The military is engaging in a lobbying campaign to have a squadron of our CF-18 Hornet fighter bombers deployed to Afghanistan.

The planes would be used to attack suspected insurgents and to fight with Canadian and U.S. troops engaged in search and destroy missions. But they will also kill untold numbers of Afghan civilians in these attacks.

The deployment of CF-18 fighter bombers would be a major increase in our combat role in Afghanistan, and should be opposed by Canadians. Please send your letter to Prime Minister Harper right away.

Bombing runs by similar warplanes used by the United States and other Western forces have killed hundreds of civilians, including women and children. As well, U.S. pilots have already killed five Canadian soldiers.

According to the United Nations, 530 Afghan civilians were killed by U.S. and NATO air strikes in 2008, a 65 per cent increase over 2007. Experts all agree that the growing number of civilians killed by air strikes is eroding Afghan support for foreign troops.

Canadian warplanes should never be part of these deadly bombing and strafing runs in Afghanistan. How many deaths of innocent Afghans would be on our hands?

by Robert Billyard

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently announced on ABC’s Good Morning America that if Iran mounted a nuclear attack against Israel we could “totally obliterate” Iran in retaliation. Clinton is supposedly a woman and politician of some sophistication but this sounds like the good old malevolent Texas red-neck politics of George Bush. The candidate for change doesn’t appear to be in the mindset for change.

Clinton is in a fight for her political life in a race she was supposed to win handily and her comments smack of political desperation. They also smack of a politician beleaguered by a tortuous, unnecessary and seemingly endless campaign just for the right to represent her party.

Her comments also have an air of unreality. It is Israel that has the formidable nuclear arsenal and is much more likely to use it as it has never been shy about attacking its neighbours with conventional weapons and has done so with impunity as the US stand-in in the Middle East.

The Bush administration was served one of its most stinging rebukes when an intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear capabilities contradicted its claim that Iran was an imminent nuclear threat. Just as intelligence was faulty/contrived on Iraq it is equally faulty/contrived on Iran, and Clinton who made the egregious political error of supporting the invasion of Iraq is now perpetrating the Bush administration’s mythology that Iran is still a nuclear threat.

The vilification of Iran has long since become a tiresome, tawdry and transparent machination of US foreign policy. It is obvious even to the most casual observer that this vilification is really a ploy to justify US hegemonic ambitions in the region.
Any inbound US president would be very wise to adopt a new strategy as 81 % of Americans feel their country is on the wrong course and its allies are equally fed up with its atrocious and ill-conceived foreign policy. Clinton appears unable to separate herself from the Bush administration and set a course of her own which means her political capital has been spent and spent less than wisely.

Clinton might also be reminded that the US is still the only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population- this at the end of WWII when Japan was petitioning for peace.

While Clinton is doing her fatuous saber rattling former US president Jimmy Carter is in the Middle East tenaciously pursuing his decades long quest for a solution based on the premise that any settlement must be fair for all and not a rubber stamp for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. It would seem that a good starting point for any new US administration would be to adopt Carter’s premise. Like so many politicians before her Clinton suffers the intellectual paralysis inflicted by the pro-Israeli lobby, and the institutionalized mendacity of the Bush administration.

In her postured rebuke of Iran Clinton says that any such attack on Israel would be “ reckless, foolish and tragic” but she might consider for a minute these words first and foremost apply to American actions in Iraq; the devastation of that country and her support for this atrocity.

Should Clinton become the first woman US president she appears to feel the need to appear tougher than any man and out-Bush-Bush, and this would be less than constructive.

As the US presidency aspires to the role of peerless leadership for Western civilization and beyond it is surely time for a renaissance of noble ideals.

After 59 years of being a so called “have not” province the news this week that Newfoundland & Labrador will no longer need equalization would seem to be a good thing, but in reading the headlines one gets the opposite impression.

Unfortunately Newfoundland & Labrador’s announcement took place at the same time financial analysts are saying Ontario could soon become an equalization receiving province. As with most things Canadian, when Ontario sneezes everybody listens and all else is quickly forgotten in the rush to find the tissue box.

As a result everyone from politicians to the media have gone on the offensive to protect poor little Ontario from those cruel people down East.

CTV political reporter, Mike Duffy” went so far this week as to accuse Premier Danny Williams of being “uppity” because he had the gall to say that he was glad his province was finally able to stop collecting federal support, and in doing so, allow the system to better help those who needed support.

“Uppity” now there’s a word you don’t hear very often in relation to Newfoundlanders & Labradorians. In fact the last time I recall hearing the word it was in reference to individuals from a certain segment of the North American population that had been repressed for generations and had finally found a voice. I believe the exact term was, “That’s one uppity…”.

I won’t finish the quote but believe me when I say that the “N” word used in that context wasn’t Newfoundlander, though the sentiment was similar.

Thanks to a perfect storm of high oil prices, a soaring Canadian dollar and a booming economy out west and in Newfoundland & Labrador, Ontario is no longer at the top of the financial heap. Add to this the coincidental events of Newfoundland and Labrador moving off equalization while Ontario moves in to replace it and the perfect scapegoat has been created for all that pent up central Canadian anger. Who better than Canada’s favorite whipping boy, er… Province, to take the heat.

According to reports, Ontario MPs are fuming over the situation, and the Premier’s comment, and one columnist in an Ontario paper was quick to note that, “Newfoundland was always the place we pointed to as somewhere to go if we wanted to see our tax dollars at work”.

Through all the noise the top prize for twisting reality has to go to none other than the Premier of Ontario himself, Dalton McGuinty.

The Ontario Premier is telling anyone who’ll listen, and apparently there are quite a few, that the reason Ontario is in such hard shape is because his province sends $20 billion more to Ottawa than it gets back in services. Money that is being used to support the rest of Canada.

Putting aside the simple geographical fact McGuinty appears to have missed, that Ottawa itself is a part of Ontario, the Premier is still full of it.

To listen to the guy you’d think Ontario was on the brink of collapse. That bread lines were forming on every street corner and food was being flown in by Oxfam while pockets were being picked to feed the fat cats across the Country.

Calm down Dalton, things aren’t all that bad.

In truth, the reason Ontario may become an equalization recieving province is because the new 10 province standard(adopted in consultation with the Ontario Premier)has raised the provincial average, pushing Ontario closer to the center line of “Have” and “Have Not”.

In addition, though McGuinty would love to have people believe the opposite, in reality Ontario doesn’t send $20 billion to Ottawa to fund social programs or equalization across the Country.

Federal revenues for these programs come from the pockets of all taxpayers across the Country. It doesn’t matter if you live in BC, Alberta, Ontario or in Newfoundland & Labrador, everyone pays the same federal tax rates. In other words, someone making 50K in Medicine Hat pays the same taxes as someone making 50K in Twillingate. It’s these taxes that pay for equalization, not the Province of Ontario or any other Province for that matter.

The reason for the $20 billion discrepancy is simply that Ontario has more people paying federal taxes and a larger percentage of high paying jobs than many other places. That’s not exactly the profile of a Province on the brink of collapse.

As one columnist for the Halifax Chronicle Herald recently put it, “…hold the cat food orders, Toronto.

…Mr. McGuinty says Ontarians pay too much to Ottawa. But we all pay the same federal tax rates, so Ontarians can only pay less if Ottawa returns more money through transfers.

Mr. McGuinty is really saying: Give me more transfers, but don’t call them equalization – that’s for have-nots.”

By Myles Higgins

In my own defence all I can say is that I’ve been having such a good time (barring the tragic incidents that took place) that I made a concious decision to remain a fly on the wall and simply soak it all in.

Until now that is. Things have reached a point where I simply can’t hold back any longer.

This has been, without a doubt, a season of contradictions and a season of incidents that has finally lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding the activities the anti-sealing contingent.

First off the mark was none other than the infamous Paul Watson and his band of eco-terrorists.

Finally, the group was told to abide by the law for once. They refused to do so. Instead they jeopardized the lives of hard working fishermen and those of Coast Guard officials before fleeing Canadian waters and heading to St. Pierre (a territory of France) to seek refuge. I suppose with EU officials considering a ban on seal products the misguided crew of the Farley Mowat assumed a French port would provide safe haven. It was not to be so.

The citizens of the small French outpost, who truly know what’s happening in the North Atlantic, don’t agree with their political leadership in Paris, nor do they agree with the illegal activities of the “Shepherd’s” flock. They proved this point by unceremoniously cutting the moorings of Watson’s pirate vessel, excuse me, “Dutch registered Yacht” and casting it adrift.

If I’ve neglected to say thanks to the good folks of St. Pierre before now then I deeply apologize. Thanks for standing up and doing the right thing. Hopefully we can return the favor some time.

With no Port of call anywhere near the seal harvest willing to accept them Watson’s crew foolishly entered Canadian waters and were arrested by authorities, to the well publicized delight of Federal Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn.

Now at this point we need to pause and reflect on the fact that I clearly said “Watson’s crew” rather than Watson himself. This is because the “Good Shepherd”, as he likes to be called, was not actually onboard the vessel even though he is known for often publicizing his writings from the ice floes, whether he’s actually there or not. Instead the “Shepherd” was apparently watching his brain washed followers twisting in the wind from the confines of a luxury hotel suite or his palatial home, provided to him through “creative” bookkeeping and questionable fund raising efforts. You see it’s much drier, safer and warmer there.

The funny part of all this is that the drama taking place on the high seas this season was nothing compared with the bustle of activity onshore. In fact Watson and the antics of his followers pales in comparison to the most telling incident surrounding this year’s harvest.

It all began when the Premiers of Newfoundland & Labrador and Nunavut called on the federal government to ban the use of the “hakapik”, a form of club used by some sealers to club the animals and drag them (or their pelts) to the boats. It’s a tool that is important to the sealers and one that has been proven to be a quick and humane method of taking a seal. I’m sure both leaders will receive backlash for their stand from many sealers, but at least the reasoning behind their request is quite understandable.

You see Anti-sealing activists, animal rights activists, eco-terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, have all used the same technique for decades in their never ending quest to gain sympathy from the public and make wallets fly open around the world. They do this by convincing the public that the hunt is savage and inhumane. They present it as such by promoting videos and pictures of big burly men using clubs to “attack” supposedly defenseless animals. (Have you ever been bitten by a seal? I don’t recommend it). These groups never, or very rarely, show anyone hunting seals with a rifle, the manner actually used in well over 90% of the hunt.

These people are users and manipulator. They are not stupid. They know that showing someone using a rifle to hunt an animal is not very effective as a propaganda tool. You see “normal” people use rifles to hunt deer, elk, moose and many other animals the world over, so it doesn’t stir up the same level of emotion as a good old fashioned bludgeoning at the hands of a “barbarian”. There in lies the contradiction of these groups. A contradiction that has been exposed to the light of day this week.

For years anti-sealing groups have publicized the club, or hakapik, as a symbol of the brutality of the hunt. They have, time and time again, spoken of how inhumane the technique is and how cruel those who use such an instrument must be. Now these very same anti-sealing groups are publicly saying, and I quote, “…removing hakapiks from the hunt will do nothing to improve the welfare of the animals. In fact, it will likely increase the suffering.”

Go figure?

The preceding is a direct quote from Rebecca Aldsworth of HSUS, one of the most virulent anti-sealing organizations and one of the best funded. Clearly the suffering she is referring to is her own, when her ability to use the club as a fund raising and propaganda tool is taken away from her.

The public needs to ask itself, “If well over 90% of seals are already hunted by rifle and if, as Aldsworth is NOW saying, rifles are more cruel than clubs, then why have her group and all the others always focused their promotional and fund raising propaganda on the use of the club? Why have they almost always focused on how inhumane clubbing is rather that the cruelty of a gun? I think the answer to that question should be obvious to any thinking person in light of Ms. Aldsworth’s recent comments.

Oh what a season.

First Watson, the self-proclaimed “Shepherd” is found napping in his comfortable bed while his followers envision him at sea protecting the world and misguided minions are doing all the dirty work of terrorism or running afoul of the law, and the people of two nations.

Next Federal Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn, has a rare shining media moment after tackling the “Shepherd” head on. No doubt his doing so was an effort to protect his failing political career as much as the lives and livelihoods of sealers but never the less it’s good to see some small sign of life in Ottawa. I can’t help feeling that the sealers and everyone else would be better served however if observer permits were never issued to the likes of the Sea Shepherd Society in the first place. I mean what’s wrong with issuing permits to independent scientists, journalists and the like but denying them to group’s with a predefined agenda’s and a vested financial interest?

Even after all of that, it’s the call for a ban on the hakapik that takes the cake for me. I know some sealers have legitimate concerns about a potential ban but while it may make their jobs a little more difficult the overall benefit to the hunt is already becoming clear.

When anti-sealing groups begin to clamor all over each other to say that banning the clubbing of seals is NOT a good thing it should give everyone pause for thought. Are these groups really worried about protecting the welfare of animals or are they actually concerned with protecting their bottom line? Taking away the Hakapik may remove a valuable tool from the sealers but it will also remove an even more valuable one from the protest groups.

After decades of anti-sealing rhetoric, a simple request to ban the hakapik has shown everyone just how manipulating these groups are and how weak the house of cards they’ve constructed actually is.

For years these groups have been seen in the region as difficult to battle because they pander to the greatest of all human emotions, compassion. What the events of the past few days have clearly shown us is that in reality they are nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. One can only hope that the trickle of truth that is now emerging will someday turn into a flowing river of realization. That those who waste their hard earned dollars and their far more valuable emotional resources on the Watson’s and Aldsworth’s of the world will finally see them for what they truly are. Pathetic money grubbing con-artists.

By Myles Higgins

“You see, my dear ones, multilateralism is no longer an illusive idealism, it is now an essential.”

Recently, I received an email invitation to one of those grandiose whiz-bang international conferences on the problems of the 21st Century. There was an endless list of distinguished guest speakers and forums for discussion on an endless number of pressing issues. As I read through the email I kept looking for the “M” word, the really big “M” word that strikes fear into the heart of so many dastardly souls the world over. Alas, the word was not there and I was left to ask how can any one have a conference of this nature without the big “M” being there?

I sent a reply email humbly suggesting that the big “M’”- multilateralism- had better be there if the conference was going to ultimately have any effect. I was even so audacious as to advance the name of one of Canada’s foremost multilateralist advocates as a keynote speaker.

The reply came back that yes, multilateralism is the issue but there is such strong opposition to it. My point exactly! Multilateralism is the nut we have to crack, the river we have to ford, the mountain we have to climb, along with all those unilateralist asses we have to kick and whose feeble brains have to be re-programmed.

You see, my dear ones, multilateralism is no longer an illusive idealism, it is now an essential. It is in computer terms the “operating system” that will allow the global village to effectively address these diverse issues. The global village has been consolidated. We are now, like it or not, more interdependent than ever and interdependence requires greater co-operation and comity between nations. Global warming marks a dramatic change in our eco-system- the air we breath, the resources that sustain us, and once and for all bears witness that if it is going to be addressed effectively there is going to have to be a very high level of multilateral co-operation among nations.

Of course, the strong opposition to multilateralism is because its opponents have huge vested interests in maintaining the status quo. They are terrified of the “C” words- comity, co-operation, consensus, conciliation, coalition and the most dreaded of all- the common good.

A working definition for multilateralism is:

Multilateralism in international politics means that a state pursues its interests and goals beyond its national borders, not alone, but in cooperation and coalitions with other states.

But now, as times change, this definition requires an update. “Pursing its goals and interests” should read “Tempering its goals and interests” and “not alone” becomes “as a matter of necessity in cooperation with other states.” In other words multilateralism can no longer be a cast off, disposed of when it does not fit with individual national interests and goals.

In September 2002, Robert Kagan, another of those nefarious neoconservative bagmen, wrote an article in The Washington Post entitled: Multilateralism, American Style.

He leads off the article by stating:

If you’re the kind of person who worries about American unilateralism, here’s what should really keep you up at night: Even most American multilateralists are unilateralists at the core

Yes, American unilateralism does keeps a lot of people up at night, a lot more people dead and a lot more people in dire poverty.

Kagan gets really cute when he defines two types of unilateralism; the “principled” European version- complying with international law and convention; or the American- bloody well do as you want, “going it alone” version. No doubt one reason the Europeans practice the principled version is they are all too aware of the consequences of unilateralism- war! They have seen their countries flattened by war and just maybe
American arrogance wouldn’t be quite so flagrant if they had to build again on the ruins of New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles.

Kagan quite arrogantly ties American’s “multilateralism” to its hegemonic power, and concludes that as long as it has the hegemonic advantage America will define multilateralism on its own terms- which is of course, a naked self-serving unilateralism.

It doesn’t seem to matter to the US that it is becoming the global pariah, the bully in the global village. It fails to consider the distinct possibility that there is a price to be paid for an aggressive and arrogant unilateralism.
Kagan’s made in America brand of multilateralism has ruthlessly exploited 9/11 to trump anything that resembles real multilateralism and will continue to do so until other countries, most notably its allies, muster the courage to challenge it in a meaningful way.

The war in Afghanistan is being touted as a multilateral effort when in fact it has been America’s war from the outset. The reason NATO is there is because the US diverted its troops to Iraq and was unable to effectively conduct serial warfare, even though Kagan and his fellow neoconservatives claim their right to do so as part of the PNAC( Project for the New American Century.)

When one country insists on being unilateralist it follows that others must be submissive. When the unilateralist is the world’s singular superpower it means an endless list of countries must be willingly submissive and a tyranny is created- a tyranny of indifference, denial and underachievement.

Canada is one among many countries, specifically NATO countries, that can only plead guilty on all three counts: indifference, denial and under achievement. We fool ourselves by claiming we are acting multilaterally when in reality we are paying Washington’s tribute tax in lives and billions of dollars. We make fatuous conditions ( as recommended by the featherbrained Manley Commission) like another 1000 troops thrown into the fray for our continued commitment when in reality hundreds of thousands are required in a war that is spreading beyond the borders of Afghanistan and where costs are running out of control.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz, former head of the World Bank and Nobel Laureate estimates the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to cost the US treasury between 5 and 7 trillion dollars, with an additional 6 trillion dollars spent by allied countries-namely NATO.

Stiglitz’s numbers are especially pungent when the original estimate of the cost of invading Iraq was a mere 50 billion dollars.

The price of unilateralism along with everything else is wanton blundering in fiscal devastation.

* * *
It is an interesting contradiction that when it comes to so called free trade agreements multilateralism is seen as the panacea to economic salvation. When in fact they are manifestos for corporate rights and privileges granting licence to capture and control smaller economies. A former US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, once pointed out that you don’t have to invade a country militarily, just get control of its economy. This has since been a driving force in American foreign policy, the difference now is the military option is exercised indiscriminately.

Smaller nation states, with Canada being one of the first, are continually coerced into bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements to their detriment. But when it comes to a multilateral approach to problem solving, advancing social issues, fair wages, labour, industrial, and environmental standards the old stonewall is quickly erected; and we do not have far to go to find the villains who enforce this dichotomy.

It is an interesting sarcasm that US presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama want to re-open NAFTA- for believe it or not, some of the right reasons-but NAFTA is actually very much in America’s favour. It is not the culprit sought after by unemployed and low waged American workers. The real villain is corporate America which has out-sourced so many American jobs. Economists now refer to the US as having a “donut economy”- it is hollowed at the center, heavily reliant on cheap imports from China, excessive military spending and a corrupted stock market to drive it. The US mortgage scandal has been compared to a Ponzi scheme-funny money, chasing funny money that ultimately vaporizes.

The candidacies of both Democratic candidates and Clinton and Obama are really irrelevant as American Democrats suffer the same malady as Canada’s Liberals-both are all too willing to sell out to the corporatist ultra-right agenda. The only difference between the two candidates being: Hillary is asking for a second chance, Barack a first. Meanwhile in Canada, the feckless Liberals are awarding Harper’s conservatives a de facto majority government. Voters in both countries are left with no real choice, no avenue for reform, and multilateralism, as a frame work for change internationally a non-starter.

Kagan’s quaint definition of multilateralism is really no more than international bullyism that NATO, Democrats and Liberals alike all too willing to pander to when they should be insisting on other alternatives and genuine multilateral values. As long as this present situation persists the politics of denial and under achievement become a malignancy leading to less than desirable outcomes.

In the meantime, non-government groups that want to see change must make instilling multilateral values and mechanisms a key part of their agenda and everybody elses.

“The Conservative minority federal government is seriously damaging our democracy. This should be of concern to all Canadians.”

Of that there is no doubt. Every day the Country moves closer to a combination of totalitarianism and a George Bush Republican style system.

The so called Conservative “hidden agenda” so many Canadians were concerned about during the last federal election is finally beginning to be revealed and that agenda appears to be the erosion of the democratic system of government and a crushing of anyone who dares to speak out.

In January Conservative Minister Gary Lunn unilaterally fired the head of Canada’s Nuclear Safety Commission, even though the commission is meant to be an arms length organization, outside the reach of political influence.

Why was the Commissioner fired? Because the Minister of Natural Resources screwed up when it came to ensuring that a nuclear facility under his department was kept up to safety standards and he failed to co-ordinate with the Minister of Health in securing the Country’s supply of medical isotopes when it became clear that the facility would have to be shut down.

Ms. Kean, the commissioner of the day, did her job to protect Canadians from a nuclear disaster, nothing more or less, yet she was fired the night before she was to testify in front of a Commons committee investigating the isotope issue.

When it comes to the current government it’s clear that the need for political scapegoats trump the law, democracy and public safety.

The examples of blame shifting in Ottawa these days are numerous. Another clear example is the case of prisoner exchanges in Afghanistan.

When it came to light that the Canadian military had suspended the exchange of prisoners because of potential abuse by Afghan officials, something the government has denied, the Prime Minister’s office tried to tell Canadians that the military had made the decision on their own and that government was not informed.

The statement was later retracted but in essence the PMO, in an attempted cover up of its actions, had tried to convince the public that the Nation’s military had gone rogue and was no longer under control of the government of Canada. How frightening is that?

The government has made it a mission to abolish the Senate. There are those who agree with the move and those who don’t but the fact remains that until it is indeed abolished the Senate has a function to perform. This hasn’t slowed the Prime Minister. Recently he tabled an unconstitutional motion before the House of Commons that would see an election called if the Senate, another supposedly independent body, did not give into his demands to pass legislation without completing its duties and function.

It seems every time the democratic system does not perform as Stephen Harper would like it to he finds a way to circumvent it and move forward in a clearly undemocratic fashion.

When the Supreme court ruled that the use of security certificates was unconstitutional the Harper government simply went back to parliament and changed the rules of the game so suspected terrorists can still be held without charge, trial or even knowing why they were arrested.

Conservative MP Art Hanger, the chair of the Commons justice committee is another clear example of the utter contempt the Harper government has for Parliament and for Canadian democracy.

Hanger recently shut down the justice committee because he didn’t want the members of that committee investigating the possibility that the Conservative party, perhaps with Stephen Harper’s blessing, were involved in an attempted bribe the late MP Chuck Cadman just before a crucial confidence vote in the House. A clearly illegal act.

Jim Flaherty, the Country’s Finance Minister continually acts with pure contempt for anyone, including provincial leaders, who dare to tell the truth, whether it be senior’s who were essentially swindled out of billions on income trust investments, Ontario’s Premier or Newfoundland and Labrador’s.

Environment bulldog, John Baird, behaves more like a mafia enforcer than a federal minister when it comes to attacking anyone who takes issue with his government’s lack of action on the environment.

Harper is proceeding with a lawsuit against the Liberal party, supposedly because he doesn’t like what the party posted on its website. In reality this suit has nothing to do with libel but is a clear attempt to silence the opposition and send a message to anyone who might not agree with the Harper government’s direction or actions.

In recent committee testimony and media statements Chief Justice John Gomery, the man who headed the inquiry into the Liberal sponsorship scandal and provided government with 19 recommendations to clean up the democratic system, recently had this to say about the Harper regime:

The PMO, in recent years, has grown rapidly and “they have the ear of the most important and powerful person in Canadian government.”

“I suggest this trend is a danger to Canadian democracy and leaves the door wide open to the kind of political interference in the day-to-day administration of government programs that led to what is commonly called the sponsorship scandal.”

“We have a government where one man seems to have an ever-increasing influence upon what government policy is going to be. If you look back historically at prime ministers in the past, I don’t think they had the same hold over their party and Parliament that the present prime minister has.”

“It should be remembered that the political staff in the Prime Minister’s Office are not elected. They are not subject to any rules or laws of which I am aware. I suggest that this trend is a danger to Canadian democracy”

“We really are heading for one-man government, which is an unfortunate thing in a democracy.”

I don’t know how much clearer it can be said.

How can any democracy survive under the kind of regime we are seeing in Ottawa these days?

If you aren’t convinced yet, here’s what the Prime Minister had to say in response to Justice Gomery’s comments. Note that the following statement by Stephen Harper fails to mention any input from ordinary citizens, the cornerstone of any democratic Country.

Stephen Harper: “We received representations from a wide range of Canadian government, political and business leaders. . . that they (the changes recommended by Justice Gomery) were not in the democratic interest.”

By Myles Higgins

Last week, for the first time since a moratorium on cod fishing was instituted in 1992, there was actually some good news to report on the state of the Atlantic cod stocks near Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Independent newspaper ran an article proclaiming that 16 years into what had been a planned 2 year fishing moratorium scientists were finally “seeing some signs of life in the stocks”.

According to respected fisheries scientist, George Rose, “…it’s very exciting to see it. Their behaviour looks more like it should look — that cod are behaving like codfish, which they haven’t done for a long time in that environment”. He added that the behaviour includes fish at the right water depth, fish over-wintering, and fish exhibiting pre-spawning courtship behaviour.

“That’s very exciting.”

Rose noted however that this is not the time to start looking at the commercial potential of these fish and said it is, “…the dumbest idea I can think of”. Cautioning that this is a time when the priority should be to rebuild a stock that finally appears to be coming back from the brink of extinction.

As if to echo Rose’s concerns scientists at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, reported that a multi-year study into various fish species show that stocks under extreme survival pressure (such as the Atlantic Cod) are prone to wild fluctuations in population. While some years may see a large increase in population, other years will see just the opposite. The reason for these fluctuations are varied and include such factors as climate, predation and the number of older breeding specimens.

All in all the news appears to be cautioiusly optimistic so I’m sure those with a future closely reliant on the future of the fishery will do their absolute best to protect the stocks and ensure they rebound to viable levels once again.

Or maybe not.

No sooner had this new scientific information hit the media than the public was treated to the ramblings of none other than the deputy mayor of Bonivista, one of the most historic fishing communities in North America, calling for an increased cod quota this season.

Hedley Butler, who aside from being the deputy mayor is also a fisherman himself, says the waters in his area are teeming with fish. He says he understands the need for conservation, but (according to him) the stocks can handle an increased quota.

Butler says “…it’s tough knowing that the stock is plentiful, but off limits.

I’ms sure it must be tough indeed, but what makes Hedley Butler an expert on how much pressure the stocks can or cannot handle at this point in time?

He may be a fisherman, and as such can no doubt recognize an increase in fish population, but that doesn’t make him an expert on the overall health of the stock.

More likely it makes him an expert on how much of that fish is worth and how much of it he want’s to sell, regardless of the larger impact to the species or his community.

What did fisheries scientist George Rose say about increasing fishing pressure at this, “…the dumbest idea I can think of…”?

It amazes me that after decades of discussion around the fragility of the cod stocks, after a shutdown of the commercial industry that put tens of thousands of people out of work and after the once mighty cod was nearly added to the endangered species list, someone like Hedley Butler, who was elected to protect the interests of a fishing community, would put short term greed (his own or that of others) ahead of the long term future of the cod stocks and that of his community.

Yes, Bonivista Bay may be teeming with fish at the moment but when you consider the overall numbers in the region, the stocks are nowhere close to where they need to be to sustain increased commercial fishing activity.
Those fish need to be left alone if there is to be any hope of rebuilding the stocks permanently. They are needed to help repopulate an already decimated species for the future of everyone in the Atlantic region, not pulled from the water and used to line the pockets of a handful of fishermen in the short term.

The political pressure being applied by Deputy Mayor Butler today is the result of exactly the sort of idiotic, self-serving greed that led to the unsustainable quotas of years gone by. Quotas so large they resulted in the collapse of the greatest fishery the world had ever seen.

One thing is for certain. If the Hedley Butlers of this world catch the ear of federal politicians, as they are likely to do, people living in towns like Bonivista, all over this province, might as well pack up and leave for Alberta right now.

To a politician every Fishermen and plant worker is another potential vote and when it comes to a political choice between protecting the cod and protecting their jobs the cod doesn’t stand a chance.

If the Hedley Butlers have their way, the George Rose’s of the world, who are preaching caution and conservation, can put away their rubber boots and fish finders for good because in a few years there won’t be a fish left to study.

By Myles Higgins

Fiscal Responsibility

According to the General, John Noseworthy, it’s time to take stock of where the province is and what the future will hold.

It should come as no surprise that his report identifies a record per capita debt (well over 20,000 per person) or that the province has become dependent on free flowing oil revenues. Those are points are something most people of Newfoundland and Labrador are painfully aware of, unless they’ve been living under a rock instead of on top of one.

What’s most interesting is Noseworthy’s belief that the province should introduce some method of ensuring that all future governments are obligated to table balanced budgets going forward.

This is not a new idea but…

According to one party insider, the idea of introducing balanced budget legislation is something that has been floated (to put it mildly) inside the PC party in the past. It’s also an idea that the decision makers have refused to move forward on.

The debt Newfoundland and Labrador is struggling to manage is, by and large, a result of decades of deficit producing budgets. Budgets that saw the province borrow to pay the light bill, so to speak. Yes, times are good now, with the oil revenues rolling in, but what about the future?

What will happen once the oil is gone, or even sooner, should the price of oil drops to more familiar levels than they are at today? How will the provincial budget look then?

How will the budget look when money is tight and should a party or premier, who is not fiscally responsible, is in power? Will the province’s massive debt sink the island and force Labrador to disown the place altogether? (they’re almost there now)

Many other parts of Canada have already enacted balanced budget legislation. A step Newfoundland and Labrador, the most debt ridden of them all, has not done.

This is not about starving people when times are hard. With properly enacted legislation a province can potentially still run a deficit, but the governing party would be forced to stand in front of the House, face the opposition parties and the media, and convince the public that the deficit is justified.

If nothing else at least the legislation would force government financial accountability and ensure that the sorts of shenanigans that led the Newfoundland and Labrador to where it is today don’t happen again.

The current Finance Minister, Tom Marshall, has said his government is working to reduce the debt and to be fiscally responsible. That may be so, but even if it is, it simply isn’t enough.

Oil doesn’t last forever.

Good times fade into memory.

Governments change, and so do Finance Ministers.

Newfoundland and Labrador’s debt is the single biggest stumbling block to the bright future the province’s people crave. Now that the opportunity exists, it is a moral crime for a sitting government to refuse to ensure the viability of that future and the fiscal responsibility government.

By Myles Higgins

While Quebec is always well represented on Canada’s highest court other areas of the Country often have only one seat, if any, on the bench.

Bastarache hailed from New Brunswick, as did his predecessor, so the door is now open in Atlantic Canada for a new representative to be appointed.

The question is, after nearly 60 years as a province, will the government of Canada finally see fit to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to be represented in the judicial branch of government, or will the province be forced, once again, to sit on the outside looking in?

It’s a sad reality that political maneuvering and favouritism, some of it enshrined in official procedures, should play any part in who is selected to the Supreme Court, but it’s a reality that exists never the less.

It’s shameful that a Supreme Court justice would be selected for any reason other than his or her ability to perform their very solemn duties. The fact that regional or provincial lineage would play a role in the decision is sad, to say the least, and a slap in the face for any truly democratic soul.

Be that as it may, the reality Canadians face is that lineage does make a difference and if that’s the game that has been thrust upon us then we must live with (unless the Supreme Court were to make it illegal, like that’s going to happen).

As a result the Country is left to wonder which part of Atlantic Canada the next member of the bench will come from. Will it be New Brunswick again, three times in a row? What about Nova Scotia or PEI? Or will it be (dare I say it) Newfoundland and Labrador, the outcast that has never been welcomed into the Federal Judiciary, or the Country for that matter?

Naming a Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court Justice would go a long way toward convincing “some” in the province that they are finally being accepted in Canada. It would also make a statement that the Prime Minister is able to look beyond his current squabbles with the province.

Such a move would mean a lot in some circles, little in others, but regardless, it will never happen.

If the most accomplished judge in the Country were living in Newfoundland or Labrador today he would most certainly be overlooked.

If the only judge left alive in the entire Country were living in Newfoundland or Labrador today he would not be appointed (Ottawa would probably import one from Elbonia.)

If all Judges, Lawyers and Justices of the Peace around the globe were suddenly to be abducted by aliens, except for a brilliant legal scholar in Newfoundland or Labrador, Ottawa would most assuredly appoint an experienced dog catcher to the job.

After 60 years it’s a shame that the door still hasn’t opened.

By Myles Higgins

Every year it’s the same sad story, some tired ass has-been star gets wheeled out before the cameras to make a plea on behalf of doe eyed animals around the world. All in the hope that society will suddenly change and cute animals everywhere will be spared. Nobody seems to give a rat’s ass about the ugly animals though, or about rat’s asses for that matter. Meanwhile the masterminds behind these former stars, groups like PETA, are not so much hoping for change as they’re hoping you’ll part with your spare change.

This year Sir Paul McCartney, former Beatle and ex-husband of uni-ped model, Heather Mills, has been invited to Newfoundland by a well meaning but misguided local in the hope he’ll a) get the facts rather than believing the propaganda he’s been spoon fed and b) that he’ll actually spend some time in the province rather than just thinking he’s there as he did in 2006.

Yes, PEI is quite nice, but it’s not Newfoundland.

Unfortunately for his hopeful host Mr. McCartney may not make it for a photo op this year. News reports out of Australia have him protesting a planned cull of some 500 kangaroos in that Country.

It seems the 500 kangaroos (of which there are countless specimens in Australia) are destroying rare vegetation in an area that provides protection to several truly endangered species.

The fact that the kangaroos will first be injected with a tranquilizer then euthanized with a needle is very upsetting to Mr. McCartney. Oddly enough the potential destruction of the rare habitat, or for that matter the survival of that endanged animals there, doesn’t bother Sir Paul one iota. Go figure. They must be some really butt ugly animals.

According to Paul, who is a devout vegan, he stopped eating meat for a specific reason. It seems to have happened after an event in his life that he says he’ll never forget. The truth is he may have already forgotten it because his story keeps changing depending on who he’s speaking with.
According to conflicting reports, McCartney either saw Bambi and was upset that Bambi’s mother was shot in front of the little dear (or deer) or he was watching some lambs frolic in a meadow while eating lamb (might have been easier on him if he’d been drinking Lambs) or he had caught a trout and suddenly realized that he’d killed it (I’m not sure why he didn’t know before hand that it would die, you know what they say about a fish out of water).

Maybe it’s just me but I’m thinking that Sir Paul could provide a much more valuable service than protesting this kangaroo cull. If he just called all those kangaroos aside and bent their ears with his ever changing story the poor animals might just line up for that injection and everyone would be happy. I know I would.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to see animals suffer any more than any sane person would but there are realities in life that we all need to face. People eat meat and, on occasion, people need to manage wild life for one reason or another (not that we are always that good at it).

The facts are not always pretty but these things are real and these alfalfa munching do-gooders need to realize that.

If someone came to Newfoundland tomorrow and honestly tried to protect the Atlantic cod or ensure that the endangered Moroccan crap beetle (I made that one up) was protected, I’d give them a shiny new dollar in a heart beat but the cuteness factor, of animals that aren’t endangered, is just not high on my list of priorities as a reason to donate or support someone just because a celebrity tells me I should.

Anyway, not to worry, I’m sure Paul will find a little time to make a comment or two about the annual seal harvest, even if it’s from a sandy beach down under (no I don’t mean Mill Town).

As a side note, a polar bear was spotted on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland this week. Residents hope the bear doesn’t kill any seals along the shoreline for food. They worry headlines across Europe will scream: Seals Eaten Alive in Newfoundland.

By Myles Higgins