changes, and thousands ultimately could be involved.

Sorochan, who is handling the case for free, said he doesn’t believe the objective of the legislation was to save money at the expense of injured soldiers, but that’s what has happened.

“When the legislation was brought in it was believed by the politicians involved — and I’ve talked to several of them, in all parties — that they were doing a good thing,” Sorochan said.

“But anybody that can objectively look at what is happening to these men and women who have served us, can’t keep believing that.”

Is Harper’s enemies list the beginning of the end?

Posted on by

By Elizabeth May| July 29, 2013   http://rabble.ca

 

Photo: photoswebpm/flickr

The political news of the summer was supposed to be the Cabinet shuffle. It had been hyped well in advance. Unexpectedly, it was the leak of the compilation of an “enemies list” that distracted us from the dazzling brilliance of the Cabinet makeover.

In advance, pundits were busy prognosticating, anticipating and inflating the significance of the Cabinet moves. In the event, despite speculation that some of the most senior portfolios and ministers would be re-arranged, the key portfolios of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Aboriginal Affairs, Treasury Board and Government House Leader remained unchanged.

The Conservative message machine tried to pitch that the news was the promotion of the younger members of the caucus and more women. Overall, the average age of the Cabinet dropped from 55 to 52, and the women appointed largely went to junior positions. The real news was that it was a bloated Cabinet, departing from Stephen Harper’s earlier rhetoric about smaller government. (Perhaps the removal of so many scientists has opened up room for more ministers?)

Some ministers represent issues for which there is no department to manage. New Cabinet member, Pierre Poilievre, well known as a reliable Conservative pit bull in Question Period, is Minister for Democratic Reform. With no department of Democratic Reform, he presides over a smallish group inside the Privy Council Office. Meanwhile, Christian Paradis became Minister for International Development, now a sub-set of the Department of Foreign Affairs, reporting to Minister John Baird. Two other Ministers also represent parts of DFAIT  — Ed Fast in International Trade and Lynne Yellich in Consular Services.

Overall, I cannot get very excited about Cabinet shuffles. In an administration where total control over decisions (large and small), priorities and talking points is maintained by the prime minister, nothing changes unless he does.

Sadly (or happily if you belong to the school of thought that Stephen Harper is his own worst enemy), the prime minister seems more rooted than ever in a hostile, hyper-partisan approach to governance. Newly Independent MP, former Conservative, Brent Rathgeber pointed out to the media one of the most significant things about the shuffle — it completely ignored the moves that might have soothed the increasingly unhappy back benches. Well-liked backbencher, who was widely rumoured to be about to go to Cabinet, James Rajotte of Alberta, was by-passed, while Peter Van Loan, who is nearly universally disliked by Conservative back-benchers (and more than a few front benchers too), gets to continue in the pivotal position of Government House Leader. Well-loved by the backbenches, Cabinet member Stephen Fletcher was turfed for no apparent reason. He did manage a tweet reflecting a brave and audacious sense of humour. The first and only quadriplegic in Parliament, he tweeted “I am a Conservative. I am a traditionalist. I wish I had left cabinet in the traditional way — with a sex scandal.”

Those backbenchers who have spoken out for democracy and the rights of free speech were all overlooked for promotions.

Further confirming that Stephen Harper is not about to change his iron-fisted style was the leaked email asking ministerial staff to compile an enemies list. I think at least one turfed minister will quickly find himself on the list. Former Environment Minister Peter Kent said the request to create a list of friends and enemies was not only “juvenile,” he drew comparisons with a previous paranoid leader.

In an interview with Postmedia, Kent said, “That was the nomenclature used by Nixon. His political horizon was divided very starkly into friends and enemies. The use of the word ‘enemies list,’ for those of us of a certain generation, it evokes nothing less than thoughts of Nixon and Watergate.”

I remember Nixon’s Enemies List very clearly as my mother was one of those listed. We had already applied to immigrate to Canada when some 700 names from the list were made public.  All of her friends were jealous and wanted to know how she had made it onto the list when they had not. I remember one friend saying, “but I really hate him and I have never heard you say you hate him.” My mother apologized and said it must just have been the result of poor White House research.

I see something of the same reaction brewing around this list. People want to be on it. The maintenance of an atmosphere of oppression and fear requires stealth and a level of invisibility. The leaking of an enemies list has generated unwelcome critiques from conservative commentators in the National Post.  It has also invited ridicule. The surest way for Stephen Harper to lose his ability to control all aspects of his administration, to lose the effectiveness of his coercive management style is if people start laughing. An enemies list is both, and, at the same time, sinister and silly.

Comparisons with Richard Nixon which Stephen Harper has now brought on himself will only continue to stir the pot of his own Watergate — Nigel Wright’s cheque to buy Mike Duffy’s silence. It might even remind people of his bizarre rebuke to Michael Ignatieff, “With the tapes I have on you, I wouldn’t want you to resign.”

The fearfulness in Ottawa should recede. We need more air, light and truth telling, and fewer people living in shadows, heads down, hoping to get through the Harper era without losing their jobs. Maybe an enemies list is, against all odds, the beginning of the end.

Originally published in the Island Tides Regional Newspaper.

Photo: photoswebpm/flickr

Elizabeth May

Elizabeth May's picture

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and one of our country’s most respected environmentalists. She is a prominent lawyer, an author, an Officer of the Order of Canada, and a loving mother and grandmother.