CUBA-US RELATIONS: THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES, By:NINO PAGLICCIA

CUBA-US RELATIONS: THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES

By: NINO PAGLICCIA  in People’s Voice OCTOBER 1, 2016  

It is still frequent to come across people who having heard about the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, believe that now it’s all back to normal and that the blockade of Cuba is over. Although the initial announcements of the reopening of relations by Presidents Raúl Castro and Barack Obama were made on December 17, 2014, the blockade is still in full force.

In fact, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez stated at a Sept. 9 press conference in Havana that the U.S. blockade on the island nation has cost it $4.7 billion over the last year, and $753.7 billion over the last six decades.[1] But the blockade is not just a matter of monetary value; it is a human rights issue that Cubans call immoral, in violation of all ethical principles, and causing human harm.

Here are some recent examples of the enforcement of the blockade by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for transactions involving Cuba:

•  On March 12, 2015 the German financial institution Commerzbank was fined about 1.7 million dollars.
• March 25, the U.S. company PayPal was fined more than $7.6 million.
• In November 2015, four months after reopening respective embassies, OFAC imposed a fine of $1.1 billion on the French bank Crédit Agricole.
• On January 20, 2016, the U.S. design company WATG Holdings Inc. was fined $140,400.
• In February, the French geological company CGG Service S.A. was fined $614,250.
• At the end of February, the Treasury Department fined the U.S. company Halliburton $304,706.

Most damaging of course are transactions involving two strategic sectors: 1) food production and imports; and 2) manufacturing of pharmaceutical and biological products for the healthcare system.

Other impacts of the blockade involve difficulty by Cuban entities to carry out normal services. This is the case of denial by the Spanish courier and postal services TNT to mail an international parcel by the Cuban Embassy in Madrid. Reason given? “There is a USA embargo.” How much these incidents are the result of stupidity, ignorance or deliberate harassment against Cuba, we will never know.

Paradoxically, Cuba-U.S. conversations continue. On September 12, the first Bilateral Economic Dialogue took place in Washington, to discuss economic, commercial and financial issues of mutual interest. While these contacts are necessary, likely they will not translate into any substantial advantage for the Cuban economy. The Cuban newspaper Granma reports that despite the “authorization for Cuba to use the U.S. dollar in international transactions with third countries and in those permitted between Cuban and U.S. institutions, to date, this change has not been implemented. International banks continue to refuse to work with Cuba, given the U.S. sanctions that remain in place. Cuba has yet to make a single payment or deposit in U.S. dollars.” [2]

In another apparent paradox, on September 14 President Barak Obama reauthorized the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). Established in 1917, in the middle of World War One, this Act has been used as the basis for the Helms-Burton Act that codifies the U.S. blockade. The TWEA is now used only against Cuba. What indicates the confusion of U.S. government legislation is the fact that by signing this Act, Obama actually retains some authority to soften aspects of the blockade. Despite the intention of the Act, Obama has not used that authority to a great extent.

Many supporters internationally have been in solidarity with Cuba against this absurd U.S. blockade. They include personalities like the Head of the U.S. Council of Churches and Pope Francis.

The report, titled “Necessity to End the Economic, Commercial and Financial Blockade Imposed by the United States”, will be presented on October 26 at the UN General Assembly. [3] Similar reports have been introduced and voted on at the U.N. since 1992. Last year the General Assembly voted 191-2 to condemn the U.S. blockade on Cuba, with only the U.S. and Israel opposed. Yet another paradox when the U.S. votes for the continuation of the almost 60 years old blockade at the U.N. while Obama speaks of “leaving the past behind.”

With the apparent shift towards pro-U.S. right-wing governments in Latin America, it will be interesting to see who the “new” outliers will be, if any.

Cuba will continue to vigorously demand lifting the blockade and returning the Guantanamo territory illegally occupied by the U.S. military base as the initial steps towards normalization of relations. In a recent talk in Ottawa, Cuban Ambassador to Canada, Julio Garmendía Peña, emphasized the importance of the international solidarity movement and thanked the Canadian friendship associations that have consistently picketed in front of the U.S. consulates in several cities demanding the lifting of the blockade. [4]

In the meantime Cuba and the Cubans are determined to continue the struggle to maintain the well-earned sovereignty and independence gained thanks to its socialist values.

[1] http://www.granma.cu/mundo/2016-09-09/el-bloqueo-aun-persiste-aseguro-canciller-cubano-09-09-2016-15-09-37

[2] http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2016-09-16/the-us-blockade-of-cuba-remains-in-full-force

[3] Full text in English can be downloaded from: http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/es

[4] http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/es/cuba-denuncia/el-bloqueo-sigue-danando-al-pueblo-cubano-expresa-embajador-de-cuba-en-canada

US protecting Nusra front to force regime change in Syria - interview w Russian FM Sergei Lavrov - VIDEO

The US is trying to spare a jihadist group in its attempts to unseat Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, Russia's foreign minister has told the BBC. Sergei Lavrov said the US had broken its promise to separate the powerful Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra Front) and other extremist groups from more moderate rebels.

And he defended the bombardment of Aleppo by Russian and Syrian forces.

Russia Views Hillary Clinton as An “Existential Threat” to World Peace, Darius Shahtahmasebi

Russia Views Hillary Clinton as An “Existential Threat” to World Peace 

September 21, 2016   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi 

from (ANTIMEDIA) 

When it comes to the two front-runners in the current presidential race, the media often attempts to paint Donald Trump as a crazy, unpredictable president who will lead us down a path of terror. However, the truth remains that despite Trump’s overall nonsensical rhetoric, he is the only leading candidate who has said anything sane regarding American foreign policy. Statements to the effect that the Middle East would have been safer with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi still in power are probably the most profound things ever spoken by the wildly racist billionaire mogul.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2003 and was instrumental in bringing about the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. She even laughed hysterically about the despot’s death in an interview despite the fact she single-handedly plunged the rich democracy that was Libya into an extremist war zone.

In the eyes of the Russian establishment, this is especially worrying given that it was Clinton who convinced Russia not to use their veto power at the United Nations Security Council level to stop the NATO onslaught of Libya; she promised the so-called “no-fly zone” would not be used to pursue regime change.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was very critical of NATO motives when it became clear that NATO forces had, indeed, designated Gaddafi a military target, asking the important and necessary question: “Who gave NATO the right to kill Gaddafi?” After Gaddafi was murdered on the streets of Sirte, Putin astutely stated:

“The whole world saw him being killed; all bloodied. Is that democracy? And who did it? Drones, including American ones, delivered a strike on his motorcade. Then commandos – who were not supposed to be there – brought in so-called opposition and militants and killed him without trial. I’m not saying that Gaddafi didn’t have to quit, but that should have been left up to the people of Libya to decide through the democratic process.”

Clearly, Russia was very disappointed that the so-called no-fly zone in Libya had been used to undermine the international legal process and overthrow the leader of a sovereign nation — something they could have prevented at the Security Council level with the use of their veto power had Hillary not convinced them otherwise. Clinton’s subsequent laughter at this flagrant violation of international law is a slap in the face to the Russian establishment that continues to advocate for a stronger working relationship with the United States and a return to classical international law. Russia, therefore, likely views Clinton not only as a mentally unstable candidate but one who could be the president to drown all other presidents in history by finally pulling the trigger on Russia.

According to Clinton Ehrlich, the sole Western researcher at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations:

“Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat. The Russian foreign-policy experts I consulted did not harbor even grudging respect for Clinton.”

Whereas Trump has paid the Russian president compliments and claimed he would work more closely with Russia, Clinton has continued her policy of beratement and hostility towards Putin. Just last month, she called him the “godfather of right-wing, extreme nationalism.” As Foreign Policy magazine pointed out, this was an attempt to insult Putin using his own words.

Clinton further derided Donald Trump’s praise of Putin as “unpatriotic” and “scary,”  claiming Trump’s attempted coziness with Putin could represent a threat to American national security. Apparently, America always needs Russia to remain an enemy. If this is the case, when exactly does the Cold War officially end? Under Clinton, it never will.

Russia’s distrust of Clinton runs further than merely televised mind-numbing entertainment. Russia is well aware ofClinton’s ambitions to turn Syria, one of Russia’s most strategic allies in the Middle East, into the next Libya. Putin has therefore been actively working to counter these endeavors through direct military intervention in Syria.

How far Clinton will go down this road is frighteningly unclear given that under the current president, the United States Air Force just shelled the Syrian army, which was engaged in a battle with ISIS at the time. The U.S. strike killed over 60 Syrian servicemen and wounded 100 more. If Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize that he is, is essentially providing air cover for ISIS, what on earth will Hillary Clinton attempt in Syria?

Given Russia’s vested interest in ensuring the next president of the United States is not a potentially unstable career warmonger, there could be some truth behind claims of Russian interference in American politics.

If so, could you blame them for trying?

From The Nation 2009 Archives, Democrats Don't Deliver Healthcare Reform... Again, By Adam Howard

September 30, 2009

By Adam Howard, The Nation, September 29, 2009

For weeks now it's seemed more and more evident that instead of significant, meaningful healthcare reform, we are--if we're lucky--going to wind up with something akin to health insurance reform. These reforms will be pretty unassailable (who could oppose making it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, for instance?) but a far cry from what just a couple months ago seemed not just possible but probable--reform that included a robust, affordable public option accessible to all Americans.

Why has the healthcare reform battle disintegrated so rapidly? Certainly the seemingly endless barrage of right wing lies and downright insanity over the summer didn't help. Neither did the White House's lackadaisical approach to countering it. But at the end of the day, real reform--the public option, considered today by the Finance Committee--should have had the votes it needed to pass. Instead it failed by fifteen votes to eight, with five Democrats voting against it.

Four out of five major committees have delivered in one form or another what 65 percent of the American public wants: a government-run public health insurance option. President Obama supports a public option, the majority of medical profession does, and without it there is no way healthcare costs can be brought down in any significant way.

And yet our Democrat-controlled Congress can't get its act together. Today, five Democratic senators rejected the most progressive version of the public option to emerge from the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller's amendment. Remember their names, because they should go down as traitors to what the Democratic party should stand for: Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Tom Carper.

That's right--we're not talking about thirty to forty Democratic senators gumming up the works, we're talking about a handful of woefully out-of-touch, heartless politicians who aren't clever enough to realize the obvious political upshot of seeing healthcare reform succeed.

This group of senators is not only letting their constituents and the rest of the American people down--they're also setting the stage for the failure of President Obama's top domestic priority and most likely a reversal of fortune in the 2010 midterm elections. What adviser has persuaded them to believe that by slowing down and/or neutering healthcare they will somehow burnish their reputation and improve their electoral position? Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus's name is now the equivalent of a cuss word in most Democratic households and with good reason.

It's times like these that even the most patient progressives find themselves at loss for why they even bother to back the Democratic party. It's no longer the lesser of two evils; in this case it's the equal of the other evil. Certainly the debate is not over and this may not be the public option's last stand--whatever ultimately emerges from the Finance Committee will have to reconciled with the other Senate bills, plus whatever emerges from the House, which Speaker Pelosi has insisted will include a public option. But this is a devastating blow to all of us who have been holding out hope that our elected officials could actually still do their jobs and make positive change happen for ordinary Americans.

From Archives Sept 24, 2014: Gallup shows Americans continue to say Dems & Repubs don't represent their interests, a 3rd Party Necessary

Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of U.S. adults, 58%, say a third U.S. political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" representing the American people. These views are little changed from last year's high. Since 2007, a majority has typically called for a third party.

The results are based on Gallup's Sept. 4-7 Governance poll. The first time the question was asked in 2003, a majority of Americans believed the two major parties were adequately representing the U.S. public, which is the only time this has been the case. Since 2007, a majority has said a third party is needed, with two exceptions occurring in the fall of the 2008 and 2012 presidential election years.

The historical 60% high favoring a third party came in a poll conducted during the partial federal government shutdown last October. At that time, 26% of Americans said the parties were doing an adequate job. That figure is up to 35% now, but with little change in the percentage calling for a third party.

Americans' current desire for a third party is consistent with their generally negative views of both the Republican and Democratic parties, with only about four in 10 viewing each positively. Americans' views toward the two major parties have been tepid for much of the last decade. However, even when the party's images were more positive in the past, including majority favorability for the Democrats throughout 2007 and favorability for the GOP approaching 50% in 2011, Americans' still saw the need for a third party.

Independents Maintain Solid Preference for Third Party

Political independents, as might be expected given a lack of allegiance to either major party, have shown a far greater preference for a third political party than those who identify as Republicans or Democrats. Currently, 71% of independents say a third party is needed, on the upper end of the trend line. That compares with 47% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans who say the same.

For most of the past 11 years, Republicans and Democrats were about equally as likely to favor a third party. From 2003 to 2006 -- when Republicans had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress -- Democrats were more likely than Republicans to see the need for a third party. And in 2011, after the rise of the Tea Party movement, Republicans were a bit more inclined than Democrats to see a third party as necessary.

Implications

Although Americans express a desire for a viable alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties, third political parties have had little success in American politics. The U.S. political system makes it difficult for third parties to hold elected office given the Electoral College system of electing presidents and election of members of Congress from individual states and districts based on the candidate getting the most votes. Such a system generally favors two parties -- a center-right and a center-left party -- that have the ability to assemble a winning plurality or majority in districts and states across the country. Also, some states have restrictive laws on ballot access that make it difficult for third-party candidates to appear on the ballot.

Third parties have had success in other countries when they had strong support in a particular region, or if members of the legislature were allocated proportionately to the nationwide vote each party received. This allowed third parties to hold seats with national vote shares usually well less than 30%.

Given the U.S. political system, those whose ideology puts them to the left of the Democratic Party or the right of the Republican Party are better served trying to work within a major political party than establishing their own party. Supporters of the Tea Party movement generally took this approach, with some success, by trying to get their preferred candidates nominated as Republicans in the last few election cycles. But as with most U.S. third parties historically, the Tea Party's influence appears to be waning as the movement did not play a pivotal role in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and was less successful in defeating more moderate Republican candidates in the 2014 congressional primaries than in 2010.

Though the desire for a third party exists, it is unclear how many Americans would actually support a third party if it came to be. Americans' preference for a third party may reflect their frustration with the way the Republican and Democratic parties are performing, as well as the idea that the system ought to be open to new parties, regardless of whether this is viable in practice.

SURVEY METHODS

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Sept. 4-7, 2014, with a random sample of 1,017 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View survey methodology, complete question responses, and trends.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

Venezuela's Says 70 US Military Bases in Latin America Must Go

Venezuela's Says 70 US Military Bases in Latin America Must Go

Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuelan Foreign Minister, during a press conference in Caracas. | Photo: Reuters

Venezuela's foreign minister called on Latin America to unite to defend sovereignty and development.

The foreign minister of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez denounced the existence of U.S. military bases in Latin American Thursday and called for the governments in the region to unite and demand their closing, remarks that came during the third annual Latin American Summit of Progressive Movements in Ecuador.

According to Rodriguez, who spoke to an audience in the capital city of Quito, these bases only provoke conflict in the region. “We denounce the presence of 70 U.S. bases in our region, we have to unite and demand the closing of these bases,” said Rodriguez.

Ecuador’s former foreign minister Ricardo Patiño introduced Rodriguez, warning that the imperialist powers will continue to attack the progressive forces in Latin America.

“But we are stronger,” said Patiño. “We need to be better organized to be able to defend ourselves.”

Patiño recalled the decision of Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa to close the U.S. navy base in the city of Manta in 2007. When faced with criticism, Correa said he would allow a U.S. base in Ecuador as long as the northern country allows an Ecuadorian navy base in its territory.

Rodriguez also spoke about the attacks against the progressive governments in the region by the new conservative leaders in Argentina and Brazil, with the support of imperialism.

“Right-wing governments in the region are franchises of the (U.S.) Pentagon and the Department of State, that are destroying what the left has achieved,” said Rodriguez.

Rodriguez said she hopes the region could soon count again on Argentina and Brazil to work on a stronger integration.

The foreign minister reflected on the sovereignty struggles of Venezuela that late president Hugo Chavez, leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, often explained to the people.

“More than to rethink the integration process in the region, we have to defend it, we need to build a pluri-polar and multi-centered world like Chavez talked about,” said Rodriguez.

In September, the Canadian Liberal Govt Out-Harpered the Tories

"In September, Did the Liberals Out-Harper the Conservatives?"

On climate, foreign workers, and unions, Trudeau government moves this month have rankled progressives.

By Jeremy J. Nuttall 29 Sep 2016 | TheTyee.ca

The key players in Stephen Harper’s government would have been high-fiving after the month Justin Trudeau’s is finishing up.

http://bit.ly/2cJrncd

In September, the Liberal government took a hard line stance with a public union, held steady to the Conservatives’ greenhouse gas targets, approved a liquefied natural gas plant and pipeline assailed by environmentalists and Indigenous groups, and some say signalled it may extend, rather than curtail, powers to spy on citizens granted by the Harper government’s controversial Bill C-51.

For good measure, Trudeau’s Liberals also suggested making it easier for businesses to bring more temporary foreign workers to Canada, taking a position even Harper had backed away from after abuses of the federal program hit the headlines. The Conservatives tightened restrictions on who can hire foreign workers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Earlier this month, a Liberal-dominated Parliamentary committee released a report recommending easier access to the program for businesses.

Trudeau rode to victory in October by running to the left of the NDP on many issues. In New York this month, he painted his government, and Canada, as progressive beacons to the world, particularly in welcoming refugees.

But at home, the Trudeau government’s actions have left many progressive Canadians feeling frustrated and misled.

Even Conservatives are concluding that Trudeau’s team has come to embrace Harper’s political agenda.

Conservative Colin Carrie, Oshawa MP and critic for health, says the Liberals’ decision to “copy” Conservative policy shows the Harper government was on the right track.

But that’s not what Trudeau ran on, notes Carrie, who said the list of broken promises by the Trudeau government is mounting. 

LNG gets Trudeau’s backing

As prime minister, Harper was always under fire from environmentalists for pushing the oil and gas industry’s interests, but Trudeau’s government just gave the industry one of its biggest boosts in years.

Already under fire for approving permits to allow the controversial Site C dam in northern British Columbia to go forward, Trudeau’s government Tuesdayapproved the Pacific NorthWest LNG project on the province’s north coast, although with 190 conditions.

The $36-billion liquefied natural gas project is projected to generate 4,500 jobs during construction and about 600 long-term jobs.

But environmentalists say the project poses a serious risk to salmon habitat around its site on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert and call it a “carbon bomb” due to the greenhouse gas emissions it will create.

“The federal government’s recent decisions are not the climate leadership millions of Canadians voted for,” said Toronto-based Environmental Defence in a release. “Instead of speeding up the transition to a low-carbon economy, the federal and B.C. governments are deepening the dependence of Canada’s economy on fossil fuels.”

The Liberals insist the project will meet rigorous environmental standards in harmony with Ottawa’s priority to “get our natural resources to market.”

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr told reporters in Ottawa Wednesday that the approval is a sign of things to come.

“This sends a signal that Canada is taking very seriously the riches that are our endowment as we make these international markets available to Canadian entrepreneurs,” Carr said. “And that’s very important.”

Tory-made GHG targets in doubt

Less than a year ago, new Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, in the afterglow of one of the biggest political comebacks in Canadian history, stood over the corpse of the 10-year-old Tory political reign and kicked it with criticism of its unambitious greenhouse gas targets.

The Conservative plan called for Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to be cut to 30-per-cent below 2005 levels by 2030, a target short of those set by most other Western nations.

Days before the Paris climate talks were set to begin, McKenna told reporters the country needed more than impressive promises, and promised action.

But for all their criticisms of the Harper-era targets, McKenna and the Liberal government have now decided they’re good enough.

And, like the Conservatives, the Trudeau government is facing criticism from some experts who say Canada will not meet the targets based on current actions.

Tory MP Carrie, who was parliamentary secretary to the environment minister under Harper, praised the Conservatives for not making climate promises that couldn’t be delivered. “We stuck to those policies that we knew we could deliver.”

Opening door for more TFWs

The Conservatives were in the second year of what turned out to be their final term in government when the Temporary Foreign Worker Program sparked a controversy that plagued the government for the rest of their time in power.

In 2012, the program hit the headlines when a mine in northern British Columbia applied for 200 TFW permits to bring workers in from China. Shortly after, Royal Bank and Husky Oil were also in the headlines for their use of the program, with critics alleging Canadian workers were being denied access to jobs because the government had allowed businesses to import more than300,000 temporary foreign workers over a few years.

Other corporations followed. Stories of poor people from developing nations seeking a better life in Canada being abused by employers emerged.

It was a political nightmare for the Tories.

Eventually the Conservatives, including Harper in a secret news conference for ethnic media, acknowledged there were problems with the program and it needed to be fixed.

His government brought in tighter restrictions on how many employees could be hired under the TFW program, scaled back the eligible industries, and started a blacklist of employers found to have been abusing the program — though hardly anyone ended up on it.

After taking office, the Liberals promised a thorough review of the program and lined up more than 60 witnesses to testify at a hearing earlier this year.

In the meantime, they froze a 20 per cent cap on the number of low-wage temporary foreign workers a company could hire, rather than reduce it to 10 per cent as planned by the Conservatives, and relaxed restrictions on what industries could use the program.

The report out of the program’s review hearing was released last week, and itrecommended easier access to the program for businesses.

Labour leaders and opposition MPs have alleged the hearing witness list was stacked in favour of businesses that wanted to see the program made more accessible.

Bill C-51 still chugging along

Announced by the former Conservative government in February 2015, Bill C-51 — the Anti Terrorism Act — started its life being slammed by privacy advocates and civil liberties champions alike.

Groups like OpenMedia, an internet rights organization, said the bill allowed government to monitor the online activities of Canadians far too easily.

Protests began, and polls taken months after the proposed legislation’s unveiling put its popularity at a dismal 33 per cent.

The Tories, however, refused to budge on the legislation while the NDP demanded it be repealed. The Liberals said they would make specific changes to the bill if they won the election.

In September, the Liberals announced an online consultation process to decide what changes should be made.

But the same civil liberties groups who demanded the bill be withdrawn say that not only is the consultation not good enough, but like the TFW panel it is also skewed.

Micheal Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association expressed concerned that the “green paper” of the consultation, a kind of mission statement to guide discussion, was written as a “PR exercise.”

Vonn said the language of the paper tries to soften the consequences of the bill while putting the focus on measures that law enforcement agencies have wanted for some time.

“Beyond C-51, what we see in the consultation is Santa’s wish list from the police and intelligence agencies about all the extraordinary powers they would like have under their Christmas tree,” Vonn said.

The Conservatives, who appointed staunch right-to-work booster Pierre Poilievre as labour minister, had an acrimonious relationship with Canada’s public sector unions.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents 90,000 public servants currently negotiating with the Treasury Board, issued a release in September accusing the Liberals of continuing that relationship.

Unions fought with the previous Conservative government over how the sick pay system operates for employees, the muzzling of scientists, sweeping changes and the phasing out of home delivery at Canada Post, and tough bargaining.

But Trudeau pledged to reverse the trend in a Sept. 25, 2015 open letter to public servants.

“Respect and trust for our public servants by the federal government has never been so low, and I want to take this opportunity to assure you that I have a fundamentally different view than Stephen Harper of our public service,” reads the letter. “Where he sees an adversary, I see a partner.”

According to PSAC, while the relationship started off well enough, lately it has reverted back to its Harper-era nature, highlighted by recent labour negotiations where Ottawa offered the same deal to the union as Harper did.

Bob Jackson, regional vice president for PSAC in B.C., said alarm bells first rang during negotiations in February when the “tone” at the bargaining table was similar to the one when the Conservatives ran the show.

Jackson said the tone has not eased up as the negotiations have continued.

“It seems like everything the Prime Minister and the president of the Treasury Board are saying is not being translated to the negotiating table,” Jackson said. “Which leads us to believe that there is no change in mandate.”

Honeymoon is over: Tory MP

Tory MP Carrie says people are “starting to pay attention” to the Liberals’ actions now that the political honeymoon is ending and the government needs to make some tough decisions.

He predicts a hard landing for the high-flying Liberals this autumn as they continue to face difficult choices and decisions on various files. “At the end of the day they have to make these decisions, and it’s showing that our Conservative policies were the best policies,” Carrie said.

The Liberals have been delivering the opposite of what they promised, he notes, pointing to the health file. Earlier this year the Liberals released a budget that did not include $3 billion in funding promised during the election for home care. 

“The facts are the facts, and the results are the results,” he said. “You can’t in any political situation make everybody happy.”