Category Archives: harper government

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.

How Harper set the developed world on a course to austerity

Posted on by

Linda McQuaig    By Linda McQuaig      http://rabble.ca

July 30, 2013

Photo: Remy Steinegger/World Economic Forum/flickr

In June 2010, the transformation of the city’s downtown core into a pseudo war zone seemed like the worst aspect of the Harper government’s handling of the G20 summit in Toronto.

But perhaps just as insidious was Stephen Harper’s personal role at that summit in pushing the developed world to abandon stimulus spending and veer sharply toward austerity.

That embrace of austerity has led to deep government spending cuts, with devastating consequences, particularly in some southern European nations. Canadians have suffered, too.

Harper likes to boast that he’s shepherded the Canadian economy to a full recovery from the 2008 crash — even though 1.4 million Canadians remain unemployed. Our employment rate is stuck at 61.9 per cent, down from 63.8 per cent just before the crash, notes Jim Stanford, economist for the Canadian Auto Workers.

This explains Canada’s poor ranking in a recent OECD Employment Outlook report, where Canada ranks 20th out of 34 nations.

Similarly, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office estimated last fall that Ottawa’s spending reductions will cost Canada approximately 125,000 jobs in 2016 . (Reports like that angered the Harper government, which last spring ended Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page’s impressive stint in the watchdog job.)

The embrace of austerity at the 2010 Toronto summit was a dramatic reversal of the stimulus spending that the world’s rich nations had quite effectively adopted to counter the devastating 2008 financial crash — in line with the lessons taught by the great 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes argued that, when businesses are unwilling to invest during a major downturn, the only solution is for governments to invest, and on a massive scale. This insight sharply contradicted the dogma of austerity that prevailed after the 1929 crash, prolonging the 1930s Depression. Although fiercely resisted, Keynes’ insight was eventually accepted.

But right-wing economists, including Stephen Harper, have long bristled at Keynesianism — with its important role for government — and opposed its revival after the 2008 crash. (The minority Harper government only introduced a stimulus package in Canada because the opposition threatened to topple it otherwise.)

By early 2010, Keynesianism was losing ground on the international scene. But it was the G20 summit in Toronto later that year which “above all” resulted in the world’s rich nations changing course and embracing austerity, according to a recent article by British financial journalist Martin Wolf in the New York Review of Books.

Harper played a key role in that lamentable change of direction. At his urging, the G20 nations agreed to commit themselves to halve their deficits by 2013 — a draconian approach that returned the developed world to obsessing about deficits and ignoring unemployment.

(Ironically, the high unemployment produced by austerity reduces tax revenues and increases social spending, making deficit-reduction difficult. Much to its embarrassment, the Harper government has had to revise its deficit estimates upward. So far this year, Canada’s deficit is rising, not falling.)

But the fixation on deficits, which has dominated public discourse for much of the last 30 years, has helped divert attention from the fact that austerity is part of a larger agenda (including tax cuts and privatization) that’s redistributed money toward the top.

While members of the public are guilted into believing they’re living beyond their means and must tighten their belts, they’ve been distracted from noticing the transfer of income and wealth to the rich.

Thaddeus Hwong, a professor of tax policy at York University, has calculated just how much inequality has increased in Canada.

Using the model developed by University of California professor Emmanel Sáez, one of the world’s leading experts in income inequality, Hwong found that between 1982 and 2010, the top-earning 1 per cent of Canadians captured fully 60.3 per cent of all the income growth in Canada.

That was even more dramatic than the U.S., where the top 1 per cent captured 59.6 per cent of income growth in the same period. This highlights that, while inequality is more extreme in the U.S., it is growing faster in Canada.

But with all those deficits to obsess about, who’s noticing the rich, slightly offstage, quietly getting richer.

Linda McQuaig is author, with Neil Brooks, of The Trouble with Billionaires: How the Super-Rich Hijacked the World and How We Can Take It Back. This article was first published in the Toronto Star.

Photo: Remy Steinegger/World Economic Forum/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.

Canadians want plan for future of health care: poll

Posted on by

By Crawford Kilian
Published July 24, 2013     http://thetyee.ca

A poll released today indicates Canadians want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to call a meeting of first ministers to discuss the future of health care — and many are ready to change their vote if their present party doesn’t come up with a plan for that future.

The Nanos Research poll was carried out for the Canadian Health Coalition, an advocacy group. In a news release, the Health Coalition wrote:

Eight in ten Canadians either support (51.1%) or somewhat support (29.4%) Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling a First Ministers’ Meeting to secure a plan for the future of health care in Canada. Four in ten Canadians are either likely (19.1%) or very likely (22.2%) to vote for another federal party if the one they currently support does not present a plan for the future of health care.

Asked for their opinion on the effect of expanding private for-profit healthcare in Canada, 54% of Canadians think health care would be weakened while only 28% think it would be strengthened.

The survey results are being released as the Premiers gather in Niagara-on-the-Lake this week for a Council of the Federation Meeting. It is the last meeting they will have before the expiration of the National Health Accord in 2014.

… The federal government has signalled that it will not renew the National Health Accord. In December 2011, it announced plans to cut $36 billion from federal money transfers to provinces for health care after the Accord expires. It recently cancelled funding for the Health Council of Canada, a council created out of the Accord negotiations in 2004 to track progress and quality in health care.

Crawford Kilian is a contributing editor of The Tyee.