Please sign the petition and send Duff $10.00.
It surely is time that the Conflict of Interest and the Ethics Commission
should have air tight rules and the power to enforce them and strict,
large fines that will stop eliminate the present shenanigans for a long,
long time.
Thanks.
Take care
Al
==================================================================================
We hope all is well and thank you for your ongoing support of Democracy Watch’s campaigns to make Canada the world’s leading democracy!
Unfortunately, despite the support of people like you sending more than 170,000 messages to federal party leaders and MPs here, the federal government continues to use secretive, partisan processes to choose Canada’s key democracy watchdogs.
Not surprisingly, the government keeps appointing people with weak enforcement records – they just appointed two new lapdogs — so key ethics laws remain unenforced.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a 1996 case that if government ethics laws are not strictly and strongly enforced, Canada will not be a democracy.
We have tried democratically to convince the federal government to appoint strong watchdogs through an open, independent and merit-based process – a process like Ontario uses to appoint provincial judges (which is considered to be one of the best appointment processes in the world).
The government has refused to appoint strong watchdogs, and the lapdogs they have appointed have made rulings in the past 10 years that let dozens of people off the hook for clear violations, and that create huge loopholes in ethics laws – loopholes that allow for lots of unethical activities in federal politics.
So Democracy Watch is going to court to try to win rulings that will ensure government ethics laws are strictly and strongly enforced by strong watchdogs — please help by clicking here now and supporting Democracy Watch’s 5 key government ethics court cases.
As you will see on the page linked above, Democracy Watch has 2 court cases challenging rulings by former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson that created huge loopholes in federal government ethics rules.
Democracy Watch has also filed a court case challenging a ruling by former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd that created a huge loophole in federal lobbying ethics rules.
Since they were appointed in 2007, both the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner have let off more than 80% of people who have violated the rules. Their dangerously weak enforcement has let hundreds of federal politicians, government officials, and lobbyists get away with violating federal ethics laws.
You can also help right now by clicking here and sending a message calling on the Auditor General to audit the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner to ensure they didn’t cover up past wrongdoing.
Democracy Watch has also filed a court case challenging the appointment of new Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, which was done without consulting the opposition parties as required by law. Mr. Dion had a very bad record of 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was the federal Integrity Commissioner, including being found guilty twice of violating the rights of people who were blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing.
Democracy Watch also recently filed a court case challenging the appointment of new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger because the appointment was also made without consulting opposition parties. Ms. Bélanger also worked for 5 years for former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson during a time when Commissioner Dawson let dozens of Cabinet ministers and MPs off the hook even though they clearly violated ethics rules.
As well, both commissioners’ offices were investigating the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers at the time they were chosen by the Cabinet. No one should be allowed to choose their own judge, especially when the judge will be deciding whether they were involved in an illegal situation.
These 5 lawsuits will help ensure that only fully qualified, fully independent people with strong enforcement records are appointed to these and other key government watchdog positions.
We need your help to pay the costs of these 5 lawsuits – please click here to donate now – and please spread the word to anyone you think may be interested in supporting these lawsuits.
Thank you for your support,
Duff, Josephine, Brad
and the entire Democracy Watch team
With many thanks to Janet M. I watched videos at the two links she sent,
Wendy Mesley from CBC that turned out to be from 2012. It’s still valid and worthwhile – – I don’t think we are getting the same quality of broadcast in the public interest today. Damn Big Pharma.
the URL at the very bottom, Del Bigtree. Kinda blows your mind, but then, Del brings you back to the citizens (American, in this case) who are determined to break Big Pharma, by exposing what they are doing. New False Flag, Flu-pocalypse debunked, James O’Keefe exposed Twitter, Del Agrees with Paul Offit
Janet writes:
Subject: Surprise! CBC told some truth about flu deaths!? (please read all the way thru to the p.s.) +++++ Highwire
p.p.s. I am about to watch Del Bigtree’s latest “Highwire” episode on YouTube. It’s a lot about flu………New False Flag, Flu-pocalypse debunked, James O’Keefe exposed Twitter, Del Agrees with Paul Offit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_pO8ai1WDI&feature=em-subs_digest (I followed Janet’s lead and watched. I am glad that I did.)
NOTE 1: Many of you know Joyce Nelson from her book, “Beyond Banksters“. Put “Joyce” into the search button on this blog (upper right corner) for more of her work.
RECOMMEND: go to the URL. Below is a back-up copy of the text. The Watershed Sentinel’s posting is much better!
Tax Havens and the Other Paris Agreement Paradise & Panama papers, Canada & red herrings, and the international agreement on tax havens with “enough loopholes to drive a fleet of Ferraris through”
It´s not clear whether the Bill Morneau/Tax Revolt saga that roiled the media and Parliament throughout the last half of 2017 will continue in 2018, but it looks likely.
By mid-December pundits and politicians were calling for the Finance Minister to resign over conflict of interest charges connected with his shares in Morneau Shepell (his pension management company). Moreover, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) was complaining about the lack of clarity in tax changes to be introduced in January.
This brouhaha all started on July 18 when the Trudeau government announced plans to close three tax loopholes available to small business owners who incorporate their businesses as personal corporations, called Canadian-Controlled Private Corporations (CCPCs) – affecting quite a few upper middle-class professionals, from doctors, lawyers, and accountants to farmers and owners of small businesses. They were not about to take this lying down.
The CFIB took up their cause and put its own spin on things, arguing that business owners don´t have the “huge” salaries and pensions enjoyed by civil servants to rely on for retirement. On September 5, the CFIB delivered a petition to Ottawa with nearly 14,700 signatures.
Interestingly, it was later revealed that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is a client of Morneau Shepell.
There´ve been some funny moments in all the heated rhetoric, especially on September 19 when Trudeau faced questions about his own finances since he became party leader. He said, “I no longer have dealings with the way our family fortune is managed,” which prompted Conservative MP Lisa Raitt to tweet: “Here´s a tip – if you want to be seen as a man of the people try not to refer to your assets as `my family fortune´.”
Tax experts estimated the most that would be collected per year from Morneau´s original tax plan was about $250 million. Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness estimates that between $10 billion and $15 billion per year in Canadian taxes goes uncollected due to tax havens. This amount would be enough to fund Pharmacare, universal childcare, free university tuition, and infrastructure improvements in First Nations communities all at the same time.
Behind all the sound and fury, something else has been going on. In order to see it, we have to look at the timeline of events. And that leads to what I call “the other Paris agreement” – not the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change but another Paris agreement, one few Canadians have heard about.
Paris again
On June 7, 2017, a representative for Morneau´s Finance Department, Ginette Petitpas Taylor (at the time, the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister) went to Paris for a mass-signing ceremony. Along with representatives from 66 other countries, she was there to formally adopt something called the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. This is usually referred to as the BEPS Agreement or the BEPS Initiative.
Don´t let the boring name fool you. The BEPS Agreement is being touted as the first coordinated, international attempt to crack down on the trillions of dollars in corporate profits stashed away in offshore tax havens. As the official title indicates, governments across the planet have seen their tax base steadily eroded by multinational corporations shifting their profits into tax havens. Drafted by the G20 and the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), the BEPS Agreement is the result of several years of consultations (which are still ongoing, despite the formal signing).
Most tax experts agree that some of the biggest users of offshore tax havens are banks and the financial sector in general, along with multinational corporations engaged in resource extraction: forestry, mining, as well as the oil and gas sectors.
These havens are a huge issue, especially for Canada. A tiny NGO called Canadians for Tax Fairness, led by the intrepid Dennis Howlett, says that multinational corporations and the wealthiest Canadians are sending well over $250 billion per year to offshore havens to avoid paying taxes on it in Canada.
What better way to distract attention than to get Dr. Joe Blow Incorporated fighting with Dr. Jane Doe Unincorporated about income tax?
When the Panama Papers were leaked in April 2016 as anger about tax unfairness was rising worldwide, Bill Morneau told the press that Canada would become “a really strong voice” on the offshore tax haven issue, while PM Trudeau said, “It´s certainly something we will be working on together as a community of nations” – apparently a reference to the forthcoming BEPS Agreement.
In signing the Agreement on June 7, 2017, Ginette Petitpas Taylor (now federal minister of health) announced that this puts Canada “at the forefront of global action to improve international tax rules, and work towards a more fair and transparent tax system.”
There´s only one problem (or several). According to tax experts, the BEPS Agreement has major weaknesses and enough loopholes to drive a fleet of Ferraris through. As well, the BEPS Agreement doesn´t affect Canada´s Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs), which were introduced and signed by the Harper government and (as we shall see) are unique, to say the least.
Not only have our international partners delivered a tepid BEPS Agreement, but the Trudeau government continues (as Alain Deneault puts it) “to fight tax fraud by legalizing it.”
The OECD´s tax policy director had already acknowledged in 2016 that Canada´s TIEAs had caused a massive uptick in Canadian money flowing into tax havens, and he told the CBC that “we are dealing with” the issue in negotiations. But apparently, nothing was changed.
Before the BEPS Agreement was formally signed, an independent organization called the BEPS Monitoring Group issued a statement saying that the Agreement “fell short of providing a comprehensive and cohesive approach to reform of international tax laws.”
While most corporate media outlets in Canada simply ignored the BEPS Agreement signing ceremony of June 7, the Toronto Star (to its credit) published a critical article on June 8.
Written by Marco Chown Oved, the article pointed out that Canada leads the world in the number of tax treaties and agreements that allow multinational corporations to escape the taxman. Oved interviewed tax authorities who said the BEPS Agreement is vaguely worded and has so many loopholes that nothing much will change, especially for Canada.
Apparently, the so-called “community of nations” has come up with a tepid agreement.
Even more important, Canada has gamed the system in favour of corporate tax cheats.
Those TIEAs
The Watershed Sentinel (November-December 2011) was one of the first Canadian media outlets to blow the whistle on Canada´s TIEAs, noting that the “new TIEAs are being touted as a means for more `transparency´ about tax avoidance, but there is little to justify this claim … with the new TIEAs, a corporation can repatriate those offshore profits tax-free, leaving no trace of the deferred taxes.”
This is how it works: a corporation makes its profits in Canada but can set up subsidiaries in a tax haven (usually nothing more than a PO box). The corporation can shift its profits to the tax haven (where it pays no or low taxes) and keep its losses in Canada (where they are tax deductible). The corporation can then repatriate the profits (without being taxed) as dividends for shareholders, mergers and acquisitions, share buy-backs, fat bonuses and salaries, etc.
As I wrote in 2011, tax havens are a way to “starve the beast” of government, in order to foster privatization and deregulation. What I didn´t know at the time was that the Harper government had actually changed the tax code to facilitate this tax avoidance and repatriation of profits tax-free.
Canada leads the world in the number of tax treaties and agreements that allow multinational corporations to escape the taxman.
That fact didn´t come out until 2015, when Alain Deneault, a Canadian expert on tax havens and the author of two books about the issue, wrote that Canada had “made a travesty” of TIEAs (created by the OECD) by adding “a provision of its own” through “section 5907 (11) of Canada´s Income Tax Regulations.”
Deneault noted that this “new loophole” created by a tax code change was endorsed by a 2008 federal advisory panel which “included an ex-chairman of the board of the Royal Bank of Canada and an ex-CEO of SNC Lavalin Group, a retired Scotiabank executive who was a director of Barrick Gold and Rogers, an international tax expert from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and a retired Shell Canada executive.”
As Deneault bluntly put it, “While claiming to fight tax fraud, Ottawa legalizes its every aspect.
At the same time, its honour is untarnished in that it actively looks for TIEAs to sign and can therefore boast of being part of the international initiative instigated by the OECD. Fighting tax fraud by making it legal: this is truly Orwellian.”
As far as I can determine, no other country has this arrangement.
Both the CBC and the Toronto Star reported this Orwellian situation in 2016 and stated that the Trudeau Liberals had done nothing to change it. In June 2017, the day after Ginette Petitpas Taylor signed the other Paris agreement, the Toronto Star again raised the issue.
I suspect that the Liberal government, which had said that Canada would be “a really strong voice” on the offshore tax haven issue, felt there might be a need to distract attention from the matter, before the whole issue of tax havens could further galvanize Canadian taxpayers.
What better way to distract attention than to get Dr. Joe Blow Incorporated fighting with Dr. Jane Doe Unincorporated about income tax? Six weeks after the BEPS Agreement was signed on June 7, Morneau´s Finance Department released the plan to remove those three tax loopholes benefiting incorporated professionals – sparking outrage throughout the summer and autumn.
Driving the narrative
Before Morneau´s alleged conflicts of interest became an issue in mid-October, the pundits had a field day. For example, The Globe and Mail´s Campbell Clark wrote (September 6) that this is Morneau´s “first real fight” and he´s “eager” to take it on. “He wanted this. He wants to take on the argument that if the government does not stop the use of private corporations for personal tax advantages, Canada will have a two-tier tax system for incorporated business people and everybody else – and that gap will grow bigger over time.” As Morneau told reporters in Vancouver on September 6, “We want to make sure … that we´re not creating an ongoing tax advantage for a privileged few.”
Such things were being said with a straight face as Morneau and Trudeau metaphorically put on their Robin Hood costumes.
During the height of the rhetoric, Conrad Black called Morneau´s tax plan “a seismic lurch to the left.” Actually, the original tax plan fits rights into the neoliberal economic agenda of shifting the tax burden further away from multinational corporations.
So what was the one thing that almost never came up? I followed the issue (in print) from mid-July to the end of October and found only three articles that referred to tax havens. In each instance it was an NDP member of Parliament that raised the offshore issue.
Various tax experts estimated that the most that would be collected per year from Morneau´s original tax plan (most of it later rolled back) was about $250 million. Meanwhile, Dennis Howlett of Canadians for Tax Fairness (CTF) was estimating in September that because of offshore tax havens, at least $8 billion in Canadian taxes on multinational corporations goes uncollected annually.
After the November 5 release of another tax havens data-leak called the Paradise Papers, CTF revised its estimate to between $10 billion and $15 billion per year in Canadian tax losses due to tax havens. In their important November 2017 report Bay Street and Tax Havens: Curbing Corporate Canada´s Addiction, CTF stated that this amount would be enough to fund Pharmacare, universal childcare, free university tuition, and infrastructure improvements in First Nations communities all at the same time.
On November 8, PM Trudeau tried to quell the uproar about the Paradise Papers by telling the press, “We have done much in regards to tax avoidance and tax evasion, including working with international partners.”
It´s a tired old line that we´ve heard before.
Not only have those international partners delivered a tepid BEPS Agreement, but the Trudeau government continues (as Alain Deneault puts it) “to fight tax fraud by legalizing it.”
Good news
As a Toronto Star editorial (November 8, 2017) noted, “The Paradise Papers are doing nothing to soothe those who worry about the unseemly intertwining of money and power in politics or about the extent to which the economy is rigged by the few against the many. The government can do something about that. It can, for instance, close unfair and ineffective tax loopholes and collect what´s owed. Or it can sit back, defend the current arrangements and watch the cynicism grow.”
The good news is that the BEPS Agreement is still being negotiated internationally and could be rewritten to take much stronger action against tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Similarly, the tax code changes that the Harper government added as a provision to TIEAs could be eliminated.
Both of these changes would need a loud, concerted and immediate push from the Canadian public. In other words, this is no time for either apathy or cynicism.
Joyce Nelson´s latest book is Beyond Banksters: Resisting the New Feudalism. The sequel, Bypassing Dystopia, will be published by Watershed Sentinel Books in March 2018.
TO: The House, CBC Radio (from on-line, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/contact) Jan 20, 2018
American citizen resistance against NAFTA (therefore a huge ally of Trump) focuses on ONE issue.
I have not heard even once, discussion of that clause on The House.
That clause has also been a rallying point for Canadian citizens. The application of “Chapter 11” in NAFTA has been much more egregious for Canadian citizens than American citizens.
How can the CBC claim to conduct unbiased and informing journalism when a critical viewpoint is omitted from the debate?
NAFTA Chapter 11(Investor State Dispute Settlement – ISDS) established closed tribunals under which businesses make claims against the Government of Canada. The tribunals have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to corporations. Corporate tribunals, corporate lawyers, are, under NAFTA, a higher authority than the Laws that Canadians pass in their parliaments and legislatures. What we have in NAFTA is a hi-jacking of the public purse.
Awards given by the NAFTA ISDS tribunals are a direction to the Government, to hand over taxes paid by Canadian citizens, to the corporate claimant.
*** The deadline for participation in “transformation” of the Criminal Justice System, has been extended to January 31st. ***
Please help spread the word. There are a number of ways to participate, besides making a submission. Go to justicetransformation.ca.
I am hoping to find some excitingly innovative input from Canadians. It is important to say something, even if it is to reinforce a point made by others. The first link below is my submission. There are many, quite different points to be made. I addressed only one.
IF we don’t care, we will get a don’t-care system for Criminal Justice.
Added at bottom: CBC Radio discussed NAFTA this morning. Once again, they did not mention the ISDS clause. I think it is really important to keep hammering it. So once again, I challenged them on the omission. See at bottom.
My submission to the consultations – – different from many? I focused on “No, we do not have the Rule of Law in Canada“. The people in Corporations and other people of power are not always prosecuted for their crimes. They can be exempted, for example, by paying fines – – financed and expensed by the Corporation. The person walks away. And so on.
I hope my submission makes it clear that we will ALL be the worse off, if the status quo continues.
The question asked is “How would you change our Justice system to better serve all Canadians?”
The reply I received from the Justice Transformation project. Tells of the extended deadline.
I phoned the Deputy Minister of Justice’s office in Saskatchewan on January 19th. They did not know about the Federal Government’s Justice Transformation initiative. You might think of persons who should know, and contact them?
The place that travel writer Pico Iyer would most like to go? Nowhere. In a counterintuitive and lyrical meditation, Iyer takes a look at the incredible insight that comes with taking time for stillness . . . he teases out strategies we all can use. . . .
Although serotonin is well known as a brain neurotransmitter, it is estimated that 90 percent of the body’s serotonin is made in the digestive tract. In fact, altered levels of this peripheral serotonin have been linked to diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and osteoporosis. New research at Caltech, published in the April 9 issue of the journal Cell, shows that certain bacteria in the gut are important for the production of peripheral serotonin.
“More and more studies are showing that mice or other model organisms with changes in their gut microbes exhibit altered behaviors,” explains Elaine Hsiao, research assistant professor of biology and biological engineering and senior author of the study. “We are interested in how microbes communicate with the nervous system. To start, we explored the idea that normal gut microbes could influence levels of neurotransmitters in their hosts.”
Peripheral serotonin is produced in the digestive tract by enterochromaffin (EC) cells and also by particular types of immune cells and neurons. Hsiao and her colleagues first wanted to know if gut microbes have any effect on serotonin production in the gut and, if so, in which types of cells. They began by measuring peripheral serotonin levels in mice with normal populations of gut bacteria and also in germ-free mice that lack these resident microbes.
The researchers found that the EC cells from germ-free mice produced approximately 60 percent less serotonin than did their peers with conventional bacterial colonies. When these germ-free mice were recolonized with normal gut microbes, the serotonin levels went back up—showing that the deficit in serotonin can be reversed.
“EC cells are rich sources of serotonin in the gut. What we saw in this experiment is that they appear to depend on microbes to make serotonin—or at least a large portion of it,” says Jessica Yano, first author on the paper and a research technician working with Hsiao.
The researchers next wanted to find out whether specific species of bacteria, out of the diverse pool of microbes that inhabit the gut, are interacting with EC cells to make serotonin.
After testing several different single species and groups of known gut microbes, Yano, Hsiao, and colleagues observed that one condition—the presence of a group of approximately 20 species of spore-forming bacteria—elevated serotonin levels in germ-free mice. The mice treated with this group also showed an increase in gastrointestinal motility compared to their germ-free counterparts, and changes in the activation of blood platelets, which are known to use serotonin to promote clotting.
Wanting to home in on mechanisms that could be involved in this interesting collaboration between microbe and host, the researchers began looking for molecules that might be key. They identified several particular metabolites—products of the microbes’ metabolism—that were regulated by spore-forming bacteria and that elevated serotonin from EC cells in culture. Furthermore, increasing these metabolites in germ-free mice increased their serotonin levels.
Previous work in the field indicated that some bacteria can make serotonin all by themselves. However, this new study suggests that much of the body’s serotonin relies on particular bacteria that interact with the host to produce serotonin, says Yano. “Our work demonstrates that microbes normally present in the gut stimulate host intestinal cells to produce serotonin,” she explains.
“While the connections between the microbiome and the immune and metabolic systems are well appreciated, research into the role gut microbes play in shaping the nervous system is an exciting frontier in the biological sciences,” says Sarkis K. Mazmanian, Luis B. and Nelly Soux Professor of Microbiology and a coauthor on the study. “This work elegantly extends previous seminal research from Caltech in this emerging field”.
Additional coauthor Rustem Ismagilov, the Ethel Wilson Bowles and Robert Bowles Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, adds, “This work illustrates both the richness of chemical interactions between the hosts and their microbial communities, and Dr. Hsiao’s scientific breadth and acumen in leading this work.”
Serotonin is important for many aspects of human health, but Hsiao cautions that much more research is needed before any of these findings can be translated to the clinic.
“We identified a group of bacteria that, aside from increasing serotonin, likely has other effects yet to be explored,” she says. “Also, there are conditions where an excess of peripheral serotonin appears to be detrimental.”
Although this study was limited to serotonin in the gut, Hsiao and her team are now investigating how this mechanism might also be important for the developing brain. “Serotonin is an important neurotransmitter and hormone that is involved in a variety of biological processes. The finding that gut microbes modulate serotonin levels raises the interesting prospect of using them to drive changes in biology,” says Hsiao.
The work was published in an article titled “Indigenous Bacteria from the Gut Microbiota Regulate Host Serotonin Biosynthesis.” In addition to Hsiao, Yano, Mazmanian, and Ismagilov, other Caltech coauthors include undergraduates Kristie Yu, Gauri Shastri, and Phoebe Ann; graduate student Gregory Donaldson; postdoctoral scholar Liang Ma. Additional coauthor Cathryn Nagler is from the University of Chicago.
This work was funded by an NIH Director’s Early Independence Award and a Caltech Center for Environmental Microbial Interactions Award, both to Hsiao. The study was also supported by NSF, NIDDK, and NIMH grants to Mazmanian, NSF EFRI and NHGRI grants to Ismagilov, and grants from the NIAID and Food Allergy Research and Education and University of Chicago Digestive Diseases Center Core to Nagler.
The place that travel writer Pico Iyer would most like to go? Nowhere. In a counterintuitive and lyrical meditation, Iyer takes a look at the incredible insight that comes with taking time for stillness. In our world of constant movement and distraction, he teases out strategies we all can use to take back a few minutes out of every day, or a few days out of every season. It’s the talk for anyone who feels overwhelmed by the demands for our world.
This talk was presented at an official TED conference, and was featured by our editors on the home page.
About the speaker
Pico Iyer · Global author
Pico Iyer has spent more than 30 years tracking movement and stillness — and the way criss-crossing cultures have changed the world, our imagination and all our relationships.
In a conversation with the “happiest man in the world,” Pico Iyer explores the concept of stillness and meditates on how we should spend time in an over-scheduled world.
Indigenous groups don’t want permanent nuclear waste site near river
Indigenous groups say a plan to store nuclear waste near the Ottawa River in eastern Ontario is “insanity” and want the federal government to intervene. 0:41
Indigenous groups say a plan to store nuclear waste near the Ottawa River in eastern Ontario is “insanity” and want the federal government to intervene.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a private company, wants a 10-year licence to keep running the Chalk River nuclear labs in eastern Ontario.
In 2014, the federal government gave Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) control over nuclear operations at Chalk River. The government continues to own the nuclear assets.
CNL has plans for a permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Chalk River, plans that have been criticized by a concerned citizen’s group as being “cheap, dirty, unsafe and out of alignment with International Atomic Energy Agency guidance.”
Nuclear waste in Chalk River will cost billions to deal with and leave a legacy that will last centuries, opponents say.
“Trying to build this giant mound of radioactive waste … is insanity,” said Patrick Madahbee, grand council chief of the Anishinabek Nation, which advocates for around 40 communities representing around 65,000 people across Ontario.
He said CNL has an obligation under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to consult Indigenous people about storing hazardous materials in their territory, but CNL hasn’t talked to them about it.
The waste facility could be operational by 2020.
“We understand this is a complex file, but clearly the risks here are to people’s drinking waters and traditional territories,” said Patrick Nadeau, executive director of the Ottawa Riverkeeper.
CNL’s licence to run the Chalk River labs expires on March 31 and the consortium has asked the regulator, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for a 10-year licence agreement, rather than the usual five-year term.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will hold public hearings in Pembroke, Ont., from Jan. 23 to 25 to consider CNL’s licence.
Dozens of delegations have registered to comment at the hearings.
But Mark Lesinski, president of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories said among those posed to present submissions at the hearings, there are a number of “misunderstandings.”
I plan to participate beyond what I submitted, which largely focuses on “No, we do not have the Rule of Law in Canada”. The people in Corporations and other people of power are not prosecuted for their crimes under The Law. They are exempted. Or, they pay fines, financed and expensed by the Corporation, and walk away.
Please communicate with as many Canadians as you can. I hope my submission (Input to Govt) makes it clear that we will ALL be the worse off, if the status quo continues.
The issues I addressed may not be addressed by very many people. But they are fundamental. YOU will see things that I do not. And you will say things better than I did. Things have to be said by many people before there will be actual action. This is an opportunity. Let the waves be so large that the crumbling structure be washed out to sea. Tinkering with the existing system will get us nowhere. In my humble opinion!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
REPLY FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
From: CJSR_RSJP [mailto:CJSR_RSJP AT justice.gc.ca] Sent: January 16, 2018 7:09 AM To: ‘Sandra Finley’ Subject: RE: How can the Criminal Justice system be changed to better suit Canadians?
Good morning Sandra,
Thank you for joining the conversation! We received your submission and appreciate that you have taken the time to share it with us. We value your input on transforming Canada’s criminal justice system. Please note the Department of Justice Canada’s online consultation will be open until January 31, 2018: justicetransformation.ca After this time, a report on what Canadians had to say will be made public on the Department’s website.
I must be from a different planet! I think it’s a huge problem for the Criminal Justice System that corporate offenders get off scot-free in too many cases.
The lengthy Government Report on “What They Heard” from Canadians came out in May 2019 (Date modified: no mention of the immunity from prosecution for white collar (“influential”) criminals.
UPDATE: What We Heard: Govt re transforming Canada’s criminal Justice System
How can the Criminal Justice system be changed to better suit Canadians?
TO: CJSR_RSJP@justice.gc.ca
I answer your question with this input:
DROP THE PRETENSES. A pretense tries to make something that is not the case appear true. If you do not drop the pretenses, there will not be useful outcomes of this exercise, only a tinkering with the system.
Pretense: In Canada we have the Rule of Law. That is not true.
The Rule of Law:
“All persons, regardless of wealth, social status, or the political power wielded by them, are to be treated the same before the law.
“The rule of law means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governors or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.
“The rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply them – that is, to the government as well as the governed. Nobody has the power to grant exceptions.”
A few Examples of Reality – – persons, corporations, and institutions who are treated as “above the Rule of Law”:
We don’t stop to think about WHAT UNDERMINES the rule of law? . . . If people see that the law applies to them, but not to rich or privileged people, and not to Corporations and Institutions, they grow to hold the law in disdain.
Unequal application of the law breaks down the rule of law. The response then, of those who govern, is to invoke martial law, because people become unruly.
People comply with the law if they see that it is fair and equally applied. You can have a measure of PEACE in the community if the Rule of Law is upheld.
We don’t bother to understand that World War Two happened because the influential, the educated, the authorities – – the police, the lawyers, judges and university professors in Germany notoriously DID NOT stand up and speak up when they saw things that were wrong in the application of the laws.
In pre-war Germany, people did not stand up and insist that law-breakers be arrested and tried in courts of true justice.
As bad actors amassed power, they were allowed to break the laws with no fear of prosecution. A tipping point was reached, beyond which the system of governance could not be retrieved from the mad men.
The laws as they apply to George Bush for crimes against humanity are spelt out in a letter to the Chief of Police. Evidence is supplied. Notice is given well in advance of the visit. The Attorney General of Canada receives the same information. It’s easy to swagger and deal out “justice” to petty criminals. Neither the Police or the Attorney General have the courage to perform their duties, to uphold the Rule of Law, when it comes to serious crimes committed by monied people.
Canadians would stand up and raise hell if the Government gave our money to a person associated with the mafia, to someone who has been convicted of bribery, of fraud in Government contracts, and so on.
CONSIDER: A group of people get together under a corporate name. They commit highly unlawful acts, have a long list of court convictions, and have not been tried for all their crimes. They come to Canada and are not only immune from the laws of our land, but they also receive billions of our tax dollars.
There are many examples; we do not have the Rule of Law. The sooner you stop pretending that we do, the faster we might make progress.
Pretense: In Canada, citizens have ACCESS TO JUSTICE. No they don’t. Who can afford the cost of a lawyer? or the cost of self-representation in a complex system?
As I understand things, the role of the state is to protect citizens against violence. Citizens agree to abandon violence and vigilantism; we pay taxes for policing and the justice system, in exchange for the ability to live in relative security, without fear.
The Justice System is funded – – I would say owned – – by citizens. It is the responsibility of citizens. If we are fortunate, in the face of ineffective systems, communities will find their own ways to meet local needs. Neighbourhood Watch, for instance. Or programs that focus on the healthy development of the community, all its children and the environment.
If we are ineffective, violence will increase for the simple reason that it’s affordable to hire someone to break the knee-caps of an aggressor. It is not affordable to use the justice system.
The Police typically will not handle, for example, cyber violence. Amanda Todd, the UN admonitions for countries to do something about cyber violence, and local examples come to mind.
If the Justice and Policing Systems, the Governments in Canada, will not dedicate resources to create access to a Justice System designed to serve every day citizens, violence will increase because people tolerate only so much before they take matters into their own hands.
Violence begets violence in that system – – it is the available means of defence.
The Rule of Law is fundamental to Democracy. It is undermined through our failures to reform and evolve. There are too many financial beneficiaries of the status quo, roadblocks to what needs to be done.
2. The laws that apply to Citizens must also apply to Corporations and institutions, that is, to the individuals in those entities.
3. People from within the Justice System cannot be the ones to provide oversight.
4. There are systemic biases within the system that serve to protect the status quo. They need to be identified and abandoned if you have any hope of change.
5. The Justice system is a closed shop, a relatively small community of people across the country who have all graduated from the same small number of institutions. They are alumni brothers and sisters. They have “connections”. They have been trained the same.
Law Reform Commissions have been castrated. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada is under-resourced. And it is closed to input from citizens. You don’t get effective change in a closed system. It has to be opened up.
6. You have to stop the practice of using the Justice System as a tool of intimidation. Corporations perfected the practice, giving rise to Anti-SLAPP legislation in California and in Ontario, for example. Others learned. They extort money by threatening to file a lawsuit, which is known to be more costly than paying off the extortionist. Lawyers advise clients to capitulate to the extortionist; it is the financially sound decision. It is egregious, for example, in cyberbullying and cyber violence. The Justice system appears to be willfully oblivious to the practice of using the Justice system for intimidation and coercion.
7. A criterion in the ranking of Law Schools is the number of graduates hired by the top law firms in Canada. The top law firms are corporate law firms. They don’t get prosecuted for criminal behavior; criminal law is irrelevant to them. So Law Schools have a big incentive (ranking) for excellence in Corporate Law. Resources typically flow to where the money is . . . corporates. So…. what do you do? Citizens SHOULD fund universities and the Justice System, in order that our institutions not be subverted to serve corporate interests that are usually diametrically-opposed to the public interest. I do not find it surprising that the Justice system is increasingly criticized for its failures in serving our communities.
8. You should employ philosophers and psychologists in the effort to change the system. And most definitely, community activists. Basic principles of law in a democracy have been lost. Conflicts-of-interest don’t fall under Criminal Law. But they set the stage for criminal activity. Our forefathers learned from experience with the consequence that conflicts-of-interest were not allowed. Today? The Justice system and our institutions turn a blind eye to conflicts-of-interest. Think Bill Morneau, Government decisions on pension rules, and Morneau’s family business, Morneau Shepell. Or, take a look on the other side of the border and then see the same corrupt players here, KPMG mentioned in the URL’s at the top:
In the summer of 2006, the government’s once-promising prosecution of executives from KPMG, an accounting and consulting firm suspected of selling illegal tax shelters to wealthy clients, started going bad. (The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan felt so confident that it indicted 17 KPMG executives.) The case fell apart when the judge ruled that those prosecutors had violated constitutional rights by pressuring the firm to waive attorney-client privilege and stop paying employees’ legal fees; the government’s zeal, he noted, had gotten “in the way of its judgment.” With the “greatest reluctance,” he threw out the cases against 13 of the executives. (Two others were convicted.)
The same criminals are in Canada, doing the same thing, and undermining the Rule of Law: 2016-03-08Canada Revenue offered amnesty to wealthy KPMG clients in offshore tax ‘sham’, CBC. IMPORTANT VIDEO.KPMG takes a 15% cut of the taxes saved through schemes that send the money of wealthy Canadians offshore to tax havens. You are seriously deluded if you think that the failure to treat the individuals at KPMG the same as other Canadians are treated (the video), does not deepen disrespect for The Law in Canada.
9. Many Law School graduates have gone from High School directly to University. The ones who article in the prestigious job of Supreme Court clerk, reviewing applications to the Court and making recommendations to the Justices, are the top graduates from across the country. Many of those people have achieved excellence by single-minded devotion to their studies. They cannot be faulted for that. They can be assured of good jobs in the System at the end of their articles. The problem for the Supreme Court and for the Justice system: these kids are smart (“left-brained”), but are often bereft of experience that comes from the streets of our societies. Many have never been an “advocate” for a social issue in real life. John Ralston Saul argues that the rational is the most fragile of our faculties. I agree with him. We have to be able to see “the other”, especially in the Justice System this is important, but “Seeing” the other is dependent upon IMAGINATION. And experience. Effective CHANGE is dependent on CREATIVITY. Maybe you have already conferred with inmates – – they will have answers that well-placed people in the system will not have.
10. An adversarial system generates some really stupid tactics and costly outcomes, both financially and in time wasted.
11. Did you watch Michael Moore’s “Where to Invade Next“? He visits Norway to take their best ideas for the Justice System back to America. Canada, too, should steal some of Norway’s ideas. We have hardly emerged from the Middle Ages. And we regressed substantially under Harper. The prison farms should be re-introduced. Don’t tell me – – they sold off the land?
12. Do not hire American consultants for your endeavors. God forbid. Better the Norwegians.
13. If you are to have Integrity within the Justice system, and therefore respect for the Criminal Justice system, I would say that the officials responsible for abuse of their power as Prosecutors in the following cases, have to be identified and prosecuted.
Three women a threat to their communities (?), prosecuted.
Even though StatsCan knew (under oath, at the trial of Audrey Tobias – – but they may have been lying) that Lockheed Martin’s role in the Census was to be ended within two years (by the 2016 Census), AND the decision had been made by the time of the Tobias trial in Toronto, in October 2013, (ref 2014-07-17 Transcript, Tobias trial establishes Lockheed Martin is OUT)
the Federal Dept of Justice, in concert with StatsCan, went ahead and prosecuted:
Audrey Tobias, 89 years old
Janet Churnin, 79 years old and
(Karen) Eve Stegenga, a self-employed yoga instructor, 37 years old.
The cost of any one of these trials is very high – preparation, consultations, judges, prosecutors, court workers, facility costs, travel costs, opportunity costs (the money could have been put to better use).
The outcomes were dismal, from a prosecutorial point-0f-view. Judges are to be credited, the women were spared a criminal record:
(Karen) Eve Stegenga received a conditional discharge (July 17, 2014). She had to do 25 hours of community service.
Janet Churnin received a conditional discharge (December 2013). 50 hours of community service.
Audrey Tobias was found not guilty (October 2013).
Community service is a way of life for all three of these women. Lockheed Martin is the “group of people who get together under a corporate name. They commit highly unlawful acts, have a long list of court convictions, and have not been tried for all their crimes. They come to Canada and are not only immune from the laws of our land, but they also receive billions of our tax dollars”.
You might say, “This is just the way the world works”. Justice Department officials seriously abused their power in all three cases. What was the purpose of the prosecutions? According to the numbers supplied by the StatsCan witness, non-compliance has risen to 11% from 2%. StatsCan and the Justice Dept itself, by failing to listen to Canadians about the wrongness of hiring a rogue corporation like Lockheed Martin, with its extensively documented criminality, is teaching Canadians non-compliance with the Law.
14. It is 15 minutes before the deadline for submissions to you. I will therefore do a simple copy and paste. It is American documentation, an issue of increasing concern in Canada, too.
GROSS: So you think that having, say, investment banks settle for large fines is not an adequate punishment. Why not?
EISINGER: I don’t think it deters crime. And I think it undermines the sense of equity and justice in this country. I think people see companies paying big checks and the individuals getting away with it. And I think it stokes an enormous amount of anger with the system and undermines the legitimacy of our justice system, especially because we have a justice system which excessively punishes the poor and people of color while allowing top corporate executives, powerful people, off. We talk about inequality in this country, but I argue that the greatest perquisite of being powerful and wealthy in this country is the ability to commit crimes with impunity.
(INSERT: perquisite (perk) – a thing regarded as a special right or privilege enjoyed as a result of one’s position.)
You know, it seems paradoxical that in an era of mass incarceration, it’s so hard to prosecute executives of corporations. Can you describe this, like, judicial timidity about prosecuting executives for corporate wrongdoing? So how do you explain that disparity?
EISINGER: Well, one thing is that there’s a kind of class affinity here where I think that prosecutors have an easier time certainly prosecuting drug dealers and murderers but also prosecuting corrupt politicians. I think they see politicians, and it kind of disgusts them when they do corrupt things. But when they see an articulate, well-educated executive from the same schools that they went to or the parents of the – their classmates, they find it much more difficult to picture these people as criminals.
As one SEC regulator put it in an email when they were investigating Goldman Sachs for wrongdoing – he said these are good people who have done one bad thing. And they essentially view executives as good people who may have made a mistake, and they don’t want to put those people in prison. Suffice it to say, they don’t see young black males who are dealing drugs as essentially good people making one bad mistake.
The other problem is that the courts are much friendlier and judges are much friendlier to corporate criminals than they are to street criminals. So we have a divided society, which is no surprise to anybody. And it really manifests itself in criminal law enforcement.
GROSS: Are we seeing a double standard develop about what a corporation is – because in some instances, a corporation is a person. Like, when it comes to giving money to a campaign, a corporation is now a person. (INSERT: In the US, not in Canada) But does a corporation have a different standing when it comes to being prosecuted?
EISINGER: It does because the Department of Justice has effectively decided that it will not indict this kind of person, the corporate person. And it’s not an official policy. It’s just an effective one. And because of that, corporations have the ability to settle for money and never face the death penalty, never face serious indictment. And because of that, they can get away with a lot of wrongdoing for a long time without paying any serious penalty besides writing a check. And the checks are something that they can afford and something that comes out of not their pocket but the shareholder pockets.
