In desperation, the Conservative platform, released only a week before the vote tries to make amends. It promises tax credits for parents who enrol their children in cultural programs and commits that the provision of Bill C-10 that would have provided the Minister of Canadian Heritage with authority to deny tax credits retroactively to movies deemed objectionable would be withdrawn. Clearly, this is far too little, too late.

The Liberals offer more. They will increase the film tax credit, double the budget of the Canada Council, introduce a new international arts promotion program, and invest more in the Museum Assistance Program.  They also promise a digital media strategy and support for CRTC Canadian content regulations. They will introduce income averaging provisions for artistic income modelled on the (modest) provisions implemented several years ago by Québec.

The Green Party’s arts platform is entitled “Beauty and Integrity.”  It begins with a positive vision and offers a broad range of increases to various programs and institutions, from community arts to the cultural industries.  It commits to restoring the arms-length principle so critical for arts funding.  It even offers a program to fund outstanding individual artists modelled on Japan’s National Treasure Program. The Greens promise tax relief and social benefits for artists, and are the only Party to commit to protecting Canada’s culture in trade negotiations. While the Party platform is quite extensive, it seems to have been written by people who are not cultural experts. For example, it offers to “enact legislation” to require 20 per cent Canadian content in movie theatres and video chains. While this would be lovely to have, the federal government just not have jurisdiction to implement such a measure. Also, the platform does not use the most recent data from the Conference Board on the economic value of the sector, relying instead on older figures taken from Statistics Canada.      

The NDP goes much further than the Liberals. They first promise to maintain limits on foreign ownership, both in television and telecommunications. They will “refocus” the mandate of the CRTC on the cultural objectives and will establish “targets and a strategy” for increasing Canadian content in our theatres. They will “require” broadcasters in increase their production and broadcast of Canadian drama. They propose increases to film and television production tax credits and new rules favoured by the industry. They will provide “sustained funding” for the CTF and Telefilm and “stable long-term funding” for the CBC. Other promises include income averaging provisions, income tax exemption for copyright and residual income, more resources for career transition initiatives, copyright legislation that ensures fair compensation for artists and several other measures. While the platform is short on specifics, it is clear that people knowledgeable about current policy issues have had a hand in drafting the policy.

Garry Neil is a former general secretary of ACTRA and vice-president of the Canadian Conference of the Arts. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Council of Canadians.

In keeping with the Harper election strategy to remain vague and noncommittal on water issues, when Environment Minister John Baird was asked about this at an all-candidates’ debate a few weeks ago by Catherine Coumans of Mining Watch, he claimed to know nothing about it.  It is outrageous for the Environment Minister to feign ignorance when his ministry has already signed off on the destruction of four lakes (two in Nunavut and two in Newfoundland).

And many more are likely to face the same fate.

Sandy Pond in Newfoundland would have been next on the list had the election not been called. With the Newfoundland government approving the request by Vale Inco and Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn openly expressing support for the project, it was unlikely that either Environment Canada or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have used their authority to prevent the deal from going ahead.

The good news is that communities and environmental organizations are joining forces across the country to resist the shameful destruction of our natural bodies of water for the short-term profits of big mining corporations.

The Xeni Gwet’in community in the Nemiah Valley of British Columbia are fighting the proposal by Taseko Mines to dump open pit copper/gold mine waste into Fish Lake. The Xeni Gwet’in won a landmark court case last year acknowledging their title to their lands. The Xeni Gwet’in are in negotiations with the governments of British Columbia and Canada about the ramifications of the title case win and want these issues to be resolved before any development on their land moves forward. They will be holding a press conference tomorrow demanding a halt to the Taseko Mines project.

The Council of Canadians and Mining Watch will be attending an all-candidates debate in Minister Baird’s riding to present him with a letter signed by national and community-based organizations including CUPE, Friends of the Earth and Sierra Club demanding that Schedule 2 be removed from the Fisheries Act.

In order to refresh John Baird’s memory about lakes in Canada being destroyed by his government, we will hold up images of Sandy Pond and Fish Lake at a protest taking place outside the all-candidates debate.

Canada must stop handing our freshwater lakes over to mining companies for use as toxic dumpsites. Beyond that, we need a national water policy that places ecosystems and the public interest above the interests of big corporations seeking to commodify or destroy our vital water resources.

Meera Karunananthan is the National Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians

On foreign investment: “We will increase the threshold for foreign investment reviews to attract more foreign investment to Canada while ensuring that such investments are of net benefit to Canada... We will open up two regulated sectors, airlines and uranium mining, to allow increased foreign investment, subject to any investments in these sectors meeting the national security test and negotiation of reciprocal benefits with our trading partners.”

Moving in the opposite direction of growing popular support for provincial moratoriums on uranium mining, this pledge likely comes out of North American Energy Working Group plans for a fully integrated, and to a large extent deregulated, continental energy sector. It also signals Harper’s unwillingness to treat the hollowing out of Canadian industry as an existing problem for the country’s economy.

On so-called internal trade barriers: “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will work to eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility between provinces and territories by 2010... We hope to see further progress, but are prepared to intervene by exercising federal authority if barriers to trade, investment and mobility remain by 2010.”

That ominous date will leap out for those with unsubstantiated fears of the establishment, in 2010, of a “North American Union.” But it is curious that Harper chose such a firm deadline for the elimination of alleged trade and investment barriers between the provinces considering the Canada-EU “economic partnership agreement” he’s quietly working on, and the details of which he refuses to release before October 14. In fact, Harper goes on to announce that “a re-elected Conservative Government will move aggressively to improve Canada's network of bilateral and regional free trade and economic agreements.”

Will Canadians get a say in any of this? We highly doubt it.

On pipelines and dirty oil: “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will help reduce regulatory and other barriers to increasing our pipeline network in the Far North in order to bring oil and gas to markets in Canada and throughout the world… [and] will prevent any company from exporting raw bitumen (unprocessed oil from the oil sands) outside of Canada for upgrading in order to take advantage of lower pollution or greenhouse gas emissions standards elsewhere.”

In fact, almost all of our exports from the tar sands will be transported, via pipeline, to the United States, much of it in raw form to be refined on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. Not only does the Conservative energy policy preclude reductions in greenhouse gases, but it creates a “pollution delivery system” that threatens air and water quality and human health in the Great Lakes Basin, according to a new report from the Munk Centre for International Studies.

Stuart Trew is the Ontario-Quebec-Nunavut Regional Organizer and Andrea Harden-Donahue is the Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

This Thursday The Georgia Straight (Conservatives duck debates in run-up to federal election) reported on other missing B.C. Conservative candidates: on September 25, Conservative candidates ducked an all-candidates debate hosted by the Canada Asia Pacific Foundation, tonight, Conservative candidate Salomon Rayek in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding has declined SPARC B.C.’s invitation to debate. We’ve also heard from a Kelowna resident that MP Stockwell Day will not attend an all-candidates meeting in his Okanagan-Coquihalla riding. The trend isn’t limited to B.C. Conservative candidates have also skipped debates in Alberta and Ontario.

So, as the examples build, it is unavoidable to deny that the Conservative party is directing its members to make themselves unavailable to the public during this election period. Democracy cannot exist where those elected or seeking to be elected can do so without putting their faces, policies, and plans for the future out to the public for their consideration. And in what universe can an elected official (or one seeking election) simply refuse to speak to the public because they don’t agree with the views of the event hosts? Maybe these candidates just keep getting it wrong or don’t like facing the tough questions. At an all-candidates debate in Lumby, B.C. Conservative MP Colin Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap) denied the existence of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the highly unpopular, secretive trade deal between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and in Whistler, John Weston, Conservative hopeful for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, was booed when he announced his support for water privatization and bulk water exports.

If the Tories are reluctant to speak to us now, what would they be like if they got a majority?

Carleen Pickard is the Director of Organizing with the Council of Canadians

The Globe and Mail reported just a few months ago that, "Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement within six months after becoming president, unless the agreement were completely renegotiated..." A recent poll commissioned by the Council of Canadians and conducted by Environics shows that 61 per cent of Canadians agree with U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama that NAFTA should be renegotiated to include enforceable labour and environmental standards, http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2008/26-Sep-08.html.

Perhaps rather than taking lines from a speech supporting the war in Iraq – a war most Canadians oppose – Mr. Harper and his speechwriters may want to crib a few words from Senator Obama and say in the election debates this week, ‘I will make sure that we renegotiate NAFTA.’

Brent Patterson is the Director of Campaigns and Communications with the Council of Canadians

It is good to see the call for more renewable energy factoring into election discussions and debates. It is also good to know, according to the David Suzuki Foundation, that wind and solar are the fastest growing forms of energy in the world. If renewable energy is to play a greater role – which undoubtedly, it must – how do we envision this unfolding? Corporations such as Shell and British Petroleum have a clear vision for renewable energy that pairs environmental sustainability and renewable energy with corporate profit. Should we share this vision?

Or should we call for an alternative vision? One where renewable energy is publicly-owned and delivered. Where “green jobs” are not only good for the environment, but good for people.

Having the supply of renewable energy being on a for-profit basis emphasizing market-based values has risks. When profit becomes a guiding motive, meeting people’s needs becomes secondary. When the electricity sector in Alberta was deregulated, the price of electricity rose more than 500 per cent in a five month period. There is also the question of trade. The market offers no guarantees that locally produced energy from renewable resources meets local needs. If the current path of energy integration with the U.S. is taken as an indication of how privatized renewable energy sectors may pan out, then many of the same concerns in ensuring Canadian’s secure energy supplies (because energy supply is left to the whims of the market and corporations) may continue. More public control and influence in how our energy resources are used must be part of Canada’s energy future. 

Without a doubt, transitioning to less harmful energy alternatives will be a serious undertaking and will come at a high cost. We are faced with a “pay now or pay later” situation. Let’s get back to our roots. Wouldn’t the not for profit management and delivery of such an important service, guided by public interest, be best suited? In fact, renewable energy is aptly suited for production that prioritizes local needs including social management such as co-operatives, member and municipally owned projects. The safeguard of ensuring that green jobs be union jobs with public sector infrastructure, as outlined by the Canadian Labour Congress, is a good one. Opportunities are present. Take, for example, the call of four CUPE locals representing Hydro Québec workers challenging the recent government decision to hand wind power production contracts to private corporations.

Our leaders and elected representatives would do well to consider the future of energy provision in Canada including what model can best meet environmental and social goals.

Andrea Harden-Donahue is the Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

First, there is Bryan Swartz who was a member of a NAFTA tribunal that found Canada liable for banning PCB exports to the U.S. even though importing PCBs was illegal in that country. Mr. Schwartz compares NAFTA to Canada’s constitution. Barry Appleton represented the company in that case, and several others who have brought claims against Canada. He claims that NAFTA rules are so inviting of private claims that a U.S. investor could sue Canada if it banned putting plutonium in breakfast cereal. (Don’t worry, that isn’t happening – yet.) 

John Johnson was on Canada’s legal team when the first free trade deal was negotiated. He believes medicare is probably safe from NAFTA claims as long as we don’t try to expand it, say to establish a national pharmacare program. I think the risk of NAFTA claims is one of a number of very good reasons for not privatizing publicly-funded health care services.

Notwithstanding our differences, we all agree that NAFTA investment rules pose a serious risk for Canada’s health care system. You can find our respective legal opinions on the Canadian Health Coalition website and in the archives of the Romanow Commission. 

The federal government has long dismissed these concerns, although it doesn’t dispute the fact that NAFTA opens the doors to such claims. 

Seeing that the welcome mat was out, a U.S. investor is now suing Canada for $155 million because he says the governments, including municipalities, disrupted his plans to establish private hospital facilities in Canada. A spokesperson for Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is reported as saying that the lawsuit would be vigorously defended. Let’s hope it does a better job than it has in the majority of other NAFTA cases that it has either lost or settled. 

Getting to say “we told you so” is small consolation.

Its time for reform - not to the principles of medicare, but to those of trade liberalization. Investor rights have no more place in trade agreements than they do in the Constitution.

Let’s hope federal election candidates start talking about this important issue.

Steven Shrybman is a partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell practising trade and public interest law. He is also a member of the Council of Canadians’ board of directors.

Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow and national water campaigner Meera Karunananthan tell the fuller story in “Policy Drought: The Harper government’s mismanagement of Canada’s water,” a chapter in the recently released Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives book The Harper Record.

They write, "The Harper government continues to deny the threat of growing pressure from the United States to import Canada's water, and has disregarded repeated calls from the Canadian public to ban bulk water exports...NAFTA defines water as a 'service' and an 'investment'. This means that, once a province lifts its voluntary ban on bulk water exports, NAFTA rules will take effect to prevent our governments from restricting such exports. Both Ontario and Newfoundland, at different times, have attempted to lift the ban in order to allow corporations to export water in bulk. Both provinces eventually backed away from the plan, but only after intense public pressure."

Mr. Harper would do well to remember that an April 2008 Environics poll commissioned by the Council of Canadians shows that 88 percent of Canadians believe that Canada should adopt a comprehensive national water policy that recognizes clean drinking water as a basic human right and also bans the bulk export of fresh water.

Brent Patterson is the Director of Campaigns and Communications for the Council of Canadians.

Polls continue to show that health care ranks high on people’s lists of concerns. According to the Canadian Medical Association there are now more than 5 million Canadians who do not have a family doctor, which has a direct and personal impact on people’s ability to get health care. We see rising costs in prescription drugs, long term care and home care programs being privatized to the point of being unaffordable to most people, and a growing trend across the country to allow private, for-profit companies to offer health care services for a price.

Health care is only recently seeing federal government reinvestment after years of devastating funding cuts. There has also been a shift – particularly in the last two years under Conservative governance – of health care responsibility to the provinces, many of which are happy to see health care delivery costs passed into the hands of private entrepreneurs. Take the Copeman Healthcare Centre, for example. Copeman opened a new clinic in Calgary this week modeled after a similar one already operating in Vancouver. The clinic charges an entrance fee of $3,900 dollars up front and an annual fee of $2,900 dollars to access their doctors, nurses and therapists. Clinic owner Donald Copeman cried crocodile tears to reporters covering a protest of the opening saying he was only trying to help people get health care services. Both the B.C. and Alberta governments have said there is nothing wrong with the Copeman clinic charging people money for health care – and the federal government has been content to let this happen.

Now there is new threat. A group of 200 private investors led by an American businessman have launched a Chapter 11 NAFTA challenge arguing that municipal governments stopped them from setting up a new private surgical clinic in British Columbia. (B.C., ironically, is already home to an estimated 70 or more private clinics.) The American investors are suing the Canadian government for $155 million in compensation for lost earnings.

Our Canadian health care program is facing serious threats. Political candidates have an obligation to talk about them this election.

Jan Malek is the Publications Officer for the Council of Canadians.

The Conservatives argue that, despite the cuts, overall arts funding is higher under the Conservatives than it was under the Liberals. It turns out that this statement is simply untrue. It is challenging to compare year to year spending for technical reasons. But, figures prepared by the Canadian Conference of the Arts show that funding to the Department of Canadian Heritage has remained relatively stable in the past four years. However, there has been a marked shift away from funding for the arts, heritage, cultural industries and the related institutions, to the portfolio of programs within the department that cover sports, parks, language training and other issues related to "citizen participation". According to the CCA figures (see www.ccarts.ca), the share of the Department's funding that went to the arts et.al. has declined from 57% to 54.6% in 2008/09. Thus, there has been a reduction to arts funding under the Tories and this fits with the government's social conservative agenda.

There is another correction that needs to be made about the cuts. While most reports talk about $45 million in cuts, in fact the government has also cut the New Media Fund, which has for the past decade supported the development, production and marketing of high-quality interactive or on-line original content. Departmental officials have advised clients that this program is in its final few months. When you add this $14.5 million program to those previously announced the total cuts amount to $60.6 million.

Another troubling aspect of the Conservative agenda for the arts community was the Prime Minister's recent speech in Québec in which Harper accused the Liberal Party Green Shift as being a threat to national unity. He argued that the plan would "(re)centralize power and spending" at the federal level. This is troubling for the arts and culture sector because, aside from broadcasting, copyright and the national cultural institutions, such as the National Theatre, National Gallery and the Museum of Civilization, support for arts and culture is a shared jurisdiction. In fact, some provincial rights advocates argue that culture is the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces, save for the narrow federal responsibilities. When she was Minister of Canadian Heritage, Bev Oda stated that the federal government was responsible only for the national heritage institutions, despite the fact that local and regional museums have had access to significant program spending from Ottawa over the past 40 years. Given the recent cuts and Harper's provincial rights approach (remember his call to build a firewall around Alberta), a Conservative majority could bring a major shift away from federal arts funding, across all disciplines.

Garry Neil is a Board member with the Council of Canadians

To be strong on the economy one must be strong on the environment. Not taking swift, decisive action on climate change will incur ruinous economic consequences, an undeniable statement reinforced by the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. Written by Sir Nicolas Stern, the report likens the impacts of global warming on the world economy - if unchecked - to that of the world wars and the Great Depression. The report concludes that the economic costs of climate change will be the equivalent of losing at least 5 per cent up to 20 or more per cent of global GDP each year - now and forever. The costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding the worst impacts are predicted to be around 1 per cent of global GDP each year. Like the findings of the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change, the Stern report affirms that climate change will affect basic necessities such as access to water and food production for hundreds of millions of people; "The most vulnerable - the poorest countries and populations - will suffer earliest and most, even though they have contributed least to the causes of climate change." It's not all bad news. The IPCC reports and the Stern report insist that a better world is possible, but that we must chose to act now.

The truth of the matter is that we either pay now, or we pay later. We invest and prioritize policies towards greater energy efficiency of fossil fuel resources, greatly improve conservation efforts and a just transition to a less carbon intense society, or must face the consequences of inaction. In order to do so, we need to question pro free-market policies that tie the hands of governments and prioritize profit-driven interests.

Let's make sure that Canada does not buy into the 'pay later' game that jeopardizes the futures of Canadians and people around the world.

Andrea Harden-Donahue is the Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

Stephen Harper has yet to give a reason why he is ignoring the fact that two-thirds of Canadians want war resisters to stay in Canada (including over half of Conservative voters.) He has also yet to give a reason why he continues to ignore the will of Parliament, which on June 3 passed a motion to stop war resister deportations. And so, on Friday, a couple of war resisters supporters managed to get into a Stephen Harper rally just outside of Ottawa to ask why the Prime Minister is so intent on supporting the Iraq war by deporting the war resisters against the democratic will of Canadians. You can watch the video below.

Stephen, Canadians are still waiting for an answer.

NOTE: This afternoon, the Federal Court granted Jeremy Hinzman a stay of Deportation!

Dylan Penner is the Media Officer for the Council of Canadians

The deal has its high-profile supporters. Foreign Minister David Emerson says Europe is attracted to Canada's energy wealth, while Quebec Premier Jean Charest says the EU sees this deal as an entry point into the North American economy and that Quebec is their 'gateway' to North America. A senior European Union official describes the talks as 'deep economic integration negotiations'. The major business-lobby organizations say it will allow European investment capital into Canadian companies without restrictions.

Talks are now set to proceed on this deal in Montreal on Friday October 17, not even three full days after the federal election. Reportedly this meeting - attended by French President Nicolas Sarkozy - will be a 'scoping' exercise to determine which sensitive areas of trade are open for negotiation. Then the real negotiations are scheduled to begin in early 2009, as early as twelve weeks from now.

Why haven't we heard more about this? Well, Prime Minister Harper has decided not to release the draft text of the agreement, apparently because of the election. The CanWest News Service has only managed to obtain an executive summary of a draft internal study by Canada and the European Union on the deal. This isn't good enough. The Council of Canadians is demanding that the prime minister immediately release the full text of the proposed Canada-EU deep economic integration agreement and the detailed study of it so that the Canadian public is able to make as informed a choice as possible at the polls on Tuesday October 14.

Will the Liberals help? Not likely. With the release of the Liberal Party platform today, we see that they are "committed to free trade," "committed to multilateral negotiations through the WTO", and to pursuing "bilateral trade agreements that reduce not only tariff, but non-tariff barriers."

In Hamilton today Jack Layton of the NDP touched on the issue by calling for "exploring opportunities for a model fair-trade deal with the European Union." And we now have an unlikely ally - Andrew Coyne. The national editor of Maclean's magazine, after deriding us for being anti-European, wrote last week in his blog, "I agree with the Council - show us the text! The time to talk about this is during the election, not after."

But it will take more to get the text released before election-day. The Council is saying to all party leaders that the text should be released. You can add your voice by going to http://www.canadians.org/action/2008/18-Sep-08.html.

Brent Patterson is the Director of Campaigns and Communications for the Council of Canadians.

In Harper’s ad “A Nation of Immigrants” he says “we have a real strong history of immigration in this country.” He’s right. But he doesn’t talk about one of the largest waves of immigration in recent history, when over 50,000 war resisters from the US moved to Canada to stop the Vietnam war. Indeed, today, at least two-thirds of Canadians want the resisters to stay. Eighty-two per cent of Canadians are against the Iraq war, which Harper continues his support for by deporting soldiers who refuse to take part in it.

There’s also been some talk during this election about Stephen Harper’s credentials as a family man. In his “Family is Everything” ad the Prime Minister says that being a father is the “best thing” in his life. And yet, he sees no problem with denying that experience to Jeremy Hinzman, an Iraq war resister, who along with his wife and two young children faces imminent deportation back to the U.S. as early as next week. Recently deported war resister Robin Long is currently serving a 15 month sentence. If deported, Jeremy Hinzman faces up to five years in prison, which wouldn’t allow for much quality time with the family. I guess the families of people who choose not to fight in the illegal war in Iraq have a unique insight into what Stephen Harper’s family values really are. Is it really possible to be a family man, if you are willing to allow a family to be torn apart, simply because they stood up for international law?

Despite the overwhelming support of Canadians for conscientious objectors to the Iraq war, Harper has yet to listen. And he’s been clear that if re-elected, he’ll be much less tolerant. The Mean Shift will increase punishment, not for those who break international law, but for those who uphold it, like Jeremy Hinzman and his family.

Dylan Penner is the Media Officer for the Council of Canadians.

It is a safe bet that this natural gas will end up feeding tar sands production (where close to three quarters of bitumen produced gets exported to the U.S.) Tar sands production continues to require large quantities of the relatively clean burning natural gas to produce dirty oil – and we’re running low. The National Energy Board predicts (based on this report) that Canada will be a net importer of natural gas by around 2030.

Pipelines, particularly those going to and from the tar sands are the plumbing of energy integration with the U.S. (a report coming from a Security and Prosperity Partnership working group calls for a five-fold expansion of production in the tar sands). Energy integration as envisioned in NAFTA and the SPP promote pro-market policies, giving even greater control to the U.S. market and big oil companies. Allowing the market to guide energy policy undermines Canadian energy security, our ability to protect the environment (refer to my earlier blog, “Missing piece: why trade must be part of the debate” for these arguments) and our capacity to combat climate change.   

So where do Canadian political parties stand on energy integration? The Harper government favours the SPP and market solutions for energy development. The Liberal Party agreed to the SPP in 2005 but has since become critical of certain aspects of it; energy is absent from these concerns. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have clear plans to implement a Canadian strategic energy reserve or renegotiate NAFTA to remove energy provisions. The Bloc Quebecois doesn’t officially oppose the energy integration provisions in the SPP, but has called for more transparency and parliamentary input. They have criticized subsidies and tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. The NDP opposes the SPP and wants to stop government subsidies and tax breaks directed at the big oil companies. They have indicated support for a policy of energy security in Canada and co-launched a tri-national Task Force on renegotiating NAFTA. The Green Party opposes the SPP and wants to end corporate subsidies to the oil, gas and nuclear industries. The Greens support re-negotiating NAFTA including re-visiting the energy provision and recognizes the need for an energy reserve, control over exports and prioritizing inter-provincial provision.

The question of energy integration should be up for debate here in Canada since it’s clearly on the Republican’s election agenda.

Andrea Harden-Donahue is the Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

"The Smart Border Accord and the Security and Prosperity Partnership were useful, but limited responses to emerging trade and investment challenges: useful, because of their pragmatic, problem-by-problem approach; limited because they could not commit the Congress, nor the agencies that Congress independently funds and controls, to address issues such as the dysfunctional border or regulatory divergence," writes Hart in Embassy. "For these reasons, neither proved suitable instruments to provide a secure framework for trade and investment and reinforce the rules and institutions of NAFTA and the WTO."

It's a similar message to the one he and Bill Dymond expressed in a C.D. Howe report that came out just before the fourth annual "North American Leaders Summit" in New Orleans this April. Essentially, they argued, Canada should move away from the trilateral SPP model and engage in more meaningful integration with its top trading partner.

Incredibly, Hart now claims: "Historically, there has long existed a broad measure of comfort among Canadians with arranging for the security and prosperity of their country within the North American framework and with seeking new arrangements with the United States to capture and manage the forces of silent integration."

But we know that today the opposite is more likely true: that despite concerns about slow, or "sticky" borders, there is widespread disapproval to further integration with the United States. The Council of Canadians' poll from April 2008, Not Counting Canadians, goes along way to proving that Canadians want independent policies (regulatory, foreign and energy), that are not harmonized versions of Republican priorities.

Similarly, Harper's claim over the weekend that Canadian politicians and voters once fought "about trade as a good thing" but are now happily "conservative" is ridiculous.

What we continue to debate in this country is whether or not so-called free trade agreements like NAFTA, and its expansion through the Security and Prosperity Partnership, are good for all Canadians, or only a few at the top. NAFTA is less about trade than investor rights, including the right of corporations to sue the Canadian government for policies that interfere with their market interests, even if those policies were designed to protect us or the environment.

The current debate around the economy has touched on this, with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion hinting that market mechanisms are not good enough on their own, while Stephen Harper tells workers in Ontario he can't help them - the market stole their jobs.

There's an environmental reason for Canadians to reject Harper's (and Hart's) ideological attachment to North American integration.

Gasoline in Canada still contains the toxic chemical MMT because of a NAFTA challenge to the repealed Canada-wide ban by U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation. The out-of-court settlement cost taxpayers $13 million. And just this year, Exxon Mobil and Murphy Oil filed a NAFTA lawsuit against the feds simply because Newfoundland wants these two companies to invest some of their research and development funds locally. It will cost us $60 million if Canada loses.

Canadians recognize how ridiculous this arrangement is. As already stated by this blogger, an Angus Reid poll from July showed that only seven per cent of those surveyed say Canada has benefited the most from NAFTA, and a majority (52 per cent) think we should "do whatever it takes" to renegotiate the agreement.

If Harper truly wanted his Conservative party to rule "in the interests of the broad majority of the population," as he said this weekend, he'd recognize that the debate on trade is alive and well, and that most Canadians disagree with the Conservative position on NAFTA.

Hart's prescription for post-election Canada-U.S. relations is just more of the same rejected and failed integration model. It's the SPP and deep integration in a new package - a package that Hart and his friends will be happy to present to the new Canadian government in December. That's when he will present the government with a policy-ready document on deep integration - a tool the Harper government endorsed at the close of the New Orleans "leaders summit" this April.

Stuart Trew is the Ontario-Quebec-Nunavut Regional Organizer for the Council of Canadians.

The lack of legislative protection against bulk water exports has led business lobby groups and right-wing think tanks to take stabs at enticing provincial governments to lift their voluntary bans on bulk water exports through reports that promise billions of dollars in short-term profits.

Just this year, two right-wing think tanks launched reports promoting the commercial export of water to the United States. Most recently, in August 2008, the Montreal Economic Institute a Quebec-based group with a blue-chip board of directors launched a report claiming Quebec could generate $65-billion a year in gross revenue, if it were to export an amount of water equivalent to 300,000 Olympic swimming pools of water per year.

The claim that Quebec or any other province has sufficient renewable water for export purposes runs contrary to the growing body of evidence pointing to a looming water crisis in Canada. Just a week prior to the launch of the MEI report, the Canadian Press obtained an Environment Canada report through an access to information request stating that "Canada's supplies of fresh water are not as plentiful as once thought, and water shortages threaten to pit provinces (and Canada and the United States) against each other."

The only thing that has prevented such schemes from going ahead in the past was public pressure.

In April 2007, John Baird stated that "Canada has restrictions in place to prohibit bulk removal of water, including diversion, backed by serious fines and/or imprisonment." He was referring to the voluntary provincial bans on bulk exports in all provinces except New Brunswick, which can be broken at any time. In fact British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have all considered licensing schemes for bulk water exports in recent years.

The Charest government is on the record as having expressed an interest in pursuing bulk water exports as a source of revenue for the province. As Maude Barlow states in her book Blue Covenant, "In 2004, the Quebec government (of Premier Jean Charest) announced it was interested in pursuing bulk water exports from the province in spite of its 2001 ban. Public opposition forced the government to back off." And earlier this year, delegates at the Quebec Liberal Party convention passed motions favouring export sales of water.

If the Charest government goes ahead and sells its water across the border, other provinces may be forced to lift their bans as well under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA defines water as a "service" and an "investment" and will protect the interests of foreign corporations investing in water. The trade deal does not allow for inconsistent treatment of foreign investors. This means that once a Canadian province allows water to be diverted outside its borders, foreign investors in other province can demand the same "national treatment".

And widely publicized reports are not the only mechanism being used by the big business community to pressure our governments to export water.

The Canadian government is also facing pressure to export water through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - a business-led plan to harmonize policies and regulations and to facilitate corporate access to natural resources in Canada, the United States and Mexico. In April 2007, the Council of Canadians obtained a leaked document produced by a Washington think tank revealing that business and government leaders in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico were actively discussing bulk water exports.

When information about a closed-meeting on bulk water exports to take place in Calgary involving high-ranking government officials and business representatives from all three countries was released to the media, it generated a strong public outcry. The Conservative government was forced to withdraw its delegation from the meeting.

Prompted by the evidence obtained by the Council of Canadians that the SPP would force Canada to export water to the United States, the House of Commons passed a motion in June 2007, requesting that the federal government begin talks with the United States and Mexico partners to have water excluded from NAFTA.

Not surprisingly, the Conservative government has failed to follow through on this motion.

What is surprising is that water has not been seen as a key election issue. Given the implications of Canada's failure to create federal legislative safeguards to protect Canada's freshwater and the growing evidence that our watersheds will not be able to support current levels of consumption and contamination, Canadian voters must ensure that commitment to a national water policy is a deciding factor in the outcome of this election.

Meera Karunananthan is the National Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians

The reversal resulted from recent announcements of government budget cuts totalling more than $60 million to programs in film and television, book and magazine publishing, and new media. The government cut money from programs dealing with everything from training to digitizing collections, arguing the programs were wasteful and not achieving the objectives. Opposition critics slammed the cuts and promised to reverse them, or do more, if they’re elected.

The community responded vigorously to the cuts. Hundreds of Québec artists rallied on August 26 in Montréal to denounce the government. At a meeting September 3 in Toronto, close to 500 people were energized by speeches by Susan Swan, Naomi Klein and others. That same day, some artists launched www.departmentofculture.ca, a website whose message about Harper is simple, “Not Him. Not Now. Not Ever Again.”  Luminaries from various arts disciplines gathered on September 10 at the Toronto International Film Festival to call for parties to put forward ideas for a comprehensive and long-term vision for arts and culture funding.

The program cuts are real. They will seriously harm some smaller groups and businesses, particularly those trying to promote Canadian artists abroad. But, perhaps more insidious is the fact the cuts and other recent government actions reveal a scary social conservatism that wants to use grants to impose artistic content.

In Bill C-10, which thankfully died on the order papers, the government sought to give the Heritage Minister the power to deny tax credits retroactively to films or television shows that are “contrary to public policy.”  The leading example used to defend this position was the film Young People Fucking, despite the fact none of the officials had actually seen the movie. In its agreement to fund the opening ceremony of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the government insists on the right to ensure its “priorities” and “international branding goals” are reflected in the ceremony. Does this mean they would insist on lip-synching a young singer if that singer wasn’t deemed “pretty enough” to represent Canada as we recently saw in China?  And in defending the recent cuts, which came to light just days before the election call, the government leaked internal reports objecting to giving money to “left-wing, unrepresentative or rich” artists. The report argued that some of the material funded would “raise the eyebrows of the average Canadian.”

This is very dangerous territory: it’s censorship. And it needs to be tackled in the campaign.

Garry Neil is a former general secretary of ACTRA and vice-president of the Canadian Conference of the Arts. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Council of Canadians.

No big surprise here. Compete to Win mirrors the intentions of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which in turn, is almost a word-for-word replica of the CCCE’s North American Security and Prosperity Initiative. It is part of a deep integration agenda that seeks to erode policies and legislation protecting public interest in the name of free-market ideals like deregulation, liberalization and privatization. “We are a party of free enterprise, free markets and free trade,” Harper said.

So what’s the big deal? Let’s take the example of uranium mining. Canada has treated uranium mining differently from other types of mining in terms of foreign ownership because of safety concerns. There are also concerns about uranium being sold and used to make nuclear fuel and weapons. The proposed increase in foreign ownership will likely lead to more foreign investment and more uranium mining in Canada. With the stipulation that Canadian companies be offered reciprocal rights in other countries, this change also provides Canadian mining corporations such as Cameco Corp., more opportunities for investment in contributing to the exploding growth of uranium industries globally.

Uranium mining is environmentally and socially destructive. The exploration and mining process threaten to contaminate surrounding environment and water sources. Reputable scientists have linked uranium exploration and mining to rises in cancer and other diseases in neighbouring communities. Across the country people are challenging new uranium mining sites, many of which are on or near First Nations land. Bob Lovelace, a Queen’s University lecturer and former Ardoch Algonquin chief, spent three and a half months in jail after refusing to follow a court order requiring protesters to stay away from a proposed uranium mine site on Ardoch Algonquin First Nation traditional territory.

We don’t need more uranium mines; we need a moratorium on uranium mines. We don’t need more pro free-market promises from our leaders. We do need sound public policies that protect Canadian’s interests and our environment.

Andrea Harden-Donahue is the Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

While Elizabeth May can take some credit for trying to get the renegotiation ball rolling in mid-2006, the pressure only heated up after both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton suggested on a Democratic tour stop in Ohio that they would seek changes to NAFTA to protect labour, the environment and even the lopsided investor-state dispute process that allows corporations to sue foreign governments within the free-trade zone for policies – environmental and public health included – that interfere with profits.

The rhetoric practically derailed this year’s Security and Prosperity Partnership summit in New Orleans where U.S. President George Bush, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Stephen Harper were forced to defend the SPP agenda rather than promote it. The now three-year-old “NAFTA expansion pack,” is falling apart according to one of the secretive pact’s key architects.

Three months later, an Angus-Reid poll suggested that more than half of Canadians “think their country should do whatever is necessary to renegotiate the terms of (NAFTA).” The news was so shocking that not a single news outlet reported it! This was shortly after Republican presidential hopeful John McCain addressed a nervous business crowd in Ottawa on his staunch support for free trade and deepening Canada-U.S. economic integration.

And without wanting to jinx the results, there is a very good chance Americans really do want “change” this time around. Shouldn’t Canada’s candidates be saying something – anything – about the very likely chance they will have to defend their country’s trade interests and renegotiate NAFTA at some point after January 1, 2009?

Sadly, it wouldn’t be unlike our leaders to ignore this issue. After all, NAFTA, and the previous free trade deal with the United States, never really had much to do with Canada’s interests. The deals can also largely be blamed for the inaction of successive federal governments on climate change, energy policy, the threat of bulk water exports, the erosion of social policy and the elimination of good jobs across the country.

Canadians need to know whether they will be re-electing NAFTA or the Security and Prosperity Partnership when they go to the polls. Not only is there a clear desire to talk about these issues, but a compelling deadline for when Canada will be brought to the table with the United States to discuss their futures.

Stuart Trew is the Ontario-Quebec-Nunavut Regional Organizer for the Council of Canadians.

Absent so far is the connection between energy, trade and the environment. This should not be the case. NAFTA, support for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), and current energy integration with the U.S. all but make mute promises to protect the environment. There is no way we can meet international obligations for climate change action and at the same time protect our energy security.

NAFTA’s proportional sharing clause binds Canada to maintaining the flow of energy to the U.S. at the same proportion exported over the previous three years. In other words, if a moratorium on new tar sands approvals or policy action on climate change impacted the proportion of oil exports to the U.S., Canada would be in violation of NAFTA.  

Let’s not forget about NAFTA’s infamous chapter 11, which gives corporations a method for suing Canadian governments for compensation over almost any state measure that impacts predicted profits. According to a CBC report, at least 42 cases have been filed since it came into effect, and more than half of the complaints lodged so far have been filed because of companies’ objections to environmental laws.

And the pace of tar sands growth isn’t slowing down. An SPP working group has called for a five-fold expansion of the tar sands. There is consensus that current rates of tar sands production will prevent us from meeting our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

If we want to talk about addressing the uncontrolled expansion of the tar sands and climate change we must talk seriously about re-negotiating NAFTA and rejecting the SPP.

Andrea Harden-Donahue is the Energy Campaigner at the Council of Canadians.