Canada notably absent as Asia talks trade
John Weekes, a senior business adviser at Bennett Jones LLP, was Canada’s ambassador to the WTO and chief negotiator for the NAFTA. Wow I bet that hit them...
The Prime Minister’s website boasts his government has “a strong and ambitious free trade agreement agenda." The reality, however, is somewhat different. The Harper government must urgently develop a bold new trade strategy to ensure that Canadian producers will have access to the high-growth markets of the Asia-Pacific region. Is it too late?
Canada’s steadfast refusal to contemplate even minor changes to our protectionist policies in the dairy and poultry sectors resulted in its exclusion from the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, the most recent round of which took place last month in New Zealand last month.
The host, along with the U.S., Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam are negotiating "a high-standard, 21st century, Asia-Pacific regional trade agreement."
Even worse for Canada is the possibility that other countries may join in this negotiating effort: The U.S. has reportedly suggested that South Korea should participate.
Canada can, still safeguard its interests in the face of this setback with an ambitious program of negotiating comprehensive economic agreements with major Asia-Pacific countries that are not yet involved in the TPP talks. This would open major opportunities for Canadians in some of the world's most important markets and would allow Canadian negotiators to participate in establishing the 21st century trade architecture for the region.
Canada has stumbled down this road with the launch of talks with India and ongoing negotiations with South Korea. Resuming stalled talks with Seoul must become an urgent priority, particularly now that the Obama administration has concluded its own FTA negotiations with South Korea. Canada cannot afford to let U.S. producers enjoy a preference over goods produced in Canada in this major market.
Canada should also press hard to initiate the negotiation of a broad free-trade agreement with Japan. This effort could build on the bilateral trade analysis completed in 2007. Build on something stated 4 years ago...procrastination is rife!
Negotiating free trade with Japan seemed improbable just a few months ago, but timing is everything, and Japanese trade policy is now being re-engineered at the highest levels of the government. There is a growing recognition in Japan that protection in the agriculture sector is harming Japan's broader interests. Given that Canada is not a significant rice producer -- and that Japan is unlikely to want to export dairy products to Canada -- these two sensitive sectors should not impede a deal.
And then there is China. Yes China the country that has bought a large amount of Canadian debt and even more of the Alberta oil sands, Canada should explore whether a free trade agreement with the People’s Republic is possible. New Zealand, Chile and the ASEAN countries already have FTAs with China; Australia is negotiating one. Let's not wait until everyone else has a deal – let's get going now. There are enormous likenesses between our economies that we should be looking to realize. That door, at least, was opened last June in Ottawa with a commitment by Stephen Harper and Hu Jintao to establish a working group on deepening economic relations. Procrastination once more...
If we have no immediate prospect of joining in the TransPacific Partnership negotiations, Canada should ensure that Canadian producers enjoy terms of access to key markets in the Asia Pacific area that are at least as good as those enjoyed by its competitors.
Picture
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Popular Posts
-
The God Business: Church -Tax Exemption
-
Many world cities could face financial collapse in 2011
-
Design with No Designer?
-
How has information control evolved under Harper?
-
USA Oregon -doctors legally prescribe a life-ending drug
-
10 Best IT Practices for Smartphone Security
-
Nova Scotia Labour Standards
-
Canada is the world’s most expensive country ..
-
A case study on first nations poverty
-
Alberta miffed that some U.S. retailers are boycotting or avoiding oilsands oil
Who 'Pays Corporation Tax.'.. not the Corporations
Corporate income taxes (CIT) have been in the political spotlight recently, but many may find it difficult to see how it affects their lives in the way that they understand how they pay personal income taxes and the GST. This lack of transparency common to Canada, is fertile ground for any number of misunderstandings and makeshift theorizing, so the question I’m going to address here is: who pays the CIT?
Not corporations: Corporations don’t pay the tax, for the simple reason that corporations are not people. Nor does it make sense to appeal to the cause of social justice by referring to ‘rich corporations.’ Corporations may be big, and they may be profitable, but they cannot be wealthy: they are a form of wealth. Claiming that ‘wealthy corporations’ pay the CIT makes about as much sense as claiming that ‘rich buildings’ pay property taxes.
Not corporate executives: They get paid before the government does: Corporate taxes are levied on profits after salaries are paid out.
Not shareholders: The short-run effect of an increase in the CIT will reduce a firm’s profitability and share prices, but in the long run – which is the horizon that matters when discussing tax policy – the answer is very different. In a dynamic, open economy with access to highly flexible capital markets – in other words, a country such as Canada – savers can respond to higher corporate income taxes by shifting investment to other jurisdictions. If the country is small enough to not affect the world rate of return – Canada, again – then investors will always receive the world rate of return, regardless of the CIT rate in force.
If corporations, their executives and their owners don’t pay the CIT, then that leaves…Yes you got it...
Workers and consumers: Reduced investment results in reduced productive capacity, which in turn leads to reduced output and weaker labour demand. Reduced supply could increase prices (another way of putting this is that producers could pass the CIT on to consumers), but there doesn’t appear to be much evidence for this effect; it is possible that foreign competition makes it difficult for firms to raise prices.
Since the CIT isn’t a policy that affects total employment (see this earlier Economy Lab post), the effect of an increase of the CIT is to reduce wages. On this point, available evidence suggests that the lion’s share of the corporate tax burden is borne by workers.
Many people may feel that the current public debate on the corporate income tax doesn’t affect them. But one of the lessons of the economics of tax incidence is that the people who really pay the tax are not always those who send cheques to the Receiver-General. In this case, it is workers who end up paying corporate taxes.
I forecast: Tax man to hit Canadian workers harder in 2011
Not corporations: Corporations don’t pay the tax, for the simple reason that corporations are not people. Nor does it make sense to appeal to the cause of social justice by referring to ‘rich corporations.’ Corporations may be big, and they may be profitable, but they cannot be wealthy: they are a form of wealth. Claiming that ‘wealthy corporations’ pay the CIT makes about as much sense as claiming that ‘rich buildings’ pay property taxes.
Not corporate executives: They get paid before the government does: Corporate taxes are levied on profits after salaries are paid out.
Not shareholders: The short-run effect of an increase in the CIT will reduce a firm’s profitability and share prices, but in the long run – which is the horizon that matters when discussing tax policy – the answer is very different. In a dynamic, open economy with access to highly flexible capital markets – in other words, a country such as Canada – savers can respond to higher corporate income taxes by shifting investment to other jurisdictions. If the country is small enough to not affect the world rate of return – Canada, again – then investors will always receive the world rate of return, regardless of the CIT rate in force.
If corporations, their executives and their owners don’t pay the CIT, then that leaves…Yes you got it...
Workers and consumers: Reduced investment results in reduced productive capacity, which in turn leads to reduced output and weaker labour demand. Reduced supply could increase prices (another way of putting this is that producers could pass the CIT on to consumers), but there doesn’t appear to be much evidence for this effect; it is possible that foreign competition makes it difficult for firms to raise prices.
Since the CIT isn’t a policy that affects total employment (see this earlier Economy Lab post), the effect of an increase of the CIT is to reduce wages. On this point, available evidence suggests that the lion’s share of the corporate tax burden is borne by workers.
Many people may feel that the current public debate on the corporate income tax doesn’t affect them. But one of the lessons of the economics of tax incidence is that the people who really pay the tax are not always those who send cheques to the Receiver-General. In this case, it is workers who end up paying corporate taxes.
I forecast: Tax man to hit Canadian workers harder in 2011
The House of Harper
The House that Stephen Harper built
The Fathers of Confederation cobbled it together in part to protect people like themselves against the rabble, which is why senators still have to meet a property qualification: “We must protect the rights of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor,” as Sir John A. Macdonald put it.
Because its members are appointed, prime ministers since Confederation have stacked the Senate with party bagmen and loyalists, leaving it in perpetual disrepute: “Probably on no other public question in Canada has there been such unanimity of opinion as on that of the necessity for Senate reform.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper likes to offer that quote, and then point out that it was written in 1926.
However, it has turned out that Mr. Harper's idea of reform is to make the Senate more Conservative and more powerful. On his watch, the Tories have achieved a majority in the chamber for only the second time in 70 years. And they are using that majority to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons, which the Senate was never meant to do.
If the Prime Minister gets his way, new legislation will make the Senate more powerful still, because its members will be elected to fixed terms. Some think this new Senate would be more legitimate and effective. Others fear it'd be a nightmare.
Whatever the Senate could become it is becoming already. The Other Place, as MPs like to call it, is actually starting to matter.
Rewriting the House rules
The House is not supposed to be powerful, though it has reared up before – most famously in 1988, when it refused to pass the U.S. free-trade deal until Brian Mulroney held an election on it.
But, centrally, its role “rests on obstruction. Rather than empower, it restrains government,” wrote University of Saskatchewan political scientist David Smith, one of Canada's leading authorities on the Senate.
It did, that is, until Stephen Harper and perpetual minority government arrived. When Mr. Harper became Prime Minister in 2006, he promoted legislation that would limit senators' terms to eight years. He invited provinces to hold elections to fill senatorial vacancies and promised to appoint the winners.
But outside of Alberta, premiers had little appetite for sending senators to Ottawa who might compete with them as their provinces' voices. So in 2008 the Prime Minister began filling all available vacancies with good Conservatives, from the famous athlete Nancy Greene Raine to his former press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.
By last January, the Conservatives had a Senate plurality; in December, an absolute majority.
While all this was happening, Parliament evolved in strange ways, as minority governments became entrenched and a majority for either the Conservatives or the Liberals seemed out of reach. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois began passing legislation the government opposed, such as a plan to cut back on carbon-dioxide emissions; requiring all Supreme Court judges to be bilingual; providing tax credits for university graduates who work in certain regions; and offering restitution for Italian Canadians interned during the Second World War.
Imposing a caucus discipline to which the Senate is unaccustomed, the Conservatives used their majority to defeat the environment bill outright in an unusual snap vote. For other legislation, their preferred method is to defeat through delay. The bilingual Supreme Court bill, for one, languishes in debate and may never come to a vote.
“The majority in the Senate is prepared to use the legal powers that the Senate has” to block legislation from the House of Commons and to push legislation of its own, argues Jennifer Smith, a political scientist at Dalhousie University. “It's very important and it's likely to increase.”
Continue Reading
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal says he and his colleagues are only doing their duty: “The government side in the Senate has a primary duty to the government's agenda.”
Creasing the Constitution
But for Liberal Senator Serge Joyal, who is viewed as an authority on the Senate's role within Parliament, these vetoes and filibusters send the Senate into uncharted territory. “If you use the majority for all kinds of political reasons ... you are doing something very serious to the constitutional framework of the country,” he maintains.
Prof. Smith sees the Harper government's actions as a prologue to a more radical future. “Because they have the idea that they are somehow heading toward an elected Senate,” vetoing opposition bills “partly enables them in their own minds to see this as legitimate, as, ‘This is what an elected Senate could look like.' ”
The Tories continue to push for reform. A bill before the Senate would limit terms to eight years, while the House is once again considering legislation that would invite provinces to hold elections to select Senate nominees, though it is unlikely to pass unless and until the Conservatives win their elusive majority.
For Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate, electing senators would go a long way toward making the Upper House legitimate in the eyes of Canadians: “It makes no sense to have a parliamentary body that has remained virtually unchanged since Confederation.”
But Prof. Jennifer Smith is convinced that, apart from being unconstitutional, an elected Senate would cause more problems than it would solve – namely, U.S.-style legislative gridlock.
“They're not going to be elected to play second fiddle,” she maintains. “They will have a much more robust view of what their position is. ... It would disable governments when they needed to make tough decisions.”
Its mandate to protect the propertied class against the rabble is an anachronism. Its mandate to represent the regions within Parliament was hopelessly compromised when Atlantic Canada was allowed to have 30 senators and Western Canada was given only 24. And its unelected collection of patronage appointees makes any defender of democracy's blood boil.
But any substantial improvement would require constitutional reform, which is politically impossible.
Mr. Harper's proposal may or may not survive a court challenge. But if it does, an elected Senate will inevitably become more powerful. There will be confrontations and possibly even paralysis. But the government of Canada will be more democratic.
Canada is rather like the bumblebee, which, according to an urban myth, scientists have proved cannot fly. An elected Senate “does add a little bit of weight to the bumblebee and does make it theoretically less able to fly,” Mr. Segal observes. “But somehow the bumblebee doesn't know that and keeps on flying.”
The Fathers of Confederation cobbled it together in part to protect people like themselves against the rabble, which is why senators still have to meet a property qualification: “We must protect the rights of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor,” as Sir John A. Macdonald put it.
Because its members are appointed, prime ministers since Confederation have stacked the Senate with party bagmen and loyalists, leaving it in perpetual disrepute: “Probably on no other public question in Canada has there been such unanimity of opinion as on that of the necessity for Senate reform.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper likes to offer that quote, and then point out that it was written in 1926.
However, it has turned out that Mr. Harper's idea of reform is to make the Senate more Conservative and more powerful. On his watch, the Tories have achieved a majority in the chamber for only the second time in 70 years. And they are using that majority to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons, which the Senate was never meant to do.
If the Prime Minister gets his way, new legislation will make the Senate more powerful still, because its members will be elected to fixed terms. Some think this new Senate would be more legitimate and effective. Others fear it'd be a nightmare.
Whatever the Senate could become it is becoming already. The Other Place, as MPs like to call it, is actually starting to matter.
Rewriting the House rules
The House is not supposed to be powerful, though it has reared up before – most famously in 1988, when it refused to pass the U.S. free-trade deal until Brian Mulroney held an election on it.
But, centrally, its role “rests on obstruction. Rather than empower, it restrains government,” wrote University of Saskatchewan political scientist David Smith, one of Canada's leading authorities on the Senate.
It did, that is, until Stephen Harper and perpetual minority government arrived. When Mr. Harper became Prime Minister in 2006, he promoted legislation that would limit senators' terms to eight years. He invited provinces to hold elections to fill senatorial vacancies and promised to appoint the winners.
But outside of Alberta, premiers had little appetite for sending senators to Ottawa who might compete with them as their provinces' voices. So in 2008 the Prime Minister began filling all available vacancies with good Conservatives, from the famous athlete Nancy Greene Raine to his former press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.
By last January, the Conservatives had a Senate plurality; in December, an absolute majority.
While all this was happening, Parliament evolved in strange ways, as minority governments became entrenched and a majority for either the Conservatives or the Liberals seemed out of reach. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois began passing legislation the government opposed, such as a plan to cut back on carbon-dioxide emissions; requiring all Supreme Court judges to be bilingual; providing tax credits for university graduates who work in certain regions; and offering restitution for Italian Canadians interned during the Second World War.
Imposing a caucus discipline to which the Senate is unaccustomed, the Conservatives used their majority to defeat the environment bill outright in an unusual snap vote. For other legislation, their preferred method is to defeat through delay. The bilingual Supreme Court bill, for one, languishes in debate and may never come to a vote.
“The majority in the Senate is prepared to use the legal powers that the Senate has” to block legislation from the House of Commons and to push legislation of its own, argues Jennifer Smith, a political scientist at Dalhousie University. “It's very important and it's likely to increase.”
Continue Reading
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal says he and his colleagues are only doing their duty: “The government side in the Senate has a primary duty to the government's agenda.”
Creasing the Constitution
But for Liberal Senator Serge Joyal, who is viewed as an authority on the Senate's role within Parliament, these vetoes and filibusters send the Senate into uncharted territory. “If you use the majority for all kinds of political reasons ... you are doing something very serious to the constitutional framework of the country,” he maintains.
Prof. Smith sees the Harper government's actions as a prologue to a more radical future. “Because they have the idea that they are somehow heading toward an elected Senate,” vetoing opposition bills “partly enables them in their own minds to see this as legitimate, as, ‘This is what an elected Senate could look like.' ”
The Tories continue to push for reform. A bill before the Senate would limit terms to eight years, while the House is once again considering legislation that would invite provinces to hold elections to select Senate nominees, though it is unlikely to pass unless and until the Conservatives win their elusive majority.
For Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate, electing senators would go a long way toward making the Upper House legitimate in the eyes of Canadians: “It makes no sense to have a parliamentary body that has remained virtually unchanged since Confederation.”
But Prof. Jennifer Smith is convinced that, apart from being unconstitutional, an elected Senate would cause more problems than it would solve – namely, U.S.-style legislative gridlock.
“They're not going to be elected to play second fiddle,” she maintains. “They will have a much more robust view of what their position is. ... It would disable governments when they needed to make tough decisions.”
Its mandate to protect the propertied class against the rabble is an anachronism. Its mandate to represent the regions within Parliament was hopelessly compromised when Atlantic Canada was allowed to have 30 senators and Western Canada was given only 24. And its unelected collection of patronage appointees makes any defender of democracy's blood boil.
But any substantial improvement would require constitutional reform, which is politically impossible.
Mr. Harper's proposal may or may not survive a court challenge. But if it does, an elected Senate will inevitably become more powerful. There will be confrontations and possibly even paralysis. But the government of Canada will be more democratic.
Canada is rather like the bumblebee, which, according to an urban myth, scientists have proved cannot fly. An elected Senate “does add a little bit of weight to the bumblebee and does make it theoretically less able to fly,” Mr. Segal observes. “But somehow the bumblebee doesn't know that and keeps on flying.”
Five ways Ottawa stymies Access to Information
5 ways Ottawa STYMIES (Prevent or hinder the progress) Access to Information requests
1. Delay. Departments routinely grant themselves time extensions of between 60 to 270 days beyond the set deadlines – after receiving access to information requests because they have to “consult” on the matter with other departments. When asked why it takes so long, officials blame backlogs in processing access requests.
2. Hit ‘em with big bills. Departments sometimes respond to an access to information request by quoting a hefty cost for searching for the documents rather than working with the requester to fine-tune the request.
3. Don’t create official records of what you are saying or doing. Access to information researchers complain that some senior officials are communicating important ideas or matters to one another orally rather than e-mailing or drawing up memos. Sometimes officials write on documents using sticky notes rather than on the records themselves in case they are requested under access to information. That is so petty..
4. Be nitpicky and legalistic in interpreting requests. Or misconstrue what’s requested. “They call up and say `What do you mean by this?’ when the term is obvious,” access expert Michael Dagg said.
5. Censor liberally before releasing the records. Officials sometimes are aggressive in their use of exemptions allowed under access to information, even for uses that the courts have deemed inappropriate in the past. Officials are betting that requesters won’t complain to the Information Commissioner or take it to court.
1. Delay. Departments routinely grant themselves time extensions of between 60 to 270 days beyond the set deadlines – after receiving access to information requests because they have to “consult” on the matter with other departments. When asked why it takes so long, officials blame backlogs in processing access requests.
2. Hit ‘em with big bills. Departments sometimes respond to an access to information request by quoting a hefty cost for searching for the documents rather than working with the requester to fine-tune the request.
3. Don’t create official records of what you are saying or doing. Access to information researchers complain that some senior officials are communicating important ideas or matters to one another orally rather than e-mailing or drawing up memos. Sometimes officials write on documents using sticky notes rather than on the records themselves in case they are requested under access to information. That is so petty..
4. Be nitpicky and legalistic in interpreting requests. Or misconstrue what’s requested. “They call up and say `What do you mean by this?’ when the term is obvious,” access expert Michael Dagg said.
5. Censor liberally before releasing the records. Officials sometimes are aggressive in their use of exemptions allowed under access to information, even for uses that the courts have deemed inappropriate in the past. Officials are betting that requesters won’t complain to the Information Commissioner or take it to court.
Harper..'Animal Farm' vison of Access Information
Can Access to Information be fixed?
The law that determines what secrets Canadians can pry out of their government hasn’t been substantially overhauled since Pierre Trudeau introduced it in 1983, an era when Ronald Reagan was U.S. president and the Internet connected fewer than 600 computers.
As it nears its 30th anniversary, the Access to Information regime that was designed to furnish Canadians with government records on everything from the military to health has grown sluggish, unresponsive and obstructionist. Do Canadians want access to information? Is is better than the cocooned current mushroom technique?.
Disclosure watchdog pounces as aide to Christian Paradis falls on sword
“I would like to see a really strong commitment to reverse this declining trend that we are seeing, because, in my view, we are really at rock bottom,” said Suzanne Legault, the federal information commissioner. “We cannot afford to go down any more.” I guess as Apathy reigns in Canada nothing will change
In an interview, Ms. Legault said she wants access legislation beefed up, including more power for her office, to help undo what she calls a decade of deterioration in the system. Stephen Harper was supposed to make bold changes. He came to office promising a new era of transparency with major upgrades to access to information law.
But nearly five years later, many pledges remain unfulfilled. These include giving the commissioner’s office the power to order the release of information and allowing the watchdog to read cabinet records to adjudicate complaints.
Mr. Harper’s government has instead acquired a reputation for secrecy, erecting one roadblock after another to attempts to shed more light on government’s inner workings, from the handling of Afghan prisoners to its battles with independent watchdogs.
Ms. Legault said she would like Ottawa to change the law to give her office the power to limit how much extra time civil servants can give themselves to deal with requests. Among other things, she wants to see cabinet documents when necessary and to have the authority to issue orders that would resolve disputes over search fees and delays.
But changes to access law alone wouldn’t solve all problems for requesters, nearly 90 per cent of whom are not journalists but businesses, individuals and academics or other groups.
The handling of requests has become plagued by lengthy delays and eroding levels of disclosure as government departments debate what to release for months on end – and as they increasingly censor what’s released.
Ms. Legault said she is optimistic processing times may improve, and that she detects goodwill on the part of the Conservatives to tackle delays in handling access requests.
In the past decade, the percentage of cases in which Ottawa discloses all the information requested has dropped to about 16 per cent from 40. In the past eight years, the percentage of cases in which federal officials complete requests within 30 days is down to 56 per cent from nearly 70.
“The current regime can only be characterized as a bureaucrat’s dream,” University of Ottawa law professor Michel Drapeau said. “It is seriously, if not fatally, flawed.” Harper will use Band aids I am sure
A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the Tories have not proceeded with broader promised reforms to the access act because the Commons ethics committee has not produced a study on proposals that the Conservatives tabled. In 2006, however, the opposition-dominated committee instead urged the Tories simply to introduce a bill outlining what they want to change. Harper ethics..thats a new one?.
Alasdair Roberts, an access to information expert at Boston's Suffolk University Law School, said one problem is that incumbent governments, including the Liberal Party in years past, face no well-funded and organized pressure to improve the system.
Michael Dagg, an access researcher, said there’s always been a culture of timidity inside government that makes bureaucrats in charge of requests wary of pushing too hard.
He said the minority government, which could fall at any time, breeds even more fear of creating upset – and requests are being subject to a cumbersome approval process as those stick-handling access requests encounter resistance to releasing information. “They are in a conflict of interest when they have to please their bosses and also the requesters.”
William Stanbury, a professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia, said Canada’s commitment to releasing information falls short of other jurisdictions.
He noted (although he now has the problems he wanted to overcome..TRANSPARENCY with Wikileak's) that when U.S. President Barack Obama came to power, he directed U.S. civil servants to err on the side of disclosure when handling freedom of information requests. Thank goodness for Wikileaks..
“Shortly after he came to office, Obama issued a directive to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch which said in part, ‘The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails,’” Mr. Stanbury said.
The Obama directive continued: “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.” So what...
The law that determines what secrets Canadians can pry out of their government hasn’t been substantially overhauled since Pierre Trudeau introduced it in 1983, an era when Ronald Reagan was U.S. president and the Internet connected fewer than 600 computers.
As it nears its 30th anniversary, the Access to Information regime that was designed to furnish Canadians with government records on everything from the military to health has grown sluggish, unresponsive and obstructionist. Do Canadians want access to information? Is is better than the cocooned current mushroom technique?.
Disclosure watchdog pounces as aide to Christian Paradis falls on sword
“I would like to see a really strong commitment to reverse this declining trend that we are seeing, because, in my view, we are really at rock bottom,” said Suzanne Legault, the federal information commissioner. “We cannot afford to go down any more.” I guess as Apathy reigns in Canada nothing will change
In an interview, Ms. Legault said she wants access legislation beefed up, including more power for her office, to help undo what she calls a decade of deterioration in the system. Stephen Harper was supposed to make bold changes. He came to office promising a new era of transparency with major upgrades to access to information law.
But nearly five years later, many pledges remain unfulfilled. These include giving the commissioner’s office the power to order the release of information and allowing the watchdog to read cabinet records to adjudicate complaints.
Mr. Harper’s government has instead acquired a reputation for secrecy, erecting one roadblock after another to attempts to shed more light on government’s inner workings, from the handling of Afghan prisoners to its battles with independent watchdogs.
Ms. Legault said she would like Ottawa to change the law to give her office the power to limit how much extra time civil servants can give themselves to deal with requests. Among other things, she wants to see cabinet documents when necessary and to have the authority to issue orders that would resolve disputes over search fees and delays.
But changes to access law alone wouldn’t solve all problems for requesters, nearly 90 per cent of whom are not journalists but businesses, individuals and academics or other groups.
The handling of requests has become plagued by lengthy delays and eroding levels of disclosure as government departments debate what to release for months on end – and as they increasingly censor what’s released.
Ms. Legault said she is optimistic processing times may improve, and that she detects goodwill on the part of the Conservatives to tackle delays in handling access requests.
In the past decade, the percentage of cases in which Ottawa discloses all the information requested has dropped to about 16 per cent from 40. In the past eight years, the percentage of cases in which federal officials complete requests within 30 days is down to 56 per cent from nearly 70.
“The current regime can only be characterized as a bureaucrat’s dream,” University of Ottawa law professor Michel Drapeau said. “It is seriously, if not fatally, flawed.” Harper will use Band aids I am sure
A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the Tories have not proceeded with broader promised reforms to the access act because the Commons ethics committee has not produced a study on proposals that the Conservatives tabled. In 2006, however, the opposition-dominated committee instead urged the Tories simply to introduce a bill outlining what they want to change. Harper ethics..thats a new one?.
Alasdair Roberts, an access to information expert at Boston's Suffolk University Law School, said one problem is that incumbent governments, including the Liberal Party in years past, face no well-funded and organized pressure to improve the system.
Michael Dagg, an access researcher, said there’s always been a culture of timidity inside government that makes bureaucrats in charge of requests wary of pushing too hard.
He said the minority government, which could fall at any time, breeds even more fear of creating upset – and requests are being subject to a cumbersome approval process as those stick-handling access requests encounter resistance to releasing information. “They are in a conflict of interest when they have to please their bosses and also the requesters.”
William Stanbury, a professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia, said Canada’s commitment to releasing information falls short of other jurisdictions.
He noted (although he now has the problems he wanted to overcome..TRANSPARENCY with Wikileak's) that when U.S. President Barack Obama came to power, he directed U.S. civil servants to err on the side of disclosure when handling freedom of information requests. Thank goodness for Wikileaks..
“Shortly after he came to office, Obama issued a directive to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch which said in part, ‘The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails,’” Mr. Stanbury said.
The Obama directive continued: “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.” So what...
PM’s arrogantly meddling with the honours system
Unbelievable ..Harper's narcissistic streak
Eight days ago, in Welland, Ont., Stephen Harper made an apparently innocuous announcement that’s a harbinger of much more to come: He unveiled the creation of the Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards to recognize 17 people each year from non-profit organizations across Canada. Who can be against volunteering, or recognizing volunteer efforts? No one. But note the name of the award: the Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards. Here we have something new, the harbinger, as it were, of announcements to come, unless people yell “No.” Read on...
In the Prime Minister’s Office, under officials working with House Leader John Baird, the most publicly partisan of all ministers, a review is under way of the nation’s honours system.
The aim is to associate the Prime Minister with more national awards, perhaps at the expense of the Governor-General, with whose office so many awards are now associated. All honours and awards, up to and including (if you can believe it) the Order of Canada, are under review to see which, if any, might be more closely associated with the PMO, and which new ones might be created that are tied to that office and, by definition, to the occupant of that office.
Rideau Hall, for example, already has the Governor-General’s Caring Canadian Awards that date back to 1996 when Roméo LeBlanc was governor-general. The award recognizes, according to the Rideau Hall website, “special volunteers whose compassion and charitableness are such a part of the Canadian character.” The award is for “unpaid voluntary activities, most often behind the scenes at the community level.”
Yet, now we are to have the Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards, created to “recognize Canadians who devote their time, energy and resources to make a difference in the lives of others.” The awards are to be administered by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, presided over by a minister, of course. Recipients will be recognized at an awards ceremony in December. Think there’ll be any politicians present?
For decades, the office of the Governor-General has been the place where honours and awards are organized, and with which they’re associated. Why? Because the office is above politics, represents the entire country and can’t be accused of having ulterior motives, let alone political ones.
The Governor-General usually doesn’t even sit on the selection committees for the honours and awards, but simply presides over the ceremonies. It’s the same in the United Kingdom, where awards and honours are made in the sovereign’s name for service to the country, not to the prime minister of the day. The Queen, not the prime minister, hands out the major awards and honours.
But this is the Harper government, controlling all as none before it, eager to find political advantage in everything the government does. Thus it’s a logical extension of this controlling urge to want the Prime Minister to be associated with the awards and the honours in the minds of the recipients. And so it’s logical, with this objective in mind, to have Mr. Baird, the über-partisan cabinet minister, provide guidance for the internal review.
There’s more. For years, the Conservatives have felt that many of the country’s most important symbols are tied in the public’s mind, fairly or unfairly, with the Liberals. Such symbols would include the flag, medicare, bilingualism, even multiculturalism. Since their election, the Conservatives under Mr. Harper have tried to find institutions with which they could more closely associate their party in the public’s mind – the military, say, and the Arctic.
By enfolding awards and medals into the Prime Minister’s orbit, there’s another chance of creating pan-Canadian institutions that will be remembered by some as having originated with the party and this Prime Minister in particular.
It’s creepy, if you think about it, that any prime minister would even think about meddling with the non-partisan honours and awards system just so he and his office (and party) might be more closely associated with it.
Eight days ago, in Welland, Ont., Stephen Harper made an apparently innocuous announcement that’s a harbinger of much more to come: He unveiled the creation of the Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards to recognize 17 people each year from non-profit organizations across Canada. Who can be against volunteering, or recognizing volunteer efforts? No one. But note the name of the award: the Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards. Here we have something new, the harbinger, as it were, of announcements to come, unless people yell “No.” Read on...
In the Prime Minister’s Office, under officials working with House Leader John Baird, the most publicly partisan of all ministers, a review is under way of the nation’s honours system.
The aim is to associate the Prime Minister with more national awards, perhaps at the expense of the Governor-General, with whose office so many awards are now associated. All honours and awards, up to and including (if you can believe it) the Order of Canada, are under review to see which, if any, might be more closely associated with the PMO, and which new ones might be created that are tied to that office and, by definition, to the occupant of that office.
Rideau Hall, for example, already has the Governor-General’s Caring Canadian Awards that date back to 1996 when Roméo LeBlanc was governor-general. The award recognizes, according to the Rideau Hall website, “special volunteers whose compassion and charitableness are such a part of the Canadian character.” The award is for “unpaid voluntary activities, most often behind the scenes at the community level.”
Yet, now we are to have the Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards, created to “recognize Canadians who devote their time, energy and resources to make a difference in the lives of others.” The awards are to be administered by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, presided over by a minister, of course. Recipients will be recognized at an awards ceremony in December. Think there’ll be any politicians present?
For decades, the office of the Governor-General has been the place where honours and awards are organized, and with which they’re associated. Why? Because the office is above politics, represents the entire country and can’t be accused of having ulterior motives, let alone political ones.
The Governor-General usually doesn’t even sit on the selection committees for the honours and awards, but simply presides over the ceremonies. It’s the same in the United Kingdom, where awards and honours are made in the sovereign’s name for service to the country, not to the prime minister of the day. The Queen, not the prime minister, hands out the major awards and honours.
But this is the Harper government, controlling all as none before it, eager to find political advantage in everything the government does. Thus it’s a logical extension of this controlling urge to want the Prime Minister to be associated with the awards and the honours in the minds of the recipients. And so it’s logical, with this objective in mind, to have Mr. Baird, the über-partisan cabinet minister, provide guidance for the internal review.
There’s more. For years, the Conservatives have felt that many of the country’s most important symbols are tied in the public’s mind, fairly or unfairly, with the Liberals. Such symbols would include the flag, medicare, bilingualism, even multiculturalism. Since their election, the Conservatives under Mr. Harper have tried to find institutions with which they could more closely associate their party in the public’s mind – the military, say, and the Arctic.
By enfolding awards and medals into the Prime Minister’s orbit, there’s another chance of creating pan-Canadian institutions that will be remembered by some as having originated with the party and this Prime Minister in particular.
It’s creepy, if you think about it, that any prime minister would even think about meddling with the non-partisan honours and awards system just so he and his office (and party) might be more closely associated with it.
Visa and Mastercard beneficiaries of State Department
United States - Visa and Mastercard beneficiaries of State Department lobbying effort
WikiLeaks Staff, 8 December 2010, 14.00 GMT
More articles ...
- U. S. Empire Secret Shopping List
Visa and Mastercard both received lobbying support from the Department of State under President Obama, the latest Cablegate release reveals.
A cable from the Moscow embassy, dated 1st February 2010, details a new Russian card processing law which the embassy said would “disadvantage U.S businesses”, and urged senior US officials to take action. (click here).
“This draft law continues to disadvantage U.S. payment card market leaders Visa and MasterCard, whether they join the National Payment Card System or not,” it said.
Russia was considering whether to implement a new system of card payments (called NPCS), which would create a new payment processor run by Russia’s state banks. This would then handle all processing for domestic banking in the country.
“The fees for these services are estimated at Rb 120 billion ($4 billion) annually...the vast majority of Visa’s business in Russia is done with cards issued and used in Russia; with earnings from processing going to NPCS, Visa would no longer profit from these transactions.”
When discussing possible causes of the restrictive legislation, a senior Visa employee in the country told embassy officials he believed the move was due to Russian suspicions that Visa and Mastercard passed information to the US government.
“[Redacted] believes that, at least at the Deputy Minister level, MinFin’s hands are tied. Implying that Russian security services were behind this decision, [redacted] said, ‘There is some se-cret (government) order that no one has seen, but everyone has to abide by it." “As described reftel, credit card company and bank representatives have told us that GOR (government of Russia) officials apparently assume that US payment systems routinely share data associated with payment transactions by Russian cardholders with intelligence services in the US and elsewhere.”
The embassy’s economic officer, Matthias Mitman, concluded his cable by calling for action. “While the draft legislation has yet to be submitted to the Duma and can still be amended, post will continue to raise our concerns with senior GOR officials,” he said.
“We recommend that senior USG officials also take advantage of meetings with their Russian counterparts, including through the Bilateral Presidential Commission, to press the GOR to change the draft text to ensure U.S. payment companies are not adversely affected.”
WikiLeaks Staff, 8 December 2010, 14.00 GMT
More articles ...
- U. S. Empire Secret Shopping List
Visa and Mastercard both received lobbying support from the Department of State under President Obama, the latest Cablegate release reveals.
A cable from the Moscow embassy, dated 1st February 2010, details a new Russian card processing law which the embassy said would “disadvantage U.S businesses”, and urged senior US officials to take action. (click here).
“This draft law continues to disadvantage U.S. payment card market leaders Visa and MasterCard, whether they join the National Payment Card System or not,” it said.
Russia was considering whether to implement a new system of card payments (called NPCS), which would create a new payment processor run by Russia’s state banks. This would then handle all processing for domestic banking in the country.
“The fees for these services are estimated at Rb 120 billion ($4 billion) annually...the vast majority of Visa’s business in Russia is done with cards issued and used in Russia; with earnings from processing going to NPCS, Visa would no longer profit from these transactions.”
When discussing possible causes of the restrictive legislation, a senior Visa employee in the country told embassy officials he believed the move was due to Russian suspicions that Visa and Mastercard passed information to the US government.
“[Redacted] believes that, at least at the Deputy Minister level, MinFin’s hands are tied. Implying that Russian security services were behind this decision, [redacted] said, ‘There is some se-cret (government) order that no one has seen, but everyone has to abide by it." “As described reftel, credit card company and bank representatives have told us that GOR (government of Russia) officials apparently assume that US payment systems routinely share data associated with payment transactions by Russian cardholders with intelligence services in the US and elsewhere.”
The embassy’s economic officer, Matthias Mitman, concluded his cable by calling for action. “While the draft legislation has yet to be submitted to the Duma and can still be amended, post will continue to raise our concerns with senior GOR officials,” he said.
“We recommend that senior USG officials also take advantage of meetings with their Russian counterparts, including through the Bilateral Presidential Commission, to press the GOR to change the draft text to ensure U.S. payment companies are not adversely affected.”
Canada ranks last in info access: study
More Canadian Veneer
A new study ranks Canada last in an international comparison of freedom-of-information laws — a hard fall after many years being judged a global model in openness. The study by a pair of British academics looked at the effectiveness of freedom-of-information laws in five parliamentary democracies: Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Canada.
New Zealand placed first and Canada, last.
"Above all, an effective FOI regime requires strong government commitment and political will. Officials cannot do it on their own," says the paper, published in the journal Government Information Quarterly.
"Canada comes last as it has continually suffered from a combination of low use, low political support and a weak Information commissioner since its inception."
The study, by Robert Hazell and Ben Worthy of University College in London, ranked countries based on official statistics on appeals, court decisions, delays and other factors affecting the release of government information to public requesters.
The authors criticized Canada's FOI law as an antiquated system that generally prevents citizens from filing requests electronically and compels them to submit paper cheques to cover fees.
Under the Access to Information Act, any resident of Canada can request government-controlled information, such as a bureaucrat's expense claims or a minister's briefing notes, for an initial $5 fee. The application is subject to a range of exemptions. The journal's findings echo another global study, completed in 2008 by researcher Stanley Tromp for the Canadian Newspaper Association and others, that found the operation and enforcement of Canada's Access to Information Act rates poorly when compared with those in many other countries, including the United States.
"Canada used to be in the vanguard on this issue," said Alasdair Roberts, a professor at Boston's Suffolk University Law School and an expert in freedom-of-information.
"But now Canada at the very best is in the lower-middle of the pack. It's got an outmoded law."
Other countries "don't look to Canada for an example of how to do business anymore," Roberts said in an interview. Canada was among the first dozen countries in the world to pass a freedom-of-information law, which came into effect in 1983, long before the era of the web. As freedom-of-information came to be regarded as a building block of modern governance, countries around the globe would often seek Canada's advice on how to implement such legislation.
But today, with more than 70 countries on the FOI bandwagon, Canada has become a laggard and, paradoxically, an occasional source of advice on how not to implement freedom of information, says Canada's information commissioner Suzanne Legault.
"I'm not surprised that they ranked Canada last," she said of the latest study. "We were seen as the leaders. … We have fallen behind."
Legault, whose office resolves complaints from requesters, said while the study has methodological shortcomings, just-published government statistics covering the 2009-2010 fiscal year nevertheless support the finding that the regime is broken. "We can use our own data and come to the conclusion that our system is in decline," she said.
Only about 16 per cent of the 35,000 requests filed last year resulted in the full disclosure of information, compared with 40 per cent a decade ago, she noted.
And delays in the release of records continue to grow, with just 56 per cent of requests completed in the legislated 30-day period last year, compared with almost 70 per cent at the start of the decade.
Legault's office also suffers from a chronic lack of resources, creating backlogs, while the law does not give her the power to order the release of documents.
Tories fail to deliver promise
The Harper Conservatives first came to power in 2006 on an explicit promise to reform the Access to Information Act dramatically but have largely failed to deliver after five years in power.
Parliament did broaden the number of federal institutions covered by the act, but growing delays and excessive censorship have plagued the system, prompting repeated public scoldings from the last three information commissioners.At least three government departments are currently under investigation for alleged political interference in the release of documents, which has led to the resignation of a ministerial aide.
Treasury Board President Stockwell Day, who is responsible for administering the Access to Information Act, said he has asked his officials for a "full analysis" of the latest study.
"Our government is committed to transparency and access to information for all Canadians," he said in a statement. "It was our government that greatly expanded and strengthened the Access to Information Act in 2006."
A new study ranks Canada last in an international comparison of freedom-of-information laws — a hard fall after many years being judged a global model in openness. The study by a pair of British academics looked at the effectiveness of freedom-of-information laws in five parliamentary democracies: Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Canada.
New Zealand placed first and Canada, last.
"Above all, an effective FOI regime requires strong government commitment and political will. Officials cannot do it on their own," says the paper, published in the journal Government Information Quarterly.
"Canada comes last as it has continually suffered from a combination of low use, low political support and a weak Information commissioner since its inception."
The study, by Robert Hazell and Ben Worthy of University College in London, ranked countries based on official statistics on appeals, court decisions, delays and other factors affecting the release of government information to public requesters.
The authors criticized Canada's FOI law as an antiquated system that generally prevents citizens from filing requests electronically and compels them to submit paper cheques to cover fees.
Under the Access to Information Act, any resident of Canada can request government-controlled information, such as a bureaucrat's expense claims or a minister's briefing notes, for an initial $5 fee. The application is subject to a range of exemptions. The journal's findings echo another global study, completed in 2008 by researcher Stanley Tromp for the Canadian Newspaper Association and others, that found the operation and enforcement of Canada's Access to Information Act rates poorly when compared with those in many other countries, including the United States.
"Canada used to be in the vanguard on this issue," said Alasdair Roberts, a professor at Boston's Suffolk University Law School and an expert in freedom-of-information.
"But now Canada at the very best is in the lower-middle of the pack. It's got an outmoded law."
Other countries "don't look to Canada for an example of how to do business anymore," Roberts said in an interview. Canada was among the first dozen countries in the world to pass a freedom-of-information law, which came into effect in 1983, long before the era of the web. As freedom-of-information came to be regarded as a building block of modern governance, countries around the globe would often seek Canada's advice on how to implement such legislation.
But today, with more than 70 countries on the FOI bandwagon, Canada has become a laggard and, paradoxically, an occasional source of advice on how not to implement freedom of information, says Canada's information commissioner Suzanne Legault.
"I'm not surprised that they ranked Canada last," she said of the latest study. "We were seen as the leaders. … We have fallen behind."
Legault, whose office resolves complaints from requesters, said while the study has methodological shortcomings, just-published government statistics covering the 2009-2010 fiscal year nevertheless support the finding that the regime is broken. "We can use our own data and come to the conclusion that our system is in decline," she said.
Only about 16 per cent of the 35,000 requests filed last year resulted in the full disclosure of information, compared with 40 per cent a decade ago, she noted.
And delays in the release of records continue to grow, with just 56 per cent of requests completed in the legislated 30-day period last year, compared with almost 70 per cent at the start of the decade.
Legault's office also suffers from a chronic lack of resources, creating backlogs, while the law does not give her the power to order the release of documents.
Tories fail to deliver promise
The Harper Conservatives first came to power in 2006 on an explicit promise to reform the Access to Information Act dramatically but have largely failed to deliver after five years in power.
Parliament did broaden the number of federal institutions covered by the act, but growing delays and excessive censorship have plagued the system, prompting repeated public scoldings from the last three information commissioners.At least three government departments are currently under investigation for alleged political interference in the release of documents, which has led to the resignation of a ministerial aide.
Treasury Board President Stockwell Day, who is responsible for administering the Access to Information Act, said he has asked his officials for a "full analysis" of the latest study.
"Our government is committed to transparency and access to information for all Canadians," he said in a statement. "It was our government that greatly expanded and strengthened the Access to Information Act in 2006."
Close birth spacing and Autism - a Californian study
Close birth spacing may put a second-born child at higher risk for autism, suggests a preliminary study based on more than a half-million California children.
Children born less than two years after their siblings were considerably more likely to have an autism diagnosis compared to those born after at least three years. The sooner the second child was conceived the greater the likelihood of that child later being diagnosed with autism. The effect was found for parents of all ages, decreasing the chance that it was older parents and not the birth spacing behind the higher risk.
“That was pretty shocking to us, to be honest,” said senior author Peter Bearman of Columbia University in New York. The researchers took into account other risk factors for autism and still saw the effect of birth spacing.
“No matter what we did, whether we were looking at autism severity, looking at age, or looking at all the various dimensions we could think of, we couldn't get rid of this finding,” Mr. Bearman said. Still, he said more studies are needed to confirm the birth spacing link.
Closely spaced births are increasing in the United States because women are delaying childbirth and because of unplanned pregnancies. Government data show the number of closely spaced births – where babies are less than two years apart – is rising, from 11 per cent of all births in 1995 to 18 per cent in 2002.
The study, appearing Monday in the journal Pediatrics, comes just days after a new report further tarnished a British researcher's 1998 paper linking vaccines to autism, this time calling the paper a fraud based on altered facts.
Mr. Bearman contrasted the new research to what he called the “junk science” behind the notion that vaccines cause autism.
“One of the things that leads people to think that junk science is science is the idea that science solves all problems with a single bullet,” Mr. Bearman said. Instead, “science is very slow and proceeds in steps.”
Reasons behind the birth spacing-autism link aren't clear. It could be that parents are more likely to notice developmental problems when siblings are very close in age, Mr. Bearman said. When 2-year-old Billy isn't developing like 3-year-old Bobby, parents might be more likely to seek help. Or biological factors could be at play, he said. Pregnancy depletes a mother's nutrients like folate, a B vitamin found in leafy green vegetables, citrus fruit and dried beans. Prior research has tied close birth spacing to low birth weights and prematurity, possibly because of lack of folate.
“And it could be a combination of effects, not a single explanation but a combination of dynamics,” Mr. Bearman said.
The researchers looked at births from 1992 through 2002 in California. They analyzed data on second-born children born to the same parents whose older siblings didn't have autism. The information on autism diagnoses came from the state's Department of Developmental Services.
The overall prevalence of autism was less than 1 per cent in the study. Of all the 662,730 second-born children in the analysis, 3,137 had an autism diagnosis. Of the 156,034 children conceived less than a year after the birth of their older siblings, 1,188 had an autism diagnosis – a higher rate, but still less than 1 per cent.
Children with Asperger's syndrome and pervasive developmental disorders, milder forms of autism, weren't included. Government studies indicate about 1 in 100 children have autism disorders, including the milder forms.
Dr. Diane Ashton, March of Dimes' deputy medical director, called the study results an interesting finding that she hasn't seen in prior research. The results will have to be replicated, she said, but her organization already suggests at least a year between pregnancies.
“That is to allow the mother to rebuild depleted nutritional stores and decrease the risk for low birth weight and prematurity. Surely this evidence would provide additional reasons for those recommendations to be made,” she said.
The March of Dimes also recommends that all women of childbearing age take a daily multivitamin containing folic acid, an artificial version of foliate. Since half of pregnancies aren't planned, the recommendation includes women who aren't trying to get pregnant.
The new study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health..
“The advice for parents is to pay attention to the science,” Mr. Bearman said.
Children born less than two years after their siblings were considerably more likely to have an autism diagnosis compared to those born after at least three years. The sooner the second child was conceived the greater the likelihood of that child later being diagnosed with autism. The effect was found for parents of all ages, decreasing the chance that it was older parents and not the birth spacing behind the higher risk.
“That was pretty shocking to us, to be honest,” said senior author Peter Bearman of Columbia University in New York. The researchers took into account other risk factors for autism and still saw the effect of birth spacing.
“No matter what we did, whether we were looking at autism severity, looking at age, or looking at all the various dimensions we could think of, we couldn't get rid of this finding,” Mr. Bearman said. Still, he said more studies are needed to confirm the birth spacing link.
Closely spaced births are increasing in the United States because women are delaying childbirth and because of unplanned pregnancies. Government data show the number of closely spaced births – where babies are less than two years apart – is rising, from 11 per cent of all births in 1995 to 18 per cent in 2002.
The study, appearing Monday in the journal Pediatrics, comes just days after a new report further tarnished a British researcher's 1998 paper linking vaccines to autism, this time calling the paper a fraud based on altered facts.
Mr. Bearman contrasted the new research to what he called the “junk science” behind the notion that vaccines cause autism.
“One of the things that leads people to think that junk science is science is the idea that science solves all problems with a single bullet,” Mr. Bearman said. Instead, “science is very slow and proceeds in steps.”
Reasons behind the birth spacing-autism link aren't clear. It could be that parents are more likely to notice developmental problems when siblings are very close in age, Mr. Bearman said. When 2-year-old Billy isn't developing like 3-year-old Bobby, parents might be more likely to seek help. Or biological factors could be at play, he said. Pregnancy depletes a mother's nutrients like folate, a B vitamin found in leafy green vegetables, citrus fruit and dried beans. Prior research has tied close birth spacing to low birth weights and prematurity, possibly because of lack of folate.
“And it could be a combination of effects, not a single explanation but a combination of dynamics,” Mr. Bearman said.
The researchers looked at births from 1992 through 2002 in California. They analyzed data on second-born children born to the same parents whose older siblings didn't have autism. The information on autism diagnoses came from the state's Department of Developmental Services.
The overall prevalence of autism was less than 1 per cent in the study. Of all the 662,730 second-born children in the analysis, 3,137 had an autism diagnosis. Of the 156,034 children conceived less than a year after the birth of their older siblings, 1,188 had an autism diagnosis – a higher rate, but still less than 1 per cent.
Children with Asperger's syndrome and pervasive developmental disorders, milder forms of autism, weren't included. Government studies indicate about 1 in 100 children have autism disorders, including the milder forms.
Dr. Diane Ashton, March of Dimes' deputy medical director, called the study results an interesting finding that she hasn't seen in prior research. The results will have to be replicated, she said, but her organization already suggests at least a year between pregnancies.
“That is to allow the mother to rebuild depleted nutritional stores and decrease the risk for low birth weight and prematurity. Surely this evidence would provide additional reasons for those recommendations to be made,” she said.
The March of Dimes also recommends that all women of childbearing age take a daily multivitamin containing folic acid, an artificial version of foliate. Since half of pregnancies aren't planned, the recommendation includes women who aren't trying to get pregnant.
The new study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health..
“The advice for parents is to pay attention to the science,” Mr. Bearman said.
33% of retirement incomes are inadequate
One-third of Canadians between ages 45 and 64 will likely have retirement incomes that are inadequate for supporting their standard of living. Moreover, Canadians’ savings are at a 30-year low, down from 20 per cent of disposable income in 1980 to about 5 per cent today. Did you know that?
The financial world's lack of certainty the Canadian Governments lack of transparency along with the shrinking number of employers providing pension plans has come a shift away from defined benefit toward defined contribution plans.
A shrinking minority of workers are covered by employer-provided plans. While 46 per cent of the work force participated in 1977, coverage had dropped to 38 per cent by 2008. The problem is especially acute for workers in smaller firms, which rarely offer pension plans.
Defined benefit plans mean that workers know precisely the value of their pension, based on earnings and years of service. Defined contribution plans, by contrast, mean that pension values depend on interest rates and stock market performance. This is often controlled by government policy The year-of-the-bear stock market shows just how precarious this design can be. Thank the liberals for having a secure solid banking system already installed and working.
The ministers were correct to focus on these weaknesses. Too bad their discussions missed another crucial and neglected problem: informal family caregivers whose employment earnings are substantially interrupted because they are caring for a relative with a serious illness or severe disability.
Millions of workers − primarily women − struggle with balancing their caregiving responsibilities and employment demands. With an aging population, there is concern that even more workers will have to reduce their working hours or leave their jobs altogether for a period of time to care for infirm parents. Many working caregivers supplement the assistance provided by formal services, such as home care, because of the short supply and/or cost of these supports.
While these millions of caregivers are crucial to the well-being of Canadian society, together they comprise not even a faint dot on the public radar screen. They contribute billions of dollars of care. Yet they are barely acknowledged, let alone rewarded, for their tireless efforts.
Fortunately, there is a promising remedy. The Canada Pension Plan currently recognizes one form of caregiving responsibility. Its child care drop-out provision allows workers whose CPP contributions were reduced while they were the primary caregivers of children under age 7 to drop that period from the calculation of their pension. They effectively are not penalized down the road for having carried out a crucial social role while in the work force.
The same argument can be made for family caregivers. The current definition of caregiving in the CPP can be stretched to include the care of persons with serious illness or severe disability. Clearly, work would be required around eligibility criteria and other design considerations for this extended provision.
Other countries, including Australia, Britain, Germany, Norway and Finland, stave off income insecurity by providing some form of caregiver pension. Canada is missing from this map. Finance ministers can take an important step to tackle this glaring omission by building on the strong CPP foundation already in place.
Watch this space...
The financial world's lack of certainty the Canadian Governments lack of transparency along with the shrinking number of employers providing pension plans has come a shift away from defined benefit toward defined contribution plans.
A shrinking minority of workers are covered by employer-provided plans. While 46 per cent of the work force participated in 1977, coverage had dropped to 38 per cent by 2008. The problem is especially acute for workers in smaller firms, which rarely offer pension plans.
Defined benefit plans mean that workers know precisely the value of their pension, based on earnings and years of service. Defined contribution plans, by contrast, mean that pension values depend on interest rates and stock market performance. This is often controlled by government policy The year-of-the-bear stock market shows just how precarious this design can be. Thank the liberals for having a secure solid banking system already installed and working.
The ministers were correct to focus on these weaknesses. Too bad their discussions missed another crucial and neglected problem: informal family caregivers whose employment earnings are substantially interrupted because they are caring for a relative with a serious illness or severe disability.
Millions of workers − primarily women − struggle with balancing their caregiving responsibilities and employment demands. With an aging population, there is concern that even more workers will have to reduce their working hours or leave their jobs altogether for a period of time to care for infirm parents. Many working caregivers supplement the assistance provided by formal services, such as home care, because of the short supply and/or cost of these supports.
While these millions of caregivers are crucial to the well-being of Canadian society, together they comprise not even a faint dot on the public radar screen. They contribute billions of dollars of care. Yet they are barely acknowledged, let alone rewarded, for their tireless efforts.
Fortunately, there is a promising remedy. The Canada Pension Plan currently recognizes one form of caregiving responsibility. Its child care drop-out provision allows workers whose CPP contributions were reduced while they were the primary caregivers of children under age 7 to drop that period from the calculation of their pension. They effectively are not penalized down the road for having carried out a crucial social role while in the work force.
The same argument can be made for family caregivers. The current definition of caregiving in the CPP can be stretched to include the care of persons with serious illness or severe disability. Clearly, work would be required around eligibility criteria and other design considerations for this extended provision.
Other countries, including Australia, Britain, Germany, Norway and Finland, stave off income insecurity by providing some form of caregiver pension. Canada is missing from this map. Finance ministers can take an important step to tackle this glaring omission by building on the strong CPP foundation already in place.
Watch this space...
Dear Friend:
Dear Friend:
Your name has been provided to us, because we have discovered that, in spite of Canada's economic problems, you may still have a few dollars tucked away that you are saving for a future financial emergency. Well, that emergency is here. We ‘re hoping you will be sympathetic to our effort and express it with your generosity.
Stated quite simply, we’re raising money to help the rich and powerful. These hard-driving people continue to require large amounts of money, and most of them are far too busy to attend to this sort of direct appeal for themselves. We are here to help.
The rich and powerful need your financial support in order to increase their wealth and power, so they can exercise even greater influence over national events, and, of course, over your lives. Remember, these people are small in number and, therefore, inadequately represented in our system of proportional government. They consequently lack influence and suffer the fate of many minorities, i.e., being ignored by the very government they have helped elect. It is for these reasons they have decided to band together to better present their ideas and especially to expand their influence with elected officials. But first they need your help. They need money.
In the first stage, your money is needed for basics: stationery, office supplies, postage, phones and rent (first month, last month, security deposit). The rich and powerful need to set up a headquarters so they can start really raising money in order to live properly. But once they reach that level that doesn ‘t mean your job is done. Not at all.
In fact, once things are running smoothly there’ll be a continuing and even greater need for more and more of your money in order to provide all of the expensive clothing, imported cars, fine jewelry, gourmet foods and exotic pets that these people require. That’s when your dollars will really count, helping provide the lifestyle to which the rich and powerful are not only accustomed but entitled.
In addition to these considerable personal expenses, there will, of course, be a need for large amounts of money to persuade and influence the many politicians and government officials who, after all, have financial obligations of their own. Most of these dedicated public servants are underpaid and must find ways of supplementing their income without taking time off from work. Your money, funneled through the rich and powerful, can go a long way toward solving their financial problems. And you will have the satisfaction of knowing you have helped advance the selfless agenda the rich and powerful have laid out in their effort to improve our country.
Can we count on you? Will you help? Will you give yourself the opportunity to say you helped the rich and powerful when they really needed it? Do it now. Do it for yourself and for your children. Sit down and write out a check for a substantial amount, maybe even more than you can afford. Make it payable to The Fund for the Rich and Powerful. You’ll take satisfaction knowing you have done your part. And you ‘II be secure in the knowledge that whenever you have a problem, the rich and powerful will always be there to help.
Sincerely,
Mr. Harper's Puppet Show
Your name has been provided to us, because we have discovered that, in spite of Canada's economic problems, you may still have a few dollars tucked away that you are saving for a future financial emergency. Well, that emergency is here. We ‘re hoping you will be sympathetic to our effort and express it with your generosity.
Stated quite simply, we’re raising money to help the rich and powerful. These hard-driving people continue to require large amounts of money, and most of them are far too busy to attend to this sort of direct appeal for themselves. We are here to help.
The rich and powerful need your financial support in order to increase their wealth and power, so they can exercise even greater influence over national events, and, of course, over your lives. Remember, these people are small in number and, therefore, inadequately represented in our system of proportional government. They consequently lack influence and suffer the fate of many minorities, i.e., being ignored by the very government they have helped elect. It is for these reasons they have decided to band together to better present their ideas and especially to expand their influence with elected officials. But first they need your help. They need money.
In the first stage, your money is needed for basics: stationery, office supplies, postage, phones and rent (first month, last month, security deposit). The rich and powerful need to set up a headquarters so they can start really raising money in order to live properly. But once they reach that level that doesn ‘t mean your job is done. Not at all.
In fact, once things are running smoothly there’ll be a continuing and even greater need for more and more of your money in order to provide all of the expensive clothing, imported cars, fine jewelry, gourmet foods and exotic pets that these people require. That’s when your dollars will really count, helping provide the lifestyle to which the rich and powerful are not only accustomed but entitled.
In addition to these considerable personal expenses, there will, of course, be a need for large amounts of money to persuade and influence the many politicians and government officials who, after all, have financial obligations of their own. Most of these dedicated public servants are underpaid and must find ways of supplementing their income without taking time off from work. Your money, funneled through the rich and powerful, can go a long way toward solving their financial problems. And you will have the satisfaction of knowing you have helped advance the selfless agenda the rich and powerful have laid out in their effort to improve our country.
Can we count on you? Will you help? Will you give yourself the opportunity to say you helped the rich and powerful when they really needed it? Do it now. Do it for yourself and for your children. Sit down and write out a check for a substantial amount, maybe even more than you can afford. Make it payable to The Fund for the Rich and Powerful. You’ll take satisfaction knowing you have done your part. And you ‘II be secure in the knowledge that whenever you have a problem, the rich and powerful will always be there to help.
Sincerely,
Mr. Harper's Puppet Show
Conservative government’s financial record
The Conservative government will take credit for any aspect of the economy that is performing well.
Liberal MP Scott Brison held a news conference on Friday morning to say Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Mr. Flip Flop to his friends) will unjustly try to take credit for Canada’s sound financial and banking system when he gives a speech in Washington next week.
* Under threat of election, Tories pump cash into lumber towns
* Employers gain confidence, good jobs stage comeback
* Under-the-radar tax expenditures keep on eating up cash
“This Conservative government wrecked Canada’s finances after inheriting a $13-billion budget surplus from the previous Liberal government and then created a record $56-billion deficit,” the opposition finance critic said.
“Furthermore, it was our Liberal government that ensured our banking system was well-regulated and it was the strong financial prudence and regulatory prudence that protected Canada from the worst of the global financial crisis.”
The economy is likely to be the dominant issue of an election that could be called this spring. The Liberals consistently lag behind the Conservatives in public opinion polls and surveys suggest that Canadians regard the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a sound fiscal manager – a reputation bolstered by the fact that Canada fared better than other G8 countries through the recent recession.
The Liberals will have to chip away at that image if they are to weaken Conservative popularity. So Mr. Brison reminded reporters that when Mr. Harper was in opposition, he urged the Liberal government of the day to follow the Americans in the deregulation of the banking system.
“I expect Jim Flaherty will fail to tell his American audience that Canada avoided the global financial crisis by ignoring Prime Minister Harper’s advice,” Mr. Brison said. “I expect Jim Flaherty will fail to tell the Americans that the Conservatives plunged Canada into deficit in the fall of 2008, even before the recession began. I expect Jim Flaherty will not tell the Americans that his government ramped up spending in the first three years of office by 18 per cent.”
Annette Robertson, press secretary for Mr. Flaherty, said "it’s a bit rich" of Mr. Brison to talk about sound banking regulations when he himself applauded laxer American banking regulations only a few years ago.
Ms. Robertson pointed to an October 2002 edition of Policy Options in which Mr. Brison is quoted as saying: “Due to deregulation in the U.S. and the secession of the last vestiges of the Glass-Steagall Act, the U.S. financial services sector is better positioned than Canada.”
Canada’s economic performance is the envy of the world, Ms. Robertson said, adding that recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times praised this country's sound financial footing.
"December’s job growth again demonstrates that Canada's Economic Action Plan is working. Our economy has grown for the past five straight quarters, and since July 2009 over 460,000 new jobs have been created across the country. Canada’s unemployment rate is nearly 2 per cent lower that the US for the first time in a generation," she said. "Unlike the Liberals, we are proud to stand up and promote Canada as a place to invest."
Liberal MP Scott Brison held a news conference on Friday morning to say Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Mr. Flip Flop to his friends) will unjustly try to take credit for Canada’s sound financial and banking system when he gives a speech in Washington next week.
* Under threat of election, Tories pump cash into lumber towns
* Employers gain confidence, good jobs stage comeback
* Under-the-radar tax expenditures keep on eating up cash
“This Conservative government wrecked Canada’s finances after inheriting a $13-billion budget surplus from the previous Liberal government and then created a record $56-billion deficit,” the opposition finance critic said.
“Furthermore, it was our Liberal government that ensured our banking system was well-regulated and it was the strong financial prudence and regulatory prudence that protected Canada from the worst of the global financial crisis.”
The economy is likely to be the dominant issue of an election that could be called this spring. The Liberals consistently lag behind the Conservatives in public opinion polls and surveys suggest that Canadians regard the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a sound fiscal manager – a reputation bolstered by the fact that Canada fared better than other G8 countries through the recent recession.
The Liberals will have to chip away at that image if they are to weaken Conservative popularity. So Mr. Brison reminded reporters that when Mr. Harper was in opposition, he urged the Liberal government of the day to follow the Americans in the deregulation of the banking system.
“I expect Jim Flaherty will fail to tell his American audience that Canada avoided the global financial crisis by ignoring Prime Minister Harper’s advice,” Mr. Brison said. “I expect Jim Flaherty will fail to tell the Americans that the Conservatives plunged Canada into deficit in the fall of 2008, even before the recession began. I expect Jim Flaherty will not tell the Americans that his government ramped up spending in the first three years of office by 18 per cent.”
Annette Robertson, press secretary for Mr. Flaherty, said "it’s a bit rich" of Mr. Brison to talk about sound banking regulations when he himself applauded laxer American banking regulations only a few years ago.
Ms. Robertson pointed to an October 2002 edition of Policy Options in which Mr. Brison is quoted as saying: “Due to deregulation in the U.S. and the secession of the last vestiges of the Glass-Steagall Act, the U.S. financial services sector is better positioned than Canada.”
Canada’s economic performance is the envy of the world, Ms. Robertson said, adding that recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times praised this country's sound financial footing.
"December’s job growth again demonstrates that Canada's Economic Action Plan is working. Our economy has grown for the past five straight quarters, and since July 2009 over 460,000 new jobs have been created across the country. Canada’s unemployment rate is nearly 2 per cent lower that the US for the first time in a generation," she said. "Unlike the Liberals, we are proud to stand up and promote Canada as a place to invest."
CEOs made 155 times more than the average Canadian
CEOs made 155 times more than the average Canadian despite recession: study
OTTAWA - The recession may have hammered the average Canadian but a new survey suggests CEOs weathered the storm in fine form. An examination of the 100 fattest pay packages handed to executives at publicly traded companies in Canada shows they pulled in an average $6.6 million each in 2009.
That's a far cry from the $42,988 the average Canadian makes and it dwarfs the $19,877 a minimum-wage worker would earn in a year. The study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says Canada's best-paid CEOs made 155 times more than the average Canadian.
"Canadians may still be feeling the pain from a worldwide economic meltdown caused by reckless financial speculation but Canada's business elite has preserved its privileged position," writes author Hugh Mackenzie.
The biggest pay package went to Aaron Regent at Barrick Gold Corp., (TSX:ABX) who made $24.2 million in 2009, according to Mackenzie's calculations. In second place was Hunter Harrison at Canadian National Railway Co., (TSX:CNR) at $17.3 million, followed by Gerald Schwartz at Onex Corp (TSX:OCX)., at $16.7 million.
Mackenzie's study of 2008 compensation showed CEOs were earning 174 times the average Canadian, compared to the 155 ratio for 2009. In 2008, CEOs were paid an average of $7.3 million, or almost 11 per cent more than 2009 — not taking inflation into account. Average Canadians, meanwhile, saw a very small climb in their earnings in 2009, keeping pace with inflation.
It's possible that the gap has begun to shrink, Mackenzie says. But generally, CEO pay packages are much higher nowadays than during the 1990s. In 1998, for example, the top 100 CEOs made 104 times the average Canadian.
Since then, CEO pay has outpaced inflation by 53 per cent, while average earnings rose just four per cent more than inflation over the same 10 years, Mackenzie figures.
"The gap has been growing pretty substantially over the last 20 years," he said in an interview.
He says the number-crunching actually underestimates the true earnings of CEOs because of the conservative way corporations report the value of stock options in their executive compensation disclosures. The Canadian veneer at work.?
He estimates that the big banks, for example, are under-reporting the value of 2009 stock options by about $5.1 million per CEO. How on earth do they get taxed then I ask..?
The rise in executive pay partly helps to explain why income inequality in Canada is growing so quickly, Mackenzie says.
It's a problem, he argues, because most executive packages are tied to future share prices, rather than the day-to-day functioning of the company. So instead of paying close attention to the firm's long-term returns and actual production, executives are tempted to increase short-term value in order to boost stock prices.
"These pay systems provide powerful incentives to these corporate leaders to make decisions in their short-term interests but that are not necessarily good for the long term," Mackenzie says.
Public resentment of such big compensation packages has soared in the United States in the wake of the financial crisis and bail-out packages that inadvertently rewarded top bankers whose firms were failing.
Canada, however, has not seen much of a backlash, Mackenzie says. May I suggest .. APATHY
He looks to the tax system for solutions. If Ottawa taxed capital gains the same way it taxed ordinary income, corporate boards would not be so tempted to tie bonuses to the stock performance, Mackenzie argues.
But he doesn't see much political will to increase taxes on the rich.
OTTAWA - The recession may have hammered the average Canadian but a new survey suggests CEOs weathered the storm in fine form. An examination of the 100 fattest pay packages handed to executives at publicly traded companies in Canada shows they pulled in an average $6.6 million each in 2009.
That's a far cry from the $42,988 the average Canadian makes and it dwarfs the $19,877 a minimum-wage worker would earn in a year. The study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says Canada's best-paid CEOs made 155 times more than the average Canadian.
"Canadians may still be feeling the pain from a worldwide economic meltdown caused by reckless financial speculation but Canada's business elite has preserved its privileged position," writes author Hugh Mackenzie.
The biggest pay package went to Aaron Regent at Barrick Gold Corp., (TSX:ABX) who made $24.2 million in 2009, according to Mackenzie's calculations. In second place was Hunter Harrison at Canadian National Railway Co., (TSX:CNR) at $17.3 million, followed by Gerald Schwartz at Onex Corp (TSX:OCX)., at $16.7 million.
Mackenzie's study of 2008 compensation showed CEOs were earning 174 times the average Canadian, compared to the 155 ratio for 2009. In 2008, CEOs were paid an average of $7.3 million, or almost 11 per cent more than 2009 — not taking inflation into account. Average Canadians, meanwhile, saw a very small climb in their earnings in 2009, keeping pace with inflation.
It's possible that the gap has begun to shrink, Mackenzie says. But generally, CEO pay packages are much higher nowadays than during the 1990s. In 1998, for example, the top 100 CEOs made 104 times the average Canadian.
Since then, CEO pay has outpaced inflation by 53 per cent, while average earnings rose just four per cent more than inflation over the same 10 years, Mackenzie figures.
"The gap has been growing pretty substantially over the last 20 years," he said in an interview.
He says the number-crunching actually underestimates the true earnings of CEOs because of the conservative way corporations report the value of stock options in their executive compensation disclosures. The Canadian veneer at work.?
He estimates that the big banks, for example, are under-reporting the value of 2009 stock options by about $5.1 million per CEO. How on earth do they get taxed then I ask..?
The rise in executive pay partly helps to explain why income inequality in Canada is growing so quickly, Mackenzie says.
It's a problem, he argues, because most executive packages are tied to future share prices, rather than the day-to-day functioning of the company. So instead of paying close attention to the firm's long-term returns and actual production, executives are tempted to increase short-term value in order to boost stock prices.
"These pay systems provide powerful incentives to these corporate leaders to make decisions in their short-term interests but that are not necessarily good for the long term," Mackenzie says.
Public resentment of such big compensation packages has soared in the United States in the wake of the financial crisis and bail-out packages that inadvertently rewarded top bankers whose firms were failing.
Canada, however, has not seen much of a backlash, Mackenzie says. May I suggest .. APATHY
He looks to the tax system for solutions. If Ottawa taxed capital gains the same way it taxed ordinary income, corporate boards would not be so tempted to tie bonuses to the stock performance, Mackenzie argues.
But he doesn't see much political will to increase taxes on the rich.