Life in Canada

How has information control evolved under Harper?
It’s part corporate news management and part resentment among Conservatives of the old Reform Party of what they see as an elite press.

What is corporate news management?
It’s not doing face-to-face interviews and not being open with information, over-managing the flow of information from government to the people and clamping down on the number of people who have access to the media. Everything is massaged and planned and manipulated. In many cases, people who want to know what government’s doing — media, MPs, NGOs, scientists, ordinary citizens — never really find out.

So your theory is Reform and the other pre-Conservative incarnations were upset about news coverage?
They thought it was unfair and patronizing in a lot of cases.

Was it?
Sometimes, but they didn’t understand how government worked. They brought a lot of prejudices to Ottawa and tried to make them fit. They saw the public service as an enemy and the Christian fundamentalists among them saw science as a left-wing enemy wanting to shut down the oil industry with bogus climate change science. They were going to open up government and restore democracy but Harper’s Accountability Act turned into a bad joke.

Why?
It became easier for them. It was a lot simpler to shut down information coming from caucus and ministers and government experts. They also wanted to change the story of Canada from what they saw as a Central Canadian narrative to a more western, more militarist, less peacekeeping — a more heroic version of Canadian history and re-make the way Canadians think about their own country. And they have done a fairly good job.

If that’s the case, what do they get out of it politically?
They replace an old Liberal establishment with a new Conservative establishment. They want to replace the old Liberal myths and replace them with Conservative myths. So the Liberal myth of Pierre Trudeau, the Constitution and Charter of Rights is replaced by Vimy Ridge and Canada punching above its weight, with the Conservatives as the political arm. It would be a Tory government of a new Tory Canada. It could keep them in power for a long time if they pull it off.
If the Liberals or NDP were running the government, would they be any less controlling?
Not unless Canadians make it clear that it is part of their mandate. How much of their government do Canadians want done in secret? How weak do they want Parliament to be? It’s about our democracy. The House of Commons barely functions now and it’s the only national democratic institution we have. The system now works as an elected dictatorship, and I’m not sure how easy it will be to change that back. What’s needed is for politicians to trust people to decide things for themselves instead of manipulating them.
What do you see as the most egregious aspect of the Harper government’s control over information?
Any message control that limits the ability of individual MPs to function — the unprecedented amount of party control over MPs, the weakening of (Commons) committees and the deliberate derailing of committee work. And the hammering away at the Parliamentary budget officer and efforts to de-legitimize the Auditor General. When the prime minister’s office is deciding which choices to make, there isn’t any democracy any more.

Do Canadians care?
When they clue in but people are so disconnected from government. Sometimes I think the veneer of democracy in this country is very thin because we are all used to being ruled by one elite or the other.

In other words, you’re saying Canadians are complacent.
We’ve had a free ride in the sweep of history. We’ve slowly developed what we needed to get by. When you have 30 million people living on top of one of the greatest resource areas of the world, it doesn’t take many brains to get rich off it.

We’re heading into an election year. How is this entire situation going to manifest itself?
There is starting to be a bit of a backlash over the way the government has cracked down on information. People don’t see it as some big thing but rather as single issues — treatment of veterans, shutting down environmental scientists. But the whole country isn’t up in arms, and I think Stephen Harper has a good chance of winning the election, at least with a minority. He is a very effective campaigner. I write about their propaganda machine with some respect because it has always served them very well during election campaigns.

Harper, the message and Canadian democracy

From Mark Bourrie new book, Kill The Messengers: Stephen Harper’s Assault on Your Right to Know.

A 2012 Bank of Canada study on competitiveness and Canada’s declining share of world trade found that Canada’s share of world exports had fallen from 4.1 per cent in 1990-2000 to 3.7 per cent in 2001-07 and 2.8 per cent in 2008-10.

Moreover, Canada became much more dependent on commodity exports—energy exports rose from 10.1 per cent of Canadian exports in 1990-2000 to 17.2 per cent in 2001-07 and 24.7 per cent in 2008-10. Non-energy commodities accounted for another 30.3 per cent of exports in 2008-10. At the same time, automotive exports fell from 22.1 per cent of the total in 1990-2000 to 11.2 per cent in 2008-10 while machinery and equipment exports fell from 17.8 per cent in 1990-2000 to 15.9 per cent in 2008-10.

We need to be better exporters. As Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said in a recent speech in Drummondville, Que., oil exports are “the main source of natural growth in our economy today” but “growth in energy exports alone cannot make up for the loss of exports we have experienced since the crisis [the Great Recession].”

The persistent strength of the Canadian dollar, over dependence on the U.S. market, stiffer competition from China and Mexico and technological change were all factors in Canada’s loss of competitiveness— which translates into fewer good jobs, a smaller economy and less government revenue. A nation with a weak tradable goods sector will end up relying increasingly on international debt, as the U.S. has done, to finance its domestic consumption.

As a country, we face a huge challenge in building a prosperous and sustainable economy for the future. A U.S. recovery and a somewhat weaker Canadian dollar would help a bit. But something more fundamental is needed—major investments in advanced manufacturing and high-value business services are critical

Answering a single written question from a Liberal MP cost the federal government $117,188 in staff time, according to information tabled this week in the House of Commons.

The right to ask departments for written answers is a key tool for MPs – primarily on the opposition benches – to dig up information that can later be used against their political rivals.
More Related to this Story

Globe Editorial Welcome to the 399-day federal election campaign

Ottawa will get $3.5-billion too much from EI premiums in 2015, report says

Politics Insider Why this Parliament is all about the next election

The answers can lead to news stories on the details of government expenses, revealing everything from how often cabinet ministers use government jets to how much the RCMP spends destroying marijuana crops.

The process – officially known in Parliament-speak as answers to questions on the order paper – can also provide insight into the impact of public-policy decisions.

But Conservative MP Mike Wallace weighed in with a question asking how much departments spend on answering these types of questions.

Over less than a four-month span up to Jan. 29, 2014, the total was more than $1.2-million.

In an interview, Mr. Wallace said he simply wants MPs and the public to be aware of the costs of these questions.

“I think it’s just important that it’s on the record,” Mr. Wallace said. “I think government and Parliament could run more efficiently and effectively in a lot of areas and this is just one little tiny example of where, are we sure we’re getting value for the dollar?”

The fact that one question cost more than $117,000 might lead the public to ask questions, he said.

“‘Ok, you spent a salary for a person and a quarter for a year. What are you doing with that answer?” he asked.

Plenty, insists Liberal MP John McCallum, who made the request. The MP had asked for a list of all briefing notes provided to all deputy ministers in government. The responses were then divided up among Liberal MPs, who then filed questions under Access to Information – a separate process available to the public – to obtain briefing notes that may be of interest.

“I think those cost numbers are totally inflated,” he said, noting that the answers would have been in an existing database. “It’s inconceivable to me that it would cost anything on that order. But the more important point is this is the cost of democracy. The government spends millions of dollars hiring communications people to keep information from us … So we’re obliged to use the tools that we have available to ask the questions that Canadians want answered.”

The answer to Mr. Wallace’s question was provided by individual departments and compiled by the Government House Leader. The estimate is based on how much it would cost for a public servant with a salary and benefits of $116,160 – equivalent to $60 an hour – to produce the answer.

Amazing eh...

As a sender of goods and you are not a not a party to the actual contract with a dispatch organization it is reasonable to believe that the sender may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy given the contractual terms, but should those terms also extend to the recipient who had not read or consented to them?

Consumers beware: Misleading labels may hide trans fats People may be consuming more trans fat than they think as a result of misleading labels
Researchers examined 4,340 top-selling packaged foods and found that 9 percent contained partially hydrogenated oils, the main source of trans fat. But of those foods, 84 percent claimed on their packaging to have "0 grams" of trans fat.The amount of trans fat in these products varied from small traces to almost 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, the researchers said. [5 Foods that Could Change Under a Trans Fat Ban]
Under the rules of the Food and Drug Administration, foods that contain less than 0.5 g of trans fat per serving must be labeled with "0 g" of trans fat.
"This labeling is cause for concern because consumers, seeing the 0 g trans fat on the nutrition facts label, are probably unaware that they are consuming trans fat," the researchers wrote in their study, published in the in the journal Preventing Chronic Disease.
Trans fat is a specific type of fat that is formed when hydrogen is added to liquid oils to turn them into solid fats. The FDA has tentatively determined that partially hydrogenated oils are not "generally recognized as safe" for consumption. If the FDA makes a final determination, trans fat would become an illegal food additive.
People who consume trans fat may be at higher risk for heart disease, stroke and diabetes, studies have suggested.
The food products examined in the study ranged from cookies to salad dressing and canned soup.

 "Our analysis demonstrates that industrial trans fat is still common in U.S. packaged foods, particularly in some food categories," the researchers said. For example, half of the foods in the potato chips category, and 35 percent of cookies contained trans fat, according to the report.

What are we doing Canada?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government is finalizing new restrictions on hundreds of medicines containing hydrocodone, the highly addictive painkiller that has grown into the most widely prescribed drug in the U.S. Is this also true of Canada

The new rules mean that drugs like Vicodin, Lortab and their generic equivalents will be subject to the same prescribing rules as painkillers like codeine and oxycodone. Patients will be limited to one 90-day supply of medication and will have to see a health care professional to get a refill. In many states, only doctors will be able to prescribe the medications, not nurses or physician assistants.

"Today's action recognizes that these products are some of the most addictive and potentially dangerous prescription medications available," said DEA chief Michele Leonhart, in a statement.

The move, announced in a federal notice, comes more than a decade after the Drug Enforcement Administration first recommended reclassifying hydrocodone due to its risks for abuse and addiction. For years, physician groups and the Food and Drug Administration opposed the move, saying it would burden health care providers and patients while driving up costs.

But last year the FDA changed its position, citing the national epidemic of overdoses and deaths tied to prescription painkillers known as opioids.

Deaths linked to the drugs more than tripled between 1999 and 2010, during which sales of opioids increased four-fold.

Anti-addiction groups praised the restrictions, but criticized the FDA for taking nearly a decade to embrace the changes.

"Had FDA responded in a timely and appropriate manner to DEA's urgent request, thousands of overdose deaths and tens of thousands of cases of opioid addiction might have been prevented," said Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, an advocacy group which has been critical of the government's approach to curbing abuse.

The new restrictions will go into effect in 45 days, according to a federal listing scheduled for publication Friday.

For decades, hydrocodone has been easier to prescribe than other opioids, in part because it was only sold in combination pills and formulas with other non-addictive ingredients like aspirin and acetaminophen.

The Controlled Substances Act, passed in 1970, put hydrocodone combination pills in the Schedule III class, which is subject to fewer controls than Schedule II drugs like morphine and methadone. Under Schedule III classification, a prescription for Vicodin could be refilled five times before the patient had to see a physician again.

That ease of access made it many health care professionals' top choice for treating chronic pain, including everything from back pain to arthritis to toothaches.

In 2012, U.S. doctors wrote more than 125 million prescriptions for hydrocodone-containing medications, making it the most prescribed drug in the country, according to figures from IMS Health.

News of the rescheduling was applauded by lawmakers from states that have been plagued by opioid abuse, including those who have been pushing regulators to make the change.

"Although there is much more that must be done to curb prescription drug abuse, I am confident that rescheduling hydrocodone will undoubtedly begin saving hundreds of thousands of lives immediately," said Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, in a statement.

Former Alberta premier Alison Redford. Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell. Canadian senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin. Former Liberal cabinet minister and disgraced London mayor Joe Fontana.

These are public representatives. They are accused of inappropriate spending. Most have not admitted it, and to be fair, their actions may have been perfectly appropriate.

But it does not look good.

It does not look fair.

It does not look right.

It does not look transparent.

It does not give voters faith in the public trust.

It does not inspire confidence in political leadership.

Is it any wonder that Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, with his empty rhetoric and facile promises about ending "the gravy train," gets so much traction among everyday working taxpayers?

Do we have any right, as Canadians, to accuse governments of Asia, Africa or South America of the rampant corruption we associate with so-called "banana republics" when we have sophisticated leaders who are sometimes no better, and sometimes much worse?.

In too many cases, there is insufficient documentation or information from government employees and politicians for a proper investigation. And those involved seem unwilling to clearly and simply explain their actions.

No wonder voters everywhere are so cynical.

Finally, how has it come to this? How do otherwise intelligent, thoughtful politicians, who are well aware of the checks and balances of our system and the role of the media, allow themselves to become embroiled in such scandals?

If they are not guilty of inappropriate behaviour, why don't they simply explain themselves better?

Do they feel entitled? If so, why?

How is it that Redford and her staff, for example, felt it appropriate to use government planes for "personal and partisan purposes," or to take government planes on official business, when flying commercial would have been less expensive?

How is it that Fennell and her staff, for example, felt it was appropriate to break spending rules 265 times over seven years?

How is it that disgraced former Fontana, for example, felt it appropriate to doctor his personal expense form?

Is it stupidity?

Or is it what Alberta Auditor General Merwan Saher last week labelled the "aura of power?"

If so, we have work to do before democracy decays further.

How is the question I ask and look for constructive cooments

Stop Illegal Spying – Case Details

BCCLA Sues Canadian Government to Stop Illegal Spying
On October 22, 2013, the BCCLA filed a lawsuit against the  Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) claiming that its  secret and unchecked surveillance of Canadians is unconstitutional. The BCCLA’s lawsuit calls on the government to state clearly who they  are watching, what is being collected and how they are handing  Canadians’ private communications and information. The BCCLA filed the  case because we believe that secret and unrestrained government  surveillance presents a grave threat to democratic freedoms.

The BCCLA’s lawsuit is the first challenge to the legality of CSEC’s spying programs.
CSEC’s Operations Infringe Canadians’ Rights
The BCCLA’s lawsuit argues that two aspects of the CSEC’s operations  violate the Charter’s protections against unreasonable search and  seizure: the interception of the private communications of Canadians and  the sweeping collection of metadata information produced by Canadians.

By law, CSEC is permitted to read Canadians’ emails and text  messages, and listen to Canadians’ phone calls, whenever a Canadian is  communicating with a person outside Canada. CSEC also operates under a  secret ministerial directive that allows it to collect and analyze the  metadata information that is automatically produced each and every time a  Canadian uses a mobile phone or accesses the internet.

There is no court or committee that monitors the CSEC’s interception  of these private communications and metadata information, and there is  no judicial oversight of its sweeping powers. CSEC’s operations are  shrouded in secrecy.
The BCCLA filed this lawsuit to force the government to enact specific safeguards to protect the rights of all Canadians.

Re-blog of Nov 2013

GM Food Safety Study Reignites Call to Overhaul Canada’s RegulationsNew article

June 24, 2014. Ottawa. The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) is calling on Health Canada to place a moratorium on approving new genetically modified (GM) foods, to re-evaluate the safety of GM foods already on the market, and to initiate a complete overhaul of the regulatory system.

Author's View Point
The awakening people are also beginning to see they have been misled by corporate tricksters and federal government criminals poisoned by too much power, control and greed, which has resulted in the creation of the monstrous, out-of-control corporate beast.

The call comes in response to the republication of a long-term study of a GM corn that exposes a lack of scientific rigour in Canada’s regulatory system seemingly regulated by MONSANTO the GMO giant

Please read and digest: the following reference and detail pages
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964

“Many Canadians may be surprised to find out that Health Canada doesn’t require any long-term safety tests on GM foods and that this study is the first of its kind,” said CBAN’s Lucy Sharratt.

“The results of this study are a real concern, especially in Canada where we’ve been eating this GM corn since 2001.”

The long-term safety test on GM corn was conducted by a team of scientists in France, led by Caen University molecular biologist Giles-Éric Séralini. It was first published in September 2012 in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, which then retracted the paper in November 2013. The paper is published today in Environmental Sciences Europe. The research team has now also released their raw data.

“We clearly need more independent and critical review of safety claims made by industry. There is too little independent science examining questions of GM food safety,” said Sharratt.

From article:
"As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution, aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself. We have to wonder who’s really in charge of the country because it’s certainly not him!"

There comes a tipping point though when a corporation becomes too evil and the world pushes back…hard! Many countries continue to convict Monsanto of crimes against humanity and have banned them altogether, telling them to “get out and stay out!”

The GM corn, called NK603, is “Roundup Ready” which means it is genetically modified to be tolerant to Monsanto’s herbicide formulation called Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world.

Monsanto published a 90-day feeding trial of the GM corn in 2004, three years after Health Canada’s 2001 approval. The French team conducted their feeding trial over the full two-year lifespan of rats. The rats were fed three different diets: the GM corn alone, the GM corn grown with Roundup (with Roundup residues), and Roundup alone.

The study reported adverse effects including organ damage, tumor growth, and increased mortality in rats fed both GM corn with and without Roundup, and in rats fed low levels of Roundup.

“Canadians need to know about this study before they buy their sweet corn this summer,” said Thibault Rehn of the Quebec coalition Vigilance OGM, “Without long-term studies like this one, we don’t know enough about the safety of GM corn. Its important to remember that there is no labeling for consumers of GM foods.”

CBAN tests of sweet corn samples in October of last year found GM sweet corn in grocery stores, road-side stands and farmers markets across Canada.

How can Canadians make informed choices for their children?

The System is the Sham
and no one should be surprised that Canadian governments, politicians, government employees, corporations and big business executives act dishonestly, unethically, secretively, non-representatively or wastefully --- the system allows them to do so through weak rules, weak enforcement, and weak penalties.

This is not at all to say that all, most or even many politicians, government employees or corporate executives are dishonest, unethical, secretive, non-representative or wasteful -- but if any of these people act in these ways they will often not be caught, let alone penalized, because of loopholes in laws and rules and weak enforcement systems.


No matter what issue concerns you, strong good government laws will help ensure that the government addresses your concerns.  History has shown that we won't likely have a good country until we have good governments, we won't have a clean environment until we have clean governments, and we won't have a fair and just society until we have fair and just governments.

Incredibly, the laws and enforcement of parking a car illegally are stronger than most government accountability and corporate responsibility laws and enforcement systems in Canada, and in some cases the penalties for parking illegally are higher than for government officials or corporate executives who act dishonestly, unethically, unrepresentable, secretively or wastefully!

For the past more than 140 years, since Canada became a nation (and section 91 of the Constitution of Canada empowered politicians to "make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada"), politicians and government officials have not been passing strong good government laws, but instead have been playing a game by sometimes strengthening laws, but then weakening enforcement, or strengthening enforcement at the same time as creating loopholes in laws, and in almost every case penalties have remained too weak to discourage violations.

While governments and corporations do bad things for many reasons, often it is because they are operating in bad ways.  Especially when governments operate in bad ways, they usually do not require corporations to act in good ways (because they make secret deals behind closed doors with corporate lobbyists).

And unfortunately, the public always pays one way or another when governments or corporations act in bad ways.


See set out on this page Action Alerts about Democracy Watch's campaigns to increase government accountability and corporate responsibility in Canada -- to ensure governments, politicians and their staff and appointees, and government employees, and corporations and corporate executives, all pay a price for acting irresponsibly.

Politicians, government officials, and big business executives are resisting changes to the system that would increase their accountability for wrongdoing.  Canadian politicians have control over their own rules, and Canada's biggest corporations spend $25 billion annually on their lobbying and promotion efforts, so Canadians have to push hard if there is any hope to counter the corporate lobby and win key corporate responsibility changes.  They just don't get it, so we have to give it to them until they do!


We know the ongoing lack of response by governments and big businesses to Canadians' concerns is discouraging, but if we give up pushing then bad politicians and governments and irresponsible big businesses will do even more to hurt people, communities, the environment and the Canadian economy.


You can help clean up the system to prevent future scandals by simply writing letters to politicians making it clear that you are part of the large majority of Canadians who are concerned and want changes to clean up and democratize Canadian governments.  Never assume that no one else is writing a letter, because if everyone assumes that then no one will write a letter.  Politicians actually get very scared when only a small percentage of voters write them, because they are very concerned about losing the next election.

But they still get their pensions even if convicted of crimes?

Remember: By food industry definition, all MSG is "naturally occurring." "Natural" doesn't mean "safe."  "Natural" only means that the ingredient started out in nature, like arsenic and hydrochloric acid.

The Supreme Court’s affirmation of aboriginal ownership of traditional hunting grounds in British Columbia lends “enormous clout” to another aboriginal land dispute in Ontario.

Klippenstein represents the Mushkegowuk Council, the regional Cree government which is challenging the government’s interpretation of Treaty No. 9, signed in 1905 and 1906 by various First Nations leaders in northern Ontario. 

The James Bay Treaty, as it’s called, covers two-thirds of northern Ontario, the largest tract of land ever negotiated between the government and aboriginal people in Ontario. Ever since, aboriginal people have argued that what was promised to aboriginal leaders and was not included in the treaty documents.

The legal challenge was triggered by the discovery of a 100-year old diary written by one of the original government negotiators. Historians discovered the diary in 2011 in the archives of Queen’s University in Kingston. 

Klippenstein remembers sitting in his office, struggling to make out the handwritten notes and suddenly realizing that what he was reading appear to show that government negotiators deliberately misled the aboriginal leaders who eventually signed the James Bay Treaty.

The diary belonged to Daniel MacMartin, a government commissioner who traveled by canoe across Ontario’s north verbally presenting the treaty to aboriginal leaders who were unable to read the treaty, prepared in Ottawa and written in English. 

Klippenstein says he read the diary "from beginning to end with increasing amazement," as it documented what he claims was "a gigantic fast one" perpetrated against the elders who became signatories to the treaty.
The most telling detail says Klippenstein in the eye witness account comes on the page where MacMartin writes that, "The chief said, ‘we accept what you have stated.’"

Klippenstein says that’s when he realized the enormous legal significance of what he was reading. According to Klippenstein, the chiefs — unable to read the legal document — were duped by a verbal promise that they would keep their traditional lands for hunting, fishing and trapping. Negotiators deliberately omitted any mention of the so-called take-up clause contained in the treaty document which permitted the government to “take up” the land at any point for its own purposes, from fishing to mining to economic development.
In effect, says Klippenstein, the treaty promises that "we guarantee your hunting rights except when we want to take your land."

Klippenstein says the Supreme Court’s affirmation of aboriginal ownership in B.C. sends a clear message that Canadians will “have to deal with the fact that aboriginal land rights are very real, they exist today and we all have to deal with them.”

Klippenstein marvels at MacMartin’s detailed description of those negotiations.
"It’s mind-boggling," says Klippenstein, "that it happened and mind-boggling that the government negotiator wrote that down knowing the significance of what he was doing."
Is it possible that MacMartin supported his fellow negotiators and was simply making a record of what had been said?

Klippenstein doesn’t think so. "I see it as an amazing story about what was going through his mind," says Klippenstein. "MacMartin decided to write a detailed record of a gigantic fraud. I guess he was torn between his role as a government negotiator and seeing what was being done to aboriginal leaders. Nowhere does the diary mention the take-up clause allowing the government to use the land for resource development."

"He wrote down what he saw and heard, and didn’t know what to do with it."

The diary wasn’t filed with the other treaty documents submitted to the government. Instead says Klippenstein, MacMartin "stashed it away and went to his grave" with what he knew.
In the diary, says Klippenstein, MacMartin doesn’t express criticism of the process. "It’s strictly factual," says Klippenstein.

Last summer, the  Mushkegowuk Cree held a conference in Moose Factory, at which the original signed treaty parchment was displayed along with MacMartin’s handwritten diary. The conference ended with a reenactment of the signing of the Treaty documents, as remembered by Cree elders. Many of the chiefs who signed the document made a simple ‘X’ beside their name. 

The present-day lawsuit doesn’t ask for financial compensation. Instead, it asks the court to make legally binding declarations affirming the Treaty promises to the people of Taykwa Tagamou, one of the First Nations covered by the James Bay Treaty.

The lawsuit asks the court to rule that Treaty 9 doesn’t permit the government to extinguish the rights of the Taykwa Tagamou to hunt and fish over lands in their traditional land through allowing disruptive mining projects, for example, without the First Nation’s consent.

The defendants include the governments of Canada and Ontario and two mining exploration companies that have staked mining claims and have been conducting exploratory work in the Cochrane area without First Nation’s consent.

To Klippenstein, the B.C. ruling by the Supreme Court adds legal heft to that 1905 diary.
"Whether the government misled their leaders or not, the aboriginal claim to the land has to be taken seriously," says Klippenstein.

Did you know this Mr. Harper ?

Will Nova Scotia Senators agree to AG Audit ? will the public see the audit results?

In its toughest expense probe in the Senate’s history, Auditor General Michael Ferguson, who is reviewing all Senators’ expenses, including travel and office expenses, has asked Senators to provide dates and times when they will be available on the Hill to meet with his auditors over the summer and if they can’t come to Ottawa the AG’s auditors will go to the Senators

“Each one of them [Senators] were asked where they would be and whether they would be available during the summer,” a Senate source said. “If they were available, during what periods of time they would be available, where they would be available and at what times they would be available at their homes and the auditors were prepared to go and visit them at their homes if that was convenient for them. That was to cover the entire period from the time the Senate closed until it is scheduled to open in the second week of September.”

Senators are not offering on-the-record comments in the ongoing and sweeping probe because they’re prohibited by the Auditor General’s Office to discuss the mechanics of the audit. During the course of the review, the AG’s auditors meet with individual Senators and their staff several times. The first meeting is usually held between auditors and Senators to explain the methodology. Auditors also meet with Senators’ full-time, part-time, and contractual staffers to share the same details. During the review, if auditors come up with questions about individual housing and travel expense claims, they meet with Senators and staffers again on an as-needed basis.

Senate sources told The Hill Times that in meetings with the staff, auditors ask them if they know of any Senators who have made ineligible travel and hospitality expense claims. In some cases, auditors did get some tips from staffers, according to sources.

Prior to the start of the audit process, the AG’s Office held information sessions in the fall on the Hill with Senators and their staffers to explain the mechanics of the audit. The AG’s Office is expected to complete its work by December and release the report by March of next year.

In the ongoing review of the Senators’ expenses, sources told The Hill Times that auditors are conducting a detailed examination of phone bills, all hospitality expenses, per diems, and, in some cases, requesting personal credit card records of Senators who used those cards to pay for Senate business-related expenses.

One of the most frequently contentious issues that has emerged between the AG’s auditors and individual Senators is whether or not an expense was related to Parliamentary business or not, sources said.

Using a hypothetical scenario, a source said that if a Senator travels out of Ottawa to attend a conference that’s not directly related to the Senate or standing committee work and claims travel costs and per diems, auditors ask pointed questions as to how this trip was related to his or her Parliamentary work. This, in some cases, has caused testy exchanges.

“They [auditors] can’t tell Senators what is and what is not Parliamentary business. In some cases, Senators are pushing back,” one Senate source said.

Another said: “They’ve [auditors] never worked on Parliament Hill. They have no idea about Senators’ Parliamentary work. How can they decide what is and what’s not Parliamentary business.”

Mr. Ferguson also has told Senators that his auditors reserve the right to interview Senators’ neighbours to ascertain that they actually reside where they claim to and also to verify from third parties or their staffers the validity of their filed claims, a fourth source said.
Since the start of the Senate expenses scandal, Senate administration, which used to approve most of the Senators’ expenses without going into too much detail, is now a lot more vigilant and is also conducting a vigorous examination of all claims, sources said. 

A spokesman for Mr. Ferguson declined to provide any details on how auditors are going to contact Senators during the summer months, saying his office would not comment on the methodology or the scope until the completion of the audit.

“The work is ongoing, and any details regarding our scope, progress and methodology will not be discussed while the work is ongoing,” Ghislain Desjardains, the AG’s media relations manager wrote in an email to The Hill Times.
Mr. Desjardins also declined to say how many Senators have been audited and how many are yet to be audited.

Conservative Whip Elizabeth Marshall (Newfoundland and Labrador) told The Hill Times that the AG’s Office and individual Senators will make arrangements on their own in how they want to meet in the summer months.

Sen. Marshall, a former AG in her province, is the head of a three-member Senate Liaison Committee along with Liberal Sen. George Furey (Newfoundland and Labrador) and Conservative Sen. Larry Smith (Saurel, Que.) to coordinate the audit process. The committee meets every month with auditors to iron out any wrinkles and to ensure that the process works smoothly.

Sen. Furey declined to be interviewed and referred all questions to Sen. Marshall who declined to comment further on the process.

Liberal Sen. Jim Munson, who is also the whip, told The Hill Times that the AG’s Office is dealing directly with Senators to meet over the summer months and is not dealing with his office as whip.

  Individual Senators were tight-lipped about how the AG’s Office is going to reach them in the summer break because they’ve been prohibited by the AG’s Office to talk about how the Senate audit is being conducted, declining to go on-the-record.

Some told The Hill Times that they’ve already provided the AG’s Office with details on when they will be available to meet in Ottawa. But others are unwilling to come to Ottawa during Parliament’s summer break.

“I’m not going to come to Ottawa for this [in the summer recess]. They’re welcome to come to see me, I’m not coming here. Either they come to see me or wait until the fall session,” a Senator said.

Senators have 64 return air trips to and from the regions they represent and Ottawa. This includes 25 trips anywhere in Canada, four of which can be used to travel to Washington D.C. and New York for the UN.

Senators who live more than 100 kilometers from Parliament Hill can charge up to $22,000 a year for secondary housing expenses if they rent or own a property in or near Ottawa, under the Senate rules.

After the Senate expenses scandal made national headlines last year, revealing that some Conservative and Liberal Senators made allegedly ineligible housing and travel expense claims, the Senate’s Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee invited the auditor general to undertake a comprehensive audit of all Senators’ expenses.

Since then, three Conservative-turned-Independent Senators—Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy—have been suspended without pay from the Upper Chamber until the end of this Parliamentary session and former Liberal Sen. Mac Harb has resigned.

The RCMP is conducting an investigation into the questionable housing and travel expenses of the four Senators.

In February, the RCMP formally filed criminal charges against Sen. Brazeau and Sen. Harb with one count each of breach of trust and fraud.
 
As of deadline last week, no charges were filed against Sen. Duffy and Sen. Wallin but some media reports have suggested that it could happen in the coming weeks or months.

The RCMP also conducted a lengthy investigation into the questionable transaction between Nigel Wright, the former chief of staff to Prime Minster Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and Sen. Duffy, but ended up not filing any charges against Mr. Wright.

The former chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper gave Sen. Duffy $90,000 to pay off his questionable Senate expense claims and resigned shortly after CTV reported the story.
“When the RCMP initiated the investigation there were sufficient grounds to pursue the matter with regards to the offences of breach of trust, bribery, frauds on the government, as well as receiving prohibited compensation contrary to the Parliament of Canada Act,” RCMP Cpl. Lucy Shorey said in a statement issued in mid-April.

“Upon completion of the investigation, we have concluded that the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”

What evidence and can we the public and tax payers .. see such convincing  evidence?