Omar Khadr Gets Bail!!

A judge in Alberta has released her finding that Omar Khadr should be allowed out of jail while waiting for his appeal both because he has a strong basis for his appeal in the American courts and there is no reason to believe that the Canadian public would be put at risk. There are still some issues to be resolved in terms of bail conditions but one would have to believe that Khadr and those who have been supporting his application for bail must be ecstatic. Our Canadian government - not so much

In fact within moments of the announcement from the court, Steven Blaney, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued a statement expressing the government's disappointment with the judge's decision and promising to appeal. They are appealing because he was convicted of a "heinous crime" (CBC).  Once again the Harper Government is going to waste my tax dollars appealing a case for which there are no valid reasons to appeal. They are going to keep lock up (and thereby waste more of my tax dollars) an individual who has already spent more than half of his young life in jail. There are so many reasons why this is so wrong (see my blog from March 25,2015).

For the record Mr Blaney - the word heinous, according to the Oxford Dictionary means "utterly odious or wicked" (Oxford Dictionary). Even if Khadr did in fact throw the grenade that killed an American soldier (which is what is being appealed in the American court), it was done by a 15 year old boy, in the heat of battle, and under the influence of his father and older brother. While the act (if done) was utterly wrong, it was not heinous. In fact I would argue that the only reason why an individual or a government would use such language is to perpetuate the myth that we all need to be afraid of what someone is going to do to us and that the only people who can protect us is the Harper Government.

Quite frankly Mr. Blaney, I would feel a whole lot safer if you didn't protect me.

Canadian Federal Budget

Yesterday the federal Conservatives released their easily predictable and almost completely previously disclosed 2015 budget. There is so much to complain about it, it is rather over-whelming. But while I could rant about the fact

(1) that a balanced budget is not a big deal and in fact many economist have argued that when the economy is slowing the government must invest (spend) money to provide stimulation,

(2) that a balanced budget was achieved in part because the government decided that the contingency fund which has historically been $3 billion only needed to be $1 billion. This was in spite of the fact that some economists including the right wing think tank  C.D. Howe Institute suggested that we needed to have $6 billion in this reserve fund to deal with potential economic or environmental crisis (Business News Network).

(3) that much of the promised funding will happen in two or three years. So there are no guarantees that much of what was promised will be delivered even if the Conservatives get elected for another four years

(4) that the tax breaks and what little new money there was, were given to well off middle class families and their even better off parents, while those who are struggling on a day to day basis will get relatively few breaks. One of the only exceptions to this is the E.I. premiums will be going down (again in a few years) which is a good thing as so few Canadians are eligible to claim (CBC).

(5) that there was no funding of or any kind of recognition given to the fact  that climate change and the environment were issues that needed to be made a priority.

(6) that there is virtually no new funding to deal with the myriad of issues both in First Nation communities or for those members of a First Nation who no longer live in their traditional communities.

etc. etc.

I am not going to do any of that. The various internet sites available to most people are full of comments from people who are far more knowledgeable about economics than I. But there is one thing about the budget that struck me as being particularly significant and extraordinarily manipulative. On one of the mainstream television stations (either CBC, Global or CTV - I can't remember which) they showed a graph of who voted by age in the 2011 election. That information was not new to me - but making a connection between who votes in federal elections and who got the most tax breaks/money was instructive.

                                                                       (Elections Canada)

People who are in their mid-fifties and up are far more likely to vote than those who are younger. It is also known that "older individuals, those with higher educational attainment, home owners, and employed people were more likely to vote than others" (Statistics Canada). If one examines the budget as delivered yesterday in the House of Commons, those who are seniors or about to be, those who are home owners and those who are employed were the ones most likely to benefit from the government's largesse. There were no new programs of any significance or immediacy that recognized the high youth unemployment rate, the fact that far too many of the new jobs are part time and are in the chaotic and unreliable retail sector, and that their student loan debts are crushing.

Traditionally to put it bluntly - poor people don't vote. People who feel disenfranchised - don't vote. Young people don't vote. The Conservatives know this and have clearly decided to ignore those people who feel that there is no point in being engaged in the civic process because no cares or responds to their needs or concerns. And there lies in the catch 22.

If young people and those who are struggling do not vote - the ruling party will not bother to address their issues; if those issues are not addressed then those groups will continue to feel disenfranchised and therefore not vote. It is time that we broke the cycle. I think it would only take one election to change how political parties cater to the elites. If those groups who traditionally have been underrepresented in the polling both finally decide to vote all politically parties would quickly wake up and realize that they need to address the issues of the young and those who are struggling if they ever plan on ruling the country.

It is not too early to start getting people thinking about voting.

Selling Ontario Hydro

The Ontario provincial government announced last week that it was planning to sell 60% of Ontario Hydro. They anticipate earning approximately $9 billion from the sale. On the surface this may appear to be a good deal. The province is in debt, there are significant and expensive infrastructure  projects that need to be initiated if the province is not to fall even further behind and quite clearly there is not the public appetite to have their taxes increased. The province has assured us that because they are retaining 40% of Ontario Hydro, they will maintain control. The cost of electricity to the individual will not go up. It is the intention of the government that approximately $5 billion from the sale will go to paying down the provincial debt and the remaining funds will be used to support infrastructure programs. It sounds as if everyone will win - or at least not lose too much.

I suspect however, that the list of pros and cons in terms of the sale is a bit more complicated than that. 

(1) At present Ontario Hydro owes about $20 billion. Most of that debt was incurred when the province built a number of nuclear power plants in the 70s and 80s (CBC). Ontario Hydro makes about $900 million a year. That money is used to pay down the debt. When 60% of the corporation gets sold, the debt will remain the responsibility of the government. That is, the majority of the corporation that makes money to pay down the debt will be owned by private individuals. They will get that profit (or at least 60% of it) and we, the taxpayers will have to pay off the debt. Where will that money come from?

(2) While initially the Ontario Government will, as the majority shareholder, hold control of the corporation - one cannot assume that that the 60% private owners (corporations) will not join forces and insist upon changes to either the fee structure or the profit margins. Hydro will now be accountable to shareholders. It is unlikely that various public accountability institutions such as the Ontario Ombudsman Office will be allowed to have an active role in resolving issues between the corporation and the public.

(3) While provincial governments have seldom demonstrated the capacity to create and maintain a long term vision of how people in Ontario will produce and consume power, that is one of their jobs.  It will be so much harder to reform how we use and generate power when we do not own the company that needs to implement those policies. We will have to convince private shareholders to think of what is good for the public - not what is good for the bottom line. Good luck on that one.

Ontario's finances are not in good shape. A reasonably rapid infusion of new money is needed to both pay off some of the provincial debt and to invest in the future. Selling off a portion of Ontario Hydro may be the only way to do that. But Ontario Hydro is a publically owned corporation. With all of its faults (and they are extensive), that corporation could have been the vehicle by which the province could have driven into middle part of this century with a vision of how, for example, to replace our aging nuclear power plants.

Who is going to provide the leadership?

Marketing Boards

I like marketing boards. I like them for the simple reason that they provide an almost level playing field so that small farms can compete against the large factory farms. The Canadian government and their corporate sponsors dislike them for exactly the same reason. The argument on the part of the large corporate farms is that the market will establish, without government intervention, its own balance and if someone cannot compete, it is because they are not being efficient enough. The reality is that the large factory farms don't want competition and will do all that they can to ensure that small players cannot compete. Marketing boards such as the Egg and Milk Marketing Boards have enabled the small producers, the family farms to survive. Does that make our egg and milk a bit more expensive? Yes, but that seems to be a small price to pay to ensure that there is a consistent quality and that our food production does not devolve any further into a Walmart or other box store-like mentality. It is still unclear whether or not the Harper government will bow to the pressure from those commercial interest who want Canada to be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement. The price of our participation will be the dismantlement of our marketing boards. Without that protection, our markets will be flooded with cheap milk from the USA and Australia resulting in the destruction of our farms.

The Government of Canada has already dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board which was formed by Parliament in 1935 to guarantee western farmers would get fair prices for their wheat and barley (Globe and Mail). They did so under the argument that wheat farmers would be better served if they could negotiate directly with the corporations who wanted to buy their product. This means of course, that farmers are competing directly with their neighbours to see who can get the best price (as opposed to everyone getting the same price for their wheat). It means that large factory farms that can afford to invest in larger equipment etc., can produce their wheat cheaper and therefore drive the smaller farms out of business. The Harper government's first step was, in 2012, was to allow farmers to drop out of the Canadian Wheat Board -that is they could sell their wheat to whomever and for whatever cost. The second step for the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board happened this week when the government sold 50.1%, what use to be a farm based cooperative, to a consortium of multinationals including the Saudi Arabian government.

The agreement, for which the government received $250 million,  gives Global Grain Group access to “All the assets ....... thousands of rail cars, the port terminals, the ships on the Great Lakes" (Globe and Mail). This has to be one of the greatest sweetheart deals of this or any other century. It makes the corrupt land deals that our first Prime Minister made to get the railroad built look positively benign in comparison.  It feels as if we have not only given away everything in the store but as well the very land it was built on.  So now a foreign government and a multinational will be in charge of selling Canadian wheat. While farmers will still be able to sell directly to buyers, for many farmers this is not an option. Farmers who lack the capacity to negotiate with global food market will have no choice but to sell their product to this multinational. Corporations' (as opposed to cooperatives) sole function is to make money for their shareholders.  Anyone who believes that the first priority of this company will be Canadian farmers is living in a fantasy world. Anyone who believes that this is a good deal for consumers is living in that same fantasy world.

What other country would give away control of a valuable commodity ? Why are we not alarmed?