Sunday, June 27, 2010

Here's the real deal about PM

This letter was published in the Lethbridge Herald on June 26th, 2010, although not published in their online edition.  It was submitted on June 3rd, but a mix-up delayed its publication.


Editor:

The unqualified praise contained in the editorial you reprinted from the Red Deer Advocate on Monday, May 31st ("Perhaps PM is the real deal") almost made me choke on my porridge. Here are some of the reasons:

To me one of the most disturbing aspects of Harper is that he does not accept even the principles of democracy. It starts with his contempt for Parliament.

1. Remember the handbook for disrupting the work of committees? (a 200 page manual the Harper Conservatives had issued committee chairpersons. It suggested debate-obstructing delays and, if necessary, it told chair persons to storm out of meetings to grind business to a halt).

2. There’s the silencing of watchdogs that Parliament put into place to serve the interests of all Canadians: (a) the head of the Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Agency, Linda Keen. Fired. (b) Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. Harper has tried to muzzle him by cutting his funding unless he keeps his mouth shut. (c) Paul Kennedy, head of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He was a bit too critical of the RCMP. Kennedy's four-year mandate was not renewed last November. (d) The Military Police Complaints Commission, one of two committees investigating allegations of torture of Afghanistan prisoners. Conflict between Peter Tinsley, the commission's chair, and the government came to a head in Oct. 2007, when Tinsley suspended the hearings in the face of three government motions seeking an adjournment. Tinsley’s position was not renewed.

3. Let's not forget the two prorogations to avoid a sticky situation in parliament.

Harper uses executive spending powers to eliminate things he does not like, with no reference to the House of Commons and no public debate:

1. A continuous assault on women's rights;

2. Diminishing the role of science in the economy;

3. Attacks on the cultural sector;

4. Eliminating the funding for advocacy organizations which criticize the government: e.g., Kairos and, this week, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation.

The Omnibus Budget Bill represents another order of abuse, one copied directly from the corrupted legislative system in the U.S. The Omnibus Budget Bill would allow Harper and his cabinet to change pension rules, waive environmental assessment of projects such as tar sands expansion and oil pipelines, and privatize parts of Canada Post.

Harper is "some kind of real deal" but not one most thinking Canadians want.

Mark Sandilands

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Too many people buying into the corporate version

Too many people buying into the corporate version
Written by Mark Sandilands   
Tuesday, 08 June 2010
Re: “Writer failed to recognize economic realities” (Herald, May 26). In my May 12 letter, I described two narratives to the royalty fiasco. One is the corporate narrative: the government jacked up the royalties too high and drove out the oil industry; the non-corporate narrative says even this feeble attempt to increase royalties angered the oil companies and they decided to teach the government a lesson.
Clearly Mr. Wilson has bought the corporate, oil industry version. He shows thinking that is ages old, from at least the time of feudal lords and serfs through the beginnings of industrialization to now. It’s always the same message: we must trust big corporations (and now their right-wing political parties) to bring us economic prosperity. Any attempt to take away the lords’ or owners’ privileges will only result in economic ruin for the common folk. We’re now hearing the corporate narrative from the same industry that is telling us the “accident” in the Gulf of Mexico was not BP’s fault, when evidence appears daily of malfeasance by BP in this dangerous kind of drilling.
This kind of thinking has led to right-wing governments in Alberta for almost its entire history. Mr. Wilson mentions the NDP government in B.C. in the ’90s, conveniently overlooking the Asian meltdown that happened during its term of office.
If we want to consider governments in neighbouring provinces, how about Grant Devine’s Conservatives in Saskatchewan in the 1980s? That was definitely a “lost decade”! (At least six of Devine’s cabinet ministers were subsequently convicted of fraud, by the way.) It took the social democratic government of Roy Romanow to balance Saskatchewan’s books, a year ahead of Alberta. Manitobans also seem happy to elect NDP governments who’ve had a string of balanced budgets. Indeed, data from the federal finance department shows NDP governments consistently have the best track record for the past 25 years for balancing their books.
Further evidence of Conservative collusion with corporations can be seen in the Harper Conservatives’ Bill C-27, which would require that only producers delivering at least 40 tonnes of grain can vote in Canadian Wheat Board elections. Also note Conservative tinkering with the percentage of Canadian sugar in goods, which will negatively affect local sugar beet growers.
When common folk begin to understand that Conservative governments generally don’t have their interests in mind, perhaps we will elect different governments.
Mark Sandilands
Lethbridge

p.s. [not included in Herald letter due to lack of space].  I'm reminded of a couple of books I've read recently.  One is The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, discussed here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged_Trousered_Philanthropists  and available as a free e-book: (see  the bottom of the page of the Wikipedia article for URLs).  The other is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle and also available for a frree e-book (again see the bottom of the Wikipedia article for links).

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Tax Freedom Day from the Fraser Institute. Bunkum!

On the weekend, news outlets reported Tax Freedom Day, based on a news release from the right-wing, anti-government Fraser Institute, e.g., http://www.live-pr.com/en/the-fraser-institute-june-5-marks-r1048484728.htm

Here's another take on the concept from tax expert, Neil Brooks:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2005/tax_freedom_day.pdf

A shorter version is here:
http://www.policy.ca/directory/page.cgi?g=Detailed%2F1526.html;d=1'%20years%20of%20education

Here is a paragraph from the conclusion to Neil Brooks's essay:

Yet the Institute has presented us with infor-
mation that seriously distorts the picture of how
much tax Canadians pay. Far from promoting ra-
tional discussion, the Institute is clearly trying to
incite Canadians to anger, to encourage them to
join with members of the financial élite in a kind
of collective “tax rage.” The ultimate result of its
campaign will be even lower taxes, particularly
for high-income Canadians — and a continued
decline in the capacity of our governments to de-
liver programs that most Canadians value.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Gywn Morgan--now campaigning for salmon farming.


If, like me, you read the Globe and Mail, you may have come across a column in the May 31st paper written by Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of Encana, and the person Harper put forward as his choice for a new public appointments chief (rejected by the opposition).  The column's title was "Blaming salmon farms for decline makes for one fishy tale".  I thought the column was rather "fishy" and am pleased to note the comments have appeared.  Here is a link to the column and rebuttals http://www.salmonaresacred.org/blog/damage-globe-and-mail-credibility. The first rebuttal begins, "Heavily biased misinformed writing such as below damages the credibility of your paper.  Someone should have reviewed this piece with the scientists studying the collapse of wild salmon in BC. "  The second rebuttal begins, "Gwyn Morgan's article is very narrowed minded, ignoring mounting scientific evidence from around the world that concludes open net aquaculture are breeding grounds for sea lice and are lethal to wild salmon, shrimps and clams. "