Posts Tagged ‘Stephen Harper’

I'm not going to put up with the whining of CanWEA

June 10, 2009

OTTAWA – Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.

Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.

Mr. Prentice is the MP for Calgary-Centre North, home to much of Canada’s oil industry. Mr. Harper also represents a Calgary riding.

Ms. Raitt made the comment as she and Ms. MacDonnell were being driven around British Columbia on Jan. 30, a few days after the budget.

The conversation was inadvertently recorded on Ms. MacDonnell’s digital recorder and eventually came into the possession of The Chronicle Herald.

Ms. MacDonnell tells Ms. Raitt that CanWEA, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, had sent a letter to its supporters complaining about the lack of funding for wind energy in the budget.

“I’m not going to put up with the whining of CanWEA, and the reason being is that they’re not utilizing the money that is there now,” says Ms. Raitt. “And until these things don’t start getting built.”

Ms. MacDonnell appears to read from the letter from CanWEA: “We know that the proposal was actively promoted and pushed by Minister Raitt. In fact, it is our understanding that it was actually part of the budget until it was taken out very late in the process.”

Ms. Raitt responds: “No. No. I would never have told that.”

“You wouldn’t have told her,” says Ms. MacDonnell. “Is that true?”

“Yes,” says Ms. Raitt. “It is true.”

“So somebody is talking,” says Ms. MacDonnell.

“Someone in Finance talked,” says Ms. Raitt. “Am I going to get blamed for this?”

Ms. Raitt was worried about the prime minister’s reaction to the fact that CanWEA was somehow aware of budget talks, which are supposed to be kept in confidence.

“I certainly didn’t know the fact that it came out late in the process,” she said.

“I would have no way of knowing that. I understand that’s what happened. My suspicion is, what I told you, that Jim took the money for his clean energy plan. They said ‘Ah, they don’t need it.’ There should never have been any choice. No one asked my opinion on it. If they had, I would have lobbied. Maybe that’s why I’m invited to P and P (priority and planning, a cabinet committee). Oh, the prime minister’s not going to like that.”

Ms. Raitt at first blames the normally tight-lipped Finance officials for leaking the information. Later in the conversation, though, she and Ms. MacDonnell seem to agree that it may have been Natural Resources officials who let CanWEA know that the money had been there but was pulled.

“Those quotes clearly point to the fact that I’m on the team,” says Ms. Raitt. “And I am. That’s what happened. I don’t have that pull. Period.”

“Do you think someone on the EnerCan side did it?” she asks Ms. MacDonnell.

“That would probably be the most likely explanation, that they’re trying to do damage control with the different groups,” she says. “’We did it. We pushed. We brought it. It was there.’”

“’The minister brought it to Flaherty,’” says Ms. Raitt. “I didn’t push it hard at the table though.”

They go on to discuss problems with wind energy funding, with Ms. Raitt complaining that wind energy producers aren’t accessing federal funding that is already available – a subsidy based on kilowatt production.

“If they can’t finance it, and they can’t get their (environmental approvals), and they can’t buy their equipment, then it doesn’t go further and they don’t get the kilowatt cent,” she says.

“So I asked Tyler what’s the sunset? How long do people have to hold onto money? And I don’t know what the answer is yet. But there’s $862 million still waiting for this project.

“I’m upset that the ministry, that the department, told people that that was going to be oversubscribed by a certain date. That’s built this whole fear. It was a $1.5-billion announcement, started in ’07. No one would ever think the funding would run out unless they were told it would run out. So that’s my sadness.”

CanWEA complained publicly about the lack of new money in a news release after the budget.

“Our ability to compete with the United States for investment in wind energy projects and manufacturing opportunities will decline as a result of this budget,” said president Robert Hornung.

“At a time when the United States has made measures to support renewable energy deployment a key component of its plans to stimulate the U.S. economy, Canada is moving in the opposite direction.”

CanWEA had called for a $600-million fund to expand wind energy. It declined to comment when contacted Wednesday.

On May 19, Ms. Raitt announced the $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil patch at a speech at the University of Alberta, saying the money would encourage “new technologies now to help protect and preserve our environment for future generations.”

Mr. Prentice’s office refused to comment on the recording on Tuesday, and the minister’s office told reporters he would end a media question and answer session on Wednesday if anybody asked him about the recording.

Speculation about the recording has been rife since the Canadian Press reported Tuesday that Ms. Raitt mentioned Mr. Prentice on the recording, apparently because Conservative officials knew about the comments and were bracing themselves.

Ms. Raitt’s comments about the budget wrangling were made on the same five-hour recording in which Ms. Raitt called the medical isotope crisis “sexy” and criticized her cabinet colleague, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, which has led to a media storm in Ottawa.

The Chronicle Herald went to Nova Scotia Supreme Court on Monday to fight an emergency injunction that would have blocked publication of the stories that came from the recorder.

After refusing to apologize on Tuesday under opposition pressure, Ms. Raitt did tearfully apologize for her remarks in a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday, making reference to the toll cancer has taken in her own family.

Original story at CBC

Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion on the Hill in Ottawa

December 3, 2008

A real and unnecessary mess indeed.

The opposition never really stood up to Harper – not until their own financial well being was at stake and then all of sudden it became a hue and cry about democracy – or is it hypocrisy?

I’m no fan of Harper but he did win the election.

There is no party operating within Canada that has the interest of Canada as their primary goal.

The left is taking their cues from the UN via the phony global warming scam.

Both the left, through Martin, and the right though Harper, and without voter input continue to negotiate the NAU.

Act local – think global needs to be put in the trash bin. That mantra is designed to enrich the corporations and remove worker rights.

How has the global economy worked out?

Not so good if you look at where we are now.

I am Canadian – I’m not a global.

Act Local – Think Local

There is nothing we can’t grow , design or build in this country. If people wish to trade with us fine and if not that’s fine to.

This country needs to start building our own cars and ever other thing we need.

UN agreements – mostly signed with Liberals in power will restrict the use of our own resources ie: electricity and water.

There is a move to sell off our commons ie: roads, bridges, schools and hospitals.

Commons that were paid for by the tax dollars of hard working Canadians.

Follow the life of Maurice Strong and you will see the evil that thrives in the halls of Canadian Power.

Every Canadian should read the Green Agenda and Cloak of Green. Both can be found via my site or google.

You will never look at your govt. or the green movement with uncritical eyes again.

We are moving with great speed towards fascism or corporatism, which ever you prefer.

A large broom is what is needed on the Hill.
Sweep it clean of traitors and start again.

PM to urge global finance reform – The New World Order is Here

November 9, 2008


Remembrance day is coming up – the day we show our appreciation to all those who fought for our freedom in past conflicts. To those brave men and women I salute you and thank you for your sacrifices.

In Memory of

In Memory of

However, it looks like everything you fought and stood for was for not.

It appears our freedoms and national sovereignty are about to disappear.

For many years, our leaders, the media, and  education system, directed by a cabal of elitists have been working  hard to bring about their idea of a world government.

Not once did they discuss it with you or ask your opinion.

A coup is in progress. Even today very few  notice it’s happening. To bad.

Once again I wish to offer a heart felt thank you to the vets.

You won the wars, but it looks like we are going to lose our country and freedoms anyway.

We never saw the real enemy.


I’m not a Global


PM to urge global finance reform

Gordon Brown

Mr Brown wants Britain, the US and Europe to take the lead

Gordon Brown will use a keynote foreign policy speech later to argue the global financial crisis has given world leaders a major opportunity for change.

The PM, in his annual speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London, is expected to call for the rebuilding of the international financial system.

He will urge countries to forge a new way of working together that is “hard headed and progressive”.

His speech will also be watched for any suggestions of possible UK tax cuts.

‘Seize the moment’

Mr Brown’s comments in recent days about the need for a fiscal stimulus to boost the domestic economy have given rise to mounting speculation about possible moves in that direction.

Ahead of a meeting of leaders of the world’s 20 major economies in the US at the weekend, Mr Brown is expected to say that recent co-ordinated global action during the credit crisis showed the potential of a stronger multilateralism.

If we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society
Gordon Brown

He will argue that 2008 should not be remembered just for the failure represented by the financial problems, but for the way countries reacted and “discovered and refashioned the global power of nations working together”.

“While I see a world that is facing financial crisis and still diminished by conflict and injustice, I also see the chance to forge a new multilateralism that is both hard headed and progressive.

“And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society,” Mr Brown will say, according to pre-released extracts of his speech.

The UK, the US and Europe are key to establishing a new world order, he will argue.

Source BBC

Democracy Watch Files Court Challenge of Prime Minister's Federal Election Call

October 1, 2008

Wednesday, October 1, 2008


Democracy Watch Files Court Challenge of Prime Minister’s Federal Election
Call — Violates Both Fixed Election Date Law and Charter Rights

Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper-Bush's Partner in Crime

“What we have is a situation where the prime minister is able to choose the date of the election, not based necessarily on the best interests of the country but on the best interests of his or her political party.  I believe Bill C-16 would address those concerns. . .
. . “Instead of the Prime Minister and a small group of advisers being the only ones who know when the country will move into the next general election, when this bill is passed, all Canadians will have that knowledge, which makes it fair. . . . This Prime Minister will live by the law and spirit of this particular piece of legislation.  He and this government are driving this democratic reform. ”
Hon. Rob Nicholson (then-Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform), speaking in the House of Commons on      September 18, 2006 about the fixed election date measures in Bill C-16, which became law on May 3, 2007

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released details about the application it has filed in the Federal Court of Canada challenging the legality of the recent federal election call.

Democracy Watch has filed a motion to have a hearing of its application before the October 14th voting day.  The motion will be considered by the Federal Court on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at The D’Arcy McGee Building, 90 Sparks St. in Ottawa after 9:30 am.

Democracy Watch has applied for an order that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s advice to the Governor General of Canada on September 7, 2008 to dissolve Parliament and call an election violated the fixed election date measures that Bill C-16 added to the Canada Elections Act because a vote of non-confidence in the Conservative government had not yet occurred in the House of Commons, and therefore the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of the election was illegal.

Democracy Watch is filing this case not only to challenge the calling of the current election, but also to win a ruling that will prohibit future prime ministers from calling elections before a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons has occurred.

Everything Conservative government Cabinet ministers and representatives said about their Bill C-16 in the House of Commons and Senate made it clear that the legal effect of the Bill is to require the government (whether minority or majority) to lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons before the Prime Minister can advise the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election:

“At this time, there is nothing stopping any Prime Minister who sees an electoral advantage from asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election, even though there is no issue that could in any way be described as a confidence matter.  However, under this bill a Prime Minister would be restricted in that situation.”
Hon. Rob Nicholson, speaking to a Senate Committee on December 6, 2006
about the fixed election date measures in Bill C-16

Opposition party members in the House of Commons and Senate repeatedly and specifically questioned Conservative Cabinet Minister Nicholson (who was the Minister responsible at the time for the Bill) about how the Prime Minister would be restricted if Bill C-16 became law, and he consistently said things similar to what he told a Senate Committee on December 6, 2006, that “There would have to be non-confidence votes taken by the opposition parties” before the Prime Minister could advise the Governor
General to call an election.

Statements at the time by opposition party representatives make it clear that their support of Bill C-16 (which was needed to pass the bill in a minority government situation) was based on the explanations by Minister Nicholson and other representatives of the Conservative government that the Bill prohibits a prime minister from calling an election before a vote of non-confidence in the government occurs in the House of Commons.

On May 3, 2007, when Bill C-16 became law, the Conservative government issued a news release in which then-Minister for Democratic Reform Peter Van Loan was quoted as saying “This important piece of legislation will ensure fairness in the electoral process by eliminating the power of the governing party to call an election to capitalize on favourable political circumstances.”

In addition, Democracy Watch believes that, given the fixed election date measures, Prime Minister Harper’s election call violates section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  In three past cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that section 3 includes the right to fair elections.

As Minister Nicholson said about Bill C-16 in the House of Commons on September 18, 2006: “This legislation provides greater fairness, increased transparency and predictability” for federal elections.”  He went on to detail how advance notice of an election is more fair for people who want to run as candidates, volunteer on campaigns, vote or participate in other ways.

“All of the evidence shows that the intent and effect of the fixed election date measures prohibits the Prime Minister from calling an election before his governing party has lost a confidence vote in the House of Commons, something that did not occur before Prime Minister Harper called the current federal election,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “As well, the clear intent of the fixed election date measures was to make elections fair for all political parties and citizens wanting to participate in the election by letting everyone know well in advance when it will happen, something that also did not occur when Prime Minister Harper suddenly called the current federal election.”

“For all these reasons, and to prevent future prime ministers from call unfair snap elections, Democracy Watch is applying to the Federal Court for a ruling that the calling of the current federal election was a violation of the fixed election date law and Canadians’ rights under the Charter,” said Conacher.

Peter Rosenthal of the Toronto law firm Roach, Schwartz and Associates is Democracy Watch’s lawyer for the case.  The case is Federal Court of Canada file number T-1500-08.

– 30 –

Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179

Peter Rosenthal, Lawyer for Democracy Watch
Tel: 416-657-1465  Email: <>

See this news release and links to all key documents at:

Global Warming – The Real Agenda

September 7, 2008


I have always believed that in order to understand what is happening now – you first have to back up.

Here is a perfect example from 1998

Yes folks – global warming is a scam and it’s time to wake up.

In the 2008 Canadian Federal Election you are being asked to vote for your choice of TRAITOR.

Regardless of which party you vote for – you are voting for traitors.

In 2008 you need to vote independent or refrain from casting your vote.

If you vote for any of the main parties you are voting against CANADA.

In essence you have become a traitor.

Same holds true in the USA

Read the Green Agenda

Editorial by Terrence Corcoran
Copyright 1998 Financial Post (Canada)
December 26, 1998

What is the most important problem facing Canada? When the annual Maclean’s/CBC year-end poll asked that question, there was at least one clear answer: Not the environment; in fact, anything but the environment. Ranked by percentage of people who identified one subject or another, the top worry among

Canadians is unemployment (15%), followed by government spending, the economy, health care, national unity, taxes, poverty, education and crime. At the bottom of the list, garnering only 2% support, is the environment.

The possibility that 98% of Canadians are not in a state of high anxiety over global warming, freaky weather, ozone depletion, pollution and scores of other Green scares must be a teeth-gritting irritation to environmentalists. They have, after all, spent decades fertilizing the idea that we are on the brink of environmental disaster. Ottawa and the provinces have spent billions on the campaign, which includes turning the weather into a propaganda tool and the school system into an indoctrination camp that begins in kindergarten.

The poll is a testament to the good sense of Canadians. Despite relentless scare-mongering by bureaucrats and activists, Canadians remain unwaveringly fixed on a national economic agenda of growth and prosperity rather than on fantastic claims of apocalypse. When David Suzuki says global warming ‘is the most urgent slow-motion catastrophe facing humankind,’ nobody is paying much attention.

Except our politicians. Backed by an army of bureaucrats and researchers, governments are systematically preparing to shut down the engines of economic progress in the name of environmentalism. In Canada, the heart of the stop-growth campaign is Environment Canada, where key bureaucrats dedicated to imposing an environmental agenda on the country have seized control. The focus of their effort is global warming and climate change, which they intend to use as a lever to impose what can only be described as a new economic order.

The politician nominally in charge of all this is Environment Minister Christine Stewart. Whether Ms. Stewart fully understands what’s going on around her is unknown, but during a recent visit with the editorial board of the Calgary Herald she certainly demonstrated her conversion to the religion of global warming.

Ms. Stewart said that, ‘as minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming,’ which for a politician isn’t saying much. Politicians are habitually ‘very worried’ about one thing or another. The trouble starts when they use their power to fix problems they’re worried about, even if the problems don’t exist. Ms. Stewart said she’s prepared to do exactly that. ‘No matter if the science is all phony,’ she said, ‘there are collateral environmental benefits.’

Environment Canada, therefore, is prepared to act on global warming even if there’s no such thing as global warming. On the strength of phony science, the federal government would still be willing to impose new taxes on energy consumption, cut economic growth, reduce our standard of living, and create bookshelves filled with new regulation governing most facets of the lives of Canadians.

In another statement quoted by the Herald, Ms. Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. ‘Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade.

Consolidating Ms. Stewart’s statements, we reach some horrific conclusions. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians – and most citizens of the world – would not otherwise accept.

Ms. Stewart, perhaps unintentionally, has identified the two key foundations of the global warming movement. One is based in environmentalism, which essentially claims that human beings are a problem in nature. The other foundation is the old business of economic redistribution. Both these movements are linked in the international climate change treaty Canada signed in Kyoto. Environment Canada has already given up trying to examine the science. It never really tried. Instead, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars churning out propaganda on the hypothetical effects of global warming. Its latest reports include hundreds of studies warning of everything from spreading insect-borne disease to increasing forest fires.

The Maclean’s poll shows Canadians aren’t going along with the government or the claims of environmentalists. If they knew what Ms. Stewart has in store for jobs and living standards, and why, they might take a greater interest.Link

Read the Green Agenda

The Plan to Disappear Canada

July 23, 2008

Canada-a country of traitors and that includes the media. Keeping the citizens in the dark while the country is given away.

Will we awaken in time?

This article is from August Review

By Murray Dobbin, Vancouver

Ten dots to connect

Here are 10 developments in the plan to disappear Canada.

1) Pesticides ‘harmonized.’ The most thoroughly reported story (though even this did not go much beyond the CanWest chain) was the revelation that Canada was about to “harmonize” its regulations, setting limits for pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables. In 40 per cent of the cases, the U.S. allows for higher levels. Richard Aucoin, chief registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which sets Canada’s pesticide levels, said that Canada’s higher levels were a “trade irritant.”

The downgrading of health protection had been a NAFTA initiative, but is being “fast-tracked” as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Some 300 regulatory regimes are currently going through the same process.

2) Tory tirade. The next story that broke through the wall of media silence reported on the paranoid reaction of the Harper Conservatives to any criticism of the SPP. The occasion was hearings of the Commons International Trade Committee into the SPP, forced by the NDP.

Gordon Laxer, head of Alberta’s Parkland Institute, was testifying on the energy implications of the SPP, warning that eastern Canada could end up “freezing in the dark.” He had barely started when the chair of the committee, Conservative MP Leon Benoit, demanded that Laxer halt his “irrelevant” testimony. The Committee members overruled Benoit — who promptly (and illegally) adjourned the meeting and stomped out. The NDP and Liberal members nonetheless continued without him.

3) Council of corporate power. The SPP initiative began in earnest back in 2002 with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the BCNI), the most powerful corporate body in the country. It continues it leadership role, but does not promote the scheme just in its own name. It instead has helped create several supportive bodies that now help drive the agenda. Included in these are the North American Competitive Council (NACC), which includes CEOs of the largest North American corporations, and which institutionalizes the exclusively corporate nature of the agreement. The NACC is the only advisory group to the three NAFTA/SPP governments.

4) Secretive summit. The NACC at least is public. But much of what happens in building the elite consensus for deep integration is done in absolute secrecy or very privately, away from the prying eyes of the media. The most secretive of these was held last year from Sept. 12 to 14, in Banff Springs. As The Tyee reported, the gathering was sponsored by something called the North American Forum* and it was attended by some of the most powerful members of the North American ruling elite.

Attendees, according to a leaked list that could not be confirmed, included Donald Rumsfeld, George Schultz (former U.S. Secretary of State), General Rick Hillier, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day. The media was not informed of the meeting and it was first revealed by the weekly Banff Crag & Canyon.

Stockwell Day refused to even confirm he was there, but said that even if he was, it was a “private” meeting that he would not comment on. There is no better indication that these meetings, and the SPP itself, constitute a parallel governing structure — unaccountable to any democratic institution or the public.

5) ‘No fly’ coordination. Canada will have its own “no-fly” list just like our U.S. “partner.”

As the Council of Canadians pointed out: “The no-fly list is very much a Security and Prosperity Partnership initiative. ‘The SPP Report to Leaders, August 2006’ outlines 105 SPP initiatives. Initiative #93 states, ‘Develop, test, evaluate and implement a plan to establish comparable aviation passenger screening, and the screening of baggage and air cargo (for North America).'”

Canada’s privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has raised a number of concerns about the plan including the fact that the list will be shared with the U.S., that “false positives” are a virtual certainty, and that there is no evidence put forward by the government that the list will improve airline security.

6) Bye, bye Canadian dollar? David Dodge, the head of the Bank of Canada, told a Chicago audience that a single currency for North America “is possible.” That would see a big chunk of Canadian Sovereignty and the ability to guide the economy through monetary policy go out the window. It’s not the first time Dodge has mused about abandoning the Canadian dollar – or deep integration.

7) Water and oil giveaways. The deep integrationists clearly see Canadian water as a North American resource, not a Canadian resource. At yet another very private meeting, held in Calgary on April 27th under the auspices of yet another forum, it was made clear that water is on the table for negotiation.

Discussion of bulk “water transfers” and diversions took place at a Calgary meeting of the North American Future 2025 Project (partly funded by the U.S. government). The meeting based its deliberations on the false notion that Canada has 20 per cent of the world’s fresh water. Actual available supply amounts to only around six per cent — about the same as has the U.S.

The water (and environment) meeting was preceded by another on April 26th talking about “North American” energy. The beneficiary of these discussions is pretty clear when you realize Canada has no national energy policy. We are the only energy exporting country in the world without a one.

Gordon Laxer told the Parliamentary committee: “The National Energy Board wrote me on April 12: ‘Unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.'” He was also told by the NEB that Canada does not maintain a 90 day energy reserve as other developed nations do. As Laxer points out, “Canada may be a net exporter, but it still imports 40 per cent of its oil — 850,000 barrels per day — to meet 90 per cent of Atlantic Canada’s and Quebec’s needs, and 40 per cent of Ontario’s.”

Canada exports 63 per cent of its oil production and 56 per cent of its natural gas, percentages that can never decrease under NAFTA.

8) NAFTA Superhighway. State governments in the U.S. are becoming increasingly alarmed at the prospects of deep integration. Earlier this year, Idaho became the first state to pass a legislative resolution directing the U.S. Congress to drop out of the SPP, which is referred to as the North American Union amongst U.S. opponents. Thirteen states in addition to Idaho are calling on Congress to abandon the SPP: Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Montana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Virginia.

Part of the opposition is focused on plans for a so-called NAFTA Superhighway: actually a corridor several hundred metres wide including rail lines, freeways and pipelines from Mexico to the Canadian border. There is a growing grass roots movement against the SPP in the U.S., but led by the right over the issue of compromising American sovereignty.

9) Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). While U.S. states, concerned about state rights under an unaccountable “North American Union,” are organizing against the scheme, Canadian provinces are either blithely unaware or knowingly complicit in the deal. More Canadians may be aware of TILMA — the investors’ rights agreement between B.C. and Albert — than they are about the SPP, but in reality they are one and the same.

TILMA is major piece of the deep integration, deregulation imperative and fits hand in glove with the SPP. There is a similar, though more informal, process evolving in the Atlantic provinces, called “Atlantica.” And B.C. is now pushing the so-called Gateway Initiative, a kind of regional superhighway project that will see huge and environmentally disastrous expansion of ports, highways and pipelines to further supply the U.S.’s insatiable demand for resources and cheap Asian goods.

10) The next SPP summit. The third leaders summit on the SPP will take place this August 21-22nd in Montebello, Quebec, not far from Ottawa. By the time it does many more Canadian will be aware of it.

Part of the reason that news of the SPP/deep integration issue is finally seeing the light of day is that opposition is growing and groups fighting the SPP are having an impact. The Council of Canadians, the CLC and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives held an SPP teach-in in Ottawa last month and many civil society groups are now taking deep integration to their members. Demonstrations are planned for the summit. The NDP continues to press the government on SPP secrecy and the Green Party’s Elizabeth May has said deep integration will be a focus of the party’s election platform.

It is hard to think of any other issue in modern Canadian history, especially one that will literally determine whether the country survives or not, that has taken so long to get public attention. I first wrote about it September, 2002.

Murray Dobbin is a Vancouver author and journalist whose latest book, Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? published by James Lorimer is in BC bookstores now.

490 Billion for the Canadian Military

June 20, 2008

We don’t have money for health care. We don’t have money for education. We don’t have money to care for the elderly. We don’t have money for child care.

But by Christ, we got all the money in the world to chase the boogie man.

Is there one politician left in this country that is not trying to either give this country over to the UN via the “Green Movement”, or giving the country to the US via the SPP.

Canada’s leaders are traitors – every damn one.

The people in this country had better get their priorities in order – FAST

Please, go look in the mirror. Are you a Canadian? Or have you been reduced to nothing more than a “Big Mac” eating “Wal-Mart shopping” mindless piece of meat.

Oh Canada! We stand on guard for thee. Or do we?

Democracy requires diligence.

Wake up! You can do it if you try.


$60 billion on equipment

The document, which stresses the importance of giving the Canadian Forces predictable and stable funding, says $60 billion must be spent on much-needed military equipment, such as helicopters, patrol ships, planes, destroyers, frigates, land combat vehicles and weapons.

A total of $15 billion of these equipment purchases has already been confirmed and announced publicly.

Other military spending over the next 20 years is to include:

  • $250 billion on personnel, with the military’s numbers increasing to 70,000 regular members and 30,000 reserve members. (Currently, there are 62,000 regular members and 25,000 reservists.)
  • $140 billion on training and maintenance of equipment.
  • $40 billion on military buildings and infrastructure.

The document suggests that in the next 20 years, the international community will be coping with failed states, rogue nuclear nations and the increasing threat of terrorism. It also notes that the military needs to enhance its ability to operate alongside U.S. forces.

“The Canada First Defence Strategy will enable the Forces to … address the full range of defence and security challenges facing Canada now and into the future,” the document states. “This strengthened military will translate into enhanced security for Canadians at home as well as a stronger voice for Canada on the world stage.”

Six core duties for the military

The document says the Canadian Forces will have six core duties over the next 20 years and will often have to juggle more than one duty at once in Canada and overseas.

The duties are:

  • Conducting daily domestic and continental operations, including protecting Arctic sovereignty.
  • Supporting a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics.
  • Responding to any major terrorist attacks. (read 1984)added
  • Providing aid to civilian authorities during natural disasters and other crises in Canada.
  • Conducting a major international operation for an extended period, such as the Afghan mission. (Mission is about a pipeline)added
  • Have enough troops remaining to deploy to other international crises for shorter periods of time.
  • story CBC

Ex-AECL boss' firm could make Millions

December 28, 2007

The original headline
“Ex-AECL boss’ firm landed $10M grant” was  from the Ottawa Citizen, the story was removed from their website.
Turns out that the Ottawa Citizen may have jumped the gun with the numbers.
According to Ray Castelli, president and CEO of NaiKun Wind Development Inc,

NaiKun Wind Energy Group is one of more than 100 companies that has registered under the federal government’s ecoEnergy for Renewable Power Program in order to be eligible for an incentive of one cent per kilowatt-hour for up to 10 years for eligible low-impact, renewable electricity projects constructed between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2011.

According to Ray Castelli, president and CEO of NaiKun Wind Development Inc, the company has not yet received funding under the ecoEnergy program, nor has it received any other government grant of a similar nature. Incorrect information appeared in a story and headline on page A3 of the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, Dec 22 2007

Ray Castelli says “the company has not yet received funding under the ecoEnergy program”, suggesting that they will receive funding. He goes on to say “nor has it received any other government grant of a similar nature”. He doesn’t say they won’t receive any grant money, so that door is left open for funding as well. How much funding could they receive? Could it be $10 million, I don’t know but this story needs to be followed. The word “grant” seems to be the problem, so it has been removed from the story.

Tory insider’s involvement in project ‘doesn’t pass the smell test’:

Ottawa Citizen Saturday, December 22, 2007

Michael Burns, the B.C. businessman and backroom Conservative who recently resigned as chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is also chairman of a Vancouver wind power firm the federal government approved for up to $10 million in alternate energy funding while Mr. Burns was AECL chairman. The offshore wind power company, NaiKun Wind Energy Group, has two former assistants to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as senior officers and also has other well-connected Conservatives on its board of directors. NaiKun received approval for wind energy incentives — which could eventually be worth at least $1 million a year for electricity from its proposed offshore windmills at the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands — after the Harper government announced the incentives in January 2007. The federal cabinet approved Mr. Burns’ appointment as chairman of AECL in October, 2006. The same month the government unveiled its Clean Air Act, which included first mention of new Conservative environmental initiatives to replace the previous Liberal government’s proposals. Mr. Burns, who resigned as AECL chairman only a few days before the Crown corporation had to shut down a medical isotope-producing nuclear reactor during a confrontation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, plays down the significance of Conservative connections inside his company and on its governing board. NaiKun won approval for the government’s ecoEnergy wind power incentives from the natural resources department while Mr. Burns was answering to Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn as chairman of AECL. Mr. Lunn is also responsible for the Nuclear Safety Commission. Opposition politicians say the presence of several Conservatives in the company, including the two former assistants to Mr. Harper, raises questions about a level playing field in the alternate energy industry and also puts Mr. Harper’s allegations of political partisanship within the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in a different light. NaiKun’s president, Ray Castelli, is a former chief of staff to one-time Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell, who was once MP for Vancouver Centre. Tony Fogarassy, NaiKun’s director of corporate projects and general legal counsel, was a Conservative candidate in Vancouver Centre in the 2006 election, losing to Liberal Hedy Fry.

Michael Burns, the man who was running AECL is not a nuclear scientist, nor does he have more than a passing familiarity with the nuclear industry. He is a wind power expert and wonder of wonders, a former fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance. He was appointed by Harper himself, over the advice of a professional headhunter who had recommended a former chair of the AECL for the chief executive’s job. In spite of those connections, Burns claims that he resigned some time before the isotope crisis over operational issues, implying the government wouldn’t let him fix the problems.

That ought to be embarrassment enough, but no. Eight days before he launched his attack on Keen, Harper made one of his own appointments to the nuclear regulator. He didn’t choose a radiation expert or geologist as you might expect, but a medical doctor named Ronald Barriault, who just happens to be a failed provincial Conservative candidate in New Brunswick.

Randy Burton, The StarPhoenix