As the U.S. Federal Communications Commission prepares to rollback net neutrality protections, the Canadian government has used the controversy to double down on its support for net neutrality safeguards, linking it to democracy, equality, and freedom of expression.
As the U.S. heads toward a period of uncertainty – the net neutrality rollback is likely to be challenged in court and the political pressure to affirm support in Congress is mounting – the Canadian landscape offers a sharp contrast with strong political and regulatory support for net neutrality rules.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
China is manipulating decision-makers in Western democracies. The best defence is transparency
WHEN a rising power challenges an incumbent one, war often follows. That prospect, known as the Thucydides trap after the Greek historian who first described it, looms over relations between China and the West, particularly America. So, increasingly, does a more insidious confrontation. Even if China does not seek to conquer foreign lands, many people fear that it seeks to conquer foreign minds.
Australia was the first to raise a red flag about China’s tactics. On December 5th allegations that China has been interfering in Australian politics, universities and publishing led the government to propose new laws to tackle “unprecedented and increasingly sophisticated” foreign efforts to influence lawmakers (see article). This week an Australian senator resigned over accusations that, as an opposition spokesman, he took money from China and argued its corner. Britain, Canada and New Zealand are also beginning to raise the alarm. On December 10th Germany accused China of trying to groom politicians and bureaucrats. And on December 13th Congress held hearings on China’s growing influence.
This behaviour has a name—“sharp power”, coined by the National Endowment for Democracy, a Washington-based think-tank. “Soft power” harnesses the allure of culture and values to add to a country’s strength; sharp power helps authoritarian regimes coerce and manipulate opinion abroad.
The West needs to respond to China’s behaviour, but it cannot simply throw up the barricades. Unlike the old Soviet Union, China is part of the world economy. Instead, in an era when statesmanship is in short supply, the West needs to find a statesmanlike middle ground. That starts with an understanding of sharp power and how it works.
China has a history of spying on its diaspora, but the subversion has spread. In Australia and New Zealand Chinese money is alleged to have bought influence in politics, with party donations or payments to individual politicians. This week’s complaint from German intelligence said that China was using the LinkedIn business network to ensnare politicians and government officials, by having people posing as recruiters and think-tankers and offering free trips.
Bullying has also taken on a new menace. Sometimes the message is blatant, as when China punished Norway economically for awarding a Nobel peace prize to a Chinese pro-democracy activist. More often, as when critics of China are not included in speaker line-ups at conferences, or academics avoid study of topics that China deems sensitive, individual cases seem small and the role of officials is hard to prove. But the effect can be grave. Western professors have been pressed to recant. Foreign researchers may lose access to Chinese archives. Policymakers may find that China experts in their own countries are too ill-informed to help them.
To ensure China’s rise is peaceful, the West needs to make room for China’s ambition. But that does not mean anything goes. Open societies ignore China’s sharp power at their peril.
Part of their defence should be practical. Counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion. All three need Chinese speakers who grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China. The Chinese Communist Party suppresses free expression, open debate and independent thought to cement its control. Merely shedding light on its sharp tactics—and shaming kowtowers—would go a long way towards blunting them.
The impulsiveness and shallowness of America’s president threaten the economy as well as the rule of law. Graphic: The Economist
Accordng to this article in The Economist: DONALD TRUMP rules over Washington as if he were a king and the White House his court. His displays of dominance, his need to be the centre of attention and his impetuousness have a whiff of Henry VIII about them. Fortified by his belief that his extraordinary route to power is proof of the collective mediocrity of Congress, the bureaucracy and the media, he attacks any person and any idea standing in his way.
Just how much trouble that can cause was on sensational display this week, with his sacking of James Comey—only the second director of the FBI to have been kicked out. Mr Comey has made mistakes and Mr Trump was within his rights. But the president has succeeded only in drawing attention to questions about his links to Russia and his contempt for the norms designed to hold would-be kings in check.
Just as dangerous, and no less important to ordinary Americans, however, is Mr Trump’s plan for the economy. It treats orthodoxy, accuracy and consistency as if they were simply to be negotiated away in a series of earth-shattering deals. Although Trumponomics could stoke a mini-boom, it, too, poses dangers to America and the world.
In an interview with this newspaper, the president gave his most extensive description yet of what he wants for the economy (see article). His target is to ensure that more Americans have well-paid jobs by raising the growth rate. His advisers talk of 3% GDP growth—a full percentage point higher than what most economists believe is today’s sustainable pace.
In Mr Trump’s mind the most important path to better jobs and faster growth is through fairer trade deals. Though he claims he is a free-trader, provided the rules are fair, his outlook is squarely that of an economic nationalist. Trade is fair when trade flows are balanced. Firms should be rewarded for investing at home and punished for investing abroad.
The second and third strands of Trumponomics, tax cuts and deregulation, will encourage that domestic investment. Lower taxes and fewer rules will fire up entrepreneurs, leading to faster growth and better jobs. This is standard supply-side economics, but to see Trumponomics as a rehash of Republican orthodoxy is a mistake—and not only because its economic nationalism is a departure for a party that has championed free trade.
The real difference is that Trumponomics (unlike, say, Reaganomics) is not an economic doctrine at all. It is best seen as a set of proposals put together by businessmen courtiers for their king. Mr Trump has listened to scores of executives, but there are barely any economists in the White House. His approach to the economy is born of a mindset where deals have winners and losers and where canny negotiators confound abstract principles. Call it boardroom capitalism.
That Trumponomics is a business wishlist helps explain why critics on the left have laid into its poor distributional consequences, fiscal indiscipline and potential cronyism. And it makes clear why businessmen and investors have been enthusiastic, seeing it as a shot in the arm for those who take risks and seek profits. Stockmarkets are close to record highs and indices of business confidence have soared.
In the short term that confidence could prove self-fulfilling. America can bully Canada and Mexico into renegotiating NAFTA. For all their sermons about fiscal prudence, Republicans in Congress are unlikely to deny Mr Trump a tax cut. Stimulus and rule-slashing may lead to faster growth. And with inflation still quiescent, the Federal Reserve might not choke that growth with sharply higher interest rates.
Unleashing pent-up energy would be welcome, but Mr Trump’s agenda comes with two dangers. The economic assumptions implicit in it are internally inconsistent. And they are based on a picture of America’s economy that is decades out of date.
Contrary to the Trump team’s assertions, there is little evidence that either the global trading system or individual trade deals have been systematically biased against America (see article). Instead, America’s trade deficit—Mr Trump’s main gauge of the unfairness of trade deals—is better understood as the gap between how much Americans save and how much they invest (see article). The fine print of trade deals is all but irrelevant. Textbooks predict that Mr Trump’s plans to boost domestic investment will probably lead to larger trade deficits, as it did in the Reagan boom of the 1980s. If so, Mr Trump will either need to abandon his measure of fair trade or, more damagingly, try to curb deficits by using protectionist tariffs that will hurt growth and sow mistrust around the world.
A deeper problem is that Trumponomics draws on a blinkered view of America’s economy. Mr Trump and his advisers are obsessed with the effect of trade on manufacturing jobs, even though manufacturing employs only 8.5% of America’s workers and accounts for only 12% of GDP. Service industries barely seem to register. This blinds Trumponomics to today’s biggest economic worry: the turbulence being created by new technologies. Yet technology, not trade, is ravaging American retailing, an industry that employs more people than manufacturing (see article). And economic nationalism will speed automation: firms unable to outsource jobs to Mexico will stay competitive by investing in machines at home. Productivity and profits may rise, but this may not help the less-skilled factory workers who Mr Trump claims are his priority.
The bite behind the bark
Trumponomics is a poor recipe for long-term prosperity. America will end up more indebted and more unequal. It will neglect the real issues, such as how to retrain hardworking people whose skills are becoming redundant. Worse, when the contradictions become apparent, Mr Trump’s economic nationalism may become fiercer, leading to backlashes in other countries—further stoking anger in America. Even if it produces a short-lived burst of growth, Trumponomics offers no lasting remedy for America’s economic ills. It may yet pave the way for something worse.
A view of the ice canyon that now carries meltwater from the Kaskawulsh glacier, seen here on the right, away from the Slims river and toward the Kaskawulsh river. Photograph: Dan Shugar/University of Washington Tacoma
An immense river that flowed from one of Canada’s largest glaciers vanished over the course of four days last year, scientists have reported, in an unsettling illustration of how global warming dramatically changes the world’s geography.
The abrupt and unexpected disappearance of the Slims river, which spanned up to 150 metres at its widest points, is the first observed case of “river piracy”, in which the flow of one river is suddenly diverted into another.
For hundreds of years, the Slims carried meltwater northwards from the vast Kaskawulsh glacier in Canada’s Yukon territory into the Kluane river, then into the Yukon river towards the Bering Sea. But in spring 2016, a period of intense melting of the glacier meant the drainage gradient was tipped in favour of a second river, redirecting the meltwater to the Gulf of Alaska, thousands of miles from its original destination.
The continental-scale rearrangement was documented by a team of scientists who had been monitoring the incremental retreat of the glacier for years. But on a 2016 fieldwork expedition they were confronted with a landscape that had been radically transformed.
While the Slims had been reduced to a mere trickle, the reverse had happened to the south-flowing Alsek river, a popular whitewater rafting river that is a Unesco world heritage site. The previous year, the two rivers had been comparable in size, but the Alsek was now 60 to 70 times larger than the Slims, flow measurements revealed.
The data also showed how abrupt the change had been, with the Slims’ flow dropping precipitously from the 26 to 29 May 2016.
Geologists have previously found evidence of river piracy having taken place in the distant past. “But nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes,” said Shugar. “People had looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it’s happening under our noses.”
Between 1956 and 2007, the Kaskawulsh glacier retreated by 600-700m. In 2016, there was a sudden acceleration of the retreat, and the pulse of meltwater led to a new channel being carved through a large ice field. The new channel was able to deliver water to the Alsek’s tributary whose steeper gradient resulted in the Slims headwater being suddenly rerouted along a new southwards trajectory.
In a geological instant, the local landscape was redrawn.
Where the Slims once flowed, Dall sheep from Kluane National Park are now making their way down to eat the fresh vegetation, venturing into territory where they can legally be hunted. The formerly clear air is now often turned into a dusty haze as powerful winds whip up the exposed riverbed sediment. Fish populations are being redistributed and lake chemistry is being altered. Waterfront land, which includes the small communities of Burwash Landing and Destruction Bay, is now further from shore.
Sections of the newly exposed bed of Kluane Lake contain small pinnacles. Wind has eroded sediments with a harder layer on top that forms a protective cap as the wind erodes softer and sandier sediment below. These pinnacles, just a few centimeters high, are small-scale versions of what are sometimes termed “hoodoos.” Photograph: Jim Best/University of Illinois
A statistical analysis, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, suggests that the dramatic changes can almost certainly be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. The calculations put chance of the piracy having occured due to natural variability at 0.5%. “So it’s 99.5% that it occurred due to warming over the industrial era,” said Best.
The Yukon region is extremely sparsely inhabited, but future river piracy could have catastrophic effects on towns, villages and ecosystems that have sprung up around available water, according to an analysis accompanying the paper, by Rachel Headley, a geologist at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. “If a river changes course so drastically that the drainage basin no longer reaches its original outlet, this change might eventually impact human and biological communities that have grown around the river’s original outlet,” she said.
I’ve visited the Yukon several times, spending months exploring every wonderful nook and cranny from every corner of the Yukon. I loved nature’s bounty offered there, as well as the various people and cultures of the Yukon. I’m old now, but would love to have the opportunity to visit that incredible land once more before humanity changes it forever.
The Canadian Rangers are a sub-component of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Reserve and are the military’s eyes and ears in the north.
They provide patrols and detachments for national-security and public-safety missions in sparsely settled northern, coastal and isolated areas of Canada that can not conveniently or economically be covered by other parts of the CAF.
The Canadian Rangers protect Canada’s sovereignty by:
Reporting unusual activities or sightings;
Collecting local data of significance to the CAF; and
Conducting surveillance or sovereignty patrols as required.
Canadian Rangers by the numbers:
Approximately 5000 – current number of Canadian Rangers;
Over 200 – number of communities where Canadian Rangers live; and
26 – dialects/languages spoken by Canadian Rangers, many of whom are Aboriginal.
The Rangers’ Tasks
The Canadian Rangers are the military’s eyes and ears in the sparsely settled northern, coastal and isolated areas of Canada. Appropriately, their motto is Vigilans, meaning “The Watchers.”
As members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the Canadian Rangers:
Conduct and support sovereignty operations:
Conduct sovereignty and surveillance patrols and training
Conduct North Warning Site patrols
Report suspicious and unusual activities
Collect local data of military significance
Conduct and assist in CAF domestic operations:
Conduct coastal and inland water surveillance
Provide local knowledge and expertise
Participate in search and rescue operations
Provide support in response to natural or man-made disasters and humanitarian operations
Provide assistance to federal, provincial/territorial or municipal authorities
Maintain CAF presence in the local community:
Instruct and supervise youth in the Junior Canadian Rangers (JCR) Program, a program that has significantly improved the quality of life of young people in the most isolated areas of Canada
Support and participate in events in the local community (such as Yukon Quest, Canada Day, and Remembrance Day)
Canadian Rangers in the past have
Conducted routine search and rescue operations;
Provided assistance during the avalanche at Kangiqsualujjuaq in northern Québec;
Provided support during the drinking water crisis in Kashechewan, Ontario; and
The Rangers perform their tasks exceptionally well and are extremely valuable to the CAF.
A man who claimed to be from Sudan illegally crosses the US-Canada border into Hemmingford, Quebec, in Canada. Photograph: Christinne Muschi/Reuters
His wet clothes frozen stiff and feet sinking into the deep snow, Mamadou allowed himself a shred of hope when he glimpsed a faint light in the distance.
Many hours earlier, he had set out for the border just as the sun was setting, trudging through thick woods near Plattsburgh, New York, towards Canada.
Temperatures plunged to -15C and a bitter wind whipped snow-laden tree branches into his face. Several times, he was forced to wade through rivers or lakes.
“I was so cold. I was soaked. I didn’t think I was going to make it,” said the 46-year-old, choking back tears as he recalled his ordeal earlier this month. “I didn’t know where I was going – I had no map, no lamp, no light – nothing.”
What he did know, he said, was that he had no other option. “Because I’m no longer safe in the United States, and in my country – I’m going to be killed.”
Mamadou, whose full name is not being published for his protection, decided to cross into Canada after more than a decade of living legally in the US.
He had fled from the Ivory Coast in 2006 soon after rebels killed his father and burned down his family home.
American authorities denied his request for asylum, but a judge allowed him to stay in the country on the grounds that deportation would endanger his life. Mamadou found work – legally – as a taxi driver in New York: “I worked hard and paid taxes.”
But when Trump was elected president of the US, Mamadou, a Muslim, wondered nervously what the news might mean for him. The answer came swiftly: in early March, immigration officials visited his apartment in the Bronx.
After their third visit – each time Mamadou was out working – he decided to seek refuge in Canada.
Days later he took a taxi to a border crossing near Plattsburgh, and explained his situation to Canadian immigration officials. They denied his asylum request, pointing to the Safe Third Country Agreement, which prohibits most people who have already sought asylum in the US from making a refugee claim in Canada.
But the agreement only applies at official border crossings; if refugees can slip into the country elsewhere along the 5,500-mile frontier, they are eligible to make a claim. He decided to slip across elsewhwere.
“But I didn’t know if it was Canada or the United States,” he said. The clue was in a street sign that read arrêt – or “stop”, in French. Relief overcame him as he realised this was the end of his nine-hour trek. Seconds later, he collapsed.
A police officer on patrol found him on the side of the road, clinging to life. As Mamadou lay unconscious, paramedics cut his frozen clothes and shoes off with scissors. Four hours later, he came to in a local hospital. He was still shivering and unable to speak, and his feet were swollen from frostbite.
His ordeal hints at the extreme risks being taken by some to make an asylum claim in Canada, said Mamadou’s lawyer, Éric Taillefer. “We found him,” he said. “But what if there’s someone we haven’t found? I really hope we’re not going to find a body in the spring.”
For months, advocates on both sides of the border have been urging the Canadian government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement, arguing that doing so will allow asylum seekers in the US to simply apply at official border crossings rather than making hazardous journeys.
So far the Canadian government has said it has no plans to suspend the agreement.
In Mamadou’s case, the agreement has resulted in a cruel twist. In Canada, asylum seekers are only allowed one chance to make a claim – a chance that Mamadou used up when he was first denied refugee status at the border crossing.
If he hadn’t applied first through proper channels and only crossed through the woods, he would now be eligible to make a refugee claim. Instead, he now faces deportation to the Ivory Coast, said Taillefer. His lawyers are pushing for him to be granted the right to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds, hoping he might be the exception in a program with a success rate of around 3%.
Canada has launched a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign against a push by Donald Trump to subject all visitors to the United States to biometric screening – such as finger-printing, retina scans or facial recognition tests – upon both entry and exit.
The U.S. President’s call for the stepped-up use of such technology, meant to monitor whether non-Americans are staying in the country longer than permitted, was issued in last Friday’s executive order on immigration, but has mostly flown under the public radar amid controversy around a ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim-majority countries.
Among Canadian officials, however, it has sparked concerns of massive slow-downs in border traffic of both people and goods, particularly at land crossings – prompting Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to raise the issue during a phone call this week with John Kelly, the new U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, Mr. Goodale’s office confirmed.
That conversation appears to have been the start of an ongoing effort by Ottawa to head off the screening plan during a 100-day period in which Mr. Kelly has been tasked – per the executive order – with “expedit[ing] the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travellers to the United States” and reporting back to the President on his progress.
A senior Canadian official expressed optimism that Canada will be joined in making that case by U.S. jurisdictions that would stand to suffer – ranging from border states whose economies are closely integrated with Canada’s to tourism-reliant states such as Florida.
Such arguments against biometric entry-exit screening have proven persuasive in the past. As implied by the executive order’s wording, the proposal to biometrically register all non-Americans who enter and exit the U.S. is not new. It has in theory been government policy since its inclusion in an immigration bill signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. Its implementation was among the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and Congress has passed several laws mandating it. But neither presidential administrations nor legislators have followed through on it, with appropriations for implementation defeated or removed from legislation when they have intermittently been introduced.
Instead, the U.S. has settled for biometric screening only of some visitors entering the country, primarily at airports and sea ports – and, notably, not at major land crossings with Canada. To the extent it has monitored who is exiting, other than a few biometric pilot projects, it has been through other measures – including an agreement with Canada, struck in 2011, in which the two countries inform each other when visitors return home.
Ottawa appears optimistic that the success of that recent data-sharing will help it make the case that Canadians should be exempted from any new entry-exit measures. But it is also struggling with unpredictability of a new presidential administration that has thus far displayed very different priorities from any previous one.
While Mr. Trump called for exit-entry biometric screening during last year’s campaign, it is not known how strongly he feels about the matter and how much he might try to compel the Republicans’ congressional and Senate majorities to push through related measures. But it has previously been identified as a top priority by Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Senator who is set to be confirmed as Attorney-General, and who is already considered to be one of the most influential members of Mr. Trump’s administration.
A police officer and his dog look for evidence near a home in the area of a Quebec City mosque on Monday January 30, 2017. A shooting at a Quebec City mosque left six people dead and eight others injured Sunday. (Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press)
Two men were in custody after a mass shooting Sunday night at a mosque in Quebec City that killed six people and wounded several more, and was condemned by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “a terrorist attack on Muslims.”
Court officials in Quebec City identified the suspects as Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed El Khadir. They were to be arraigned Monday afternoon.
Investigators do not believe any suspects beyond the two men in custody remain at large and they would not comment on identity of the attackers, motives or methods.
“This is an extensive investigation,” said superintendent Martin Plante of the RCMP, noting four police forces are working together on the ongoing probe.
“In a terrorism investigation, there are ideological, religious or political motivations at play,” Sup. Plante said. “There are activities pursued by individuals that want to cause worry to the public through a violent act.”
Police appeared to be in close contact with Quebec City’s nearby Laval University but university officials would not confirm unverified information that the gunmen were students there.
Alexandre Bissonnette was charged late Monday with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder using a restricted firearm for a shooting spree in a Quebec City Mosque that has shaken the community, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Though police and politicians have spoken of terrorism since the 27-year-old university student allegedly opened fire just after the last prayers on Sunday, he was not charged with any terrorism-related offences.
The young man did not have a previous criminal record and was known as an introvert, and a victim of bullying in school.
Posts on his Facebook page show he “liked” Donald Trump, French Front National leader Marine Le Pen and Mathieu Bock-Cóté, a Quebec City columnist known for his pro-nationalist and anti-multicultural views.
Bissonnette’s father is listed in the sales deed of the house as an investigator. And according to Bissonnette’s Facebook page, which has since been taken offline, his grandfather was a decorated war hero.
But his page does not reveal a great deal about his possible motivations.
A fellow university student however, who also knew Bissonnette from high school in Cap Rouge, said he had developed radical views.
“He was not necessarily overtly racist or Islamophobic, but he had borderline misogynist, Islamophobic viewpoints,” said Vincent Boissonneault, who studies International Studies at Université Laval.
“Unfortunately that’s become more or less acceptable these days.”
Canada’s new official bird; the Gray Jay aka Whiskey Jack
Canada’s new offical bird has a bit of heritage; “whiskey-jack”, was taken from Wiskedjak, Wisagatcak, Wisekejack, or other variations of a word used in the Algonquian family of aboriginal languages of eastern Canada to designate a mischievous, transforming spirit who liked to play tricks on people.
A trickster eh.
The Gray Jay has a reputation; a fearless and venturesome behaviour which earned it many colloquial names such as “meat-bird” and “camp-robber”.
This I can personally attest to, having had the little robber more than once brazenly walk up to my campstove and grab a piece of well-done bacon without even a thank you chirp. While I was right there cooking the bacon.
No, I didn’t shoo it away. I was impressed with his/her style. Nothing shy about that bird.
Hinterland Who’s Who continues;
The Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis is only slightly smaller than a Blue Jay and, silhouetted against the sky, the two birds are surprisingly similar, although the Gray Jay is a somewhat slower and weaker flier than its southern relative. Close up, the Gray Jay can hardly be confused with any other bird. Its back and tail are a medium gray and the underparts a slightly lighter shade, but the head has a quite striking and unique pattern of black and white. The short, black bill, the large dark eyes, and the thick, fluffy plumage, help give the Gray Jay a soft, rounded appearance that most people find highly appealing. For the Gray Jay, of course, the thick plumage is what keeps it warm on long winter nights or in cold snaps when the temperature may be 40 below zero for days at a time.
Juvenile Gray Jays just out of the nest are very different from the adults, being a uniform, sooty gray colour all over their bodies. Young and old are so distinct, in fact, that they were at first thought to be different species. Juveniles begin their first moult in July, however, and by the end of August they essentially look just like the adults.
Kevin O’leary is the Canadian version of a hairless Trump. The man who made a name for himself belittling and berating wannabe entrepreneurs on CBC’s Dragons’ Den is – drum roll – ‘considering’ entering the political arena as a Conservative.
I used the term ‘considering’ after watching his ‘I haven’t made up my mind if I’m going to run for leadership of the Conservative party which is why I am belittling my Conservative opponents now and reminding all the viewers as to why I am the greatest’ answer when a reporter asked if he was considering running for leadership of the Conservative party.
Geez Kevin, could you be any more blatantly obvious as to what a complete baffoon you are?
Okay, about my referring to Kevin O’Leary as the Hairless Trump. Here’s a bit of background on the HT.
Below is part of an article published on January 26th, 2016 in the National Observer, a Canadian publication founded by Linda Solomon Wood and an award-winning team of journalists.
Buried in the back pages of the financial press last October was a story about the sale of his mutual fund company, O’Leary Funds, to Canoe Financial, an investment firm run by former Dragons’ Den cast member and entrepreneur Brett Wilson.
O’Leary had launched his funds with great fanfare back in 2008, introducing them to viewers on his Business News Network (BNN) show, SqueezePlay. Before the cameras, wearing a natty navy-blue suit and matching azure tie, O’Leary resembled a proud father with a new infant as he explained to co-host Amanda Lang how his fund was designed to produce yield on a monthly basis.
“You got to pay Daddy,” he declared, “because my wife costs a fortune, my kids cost a fortune. I need dough and I need dough every month. You got to pay Daddy number one.”
In those days, O’Leary’s star was ascending. He was one of the so-called “Dragons” on Dragons’ Den, which was becoming a bonafide Canadian hit. The following year he and Lang moved their daily business show over to the CBC, renamed The Lang & O’Leary Exchange.
O’Leary’s popularity and persona as a business guru soon drove investors to his mutual funds, with O’Leary Funds roaring to as much as $1.5-billion in assets (and probably more). O’Leary boasted of being an investing whiz, with access to the movers and shakers in the business and political worlds — those ties giving him unique insider knowledge.
The reality was quite different. O’Leary was not even licensed to manage or invest other people’s money. Instead, he hired Connor O’Brien, a former Wall Street investment banker, to run O’Leary Funds. Moreover, by 2012, the funds were in trouble, falling to $1-billion in assets by the end of that year.
This past fall, when he finally sold his company to Canoe, the funds were down to $800-million in assets. This was due to redemptions — investors pulling their money out because of the funds’ performance. “The majority of the funds performed poorly for an extended period of time and the majority of (Bay Street) brokers refused to sell any new funds,” says Mark McQueen, CEO of Wellington Financial LP, a $900-million Bay Street finance firm and one of O’Leary’s long-time critics. “It’s not personal. The industry lives and dies on performance.”
Yet the demise of the O’Leary Funds is, in fact, just the latest in a series of failures in Kevin O’Leary’s business career. Continue reading →
Photo: Robert Lansdale/Courtesy of the University of Toronto Archives
Computing pioneer Kelly Gotlieb was quintessentially Canadian in that he united high technical achievement with a low public profile. Leaders in the field of digital computation, however, have long regarded the University of Toronto professor emeritus, who died on Oct. 16 at the age of 95, as the father of Canadian computer science.
In 1948, just a year after receiving his doctorate, Dr. Gotlieb helped establish the country’s first computation centre, at the University of Toronto, and in 1952, he imported Canada’s earliest digital computer, FERUT, to his new lab. This 800-pound thermionic-tube-filled monster was the second of its kind to be produced by the British firm Ferranti Electric Co. (FERUT is an acronym for ‘FERranti U of T’).
With FERUT up and running, Dr. Gotlieb collaborated with the University of Saskatchewan to process research data digitally. U of S sent metres of paper tape by Teletype to U of T over analog phone lines, encoding gigabytes of raw data. Dr. Gotlieb’s computation centre fed this into FERUT, which in mere hours had analytical output, also on paper tape, that was then sent back to U of S. The process was lightning-fast compared with previous snail-mail turnaround times of up to four months.
When the university established its Department of Computer Science in 1964 (for graduate students only), Dr. Gotlieb was appointed its first director. By that point, he had already distinguished himself in digital computation, calculating the dynamic stability of designs for the new Avro Arrow fighter plane and modelling the hydrological consequences of various configurations for the St. Lawrence Seaway then being mooted. Dr. Gotlieb’s calculations so reassured the U.S. Congress that it reversed its initial opposition to the Seaway, for the first time opening the industrial and agricultural heartland of North America to global seaborne trade.
Over his long career, Dr. Gotlieb co-authored four books and authored or co-authored more than 100 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals; in 1958, he was a founding member of the Canadian Information Processing Society. He pioneered a computerized reservation system for Trans-Canada Airlines (now Air Canada), paved the way for the world’s first computer-controlled traffic lights (in Toronto), fostered today’s machine-readable postal codes and digitized U of T’s card catalogues so effectively that his system was adopted by the U.S. Library of Congress.
“We were,” he once remarked, “responsible for an entire nation’s calculations.”
Dr. Gotlieb was a visionary, not only in the technical issues of machine computation, but also in their potential social implications. In the 1960s, he was chosen by U Thant, Secretary- General of the United Nations, to be one of six world experts advising on how computer technology might assist international development. Years later, he served on Canada’s first federal task force on privacy.
If you’re a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and you published a debut book in 2015, you might be eligible to nominate your title for Kobo’s second annual Emerging Writer Prize.
They’re now accepting nominations in categories of Literary Fiction, Romance and Non-Fiction. All submitted books must be available for sale in the Kobo store. Nomination process: Publishers and authors (traditionally published and self-published) can submit debut books published in 2015 at www.kobo.com/emergingwriter.
The application process opened February 4th and closes on March 11, 2016.
They’ll announce shortlisted titles on April 26. They’ll make final sections between April 27 and June 8, and then they’ll announce the winners at a coctail reception on June 23, 2016. The winner in each category will earn $10,000 and special merchandising between June and December of this year.
When evaluating security threats, Canadians would do well to look at the evidence. All of the identified attackers from Paris appear to be Belgian or French nationals, yet no politician has suggested increased screening of European visitors or immigrants to Canada. Studies out of the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto and Harvard University link an increase in immigration to a decrease in crime.
Statistics Canada data suggests that the percentage of new immigrants in Toronto and Montreal neighbourhoods is inversely proportional to all types of violent crime.
In Canada, despite the objective lack of connection, politicians began sounding off “security concerns” related to incoming Syrian refugees. Saskatchewan’s Premier Brad Wall called for a delay in resettling Syrian refugees. Premier Christy Clark of British Columbia stated the obvious: that the government needs to ensure that security checks are done on every refugee. These statements demonstrate a clear lack of understanding by government officials of Canada’s process for resettled refugees.
Contrary to the influx of migrants crossing into Europe over the past months, Canada is resettling pre-screened refugees who have been approved for permanent residency by a Canadian visa officer abroad. The process is thorough and involves international and national law enforcement agencies.
Refugees who may be eligible for resettlement are first identified by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), primarily on the basis of their vulnerability. International refugee law is clear that those responsible for serious criminal and terrorist acts will not benefit from refugee protection. Only one to two per cent of individuals registered with the UNHCR get referred into the potential resettlement pool. Anyone with a hint of criminal or terrorism connections is simply not placed into the pool for further assessment.
Next, a UNHCR officer conducts a file analysis. Officers in the Beirut UNHCR office are exceptionally knowledgeable about the events in Syria, the various factions and the timeline of the conflict. This allows for a robust credibility assessment of the facts alleged by the individual. At this point, anyone who the officer identifies as having security or criminal concerns would again be filtered out.
If a file progresses onwards, in general, a UNHCR officer is then tasked with conducting a “refugee status determination.” This includes an interview where the truth of their allegations and their background is fulsomely assessed.
If facts related to criminality or terrorism come to light after the interview, the UNCHR also has a process for cancelling refugee status.
If an individual passes this assessment, the UNHCR can refer the file to a Canadian visa officer who will again interview the person. In each case, the visa officer will assess whether the person meets the definition of a refugee.
The individual is then screened for “admissibility” to Canada. Medical and criminal screening is mandatory. A security review involves, at a minimum, the coordination of Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Information is often sought from third party states, international organizations and searches conducted in international databases.
My Threesome word puzzles ebook is now available for Amazon Kindle devices in Japan, Mexico, America, Brazil, India, Canada, the United Kingdom and many other countries served by Amazon.
The object of “Maintain Your Brain Vocabulary Builder Threesome Edition” is to find the same 3 letters which either begin or end a selection of words in a grid. Each puzzle is a 3×3 grid with 3 partial words in the first and last columns. You solve the puzzle by determining which 3 letters fit at the end of the words on the left column, and which also fit at the beginning of the words on the right column. The 3 letters in your solution cannot be switched around to solve the puzzle.
Maintain your brain with my Threesome edition; A great game for building and testing your vocabulary. A great bargain at US$0.99
North America http://www.amazon.com/dp/B011J6ARL0
United Kingdom http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B011J6ARL0
According to an article by the CBC Canada’s embassy in Kyiv was used as a haven for several days by anti-government protesters during the uprising that toppled the regime of former president Viktor Yanukovych.
Anti-government protesters fleeing riot police in Kyiv were camped in the main lobby of the Canadian embassy for at least a week during the Maidan uprising in January 2014. (Sergei Grits/Associated Press)
The Harper government never fully acknowledged — during the upheaval or since — the depth and extent of the security breach, which has had far-reaching implications on how Canadians are perceived in the region.
The Canadian Press has spent months piecing together the events surrounding the extraordinary incident, which started on Feb. 18, 2014 and occurred at the height of the violent crackdown against pro-European protesters.
It began, according to multiple sources in Kyiv and Ottawa, when one of the protesters being chased by riot police waved a Canadian passport at embassy security. Once the door was open, the individual was quickly followed by other demonstrators armed with sticks and paving stones.
Roman Waschuk, the current Canadian ambassador in Kyiv, confirmed the account in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.
“I understand there was a Canadian passport holder associated in some way with the group,” said Waschuk, who replaced Troy Lulashnyk as ambassador in Kyiv last year.
He acknowledged the protesters were camped in the main lobby for at least a week, which is something neither Foreign Affairs nor the Harper government has ever publicly stated.
Read the full article on the CBC website here…. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-embassy-used-as-safe-haven-during-ukraine-uprising-investigation-finds-1.3148719
Governments, police and news outlets are too eager to blame recent deaths on terrorism when mental illness is likely the culprit.
Before jumping on the ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ bandwagon police and news agencies should first find out the whole truth and not the superficial truth behind a ‘terrorist’ act like those in Ottawa recently.
Before announcing a news story reporters should remember the 5 W’s of reporting; Who, What, When, Where, Why.
Terrorism drives fear, fear drives protection, protection removes freedoms.
“Terrorism” or “terrorist” sells far better to the public than “mentally ill” does, after all we all know someone who has some mental illness of some kind and so the term ‘mentally ill’ doesn’t strike the fear necessary to sell newspapers, increase police surveillance, and restrict personal freedoms.
By linking violent acts to terrorism the police and governments move quickly to restrict or remove personal freedoms previously enjoyed by citizens:
“Why We Need to Resist Quick-Fix Anti-Terrorism Measures”article by Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.
“Accelerated review of police abilities’ underway, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney says” from the CBC may be read here.
“Conservatives’ new anti-terror laws likely to mirror ‘immensely controversial’ U.K. legislation” from the National Post may be read here.
“Canadians must not trade freedom for the illusion of security” from The Tyee may be read here.
So while governments and police use ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorist’ to remove more freedoms from citizens the same governments and police do nothing about one cause for why a person may become a terrorist; mental illness. That’s like a doctor coming to perform emergency surgery on a dead patient.
“Home-Grown Terrorists: Actually Terrorists or Mentally Ill?” may be read here.
“The Line Between Terrorism and Mental Illness” may be read here.
“Why Can’t Terrorists Be Mentally Ill, Too?” may be read here.
“Ottawa shooting: Was Michael Zehaf-Bibeau a terrorist or mentally ill?” may be read here.
“Ottawa gunman was mentally ill and ‘wanted to die’ says his mother” may be read here.
“The Digital Privacy Act, Bill S-4 has got a provision in it that basically throws the door open to warrantless disclosure of people’s private information to companies, to non-governmental agencies as well as the government,” said David Christopher, spokesman for the Vancouver-based Internet advocacy group OpenMedia.ca.
“The victims of that privacy breach wouldn’t even know about it. It would be a huge step backwards and it has no place in a bill which purports to protect Canadian privacy.”
The Harper government dressing up a draconian act with a soothing sounding title like ‘Digital Privacy Act’ (doesn’t it make you feel your privacy is going to be protected?) would only fool newborn babies and members of the Conservative party. Remember the various ‘Freedom of Information” Acts across Canada and other governments? Everyone knows how those acts restricted access to government information so much even newspapers and journalists ended up with pages and pages of redacted material containing thousands of blacked-out information. The only ‘Freedom’ contained in most of those Acts was the freedom to protect politicians from anyone finding out what the hell is going on.
Years ago a wise man said this to me; “If the government wants you to do it, or says its good for you, run the opposite way as fast as you can.”
The proposed Digital Privacy Act pretty well cancels the Supreme Court decision just last month regarding protecting Canadian against copyright trolling.
Christopher said the proposed Digital Privacy Act legislation would leave Canada open to copyright trolls.
“We are worried about the prospect that US-style copyright trolling might come to Canada,” he said. “Their business model has been to send out threatening letters to huge numbers of people that they accuse of breaching copyright and the aim of these letters is not to take them to court but to scare them into handing over large sums of money.”
Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, says the legislation could be used may be used to obtain information about you for everything from defamation to consumer disputes.
“Unpack the legalese and you find that organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law,” Geist wrote in his blog. “This applies both past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening).”
Read the complete article on the Vancouver Sun here.
Canada is undergoing radical change at a time when our national media is in collapse. In two years there will be another federal election. Canada needs more diverse reporting to inform that democratic moment — reporting that cares more about your values than shareholder profits. That’s what The Tyee has done for more than 10 years in B.C., garnering numerous reporting awards and a loyal readership.
Support The Tyee and bring more diverse, fact-driven reporting to the national conversation.
How you can help
Your money will pay proven journalists to cover the national stories other media miss. What stories exactly? You tell us. When you sign up, you’ll complete a news-priority survey that will help inform this reporting. Choose from priorities like energy & environment, trade & foreign affairs or inequality. Plus, your money keeps The Tyee paywall free, which means you’re giving the gift of excellent independent reporting to all Canadians, regardless of income level. Because news is for the people. But good reporting costs money. You can help with your donation of $5.00 or more.
A number of civil-society groups are supporting our bid to bring more independent reporting to the national conversation. The list includes Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, FairVote Canada, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Council of Canadians and many more.
Click here to view some of the award-winning journalists standing by and ready to add their voice to The Tyee as it expands nationally and to add your support.