Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY
OR, same thing, but on Dan Simons’ blog:
http://www.dansimons.com/videos.html the top video.
The work of Dan Simons is valuable.
Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher, Postmedia News
OTTAWA — Two donors to Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s 2008 election campaign have produced copies of cheques they say were reimbursements paid by a small electrical company owned by his cousin.
The cheques show the donors each received $1,050 from Deltro Electric Ltd. of Mississauga, Ont., two days before they made $1,000 donations to Del Mastro’s electoral district association in Peterborough.
The donors also produced copies of the personal cheques they sent to the riding association in September 2008.
The cheques could be key pieces of evidence should Elections Canada extend its ongoing investigation of Dean Del Mastro’s 2008 campaign expenses to the donations that funded it.
Under the Elections Act, it is a serious offence to conceal the real source of donations to an election campaign.
Deltro owner David Del Mastro has denied issuing any reimbursements to his cousin’s campaign contributors and says he only asked people to give voluntarily.
One of the cheques obtained by the Citizen is payable to a former Deltro employee who, earlier this month, signed a statutory declaration describing how Deltro staff were asked to enlist family and friends in the alleged reimbursement scheme.
David Del Mastro “advised me at that time that he wanted to make a large monetary donation to the re-election campaign of his cousin, Dean Del Mastro Member of Parliament,” the statement said.
“My employer assured me that if I would do so, my employer would cause his company, Deltro Electric Ltd., to reimburse me for the full sum of $1,000, plus a further bonus of $50, and that I would receive an income tax receipt for the donation.”
Cheque in the amount of $1,050 drawn on an account belonging to Deltro Electric, owned by MP Dean Del Mastro’s cousin, is alleged by the cheque’s recipient, a Deltro employee, to be reimbursement for a $1,000 donation to Del Mastro’s re-campaign. Images of this cheque and others were captured by the donors’ banks when they were deposited in ATM machines. At the Citizen’s request, the donors asked their bank to produce copies of these images.
The alleged scheme was intended to circumvent the limit on political donations, the former employee said. The Conservative government lowered the limit to $1,100 through their 2006 centrepiece ethics legislation, the Federal Accountability Act.
The statement listed the names of seven friends of family members of the employee who also participated in the scheme.
The employee also listed the names of 11 Deltro employees, their family members or friends of the owner who, Elections Canada records show, also all gave $1,000 to Del Mastro’s campaign or riding association.
The former employee and two other donors with the same story of donations and reimbursements spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Reached on his cellphone Wednesday, David Del Mastro said he had no comment and hung up before he could be asked about the cheques. He did not respond to a fax and email requesting comment.
He has previously denied he ever reimbursed anyone for giving money to his cousin’s campaign. Claims to the contrary were likely from a disgruntled former employee, he suggested.
He said it was reasonable to believe that 19 people would give so much money to a candidate running in a riding three hours away just because he asked. Four other people with ties to Deltro who donated $1,000 each, and were contacted by the Ottawa Citizen, have all said they gave voluntarily and were not reimbursed.
The cheques from Deltro do not indicate why they were issued. The “memo” field on both is left blank. Images of the cheques were captured by the donors’ banks when they were deposited in ATM machines. At the Ottawa Citizen’s request, the donors asked their bank to produce copies of these images.
The donors who provided the cheque images understand they face potential legal jeopardy by admitting participation in the alleged scheme. They hope Elections Canada will consider that they came forward voluntarily should the agency launch an investigation.
On the way into his party’s caucus meeting last week, Dean Del Mastro described a previous story about the alleged reimbursements as “silly.”
Asked for comment Wednesday, Del Mastro wrote in an email that “all donations to my campaigns have been received in the proper form, properly recorded and reported and receipts issued as per Elections Canada guidelines. Always have been, always will be.”
Elections Canada is investigating allegations that Del Mastro’s campaign exceeded its spending limit by hiring an Ottawa company to do $21,000 worth of voter identification and get-out-the-vote work.
According to court documents, Elections Canada has obtained a personal cheque that Del Mastro wrote to the company in that amount.
There is also an allegation, made by an Elections Canada investigator, that a document submitted to the agency by the Del Mastro campaign purporting to show a refund by the company was “a false document.”
Del Mastro insists his postelection filings were in order and has denied any wrongdoing.
He told a Peterborough TV station last week that he expects he will be cleared of any wrongdoing over his expenses and said he has the full support of the prime minister.
Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia News
NOTE:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, Postmedia News
Rod MacIvor/Postmedia News files
Yves Côté in 2007 when he was ombudsman for the Canadian Forces. He is the new Commissioner of Canada Elections, overseeing the robocalls investigation.
With the complex and politically charged robocalls investigation still underway, Commissioner of Canada Elections William Corbett has retired and been replaced with a former justice department bureaucrat.
Since last year’s election, Corbett has been overseeing the probe of fraudulent pre-recorded calls and misleading live calls reported by voters in 200 ridings across the country. It is believed to be the largest investigation the commissioner’s office has ever conducted.
But in a surprise announcement Thursday, Elections Canada said Corbett has retired and been replaced by Yves Côté, the former associate deputy minister of justice.
A former officer with the Judge Advocate General’s office, Côté was appointed as ombudsman for the Canadian Forces in 2005. When he left that post, Esprit de Corps magazine wrote that Côté “made it clear that he was not going to take the high-profile, often-adversarial towards the chain-of-command stance of his predecessor,” Andre Marin.
Côté issued reports critical of the military, complaining in one report that “the Canadian Forces continue to treat military families like second-class citizens,” but on Thursday Esprit de Corps publisher Scott Taylor described Côté’s time as ombudsman as disappointing.
“Unfortunately he failed to maintain the same sort of profile for the office which Marin had laboriously built as the inaugural incumbent,” said Taylor. “While it is true that Marin had raised the bar quite high, Côté passed well below it during his tenure.”
In December 2007, halfway through Côté’s mandate as ombudsman, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed him as associate minister of justice, where he worked closely with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as the government prepared Bill C-10, an omnibus bill that imposed mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes, including marijuana cultivation.
People familiar with Côté’s career described him as low-key and competent, safe and methodical but not a fighter.
Politically dangerous investigations have a long history in official Ottawa of posing challenges to investigators and prosecutors, and prosecutions in the uncharted waters of telephone voter contact could put pressure on Elections Canada.
Taylor, who was a close observer of Côté during his tenure at the Canadian Forces, expressed doubts on Thursday about his willingness to tangle with powerful interests in the robocalls investigation.
“Given that Côté was unwilling to make waves during the tumultuous period in which he served as the CF ombudsman, it is unlikely he would be willing to swim upstream against the political current in his present post,” he said.
Elections Canada denied that the change in mid-stream would affect the robocalls or related investigations.
“There will be continuity,” said spokesman John Enright. “There is a new commissioner but the work of the Office of the Commissioner continues. It’s not going to impact their work at all.”
Chief among Côté’s responsibilities will be to decide what charges, if any, he will refer to Director of Public Prosecution Brian Saunders over the robocalls allegations.
By law, the commissioner of Canada elections is appointed by the chief electoral officer, not by Parliament or cabinet. Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand chose to use a competition process to fill the job, the same way many public service jobs are filled, with applicants assigned points for various qualifications.
It was up to Mayrand to decide how to fill the job, Enright said.
“The process that was chosen was a competitive public process based on merit, the same way you would appoint any other senior official.”
Elections Canada said the job opening was published in the spring. The text of advertisement specified someone with significant experience with legal or regulatory decision-making, but made no mention of investigative experience.
“The successful candidate must have proven experience in handling sensitive and complex matters,” the ad said. “He or she must be able to build and maintain effective relationships with parliamentarians, senior government officials and other stakeholders.”
Corbett led the five-year investigation into the so-called “in and out” scandal, the Conservative Party’s scheme to shuffle the costs of $1.3 million in radio and TV ads between its national campaign and local candidate campaigns to avoid spending caps in the 2006 campaign.
Four Conservative party officials, including senators Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein, were charged in the case, but those charges were dropped last year, when the party pleaded guilty and paid $52,000 in fines.
At the time of Côté’s appointment, Corbett’s staff were also investigating allegations of election financial impropriety in the 2008 election by Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro, the prime minister’s parliamentary secretary and member of the House of Commons ethics committee.
Corbett’s going-away party was held Wednesday. Côté begins work July 3.
Enright said Corbett wasn’t available to speak publicly about his role.
“Interviews at this time are graciously declined,” he said.
Postmedia News and Ottawa Citizen
(I would like to publish the URL but doing so changes the formatting.)
Barring a CIA drone strike on the Ecuadorian embassy in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s sudden appeal for asylum there may spare him a prison stay in Sweden or possibly the United States. Assange’s freedom now depends largely on Ecuadorian President Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado, a new breed of independent-minded leader like Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
Correa has been a harsh critic of U.S. behavior toward Ecuador and its Latin American neighbors as well as an outspoken fan of WikiLeaks. Atypically for the region, Ecuador is not a major recipient of U.S. economic or military aid, so Washington’s leverage is limited. This suggests that the Ecuadorian government may decide to defy Washington, accept Assange’s request for asylum, and have him flown to Ecuador pronto.
In which case, most British “justice” officials will probably say good riddance and breathe a sigh of relief — literally. They have been holding their noses for weeks against the odor of their obeisance to U.S. diktat, after the British High Court rejected Assange’s argument that he should not be extradited to Sweden.
Although Swedish “justice” officials have not charged Assange with any crime, they insist that he be extradited to face questions resulting from allegations by two women of sexual assault. This is widely — and in my view correctly — perceived as a subterfuge to deliver Assange into Swedish hands to facilitate his eventual extradition to the U.S. to face even more serious charges for publishing classified information highly embarrassing to Washington.
There have been persistent reports that Assange has been the target of a secret grand jury investigating disclosures of classified U.S. documents allegedly slipped to WikiLeaks by Army Pvt. Bradley Manning. A leaked 2011 e-mail from Fred Burton, a vice president of the private intelligence firm Stratfor, informed colleagues that “we have a sealed indictment on Assange,” but that claim has not been confirmed. Manning, however, is facing a court martial for allegedly leaking U.S. documents to WikiLeaks.
Interesting, is it not, that Assange — just days before he was to be extradited to Sweden — was able to (I guess) slip out of his ankle monitor, sneak through the cordon of Bobbies on watch at the estate where he was under house arrest, dodge other Bobbies and security chaps, and hit pay dirt inside the Ecuadorian embassy.
There is no denying that Assange is a clever chap. But unless you think him some kind of Houdini, there has to be some more likely explanation as to how he slipped through the various police checkpoints and walked into the embassy, which is located behind the popular Harrods department store in London.
Were the British security forces all out for tea? Or were they just as happy to have the Assange case – and all the pressure from Washington – focused elsewhere?
Certainly, the British had enough clues that, in extremis, Assange might attempt to make it to the Ecuadorian embassy. In late November 2010, Ecuadorian Deputy Foreign Minister Kintoo Lucas publicly offered Julian Assange residency in Ecuador, saying that Ecuador was “very concerned” by information revealed by WikiLeaks linking U.S. diplomats with spying on friendly governments.
“We are open to giving him residency in Ecuador, without any problem and without any conditions,” Mr. Lucas said.
President Correa promptly backtracked, saying that Kintto Lucas’s remarks were unauthorized and that no formal invitation had been extended to Assange, and noting that residency for him would require legal review in the event he requested it. (This came just one week before Assange was arrested, imprisoned, and then put under house arrest.)
Ecuador’s embassy in London, announcing Assange’s arrival Tuesday afternoon, said he was seeking asylum, and added:
“As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito,” Ecuador’s capital. “While the department assesses Mr. Assange’s application, Mr. Assange will remain at the embassy, under the protection of the Ecuadorian government.”
The embassy added that the bid for asylum “should in no way be interpreted as the government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden.”
Temporizing diplomatic phrasing of this kind seems de rigueur, as President Correa and his associates take time to choose how to react to the fait accompli of Julian Assange in Ecuador’s custody. In Quito, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters that his country “is studying and analyzing the request [for asylum].”
Assange’s mother not only applauded her son’s decision to seek asylum, but summed up the situation concisely, telling the press:
“I hope Ecuador will grant him asylum, and if not, another third-world country. I hope the third world can stand up for what’s morally right when the first world can’t and won’t because they’ve got their snouts in the trough, rolling over for U.S. greed and big business.
“Julian is a political prisoner, a journalist, a publisher of the truth about corruption, war crimes, kidnapping, blackmail, and manipulation. … He remains uncharged and unquestioned on a crime which, if you explore it, has absolutely no basis. Of course he would seek asylum.”
She added that her son was a victim of decisions by the United States, Britain, Sweden and Australia to abandon proper legal process.
Abandoning proper legal process? Such thinking seems so — to borrow words from the eminent legal scholar Alberto Gonzales — so “quaint,” so “obsolete,” so pre-9/11! Abandoning proper legal process post-9/11 has become the “new paradigm” adopted not only by the Bush, but also by the Obama administration.
Not only is Julian Assange within his rights to seek asylum, he is also in his right mind. Consider this: he was about to be sent to faux-neutral Sweden, which has a recent history of bowing to U.S. demands in dealing with those that Washington says are some kind of threat to U.S. security. Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday provided an example:
“In December 2001, Sweden handed over two asylum seekers to the CIA, which then rendered them to be tortured in Egypt. A ruling from the U.N. Human Rights Committee found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for its role in that rendition (the two individuals later received a substantial settlement from the Swedish government).”
For those of you thinking, Oh, but that was under the Bush administration and that kind of thing is over, think again. In 2010 and 2011, the hysteria surrounding WikiLeaks’ disclosures of U.S. misconduct and crimes around the world brought cries from prominent American political figures seeking Assange’s designation as a terrorist, his prosecution as a spy and even his assassination.
Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has called for WikiLeaks to be declared a terrorist organization and Assange to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, a position shared by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:
“The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.”
Others have gone even further, demanding that Assange be put to death, either by judicial or extrajudicial means. For instance, a former Canadian official Tom Flanagan has urged Assange’s assassination.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin denounced Assange as an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands” and said he should be treated no differently than an al-Qaeda terrorist.
In a Facebook posting, Palin said Assange was no more a journalist than “the ‘editor’ of al-Qaida’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a ‘journalist.’” She added: “His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders?”
So, put yourself in Julian Assange’s place. If the New York Times accurately described President Barack Obama as saying it was an “easy” decision to authorize the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen alleged to have participated in terrorist operations against U.S. targets, how confident would you be that the onetime constitutional scholar would resist the political pressure to get rid of you
A drone strike over London can be ruled out. But Assange understandably could fear a covert operation by Britain’s FBI and CIA counterparts — MI-5 and MI-6 — to eliminate him “with extreme prejudice,” in old CIA parlance.
As melodramatic as that might sound, it should be remembered that nine years have gone by since British Ministry of Defense biologist and U.N. weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly’s “suicide.” Yet there remains considerable circumstantial evidence that his “suicide” was not self-inflicted.
Kelly was found “guilty” of disclosing accurate information regarding the bogus nature of the “evidence” of Iraqi WMD and, conveniently, was removed from the scene, supposedly by his own hand. Ecuadorian embassy dwellers may wish to hire beefeaters to taste the foie gras, truffles, or cakes ordered from nearby Harrods.
Four weeks before Assange sought asylum, he interviewed Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa for Episode 6 of The World Tomorrow (Assange’s program Tuesdays on RT). Assange asked Correa why he has advocated that WikiLeaks release all its cables. Correa responded:
“First, you don’t owe anything, have nothing to fear. We have nothing to hide. Your WikiLeaks have made us stronger” with the damaging revelations showing the attitude of the U.S. embassy toward the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian government.
Correa continued: “On the other hand, WikiLeaks wrote a lot about the goals that the national media pursue, about the power groups who seek help and report to foreign embassies. … Let them publish everything they have about the Ecuadorian government. You will see how many things about those who oppose the civil revolution in Ecuador will come to light. Things to do with opportunism, betrayal, and being self serving.”
Correa made the point that when WikiLeaks cables became available to the national media in Ecuador, they chose not to publish them — partly because the documents aired so much “dirty linen” about the media themselves. He added that when he took office in January 2007, five out of seven privately owned TV channels in Ecuador were run by bankers. The bankers were using the guise of journalism to interfere in politics and to destabilize governments, for fear of losing power.
Correa, 49, educated in Belgium at the Université Catholique de Louvain and at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign (for four years, where he earned both a masters and a PhD), said he “admires the American people a great deal.” But the U.S. government can be a different matter.
Assange and Correa discussed Correa’s decision to send the U.S. ambassador, Heather Hodges, packing as a result of the disclosures in the WikiLeaks cables, as well as her “arrogance,” and the Ecuadorian president’s unilateral closure of the U.S. military base at Manta.
Still, Correa seems to have had high hopes that things would improve under the Obama administration. The Ecuadorian president once commented that Hugo Chávez’s description of George W. Bush as Satan was unfair to the Devil and that the previous administration had made Latin America “invisible.”
Regarding Ecuador’s general relationship with the U.S., Correa underscored on Assange’s program that it must be “a framework of mutual respect and sovereignty.” That wished-for mutual respect and especially Washington’s regard for Ecuadorian sovereignty are likely to be put to the test in the coming weeks.
Hillary Clinton may be having second thoughts about the energy she expended earlier this month on her first visit to Sweden as Secretary of State. If Assange succeeds in skirting Sweden and makes it to Ecuador, she may now have to put Quito back on her travel schedule.
A Clinton visit to Ecuador two years ago was marred by protests, but she found President Correa a gracious host. But that was before WikiLeaks disclosed Ambassador Hodges’s pejorative comments on Correa et al. and Correa decided to expel her from the country for “arrogance.”
Correa does seem to have developed an allergy to arrogance, so Clinton may wish to consider sending someone in her stead to try to persuade Ecuador to surrender Assange to the tender mercies of American “justice.”
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
2012 Consortium News All rights reserved.
BRAVO, ROMEO!
ROMEO D’ALLAIRE’s speech in the Senate on the Harp Gov’t’s watering down of the Bill (Bill S-10) against the use of those ugly weapons, Cluster Bombs!
BRAVO, ROMEO!
********************
“And yet, Bill S-10 contains an exception, in Section 11(3)(a), that would allow Canadian Forces to aid and abet the use of cluster munitions while in combined operations.”
“It does not make sense to comprehensively ban an immoral, indiscriminate weapon, and then turn around and say, it’s still okay to use them in combined operations. Almost all operations are combined operations, and so we are effectively paving the way for their continued use.”
“When we took the collective decision to ban cluster munitions in 2008, we did so because we believed the harm caused by cluster munitions far outweighs any military advantage they offer. Colleagues, I would submit to you that this equation does not change in combined operations.”
Honourable Senators, we must reject the temptation to water down a comprehensive ban on cluster munitions. We must craft our laws to be in accord with our principles. We must rise above narrow self-interest, and put the good of humanity above the good of our own tribe.
For the sake of civilians everywhere, and for our women and men in uniform, we can do no less.
And yes, we can do this without putting our men and women in combat at any higher level of risk. I stake my personal military reputation on this fact.
The world expects Canada to lead. And in that duty, we must not let them down.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
http://romeodallaire.sencanada.ca/en/p103090/
Check against delivery
Soon after the bombing in Afghanistan began in 2001, the Pentagon announced its intention to change the colour of the humanitarian daily rations being airdropped throughout the country. These are the small, yellow, packages of prepared meals that contain enough calories to feed a person for one day.
The practice of distributing humanitarian rations dates back to conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. They were designed to reduce mortality rates during emergencies or humanitarian crises — and perhaps even win a few hearts and minds in the process.
But by the time the Pentagon changed the packaging, some 2.5 million humanitarian rations had already been dropped. And all throughout, US Forces had dropped more than a thousand BLU-92 cluster bombs throughout Afghanistan, containing some 250,000 sub-munitions. Regrettably, the thousands of bomblets that failed to explode on impact were the same size and colour — as the humanitarian rations which blanketed the landscape…
You cannot imagine how many children had their limbs blown off due to this careless oversight.
Honourable Colleagues, in a way it is understandable why countries like Russia, China and the US are reluctant to remove cluster munitions from their arsenals. Developed in the lead-up to the Vietnam War, cluster bombs are highly effective “area” weapons, designed to lay out barriers, block forces, and push troops into killing zones.
They can be used to rapidly take out airfields, swaths of tanks, or large troop formations — the kinds of formations we expected to face in the Cold War.
Almost immediately following their development, cluster bombs became the weapon of choice for area denial.
Instead of asking the ethical, legal and moral questions of how the weapon would affect civilians, the only question asked was “how many of these things can we make?”
And so they built them by the hundreds of thousands. Today we’re at the point where some 86 countries stockpile the weapon. And while Canada has never used them, 18 other nations have.
For example, some 500,000 cluster bombs comprising 285 million submunitions — were dropped over the fields, cities and peoples of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, between 1964 until 1975. In the 80s and 90s, they were used extensively in places like Lebanon—by Israeli forces, & in Iraq & Kosovo by US forces.
In all of these conflicts, cluster munitions have been shown to be highly effective in killing human beings. But behind this is an even more devastating truth: the real cost, the human cost, the civilian cost.
By their very nature, cluster bombs are imprecise weapons. Launched from the air, artillery or rocket launchers, each one opens mid-air to release dozens or hundreds of bomblets. Strikes cover areas the size of football fields, and have no ability to distinguish between enemy combatants and children.
Children like 6-year-old Umarbek, a young boy from Tajikistan whose home was struck by these weapons in 1991. Just imagine his horror as shrapnel sliced through his right eye — and ripped through his small torso and face. It tore through his sister’s abdomen and took his brother’s life.
Just like landmines, cluster munitions kill, maim and injure innocent civilians long after conflicts come to an end. This happens because many fail to explode on impact, littering whole communities with unexploded ordinance. Failure rates have been calculated from anywhere between 7 to 40 per cent depending on the ground and vegetation. But even at 1 per cent, you are still in the thousands. As a result, farmers cannot farm. Refugees cannot return. And those who do, risk life and limb.
That is why, in 2008, Canada joined what is now 111 countries in deciding to comprehensively ban the use of these weapons by signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions. After 4 years of waiting, we now have Bill S-10, our ratification legislation.
This Bill has the potential to be a strong legislative tool to end the use of the weapon. Section 6, the heart of the bill, lays out clear and unambiguous prohibitions against cluster munition use. It bans the use, development, acquisition, possession, movement, import, or export of cluster munitions.
Furthermore—and this is key—section 6(f) states that we may not aid, abet or counsel another person to use cluster munitions, or perform any of the prohibited acts above…
And yet, this bill is flawed—deeply so. Its promise is undermined by its exceptions, exceptions so broad you can drive a tank through it. they water down and weaken the treaty—perhaps even critically.
Despite our best intentions, there are provisions in this Bill that would allow members of the Canadian Forces to expressly request the use of cluster munitions while in combined operations, such as NATO missions, as indicated in sections 11 (1)(a) and (b).
Moreover, Section 11(1)(c) grants our armed forces permissionto use, acquire or possess cluster munitions while on secondment. This is not a meaningful prohibition. This is a half-measure, and one not worthy of a country that has, for so long, led the world in disarmament.
The policy enshrined in this Bill completely contradicts our stance on antipersonnel landmines. It contradicts the spirit of the Convention we have signed; it contradicts established Canadian policy—and the values that have inspired it.
In a memo dated 11 August 1998, the Chief of the Defence Staff clearly prohibited Canadian commanders of combined forces from authorizing the use of anti-personnel mines. Likewise, personnel being commanded by foreign nationals are prohibited from using—or even planning to use—landmines, and contingents may not use, request, or encourage the use of mines by others.
So that is the precedent. And its origins are in this very city—where in 1997, Canada joined forces with civil society in a campaign to ban landmines. And it worked. We no longer needed landmines to achieve their tactical or strategic objectives or defences. The same can be said today of cluster munitions.
And yet, Bill S-10 contains an exception, in Section 11(3)(a), that would allow Canadian Forces to aid and abet the use of cluster munitions while in combined operations.
It does not make sense to comprehensively ban an immoral, indiscriminate weapon, and then turn around and say, it’s still okay to use them in combined operations. Almost all operations are combined operations, and so we are effectively paving the way for their continued use.
Honourable Senators, as we move toward committee stages, we have a great deal of work ahead of us.
First, we must study Bill S-10 in detail and seek expert advice of not only the military but also civil society, which is fast becoming the voice of humanity, certainly on issues of disarmament.
Second, we must address the ethical, legal and moral issues introduced by Section 11. Surely some exceptions will be necessary — but like the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty — they must be narrow in scope. The question we have to ask ourselves is which exceptions are absolutely essential? This should become central to the committee’s work.
Third, we should consider drafting prohibitions against financial investment in these weapons, as New Zealand and other allies have done.
Fourth, we should enshrine the positive obligations laid out in Article 21 — so as to make it clear to allies where we stand.
Finally, we should ensure this legislation applies to all Canadians overseas — not only armed forces — so Canadians will not be in a position to sell, transport or otherwise aid in the use of these weapons.
Honourable Colleagues, should we fail to pass strong, comprehensive ratification legislation, we will create a precedent that will ultimately undermine the convention, potentially leading to the continued proliferation of these weapons, and the destruction of innocent civilians.
In her speech, Senator Fortin-Duplessis vividly described the disproportionate effects that cluster munitions have on civilians. She has told us they cause widespread damage and indiscriminate harm, particularly when used near populated areas. She has told us that they injure, mutiliate or too often kill innocent people —and that 98 per cent of recorded casualties have been civilians.
When we took the collective decision to ban cluster munitions in 2008, we did so because we believed the harm caused by cluster munitions far outweighs any military advantage they offer. Colleagues, I would submit to you that this equation does not change in combined operations.
Honourable Senators, we must reject the temptation to water down a comprehensive ban on cluster munitions. We must craft our laws to be in accord with our principles. We must rise above narrow self-interest, and put the good of humanity above the good of our own tribe.
For the sake of civilians everywhere, and for our women and men in uniform, we can do no less.
And yes, we can do this without putting our men and women in combat at any higher level of risk. I stake my personal military reputation on this fact.
The world expects Canada to lead. And in that duty, we must not let them down.
Merci.
NOTE:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
JOAN BRYDEN
OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
William Corbett, chief enforcer of Canada’s election laws, has resigned in the midst of a major investigation into misleading robo-calls during the last federal vote.
Elections Canada spokesman John Enright said Thursday it was Mr. Corbett’s decision to retire after five years as Commissioner of Canada Elections.
He will be replaced by Yves Côté, a long-time bureaucrat who most recently served as associate deputy minister of justice. Prior to that, he served as ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.
The Harper government, which has been critical of the commissioner’s pursuit of alleged electoral wrongdoing by the Conservatives, had no role in Mr. Corbett’s departure or in choosing his successor.
Mr. Enright said Mr. Côté was appointed on merit by Marc Mayrand, the independent chief electoral officer, after a competitive process.
The commissioner is responsible for ensuring compliance with and enforcement of the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Corbett has been at the centre of a complex investigation into allegations of misleading live and automated phone calls to voters during the 2011 election. The investigation centres on Guelph, Ont., but thousands of voters across the country have complained they also received calls directing them to non-existent or wrong polling stations.
The investigation continues but has so far concluded that someone using the name Pierre Poutine, an untraceable cellphone and a phoney Quebec address used an Edmonton-based automated service to make the misleading calls in Guelph.
Recipients of the calls tended to be voters who’d previously told Conservative organizers they did not intend to vote for the governing party.
Mr. Corbett has also been responsible for another continuing investigation, this one into Tory MP Dean Del Mastro, the government’s primary defender against allegations of unethical conduct in the robo-call affair.
The Peterborough, Ont., MP is under investigation for allegedly exceeding his spending and donation limit during the 2008 election. One of Mr. Corbett’s investigators has accused Mr. Del Mastro in court documents of knowingly filing a false return with Elections Canada and making an illegal donation to his own campaign.
Mr. Del Mastro has denied the allegations and has questioned why the independent electoral watchdog undertook the investigation without talking to him or informing him.
The Conservative Party was in Mr. Corbett’s cross-hairs for most of his term as commissioner. He was responsible for the investigation into the so-called in-an-out affair, which included an unprecedented raid on Tory party headquarters.
The affair involved a complicated scheme to funnel money for national campaign ads in 2006 through dozens of local candidates, allowing the party to exceed its spending limit and allowing candidates to claim rebates on expenses they hadn’t actually incurred.
The Tories fought the matter in court for several years, bitterly accusing Elections Canada of being biased against them and exceeding its authority. However, last fall the party and its fundraising arm eventually pleaded guilty to two counts each of violating the Canada Elections Act, agreeing to pay maximum fines totalling $52,000.
Whether Mr. Côté will be as aggressive as Mr. Corbett in pursuing alleged wrongdoing remains to be seen.
When he quit as ombudsman for the defence department in 2008, he received a lukewarm send-off from Esprit de Corps, a magazine for members of the armed forces.
The magazine said Mr. Côté had not been as high profile or as adversarial toward the chain of command as his predecessor, Andre Marin. As a result, it said Mr. Côté “never achieved much stature among the troops.”
Hi All,
I spoke today with Jamian at the Council of Canadians about the time-line for the Robocall Election fraud court challenges.
With thanks – – the document Election fraud cannot go unchallenged is brief, but contains links for those who want more information. (I cannot find the URL for the document. The preceding link is the only way at the moment to get the info to you.)
NOTE: The numbers for “How far is Harper from losing Majority Government?” are revised from the original to include the Elections Canada announcement of the Calgary Centre by-election that arises from the May 30th resignation of Conservative MP Lee Richardson. The prospects look even better! and it creates a very interesting dynamic. See (Revised) http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5912
A quick look at the arguments by the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) for WHY the Court should throw out the robocall court challenge reminded me of my experience in a Psychiatric Ward. I found it funny: the world was turned upside down, a replay of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”. The nut-case was the doctor. But I could not say that because it would be used as proof that I was cuckoo!
In this upside-down Harper world, the PRIME MINISTER and his Government are the ones who are supposed to understand and uphold democracy. A look at EXCERPTS FROM APPLICANTS’ MOTIONS (the Conservative Party made application) leave you laughing or shaking your head, or maybe crying! The Excerpts are halfway down on http://canadians.org/media/other/2012/14-Jun-12.html
The timing of recent developments over Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s alleged misdeeds will not enhance Conservative prospects in Court. Number 3 is the most recent development:
Del Mastro has been the Conservative defender on robocalls. Now we have:
The CBC article includes a time-line of events related to the who-knew-what-when, the dates of phone calls, cheques, meetings: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/19/pol-dean-del-mastro-timeline.html?cmp=rss.
(Perhaps there are both innocent and not-so-innocent players. One hand appeared to stop the spending beyond allowable limits; the other hand appears to have subverted the attempt.)
A legal phrase in the argument, new to me: “champerty and maintenance”. The Conservatives (CPC) claim that the Council of Canadians (C of C) is guilty of this offence (and so the case should be thrown out). From the on-line legal dictionary,
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Champerty+and+Maintenance:
“Champerty is the process whereby one person bargains with a party to a lawsuit to obtain a share in the proceeds of the suit. Maintenance is the support or promotion of another person’s suit initiated by intermeddling for personal gain.”
A preposterous argument.
I have for many years thought “Thank Goodness for the Council of Canadians”. Without Maude Barlow and the Council, the door would be wide open to water privatization, and we would be without this strong voice for protection of the public sphere.
Yes, the Conservatives and many corporate players would like to see the C of C wiped off the map. I believe that the C of C has more paid-up members than any political party in Canada, (50,000 plus half as many more supporters who don’t have paid membership). They work tirelessly for the public good. Their largest contribution is public education through the events and literature they distribute.
The Council is completely dependent upon donations from citizens. They don’t take Government or Corporate or other money. The Court Case is doing exactly what the Conservatives want: running them out of money. Most individual citizens simply cannot afford on their own to take matters to Court. Even by pooling our resources through the Council, it is difficult for the Council to finance the court work.
Thank goodness that the C of C has taken on robocalls. The instigators of the robocalls thought they’d get away with it; citizens ordinarily have a hard time to organize and finance such battles.
“Attacking the Council of Canadians is just a strategy to delay the cases and drive up legal costs,” says the Council of Canadians’ Executive Director Garry Neil. “We believe it is vital to Canadian democracy for a judge to have an opportunity to consider the powerful evidence that fraudulent activity affected the outcome of the May 2011 federal election in these seven ridings.”
A “PROTHONOTARY” will hear the arguments on Monday, June 25. (The title given to an officer who officiates as principal clerk of some courts – – I had to look that one up, too!)
The prothonotary expects to issue a decision by 2 weeks from Monday (July 9th).
If the decision is to reject the CPC arguments, it is expected that argument on the robocalls (the evidence) will be heard by the Court in September, and the Court decision will come out in early 2013.
I am going to send some money to the Council – – I can’t think of anything more in service of Canadian values and more in need at the moment. http://canadians.org/join/ (You can donate and/or become a member.)
163,092 views as at June 20, 2012
Please go to the link. Includes a video.
There is a huge mobilization in the works.
EXCERPT:
Now we’re taking a new approach: Highlighting the serious environmental health problems caused by dental mercury at the international level. Each partner-organization has a rich history of advocacy and active campaigning for change and better access to truly empowering health information. Over the past year, Consumers for Dental Choice has fought the battle against mercury dental fillings on many fronts, including:
http://publicintelligence.net/about/
DoD Current and Future U.S. Drone Activities Map: http://publicintelligence.net/dod-us-drone-activities-map/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Public Intelligence,
I am from Canada and greatly appreciate your map on drone locations in the U.S. plus other information.
I have appended drone-related information, just in case it may be of benefit to you.
I’ve run an activist email network for 12 years. We have collected and posted quite a bit of information related to Lockheed Martin and the militarization of the Canadian economy. (Canadians are deluded that we play a role of peace-keeping in the world.)
I have a particular interest because of my on-going trial (4 years now) over the involvement of Lockheed Martin Corporation in the Canadian census (the same as they are involved in your census data collection). I refused to fill in a census form and was charged.
In solidarity and peace,
Sandra Finley
(contact info)
Grand Forks ND is on your drone map. But you may, or may not know:
“ . . . The Department of Aviation at the University of North Dakota, located in Grand Forks and the operator of the test and training site at Grand Forks AFB, now offers the first Bachelors of Science program in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations. The Aviation Maintenance Technology program at Northland Community and Technical College, located in Thief River Falls, Minnesota just 40 miles east of Grand Forks, will soon offer courses in the repair of UAVs.. . . “
(Click on the date link for the full article)
• 2010-11-01 (Drone training in Canada) Saskatchewan Aviation Learning Centre Grand Opening at Sask Indian Institute of Technology
echoes this paragraph from
• 2011-04-22 The Drone-ification of America (correction: .. of NORTH America)
COMPARE:
Federal education and stimulus money is being used to create nonmilitary drone education programs. The Department of Aviation at the University of North Dakota, located in Grand Forks and the operator of the test and training site at Grand Forks AFB, now offers the first Bachelors of Science program in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations. The Aviation Maintenance Technology program at Northland Community and Technical College, located in Thief River Falls, Minnesota just 40 miles east of Grand Forks, will soon offer courses in the repair of UAVs.
The Drone-ification article continues:
Added to that, an amendment to the House version of the bill legalizing drone testing in American airspace set September 30, 2015 as a deadline by which to have general use of drones. The University of North Dakota is also offering a 4-year degree in piloting drones in what is soon expected to be a $20 billion industry.
Clearly, Congress, the Defense Department, the Obama administration and the military contractors who drive the wars all have strong financial interests in having drones crisscrossing the skies of America. They know that this spy technology will be the next big money-making scheme for those who profit from war and the machinery of war. But you can rest assured that the introduction of drones into American airspace will not only further fuse the American government, the American economy and the military industry, perpetuating needless foreign interventions at the expense of civilians abroad and Americans at home but it will serve as yet another nail in the coffin for American civil liberties.
COMPARE TO THIS! The Canadian version of the preceding. The wording is transportable. Talk about “harmonization” and “integration”:
Federal stimulus money is being used to create drone education programs. The Saskatchewan Aviation Learning Centre located in Saskatoon, a joint effort between Lockheed Martin ($3.5 million), Boeing, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology (SIIT), SIAST, Western Economic Diversification (Minister Responsible Lynn Yelich), the Government of Saskatchewan, and the Saskatoon Airport Authority, now offers the first Bachelors program in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations. The Aviation Maintenance Technology program at SIIT will soon offer courses in the repair of UAVs through the Saskatchewan Aviation Learning Centre. The Commercial Pilots programme at SIAST will soon be located in the same new facility at the Saskatoon Airport.
Clearly the Defense Department, the Harper administration, and the military contractors who drive the wars all have strong financial interests in having drones crisscrossing the skies of North America. They know that this spy technology will be the next big money-making scheme for those who profit from war and the machinery of war. But you can rest assured that the introduction of drones into North American airspace will not only further fuse the North American government, the North American economy and the military industry, perpetuating needless foreign interventions at the expense of civilians abroad and North Americans at home but it will serve as yet another nail in the coffin for North American civil liberties.
Ref: www.sandrafinley.ca , go to the “Categories” on the right-hand side. Scroll down to “Peace or Violence”, down to “Lockheed Martin”, and then to “Drones”.
(Or just click on Drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles / UAVs) )
A list of the postings, with summaries is generated. Scroll down past the top page headings in order to find the list (which includes a summary of each).
The list, without the summaries (each of the following is a link that can be clicked on):
• 2012-05-30 The President’s Kill List, The New Yorker, Amy Davidson
• Very important televised debate: Jeremy Scahill (“The Nation”) says Obama drone strikes constitute murder, and he says it on NBC. The U.S. “kill list”.
• 2012-04-22 Americans mobilized to stop drone warfare, violation of International Law
• 2012-02-12 Bill Clears Path For 30,000 Surveillance Drones Over US In Next Ten Years
• 2011-12-22 Border plan benefits Saskatchewan . . ? A nice little sales job from the Govt of Saskatchewan.
• 2011-12-19 CBC Radio “The Current” interview: Drone attacks in Pakistan, the Ally from Hell. Lockheed Martin funding drone technology in Saskatoon
• 2011-12-04 Why Iran’s capture of US drone will shake CIA. (Drone built by Lockheed Martin.)
• 2011-11-02 Canada has drones? Finnish campaign is under way to cancel a new deal to purchase Israeli drones.
• 2011-04-24 Libya hit by drones. BUT Pay attention to what they are doing with drones in North America, and here in Saskatoon.
• 2011-04-24 The Verdict: Guilty of Protesting the Drones
• 2011-04-23 Attack of the drones: Obama approves the use of unmanned aircraft in Libya conflict
• 2011-04-22 The Drone-ification of America. (correction: .. of NORTH America)
• 2011-04-16 Drones Fly Through Congress to Enter US Skies
• 2011-04-13 Pakistan Moves to Curb More Aggressive US Drone Strikes, Spying
• 2011-01-27 Unmanned Spyplane For Canadian Border Security (Drones)
• 2011-01-26 Unmanned plane (drone) patrolling stretch of Canada-U.S. border
• 2010-11-01 Saskatchewan Aviation Learning Centre (Saskatoon Airport) Grand Opening. Lockheed Martin’s “products” not itemized (UAVs (Drones), cluster munitions, DU (Depleted Uranium) weapons, land mines).
• 2010-10-10 Stunning victory: Breaking the law to obey a higher law (Lockheed Martin’s unmanned drones, Creech Air Force Base).
• 2010-06-26 Aerospace Giant Lockheed Martin Donating $3.5 Million Training Package to the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology (SIIT) in Saskatoon (Drones)
• 2010-04-11 Lockheed Martin setting up near Saskatoon at Whitecap. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (unmanned drones).
• 2010-04-01 University of North Dakota First to Offer a Four-Year Degree in UAV Piloting
• 2009-02-18 US/Canada Border Increasingly Militarized, Unmanned drone prowls over the lonely prairie. G&M
• 2008-12-05 Predator UAV (Drones) Set for U.S.- Canada Patrol
• 2007-02-12 UAV Tested For US Border Security (Canadian border)