The data shows that spending for First Nations people has risen dramatically, especially when compared with per person spending on all Canadians. Well-intentioned debates over how best to improve the lives of Canada's Aboriginal population are critical. Such debates must start with actual, solid numbers.
Does Ontario's Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli understand how electricity markets work? Or is he deliberately sabotaging negotiations with Quebec to justify Ontario spending billions on nuclear power?Nuclear power is a bad choice for our financial future. Nuclear power is a bad choice for our energy future. It's time for the Liberals to wake up from their nuclear dream, and get down to the business of providing Ontario with safe, secure, and affordable electricity.
In the midst of this new day of free trade between nations, it is precisely the right time to take a close look at our own back yard, and frankly, it needs some work -- particularly given the renewed discussion back home in Canada regarding the difficulty of doing business from one Canadian province to another.
If you hope to repeat the success of May 2, 2011, I invite you to take a firm stand against the TransCanada East pipeline and you must demand that the National Energy Board hold public hearings that are not mere rubber stamps for the oil industry.
Teachers do not hold the purse strings to public funds in this province. Teachers cannot pass legislation. Teachers cannot ignore Supreme Court rulings without risking jail. The government can and has done all these things. It is the government who can end this dispute.
Indigenous peoples are calling for a national investigation that is centered on the families of missing and murdered Indigenous women, and they are also calling for immediate action. This nation is rich in monies directly derived from Indigenous lands and resources. Please don't try to tell us Canada just can't afford to do both. I would ask that people discussing these issues in the media not accept this dichotomy and not allow themselves to be divided into two camps: either in support of an inquiry or in support of 'action'. We can and should be engaging in both.
Canada's premiers are in Charlottetown for their annual Council of the Federation meeting and once again the apparently catastrophic issue of interprovincial trade barriers ranks high on the agenda. Most premiers would rather talk about a real problem, like lack of infrastructure money, but western provinces and the federal government see their moment to change the conversation for reasons no one is being honest about. According to their line of thinking, which is fuelled by letters from a list of business lobby groups, interprovincial trade is hampered by barriers too numerous to count.
Premier Kathleen Wynne's solution to the transportation infrastructure problem is to spend a whopping $50 billion of taxpayer money over the next 25 years to build an expansive rail network. By 2040, Toronto may finally have the subways that other cities built nearly 200 years earlier. But can you imagine what the world will look like in 2040? We are on the cusp of explosive new technologies that will revolutionize how we commute. Innovative tech startups are fixing the problems we currently have with cars: that they pollute too much, are too expensive for many, and congest our overcrowded roads. Here are three notable examples of ideas and companies that will change transportation as we know it.
Did you know that same study found the "dirtiest oil in North America" is not produced in Canada, but just outside your own hometown of Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream emissions as Canada's oilsands? Actually, the title of "world's dirtiest oil" goes to Brass crude blend from Nigeria where the uncontrolled release of methane during the oil extraction process generates upstream GHG emissions that is over four times higher than Canadian diluted bitumen?
Prime Minister Harper's dismissal of the growing over-representation of Indigenous women and girls as victims of violence, homicide and persons who go missing as isolated crimes to be investigated by police illustrates just how out of touch he is. Moreover, the callous tone of his remarks yesterday, and failure to show any empathy for the families and loved ones of those who have been lost, shows a lack of compassion and leadership.
As you may already know, I've been on a mission to meet Canada's Health Minister, Rona Ambrose in person to discuss the important and urgent issue of GMO labeling. To date, I've sent her three letters via courier, and received absolutely no response. Below is the third letter that I sent her.
If Jim Prentice is going to wade into the murky waters of "truthiness" the least he could do is do it properly, otherwise the whole thing becomes a farce.
The dismantling of our emblematic health care system is happening beneath our very noses. We are assured that it is in or best interests, and that corporate, multi-tiered health care, like corporate globalization, is inevitable. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each promise about corporate healthcare is false. Comprehensive documentation shows that a "two tier" system is inferior to a universal publicly funded system, by any measure.
It's been more than a year since Ford was revealed to be a crack smoker but he has maintained his meaty grip on power, and is currently dominating the media coverage of Toronto's upcoming municipal election. To pull this off, Ford has redefined the art of crisis communications, demonstrating that you can survive scandal by simply avoiding the truth or drowning it out. Ford is not, of course, the first to use silence, denial and obfuscation to advance his own interests.
Here's the full depth of the problem with CASL. When Parliament enacted this confusing and ambiguous legislation, it relinquished its legislative power to those regulators charged with enforcing the law. And since those same regulators have the power to directly levy enormous penalties, CASL permits bureaucrats to play the roles of legislator, police, and judge simultaneously. This combination has no place in a free and democratic society like our own.
We are, above all else, biological beings, with an absolute need for clean air from the moment of birth to the last death rattle. We are about 60 per cent water by weight, so we need clean water to be healthy. We eat plants and animals for our nourishment, so whatever they're exposed to ends up in our bodies. We need clean soil to give us clean food. These are basic, biological facts and should be the prism through which any decision is made at individual, corporate or government levels. Protection of air, water, soil and the web of life should be the highest social, political and economic priority.
Many Canadians are sitting back smugly stating how horrible and thank goodness that would never happen here, but if you believe this, you live in a bubble. Just look at what happened at York University last week. A hate filled piece was distributed by an anonymous group arguing the school would be better without people of different cultures. Hate isn't geographical, it is universal and based in fear of differences. Every city, state, province, business and government in North American needs to face facts, the issue isn't diversity. Look at the demographics. We are diverse, the issue is inclusion.
We must pay tribute to the courage and sacrifices of our soldiers, past and present, and highlight their essential contribution to peace and democracy. But we must also highlight the other remarkable aspects of Canadian history. The 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation is almost here and its preparations are lagging. Mr Harper and his Heritage minister, Shelly Glover, seem unable to give the celebration a clear focus. There is room for concern that once again, they will be content with showcasing Canada's military feats and refuse to acknowledge everything else that has made our nation a source of hope and envy in the world.
The tragedy of friendly fire is perhaps the starkest proof that militaries can make deadly errors that are neither intentional nor illegal. In the same vein, civilian casualties are painful, but they do not automatically represent a breach of the international law so long as the distinction, proportionality, and intentionality are observed (and other rules of course).