carepov

First of all, do you admit that your statement: is false? Wiki: "On September 18, 2006, the Canadian Commission of Inquiry, led by Dennis O'Connor, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, issued its report. The final report exonerates Arar and categorically states that there is no evidence linking Arar to terrorist activity, stating there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The Commission also found no evidence that Canadian officials acquiesced in the U.S. decision to detain and remove Mr. Arar to Syria, but that it is very likely that the U.S. relied on inaccurate and unfair information about Mr. Arar that was provided by Canadian officials. The report also confirms that he was tortured while in Syria. O'Connor cleared Arar of terrorism allegations, and found the actions of Canadian officials likely led to his being deported by U.S. authorities to Syria[44][45][46]" Wiki sources: 44.^ a b Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006) (PDF). Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations. Ottawa, Ont.: Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. ISBN 0-660-19648-4. 45.^ Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006) (PDF). Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Factual Background Volume I. Ottawa, Ont.: Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. ISBN 0-660-19648-4. 46.^ Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006) (PDF). Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Factual Background Volume II. Ottawa, Ont.: Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. ISBN 0-660-19648-4. You and your source (Kevin Steel of Wetsern Standard.ca) can ask any questions and raise any doubts that you want - in my mind the following FACTS are unquestionable: 1.He was and still is an an innocent man 2.He was tortured

Do you agree that in the handling of Omar Khadr, and other Guantanamo prisoners, some Laws were broken by the US military? Yes I agree with you - Let's do our best to hold the Taliban and other enemies accountable and try them to the full extent of the Law. BUT: This becomes much more difficult (next to impossible?) when we (the West) do not follow the Law. Yes - let's improve the laws to ensure that they are appropriate for modern warfare. BUT: The way to do this is not to break current laws.

Sure there is a difference, but Romeo Dallaire's point was both cases are against the Law. You either comply with the Law or you don't. Once any one starts to make exceptions then it is a slippery slope... I have great respect for his views! Is there a double standard - (i.e. the enemy does not comply with the Law and Canada is expected to)? Maybe, but IMO, the "War on Terror" is as much a long-term ideological war as anything else and when the West breaks the Law it is counter-productive. Many see adherence to the Law as a hindrance when in a battle - I see it as the key strategy towards winning the war. P.S. I am sorry to see all the personal attacks on you and the attacks on Canada's military personnel.

Sorry, I still don't get your comment: "The constitution is not a suicide note." Please get your facts straight: "Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis." Also from Wiki: "...the actions of Canadian officials likely led to his being deported by U.S. authorities to Syria"

I do not understand what you are saying. Could you elaborate? I would suspect that some people like Maher Arar, would not agree. Perhaps we should lobby the UN to amend the UDHR to the Universal (except for crazed religious wackos as defined by Argus) Declaration of Human Rights?

Army Guy and Signals.Cpl, Can you please watch the following video and let me know what you think of Romeo Dallaire's statements?

Very interesting reading, thank you. I find Moore’s arguments the most convincing – he has real results on his side: Bullard/Chanyapate provide no data to support the idea that trade liberalization causes an increase in poverty. The best they could do was: and yet – aside from times of serious conflict - Human Development marches on in these countries. Onis and Senses were informative and but also lacked any data. What everyone should agree to is, as you said earlier, strict adherence to any ideology is not likely to succeed. The WTO seems to get it: http://wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/10mis_e/10m02_e.htm But anti-poverty NGOs are stubbornly adhering to national developmentalism and rehashing the same anti-trade liberalization arguments that have been disproven with >20 years of real results. Ironically, a huge problem identified by Bullard and Chanyapate is the unfair protectionism of the agriculture sector of developed countries. Blocking progress of Doha is blocking human development in the South! Don't you find this tragic?

In term of trade, I don't see these countries any differently than Canada. Every country negotiates trade agreements in their own best interests. Canada also has many protectionist measures.

I 100% agree. I wish that all social justice groups that aim to reduce poverty would take this position instead of opposing all trade agreements and simplistic "race to the bottom" sloganeering. I am looking forward to reading the debate and reponding to it. Thank you.

I would suggest "mercantilist" or "good negotiators of trade agreements".

This may be true is some cases but you cannot apply this formula across the board. Here are two hypothetical examples: 1. Suncor calculates their return on investment (ROI) for a project in the oil sands. The project will employ 1,000 workers. If no migrant workers are used the ROI is 10-15% and the project is not worth the risk. If 500 migrant workers are used then the ROI is 20% and the project goes ahead. Migrant workers created Canadian jobs! 2. Maple Leaf in Brandon, MB is bidding on a contract for packaged meat to export to the US. The contract would require 500 full-time production employees + support staff. The cost when using only Canadian workers is too high (if you can even find them). If 300 migrant workers are used the costs become competitive, they win the bid and again migrant workers create Canadian jobs!

I did dome research and found that salaries in Canada are increasing: "The average salary in Canadian dollars has risen by 10 to 15 percent since 2007." http://www.livingin-canada.com/work-salaries-wages-canada.html The chart on page 9 shows an impressive rise of Median after-tax income from 1997 to 2007 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-202-x/75-202-x2007000-eng.pdf Your fears about migrant workers pushing down wages seem to unsupported by actual increases in Canadian wages.

To everyone that thinks that Natives are “mooching from the rest of Canada” or similar: Please open your eyes to the education funding gap between Natives and non-Natives. “Each student receives, on average, about $3,000 less in funding every year from kindergarten through Grade 12 than non-natives.” http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1136945--harper-conservatives-set-to-back-motion-to-end-aboriginal-education-funding-gap-fulfilling-shannen-s-dream More on the funding gap: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/spending-cap-on-aboriginal-education-is-self-defeating/article533811/ Thank goodness all political parties have finally agreed to at least close the gap! How long has this been going on for and why? It makes no sense to me – can anyone explain this gap?

Two advantages of migrant temporary workers that seem to be overlooked on this thread are: 1. Speed - companies need these workers yesterday 2. Flexibility - many positions are temporary, especially in construction or resource sector where no one knows when workers will need to be laid off. If/when this happens migrant workers can be sent home. In the sectors where migrant workers are being hired - are wages for Canadians going down? You claim that they are, do you have any support for this claim?

I would assume that trade liberalization helps increase economic growth because: 1. That is conventional wisdom – more trade leads to more economic growth 2. Human development is improving; it is difficult to imagine increasing human development without increasing economic growth No. I am talking primarily of poverty - that's also the main focus of many social activists groups. “Economic growth will not reduce poverty, improve equality and produce jobs unless it is inclusive.” http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/povertyreduction/overview.html IMO, the best measurement of poverty in developing nations is the UN Human Development Index and their various components. Do you agree? Here is data on Mexico: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/MEX.html Chile is another free-trading success story: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CHL.html These are the trends for every country: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/trends/ Yes please send me links to academic journals about how the WTO has been bad news. Also, please let me know if you see any specific countries where strong economic liberalization has hindered human development.

IMO, it is almost always possible to simplify/reduce regulation AND improve safety (or other objecteives like a cleaner environment).

I also agree with Tim that this is a ridiculous statement. Perhaps the sucess of the Asian Tigers has something to do with the fact that people there on average work and study many more hours than the rest of the world? I hardly call that freeloading!

MG, although I do not agree with your opinions, I do appreciate the fact that you are far more balanced on the issue of free trade compared to CofC and other groups. Thank you for this valuable and interesting source of data. Are you saying that trade liberalization causes a ~1.5% reduction in GDP per capita growth? If so, I disagree: 1) Growth rates should slow down over time as an economy matures, 2) Per capita growth rates will be dampened further by a population explosion, 3) I do not see a causal link between trade liberalization and reduced growth - if anything I would assume the opposite. More importantly, IMO GDP growth per capita is the wrong measurement. Human development is what matters most: Life expectancy, literacy rates, per capita real income, number of schooling years (esp. for women), infant mortality, access to sanitation... I am not saying "free trade is good for all countries and will alleviate poverty". I do see a strong correlation between trade liberalization and human development/reduction in poverty. The most striking example to me is Mexico since 1994. My opinion is that trade liberalization helps increase human development and your opinion is that it hinders the reduction of human development. There are definitely mountains of hogwash on both sides of this debate (predictions of US-Canada or NAFTA anti-free trade were hogwash too). I have yet to see a scholarly article / book that "proves" your side of this debate, if you can provide a link I would appreciate it. We can both agree that there are factors that unquestionably affect human development: preventing and resolving conflict, health care (esp. preventive measures), education (esp. women), increased freedom as per A. Sen, advances in agriculture and other technology, taxation/income distribution policies, fighting corruption... Why doesn't the social activist community put aside the questionable "causes" of poverty (free trade and corporations) and focus more on the real causes?

Thank you for pointing out my mistake about WWI casualties/deaths. Just to keep the "fact score" even, unlike your earlier statement, the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, after the atomic bombings in Japan. From you last post it looks like we more or less understand each other's position and disagree. For now, I have nothing further to add. Thank you for the discussion - I learned a lot from it and I admire your "sympathy" for all the victims of war.

This is your opinion. My opinion is that: 1. the UN helped to prevent a war between superpowers 2. the UN helped prevent some “small wars” 3. the UN helped reduce casualties of some “small wars” 4. the UN saves countless other lives through humanitarian efforts and disease prevention I agree with you that I have not proved this, you have not disproved this – it is my opinion against yours I suggest we leave it at that. Sorry I did not express by point clearly regarding my disagreement with your assumption that the world will somehow create something better than the UN: “The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 35 million.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties This was not enough! The superpowers got together a failed miserably to prevent another World War! In fact their actions arguably made WWII inevitable. “World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties This is what it took to create the UN! So you think that if we disband the UN, today’s issues are enough to spur world leaders and powers into forming an organization that is more effective that what we have today? I say the chances of a WWIII are more likely than the formation of a more effective organization than the UN. In a way you are right, the failure to act is harm. My proof to why we should keep the UN is that there is no alternative – your “solution” would result in more war and deaths. Again, my solution is not status quo, it is to improve the UN with continued efforts like R2P and others.

I quoted the CofC as an example of the type of message and language that I would like to see changed. From my perspective they are a relatively moderate group and my term "demonizing corporations" does not apply to them, my bad. They were/are against US-Canada Free Trade and NAFTA. At the very least their position (and similar activists') is to delay future trade agreements (asking for human rights impacts, increased transparency, "designed by and for people", environmental concerns, etc...) and "renegotiate" NAFTA. Some activists would rather scrap NAFTA and halt all trade negotiations. IMO, these delays or cancellations of trade agreements are counter-productive. Again, IMO social activists should acknowledge the benefits of trade liberalization - especially in the reduction of poverty and basically accept the status quo of free trade negotiations. At least take a neutral view of free trade and focus resources on government policies that can actually impact the environment, poverty, etc... Regarding corporations, the CofC is implying that "free trade regimes [are] designed to increase the power of corporations at the expense of social, environmental and economically sustainable development." Again, this is not demonizing, but it is not true and not productive. An example of demonizing would be a UMFM radio host saying this morning: "we all know that politicians are basically prostitutes for large corporations". It would not take long to find many more examples. To me, more coopertative would mean basically more objective, a neutral stance towards corporations - what about the positive aspects of corporations? I hope that this clarifies my argument.

I have no doubt that most members of The Council of Canadians and similar social activists genuinely want reduce poverty, but their views on trade are counterproductive. My position is that social justice activists should stop counter-productive behaviour of: 1. Blocking free trade agreements 2. Demonizing corporations The following points support my position: -It is now proven that opponents of the Canada-US free trade debate have lost. Compare Canada from 1988 to 2012 we are much better off by almost any measure. -Look at Mexico, especially the Human Development metrics from 1994 (NAFTA) to today. -Look at human development progress of any developing country 5, 10, 15, 25... years after signing a free trade agreement - I challenge anyone to find one that has regressed -Divide the world into three countries: a.) open to free trade, b.) not open to free trade, and c.) N/A. You will notice that the countries in on list a) are reducing poverty the fastest -The stated goals for almost any corporation is to 1. make money for shareholders, 2. satisfy customer needs, 3. ensure employees are secure and satisfied, 4. comply with all laws, 5. be a good corporate citizen. These goals may conflict in the short-term but I would argue that most corporations do well in meeting all these goals. I cannot think of an “evil corporation” today – can you? -Strong corporations and strong environmental laws can, do, and should co-exist: e.g. California -Free trade, strong multinational companies, strong unions and social programs also can, do and should exist: e.g. Scandinavia and Germany Of course I am not in favour of blindly trusting free trade negotiators and corporations, however I think that a more co-operative stance by groups like CofC would be more effective in gaining support for more just and environmentally responsible policies that Governments would then be much more likely to adopt.

Well thanks for sending your Yankee dollars to the UN anyways. What is your proposal?

Sorry if you wrote about it earlier, but what is your proposal?

Wait for what? We are both arguing for immediate action and improvement - my plan is realistic and yours is unrealistic and would likely increase the number of deaths. History has shown that it takes somewhere between 35,000,000 (1914-1918) and 100,000,000 (1914-1945) deaths for the great powers of the world to get together, compromise and form an effective international body. If we scrap the UN now what is the alternative? What do you think would realistically take the place of the UN? We've been down this road before, I provided a list of "successful" missions. You said it is a fool's game to guess at how many lives were saved by preventing war - I agree. My earlier challenge was to name a UN mission that caused deaths or a reduction in freedom and prosperity. Yes the UN often fails to act - let's fix that - however it is not doing any harm. *** I can't seem to understand the logic of your position. Perhaps you can refer me to an alternative credible opinion that recommends the scrapping of the UN? I think that my opinions would be similar to those of Roméo Dallaire.