SURETTE: Harper could still hang on, even after defacing Canada

http://thechronicleherald.ca     ralph Surette    May 16, 2014

           Three little-tent parties suit Stephen Harper just fine, because small, dirty and divided is his game, writes Ralph Surette. (ADRIAN WYLD / CP)

Watching Stephen Harper envenom not only the politics of the day but hammer at our deepest societal framework — the rule of law, democratic process — is to wonder what will be left of our self-respect as a nation if he wins the next election, thanks to a splintered electorate.

Once the light of the world on many fronts, Canada is now denounced regularly on environment, foreign aid and other things. Germany’s Bertelsmann Foundation, which rates governments every three years, has Canada slipping fast in “good government” ratings. Of the “high-quality governance structures” Canada once had in place, it said in its most recent report, “the actions of the Canadian government . . . have jeopardized this situation.”

Harper is a genius at totalitarian-style manipulation that feeds on the divisions that it has itself created, and at keeping the public confused. The fact that his party is still in the game at all according to the polls, despite one anti-democratic binge after another, attests to that.

Despite everything, he comes out with only a few light scratches over his scandalous attack on Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on a trumped-up accusation.

This is not just a nasty spat. The Harperists have been attacking the courts from Day 1, and their problem is not with this or that judge — it is with the rule of law itself. The PMO’s reported fury at a string of setbacks suffered at the hands of the Supreme Court tells us ever more clearly that the Conservatives see the law as their plaything, to be bent to their purposes.

Harper is a clear-headed ideologue — all the more dangerous for that. Having bragged to the effect that “you won’t recognize Canada after I’m through with it,” his stated goal is to destroy the Liberal party and turn his own into the “natural governing party.”

The time for natural governing parties is probably over, but he can take some satisfaction in the reduced state of the Liberal party. The Harperists’ one telling argument is that Justin Trudeau “is not ready for prime time.” As regularly as Harper assaults democracy, Trudeau puts his foot in his mouth. And the recent signal given by its exclusion of pro-life candidates on the abortion issue is that the Liberal party is no longer a “big-tent” party. Three little-tent parties suit Harper fine, because small, dirty and divided is his game.

One would hope that by the time the next election rolls around in a year and a half, the game will be absolutely clear to the electorate. The idea of Harper in power another four years to rip up treaties, pervert the electoral process, pass manipulative omnibus bills, deepen the hold of oil and other resource companies over government, rig the tax system for partisan purposes, politicize the bureaucracy, plus attack environmentalists, scientists, civil society groups and parliamentary watchdogs, among others, should give us pause indeed.

Actually, many people get it now — the Harperists linger at some 20 per cent in the polls in Atlantic Canada and at 13 per cent in Quebec, raising the prospects of election night opening with fewer than a half dozen Conservative seats east of Ontario, and maybe none at all. The Prairies won’t budge much, despite some Conservative libertarians objecting to Harper’s iron grip, leaving Ontario and B.C. to decide. There, the Harperists are behind the Liberals, but not by much.

Harper’s argument there is that he’s going to heroically balance the budget and cut taxes. That is, he’s going to slash at everything, like services to veterans, and, especially, dump costs on the provinces. (Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer doesn’t know what exactly is being cut — that’s hidden in the last omnibus bill.)

With these savings, he’ll propose to cut taxes aimed at key voting groups in the money belts around Toronto and Vancouver that can be counted on to put self-interest above country.

If only Canadians saw what the outside sees. Once the light of the world on many fronts, Canada is now denounced regularly on environment, foreign aid and other things. Germany’s Bertelsmann Foundation, which rates governments every three years, has Canada slipping fast in “good government” ratings. Of the “high-quality governance structures” Canada once had in place, it said in its most recent report, “the actions of the Canadian government . . . have jeopardized this situation.”

Meanwhile, last November, with the media saturated with the Senate and Rob Ford scandals, Canadians heard nothing of the thrashing we got at the Warsaw Climate Change Conference, where several studies put us down with Saudi Arabia, which flares off oilfield gas, and a couple of others as one of the dirtiest nations on Earth per capita, thanks mostly to the tar sands.

Meanwhile, the opposition Liberals and NDP, which two-thirds of the electorate would like to see come together to put an end to Harper, instead are locked in their own frenzied combat, making it more likely that the Conservatives will slip through in those contested areas. And another Harper victory, even in a squeaky minority, would kill any chance that this country can retake its place as a positive force in the world.

Harper is a genius at totalitarian-style manipulation that feeds on the divisions that it has itself created, and at keeping the public confused. The fact that his party is still in the game at all according to the polls, despite one anti-democratic binge after another, attests to that.

About the Author

ralph Surette

Ralph Surette is a freelance journalist in Yarmouth County.

E-Mail: rsurette@herald.ca

Want to buy your way into Canada? New options revealed

By Majorie van Leijen    May 13 2014   https://www.zawya.com

Photo Credit:REUTERS/David McNew

New investment programme in Canada in the making

In February this year, the two investment programmes that existed were scrapped by the Canadian government, along with the backlog of thousands of applications. What had been the gateway to Canadian citizenship for the high net-worth-individuals for many years was suddenly a closed door.

However, it seems that the door will not remain shut, as several options have already been discussed. Most concrete were recent statements made by Chris Alexander, Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, to the Chinese media about the details of a new investment pilot scheme, which is set to be launched by the year-end.

According to news sources, the new programme would take the shape of a venture capital pilot, with a minimum investment amount that is more than twice as much as the previous amount, which was CAD800,000.

The investment would involve a privately managed at-risk venture capitalist investment, with a strong focus on start-up businesses, whereas the original programme offered a risk-free investment; the funds were eventually returned in full, interest free. The financing option that existed would no longer be part of the new pilot.

Further, the period of investment would probably exceed the previous investment period, which was a five-year period. However, language and residency requirements would most likely not be terribly stringent.

When the Immigrant Investment Programme (FIIP) and the Entrepreneur Programme were cancelled three months ago, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) explained that in order to move forward with programmes that would more accurately capture the types of investors needed in Canada, CIC would instead eliminate the files currently in the backlog.

With that decision, 65,000 backlogged applications were returned. “By doing away with the current IIP and EN programmes, the government will pave the way for new pilot programmes that will actually meet Canada’s labour market and economic needs,” was the argument of the CIC.

However, not much was revealed about these programmes after that, claimed Sergio Marchi, former Minister of Citizenship & Immigration and Member of the global Council on Migration at the sidelines of the Citizenship by Investment & International Residence Summit, held in Dubai last month.

“Rather than refocusing and reinvigorating the programme, it was terminated without providing the public with a transparent economic analysis of the costs and benefits it brought to Canada,” he said.

Over the last 25 years, some 3,000 high net-worth-individuals have become residents annually, representing over CAD10 billion of investments, he points out. “These investments have been used to fund Canadian priorities, including support for SMEs and debt reduction.”

In general, the focus of the Canadian immigration policy has been more on the worker than on the investor. On average, immigrant investors comprised between 2-3 per cent of all immigrants who come into Canada each year, and a total of 130,000 investors have arrived in Canada over the past 25 years.

Ironically, the country was among the first to adopt an immigrant investment programmes, a concept which has been applied in many countries ever since. However, there is currently only the Start-Up Programme, which is an option for the entrepreneur to do business in Canada in return for permanent residency.

© Emirates 24|7 2014

Harper’s assimilation agenda just had a head-on collision with indigenous resistance

This is our refusal to watch our children’s futures assimilate into oblivion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the AFN both need to seriously consider their next steps.

 

The Hill Times photograph, Michelle-Andrea Girouard

Idle No More protesters, pictured on Parliament Hill in 2013. The coming weeks and months will determine in what direction the relationship between Canada and First Nations turns, but one thing is for certain: First Nations will never allow Canada to repeat the harms suffered by the residential school policy again. Our resistance to Bill C-33 is testament to that, writes Idle No More spokesperson Pam Palmater.

By PAM PALMATER   http://www.hilltimes.com 
Published: Monday, 05/12/2014

TORONTO—This has been a difficult month for Prime Minister Stephen Harper in terms of Crown-First Nations relations. Harper seemed too busy picking fights with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin and defending another “dodgy” Senate appointment, to notice that Canada’s already brittle relationship with First Nations was crumbling.

In the last few weeks, Harper refused to conduct an inquiry into murdered and missing women or allow the RCMP to release its own investigation until “reviewed” by Canada. The auditor general’s recent report criticizes Canada for lack of transparency and adequate funding in First Nation policing, an all too familiar conclusion in most, if not all previous reports, which highlighted chronic underfunding in other areas like housing, water, and education. Even the international community is taking notice of Canada’s abrupt governance personality change under Harper. While the United Nations has been consistently critical of Canada’s treatment of indigenous peoples, the Bertelsmann Foundation is the latest to note that Canada’s record on governance has declined under Harper, especially when it comes to indigenous peoples.

It was, therefore, no surprise when the Harper government introduced Bill C-33 First Nation Control of First Nation Education Act on April 10, 2014. Contrary to the joint Atleo-Harper announcement on Feb. 7, 2014 which promised increased funding for First Nation education; First Nation control over education; and support for First Nation languages and cultures—this legislation did just the opposite. Bill C-33 increased ministerial control over education in very paternalistic ways (including co-managers and third-party managers of education); it did not guarantee specific levels of funding; and English and French were made the languages of instruction. 

The opposition to this bill was immediate and widespread across various demographics, from First Nation chiefs, citizens, educators, lawyers, and academics and served as the final straw in the Atleo-Harper relationship. Harper had been running roughshod over First Nations and their rights since he was first elected, but this time Harper went too far and lost his primary ally—Assembly of First Nations national chief Shawn Atleo who recently resigned. Although most will see this bill as the primary reason for Atleo’s resignation, the widespread calls for his impeachment were a long time in the making.

The Joint Action Plan between Atleo and Harper announced June 9, 2011, was the first sign that Atleo was headed down the wrong path. The plan promised a National Panel on Education instead of much-needed funding to address the crisis in education. Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec First Nations pulled out of the National Panel in protest. 

Atleo stood by Harper’s side during the Crown-First Nation Gathering on Jan. 24, 2012, where Harper told First Nations his plan to enact legislation and unilaterally change the treaty relationship and rules in education. When Atleo did not heed warnings from First Nations leaders about Harper’s assimilatory agenda, many First Nation leaders started to pull away from the AFN.

Atleo was re-elected as national chief in July 2012 and continued to stand by Harper’s side as he introduced more paternalistic legislation, more funding cuts to First Nation organizations, and allowed the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women to go unchecked. As a result, the people rose and Idle No More was born in late fall of 2012. Even with such mass opposition to Harper’s agenda, Atleo stood by Canada’s side. 

Seeing little hope for change, Chief  Theresa Spence went on her hunger strike and the people ramped up their Idle No More rallies and protests. Atleo did not stand with the people. The chiefs reacted by gathering for a week in Ottawa and told Atleo not to meet with Harper on Jan. 11, 2013. Atleo killed our leverage and unity by sneaking in the back way to meet with Harper and then had a “ceremonial meeting” with the GG in the evening.

The chiefs reacted with letters calling for Atleo’s resignation and withdrawing from the AFN. The Treaty First Nations started conducting their own gatherings to strategize on how best to protect their rights. Yet, Atleo continued to meet in secret with Harper. The surprise joint Atleo-Harper announcement on Feb. 7, 2014 was quickly followed by the introduction of Bill C-33 and was the final nail in the coffin for both Atleo and Harper. The widespread calls for Atleo’s impeachment and the rallies organized in Ottawa against Bill C-33 ultimately led to Atleo’s resignation and Harper’s decision to put the bill “on hold.”

First Nations are generally very patient. Given the many horrific experiences of First Nations peoples at the hands of the federal government from scalping bounties, small pox blankets, forced sterilizations of indigenous women, torture, abuse and deaths of children in residential schools, and medical experimentation on First Nation peoples—it is a testament to our peaceful nature that we continue to sit at the table with Canada in hopes of improving the relationship.

But Harper has set Crown-First Nations relations back decades. We are now back where First Nation national political organizing started: the 1969 White Paper and the federal goal to assimilate Indians. The continued failure by Canada to address our just concerns has led to numerous clashes in the meeting rooms, in the courts, and on the ground and Atleo’s resignation hurt Harper in a big way. Without Atleo, Harper’s bill is indefensible. This is the reason for the rare step by Harper to put the bill on hold pending “clarification from AFN” on their position. 

The AFN executive met this past Monday and Tuesday and decided not to appoint an interim national chief, but instead appointed Quebec Regional Chief Ghislain Picard as spokesperson until the election is held. They offered no position on Bill C-33. Canada must wait for its answer. But time is exactly what is needed on all sides. Harper’s assimilation agenda has just experienced a head-on collision with indigenous resistance and our refusal to watch our children’s futures assimilate into oblivion. Harper and the AFN both need to seriously consider their next steps. 

Canada should withdraw this bill and address the current crisis in education by adjusting First Nation funding to adequate levels, with additional funds to rebuild capacity and training, and address run-down schools and infrastructure. Then it should begin the necessary step of meeting with First Nations to decide how to go forward on the larger governance and rights issues—which will be up to First Nations to decide for themselves. Most of all, Canada has some relationship building to do. It has to end the negative propaganda against First Nations, stop trying to impose federally-designed solutions, and get down to the hard work of addressing the injustices.

The AFN, for its part, has to take a long, hard look at itself from a critical lens if it has any hope of regaining credibility. Simply holding an election for a different national chief will not be enough—especially if any of the current AFN executive run in the election. With a couple of exceptions, the regional chiefs were part of the Atleo-Harper deal-making process throughout Atleo’s two terms. They could have stopped the Joint Action Plan, the Atleo-Harper meeting, the National Panel on Education, and even this legislation. These regional chiefs still have to be held accountable to the leaders and citizens in their own regions for their actions.

The coming weeks and months will determine in what direction the relationship between Canada and First Nations turns, but one thing is for certain: First Nations will never allow Canada to repeat the harms suffered by the residential school policy again. Our resistance to Bill C-33 is testament to that.

Dr. Pamela Palmater, who ran against Shawn Atleo for the AFN leadership in 2012, is a Mi’kmaw lawyer and activist and was one of the spokespeople for the Idle No More movement. She also holds the chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University.

The More Canadians Know About The Fair Elections Act, The Less They Like It: Poll

The Huffington Post Canada  |  By Eric Grenier

Opposition to the Conservative government’s proposed Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23) is widespread and growing, according to a new poll by Angus Reid Global.

The survey, conducted online from April 14-15 and surveying 1,505 Canadians, found that 59 per cent of Canadians who said they were very or fairly familiar with the proposed legislation were opposed to it, an increase of three points since Angus Reid last polled Canadians on the topic in February.

Nevertheless, a majority of Canadians (69 per cent) said they were not familiar with the bill, including 27 per cent who said they had not heard of it before Angus Reid polled them. That did decrease by 11 points from February, however, as the number of people saying they were very familiar with the bill increased by three points to eight per cent, and the proportion who said they were fairly familiar jumped by eight points to 23 per cent.

There was an important difference in support for Bill C-23 between those who knew something about it and those who said they didn’t. And why not? It is called the “Fair Elections Act” after all. Whereas just 41 per cent of Canadians who said they were familiar with the proposed legislation supported it, 52 per cent who said they knew little to nothing about it were in favour.

One aspect of the legislation calling for stiffer penalties for those who break the law has universal support.

But opposition to “transferring the elections ‘watchdog’ responsibilities away from the Chief Electoral Officer” stood at 71 per cent among those familiar with the bill, an increase of 20 points since February.

Opposition to reducing Elections Canada’s public information activities was also strong, at 72 per cent (up eight points).

Angus Reid also asked Canadians what they thought about removing “vouching” as an option for voters without ID, and on this the Conservatives appear to be onside with public opinion: 59 per cent of informed respondents thought it was a good idea. Angus Reid did not ask this question in February, so it is not possible to know if opinion has changed on this particular issue.

What has certainly not changed is the credibility problem Tories have on reforming the Elections Act.

Fully 65 per cent of all Canadians, whether they knew anything about the bill or not, said they did not trust “the Conservative government to ensure Canada has the best elections oversight possible.” This was virtually unchanged since February.

And 72 per cent of Canadians familiar with the Fair Elections Act said that “the Conservative government is politically motivated” and “doesn’t like Elections Canada.” Only 28 per cent considered the bill a “genuine attempt to improve” elections in Canada.

This Angus Reid poll echoes the results of some other recent surveys, which have found that the more Canadians learn about the Fair Elections Act, the more unfair they consider it.

The Conservatives would be wise to heed at least some of these concerns.

Éric Grenier taps The Pulse of federal and regional politics for Huffington Post Canada readers every week. Grenier is the author of ThreeHundredEight.com, covering Canadian politics, polls and electoral projections.