Monthly Archives: June 2015

Activism, democracy, Politics

Freedom Road campaign aims to raise $10M for Shoal Lake 40 First Nation

Leave a comment

‘If the feds aren’t going to do it, somebody’s got to do it,’ says Rick Harp, who started campaign

Rick Harp has launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise $10 million to build an all-weather road linking the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation to the mainland. The campaign is accepting donations until Aug. 29.
Rick Harp has launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise $10 million to build an all-weather road linking the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation to the mainland. The campaign is accepting donations until Aug. 29. (CBC)

reposted from CBC News, June 30, 2015

A Winnipeg man wants to raise $10 million to build an all-weather road that would connect the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, which is on a man-made island, to the outside world.

Rick Harp says he hopes the public will do what the federal government won’t — fund construction of the road, dubbed Freedom Road by Shoal Lake 40 residents.

“If the feds aren’t going to do it, somebody’s got to do it. Let’s step forward,” Harp told CBC News in an interview.

“We just had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission release their report. [We] want to give life to that spirit of reconciliation and do right by Shoal Lake 40.”

His crowdfunding campaign, launched on Monday afternoon, has raised more than $5,000 to date. People have until Aug. 29 to donate.

The Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, which straddles the Manitoba-Ontario border, was cut off from the mainland a century ago when an aqueduct was built to supply Winnipeg with fresh water.

Under boil-water advisory for 17 years

While clean water flows down the aqueduct, murky water is diverted to the First Nation.

Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, Freedom Road
Children are comforted after the federal government refused to commit to funding a third of a road project for Shoal Lake 40 First Nation on June 25. The Winnipeg and Manitoba governments each committed to fund a third of a proposed road from Shoal Lake 40 to Highway 1 in Shoal Lake so the community can have year round access. The federal government refused to commit. (Canadian Press/John Woods)

The community has been under a boil-water advisory for 17 years and has no all-weather road connecting it to the mainland.

Building a permanent, all-weather road would cost an estimated $30 million split between three levels of government.

First Nation members sobbed on Thursday after the federal government refused to commit to help fund the construction of Freedom Road.

The City of Winnipeg and the Manitoba government have committed to fund part of the costs of building the permanent road, but Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford refused to say whether Ottawa would put up its one-third share.

Instead, Rickford reiterated the federal government’s $1-million pledge to a design study for the project.

“Something snapped in me,” said Harp.

“I just said, ‘This is not right. This can’t stand. What can I do? Even though I want my government to do something, what can I do?'”

With files from The Canadian Press

SOURCE

Politics

Fiscal Austerity Causing Long Term Economic Damage

Leave a comment
johnlegear_thumb.jpg
Photo: John LeGear. Used under a Creative Commons License.

By Andrew Jackson, reposted from the Broadbent Blog, June 27, 2015

While Canada’s short term economic prospects are pretty gloomy, longer term projections are even worse. A major reason is that policy-makers here and in all of the advanced industrial countries have been content to settle for a very slow recovery which undermines our longer-term economic potential.

The April 2015 World Economic Outlook of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts a significant decline in potential growth in the advanced economies compared to pre-recession levels. Potential growth in the United States is pegged at just 2.0% per year, less than the modest forecast growth rate of 3.1% for this year and next.

The potential growth rate is determined mainly by estimates of future labour force growth and productivity growth, and reflects an economy’s capacity to increase output without high inflation once economic slack has been used up.

Estimates of potential are probably conservative, but they largely determine monetary policy.

The IMF judges that potential growth has fallen because of a decline in business investment in new capital during the recession and recent weak recovery, slowing labour force growth due to ageing, a declining labour force participation rate, and (less certainly) a slowdown in innovation.

Here at home, an appendix to the latest Monetary Policy Report from the Bank of Canada pegs potential economic growth at just 1.8%, again even less than the already low 2.0% average private sector forecast for 2015 cited in the recent federal budget. The Bank of Canada places a lot of the blame on weak business investment which has reduced the capital stock and potential productivity growth.

The IMF report devotes a whole chapter to a study of low rates of business investment, and concludes that the key reason is a weak recovery. Businesses have the means to invest, not least with ultra low interest rates and buoyant stock markets, but do not see the growing market needed to justify increases in productive capacity.

The IMF also notes that a continued slack job market has led to a falling labour force participation rate, as has been experienced in both Canada and the United States where significant numbers of workers have given up looking for jobs.

The key problem is that growth in the advanced economies, especially in Europe, has been very feeble ever since the effects of the fiscal stimulus program of 2008-10 had run their course. Weak growth has in turn undermined the potential to grow faster down the road.

In his recent book, Hall of Mirrors, comparing the Great Depression to the Great Recession, Barry Eichengreen of the University of California, Berkeley reminds us that the United States really only emerged from a decade long Great Depression during World War Two. The New Deal was insufficient to spark a lasting recovery, especially after FDR attempted to balance the budget in 1936 and tipped the American economy back into recession..

Eichengreen, like Paul Krugman and even IMF economists, argues that the unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus given to the global economy by governments working through the G-20 was enough to stop the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression, but that the premature turn to fiscal austerity since 2010 has left us with a very weak recovery.

Mr. Eichengreen argues that policy makers learned enough from the Great Depression to avert catastrophe following the financial crisis of 2008, but not enough to set the stage for a real recovery.

In his Foreword to the IMF report, Chief economist Olivier Blanchard notes that monetary policy has done all it can to sustain growth. He argues that there should be more focus on public investment, particularly in those countries which do not have large deficits and high levels of public debt.

That group of countries would certainly include Canada, Germany, which could help spark a meaningful European recovery, and arguably the United States where the deficit is now falling rapidly.

The question is whether we should be content with dismal prospects, both now and down the road, or heed the lessons of history. SOURCE

Andrew Jackson is Adjunct Research Professor in the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University, and senior policy adviser to the Broadbent Institute.

Activism, democracy, Politics, racism

Canadian human rights organizations: Bill C-51 has passed but serious human rights concerns have not gone away

Leave a comment

 

C51_coalition

reposted from Canadian Civil Liberties Association, June 29, 2015

When Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act 2015, was tabled in Parliament this spring, Canada’s leading human rights organizations called for the Bill to be withdrawn. Amnesty International, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, La Ligue des Droits et Libertés and the National Council of Canadian Muslims have stated from the outset that the serious human rights shortcomings in Bill C-51 are so numerous and inseparably interrelated that the Bill should be withdrawn in its entirety. We believe that any national security law reform should instead, first, be convincingly demonstrated to be necessary and should then proceed only in a manner that is wholly consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the country’s international human rights obligations.

Disappointingly, Bill C-51 has passed and is poised to become law. But the fight isn’t over yet. Too much is at stake. Over the past few months, we saw public concern and opposition to Bill C-51 grow as Canadians learned more about the Bill and the threat it poses to fundamental rights and freedoms. Now that it has passed, if we are to see the Anti-terrorism Act 2015 repealed, it is crucial that Canadians continue to have conversations in the months to come about security, human rights, and basic freedoms – with each other and with those seeking office in the fall’s federal election. We believe that the government has never made the case for Bill C-51 beyond the simple assertion that it “needs” additional powers to protect public safety. But it has provided no explanation as to why Canada’s spy agency needs unprecedented and troubling disruption powers. It has not made a credible case for the vast, opaque and unaccountable all-of-government information sharing regime Bill C-51 creates. And, it has provided no evidence for how no-fly lists with appeal provisions that lack due process actually improve aviation security and public safety.

Troughout the Parliamentary hearings on Bill C-51, not a single witness offered a concrete example of how the draconian measures in Bill C-51 would better protect public safety. Legal experts have also pointed out that some provisions in Bill C-51 actually undermine anti-terrorism activities. For example, the new criminal offence of advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences “in general” may frustrate detection of potential threats when speech gets driven underground or chill community efforts to de-radicalize extremist views. Yet these serious concerns have not been addressed in any way.

While Canada’s national security agencies are granted ever-increasing powers and scope, no effort has been made to provide for a system of robust and independent accountability, despite urgent calls for reform. For instance, Canada stands stunningly alone among our closest allies in intelligence sharing in failing to ensure parliamentary oversight of national security. And Bill C-51 has only compounded the accountability problems that already exist, by making it harder for individuals to hold government officials to account for rights violations.

With so many unanswered questions and obvious human rights shortcomings, we strongly urge Canadians across the country to keep talking and learning about the Anti-terrorism Act 2015 this summer, and to make it clear to the candidates who will be vying for votes in this fall’s election that they expect nothing less than firm commitments to repeal the Anti-terrorism Act 2015 as a matter of first priority. This debate is far from over.

 

Amnesty International Canada Brief: Insecurity and Human Rights: Concerns and Recommendations with respect to Bill C51, the Anti-Terrorism Act 2015

DOWNLOAD
Addendum to Insecurity and Human Rights

Download (PDF, 576KB)

Cultural Ecocide, Cultural Genocide, democracy, Ecocide, Politics, racism
Leave a comment

By Amnesty International Canada, June 30, 2015

A report released earlier this month by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission marked a watershed moment for the relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.

For more than 100 years, Canadian government policy tore Indigenous children from their homes and families to be placed in residential schools.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission sparked a long-overdue national conversation when it bluntly acknowledged that the residential schools were “part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will.”

But perhaps what’s most striking about the Commission’s report is how many of its 94 recommendations deal not only with the harms of the past, and their lasting legacy, but with current government programmes and policies that continue to deprive today’s generation of Indigenous youth a fair opportunity to have healthy, safe childhoods, to grow up in their own cultures and languages. and to realize their potentials.

The recommendations include, for example, a call to close the gap in funding for on-reserve First Nations education, measures to address the continued removal of Indigenous children by the child welfare system, and a national inquiry into the murder and disappearance of Indigenous women and girls.

Responding to the report, Amnesty International Secretary General Alex Neve pointed out that reconciliation and justice are inseparable and that justice has three fundamental elements: acknowledging the truth, setting things right, and ensuring that the harm is never repeated.

> Read Amnesty’s response to the TRC report

> Take action on services for First Nations children

> Demand No More Stolen Sisters

RELATED:

Ontario’s continued refusal to commit to cleaning up the waters at Grassy Narrows is simply inexcusable.

Missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls: Every Life Should Matter

Reconciliation Starts Here.

 

 

 

Activism, Politics, Preventing Ecocide

Fighting climate change: Three climate odd couples who should get together

Leave a comment

Naturalist David Attenborough met Barack Obama and the Pope sought anti-capitalist Naomi Klein’s advice – who next?

By Megan Darby, reposted from RTCC, June 29, 2015

It is pretty unusual for the president of the United States to interview anyone, and a veteran British naturalist might not be the obvious choice.

But it’s happened – Barack Obama and Sir David Attenborough made common cause on climate change, in a broadcast published by the White House Friday.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis has recruited secular anti-capitalist writer and activist Naomi Klein to his moral crusade on global warming.

Which got RTCC thinking: who else could we set up on a climate date? Add your suggestions below the line.

India's prime minister and the Hollywood star would have lots to talk about (Flickr/Narendra Modi; Wikimedia Commons/JJ Georges)

Narendra Modi and Leo DiCaprio

The boyish star of Titanic and Django Unchained has nailed his green colours to the mast. Leo DiCaprio was last September named a UN ambassador on climate change. Days later, he was marching alongside indigenous activists through the streets of New York.

Just as quickly, the Mail Online was labelling the multi-millionaire a hypocrite, pointing to his lavish jetsetter lifestyle. Highlights included renting the world’s fifth largest yacht from a UAE oil tycoon.

That’s where the charismatic Indian prime minister could be his perfect match. Not only does Narendra Modi share his passion for solar panels, he is an advocate for low carbon living.

If only DiCaprio would trade in his skiing holiday in the Alps for a yoga retreat, Modi would be sure to tell him, he could be that bit more credible a climate advocate.

The Dalai Lama and Graca Machel

The spiritual guide for an estimated 350 million Buddhists worldwide, the Dalai Lama was fomenting climate rebellion at the UK’s Glastonbury festival this weekend.

He told the assembled music-lovers to put pressure on their governments to go green, saying: “The concept of war is outdated, but we do need to fight. Countries think about their own national interest rather than global interests and that needs to change because the environment is a global issue.”

For all his belly laughs and winning smile, the Tibetan leader has one big obstacle to making friends: China. The world’s biggest emitter considers him a threat to national unity.

It takes a brave person to stand up to Beijing. Someone like Graca Machel, perhaps. The humanitarian campaigner, politician and widow of Nelson Mandela is no stranger to power struggles.

Indeed, Machel sternly rebuked leaders for their weak carbon cutting promises and lack of courage at last September’s New York summit. Who better to fight side by side with the exiled Tibetan? Non-violently, of course.

Kathy and Pharrell: climate soulmates? (Simon Ruf / UN Social Media Team; Flickr/Thomas Hawk)

Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner and Pharrell Williams

Marshall Islands poet Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner was the breakout star of New York, with an emotive message to her baby daughter.

Her appeal for action to save her low-lying island home from the rising seas could not have failed to touch the hearts of assembled dignitaries.

With a little help from pop phenomenon Pharrell Williams, she could really hit the big time.

It would be a chance for the creator of viral hit “Happy” to regain the climate platform. His plans to curate a 7-continent Live Earth 2015 concert, announced to great fanfare at Davos in January, have sunk without trace.

SOURCE

Activism, climate science, Ecocide ALert, Fascism/Corporatism, Politics, Preventing Ecocide

Secular Activist Naomi Klein Joins Pope Francis To Fight Climate Change

Leave a comment

Naomi Klein
[Image Credit: David Shankbone/Wikimedia Commons]
reposted from Inquisitir, June 29, 2015

Pope Francis has an unlikely ally in the fight against climate change – activist Naomi Klein. Klein is a harsh critic of modern capitalism, arguing for fundamental economic changes in her book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate to address the problems of a warming planet. She is also secular, along with a growing number of the Pope’s allies on the issue.

According to the Guardian, Naomi Klein will lead a high-level climate change conference for the Vatican along with Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson. In the conference, The People and Planet First: the Imperative to Change Course, Klein and Turkson will focus on the Pope’s recent 200-page encyclical that frames global warming as a moral issue.

The Catholic leader’s strident stance on the climate has made even once devoutly Catholic conservatives, like Rick Santorum and Jeb Bush, question the wisdom of their church. Naomi Klein, on the other hand, has always been hated by conservatives.

By inviting the activist author, Francis is already drawing new criticism from conservative commentators for allowing an outsider to head a church function. Nevertheless, Klein is embracing Francis’ newfound role in the global discussion and believes her invitation is proof he’s ready to follow through.

“The fact that they invited me indicates they’re not backing down from the fight. A lot of people have patted the pope on the head, but said he’s wrong on the economics. I think he’s right on the economics.”

UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon delivered a keynote speech at another Vatican summit back in April, covering both climate change and poverty.

The subject of Naomi Klein’s conference, the Pope’s environmental encyclical, has garnered widespread support, even in other religions. On Sunday, a multifaith rally marched through the Vatican.

The Guardian reports that rally brought thousands from around the world to thank Francis for unwavering commitment.

Kiran Bali came from the U.K. to represent the Hindu community.

“It’s so clear that the world is at a crucial tipping point due to climate change and it’s so important that faith leaders take action on this important issue. Now is the time to unite, to come together and to really make a difference to protect the Earth from further destruction.”

The demonstrations and conferences along with the encyclical are all preparation for the make-or-break climate change summit in Paris in December. Pope Francis will be there to give his moral guidance, which, according to Naomi Klein, is just what the conversation needs.

“There’s a way in which UN discourse sanitizes the extent to which this is a moral crisis. It cries out for a moral voice.”

Whether Pope Francis, and his newest secular ally Naomi Klein, can force real change in the summit remains to be seen. SOURCE

RELATED:

Pope Francis and Naomi Klein: Church Joins Forces With Prominent Secular Voice To Address Climate Change

 

democracy, Ecocide, Fascism/Corporatism, Politics

The FIPA with China restricts Canada’s options on climate change

Leave a comment
Suncor Energy Inc. oil tanks stand in this aerial photograph taken near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, on Thursday, June 4, 2015. (Ben Nelms/Bloomberg)
Suncor Energy Inc. oil tanks stand in this aerial photograph taken near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, on Thursday, June 4, 2015. (Ben Nelms/Bloomberg)

By Gus Van Harten, reposted from the Globe and Mail, June 30, 2015

For years, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government told Canadians that it could not act on climate change until China joined in. Yet, in 2014, the government quietly finalized a 31-year investment treaty that, in essence, gives Chinese oil companies an advance bailout against a range of steps that Canada may need to take on climate change.

Take, for example, the call by more than 100 scientists for limits on oil sands expansion until a serious Canadian plan on climate change is in place. What is a serious plan? The scientists said it would need “to rapidly reduce carbon pollution, safeguard biodiversity, protect human health and respect treaty rights.”

Now, consider Canada’s new Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China. The deal gives Chinese companies powerful rights to frustrate even modest steps that reduce the value of their oil sands holdings. That is, if governments in Canada put new limits on the oil sands, they face major liabilities under the FIPA’s system of foreign investor protection. Worse, Canadians cannot know reliably how the FIPA is being used – and whether it is affecting government decisions – because the agreement makes special allowances for confidential settlements with Chinese investors.

On a close study of the FIPA’s terms, a key purpose of the deal was to open Canadian resources to China and to preserve the value of Chinese assets in Canada. In the case of the oil sands, there are already billions of dollars in Chinese-owned assets and expected profits that would be affected by a tougher response on climate change. If China is not on board for how we decide to regulate in Canada, we will have a problem, owing to the FIPA.

Can we expect FIPA arbitrators to award billions of dollars in compensation to Chinese companies? The short answer is yes. In the past few years, there have been huge awards to oil companies under similar investment deals: $2-billion (U.S.) against Ecuador, $50-billion (U.S.) against Russia.

True, these cases differ from potential disputes about climate change in Canada’s resource sector. But it is not unrealistic to expect FIPA arbitrators to (1) issue compensation orders against Canada, since they’ve done so in various North American free-trade agreement cases already, and (2) order vast amounts to be paid by Canadians, since they’ve done so against other countries, and the amounts reflect the value of the foreign investor’s assets, not the Boy Scoutishness of the condemned country.

At the least, the FIPA has made it more difficult for governments in Canada to take action on climate change, assuming that governments are (usually) careful with billions of dollars in public money. Put differently, the challenging question of how to respond to climate change in the oil sands is a danger zone under the FIPA, because much of the oil sands are Chinese-owned and because the Chinese owners will not take kindly to government interference with their business plans.

You may ask, why would the federal government agree to a FIPA with China that puts an uncertain and uncontrollable price tag on Canada’s options to respond to climate change – and other important issues too? Why would the government move power over our future from Canada’s legislatures, governments, and courts to Chinese investors and FIPA arbitrators?

I think the straightest answer is that Mr. Harper seems to have wanted it that way. If one accepts climate change as a pressing concern, it is hard to imagine a more epic fail than the FIPA. SOURCE