Khushwant Toor writes from Toronto

With the Election Day soon approaching on October 14, 2008 people are still upset and surprised at the real need for an early election. More than the party it seems to be an election of the party leaders this time. Although the first week of the campaigning is over, instead of the party popularity majority of the opinion polls are counting popularity of the leaders driving the parties. Infect, outcome of the 2008 elections will be defining future carrier paths of all the party leaders.
The latest polling indicates Stephane Dion's Liberals are continuing to lose ground during the opening week of the federal election campaign. According to The Canadian Press survey, Liberal support fell to 24 per cent, full 17-points behind Stephen Harper's Conservatives which are at 41 per cent. The NDP and Green party made modest gains at the Liberals' expense, scoring 16 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. Only in Atlantic Canada were the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives with an eight-point lead. In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is in lead with 36 per cent, followed closely by the Conservatives at 30 per cent, the Liberals at 16 per cent and the NDP at 10 per cent.
Whereas the Conservatives are feeling secure with Harper leading them; sense of over-confidence is being sighted in Harper’s appearance and the speeches. NDP leader Jack Layton is in his best times ever and is dreaming to be the next Prime Minister of Canada. However, all eyes are on the Liberal leader Stephane Dion. Supporters as well as the Liberal candidates have already started to question his leadership and his bet behind his green shift plan. Lest some miracle happens Stephane Dion’s Liberals are in bad shape ever.
With Stephane Dion’s popularity slipping during the first week chances are that the NDP may become the official principal opposition party in the House of Commons after the 2008 election results. So much so that the Conservatives said on September 14 that they are refocusing their primary aim on the NDP and the Green Party, citing them as a bigger threat to their re-election than the Liberals. NDP Leader Jack Layton's rising popularity over that of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is the reason behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper's shift in the aim policy. It is expected that Stephane Dion and the Liberal’s will be gaining some ground as the campaign matures.
Below is a list of promises made so far by the party leaders as summed up by CTV Canada.

• A ban on semi-automatic assault rifles outside of the military.
• A "Green Shift" carbon tax on fossil fuels to cut emissions, offset by income and business tax cuts, green-energy and conservation investments.
• Add $350 to the $1,200-a-year child-care allowance. Low-income families would also receive another payment of up to $1,225 a year. Costs paid for with carbon tax.
• Restore the Court Challenges Program to help defray the cost of Charter challenges, doubling budget to $6 million a year.
• $50 million to upgrade Canada's food safety system.
• $600 million in energy retrofit tax breaks: up to $10,000 in tax breaks for home retrofits and another $10,000 in interest-free "green mortgages" to help homeowners fund the projects.
• Beef up Canadian building code standards for energy efficiency; set tough new standards for home appliances.

• A two-cent-per-litre tax cut on diesel and aviation fuel over four years; projected to cost $600 million a year, fully implemented.
• Reinstate benefits for Second World War veterans who have lived in Canada for more than 10 years; $9 million a year.
• Put the recognition of foreign skills credentials for immigrants on the agenda of the next first ministers' conference.
• A near-complete withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2011.
• Ease foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian firms by: more than tripling the threshold for foreign investment reviews to $1 billion; increasing the allowed level of foreign investment in airlines to 49 per cent from the current 25; allowing foreign companies to own Canadian uranium mines.

• A moratorium on expanding Alberta's tarsands and requiring oil companies to reclaim land strip mined for petroleum production.
• $8.2 billion over four years to create, protect and foster growth of "green-collar" jobs and manufacturing.
• A "cap-and-trade" system to create incentives for big business to reduce their emissions.
• Slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
• A price-monitoring agency to investigate fuel price spikes and consult with provinces about regulations.
• Capping credit-card interest rates at five per cent over prime.
• Outlawing automated banking machine fees, which the party claims would save consumers at least $104 per year.

• Tackle poverty with a Guaranteed Livable Income supplement; make locally grown organic produce more readily available to food banks. No costs provided.
• A national student loan program that would forgive half the loan for those who get a degree or certificate. No costs provided.
• More money for post-secondary institutions and research grants for institutions that focus on renewable energy and conservation. No costs provided.
• Gradually shift consumption taxes on to products and services such as fossil fuels and toxic chemicals that harm people and the environment; reduce taxes on income, products and economic activities that do no harm. No cost provided.
• Cut the corporate tax by $50 for each tonne of carbon-emission reductions, to create a $100-a-tonne saving when combined with avoided carbon tax. No cost provided.
• Work to keep small communities viable by ensuring innovation and green business-development opportunities.
• Reduce the paperwork burden on small business by eliminating duplicate tax filings and red tape. It would offer incentives to make industrial buildings more energy efficient.
• Require manufactured goods, including vehicles, to be designed for easy re-use and-or recycling and to contain 90-per-cent recycled materials by 2025.
• Require all appliance and equipment retailers to accept and recycle or repair goods they have sold, and help industry establish a national deposit and recycling system.

BACK

 
NATO rejects U.S. raids into Pakistan

NEWS reports emerged this fortnight quoting senior American officials saying that last July, U S President Bush secretly approved orders "that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government." However, a NATO spokesman said that forces in the alliance fighting in Afghanistan will not take part in any raids into Pakistani territory.

"The NATO policy, that is our mandate, ends at the border" of Afghanistan, spokesman James Appathurai said in a news briefing, adding that "there are no ground or air incursions by NATO forces into Pakistani territory." Also this week, U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen told Congress, "I'm not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can." Mullen confirmed that he has commissioned "a new, more comprehensive military strategy for the region that covers both sides of that border" between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the strategy will take place without NATO assistance. "Let me stress, it is not NATO that will be sending its forces across the border," Appathurai said.

Meanwhile, America is losing more troops in Afghanistan as "insurgents killed two U.S. troops in Afghanistan on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks...making 2008 the deadliest year for American forces since U.S. troops invaded the country in 2001 for sheltering Osama bin Laden."

113 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year. According to an Associated Press report, "U.S. death tolls have climbed sharply from the first years of the war. Only five American service members died in 2001. Thirty service members died in both 2002 and 2003; the toll climbed to 49 in 2004, then 93 in 2005 and 88 in 2006." In 2007, 111 troops were killed, bringing the total number to 519.

The rising number of casualties reflects "both the increased number of American troops deployed to Afghanistan as well as the insurgency's increasing potency." This week, President Bush announced that he is going to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, while simultaneously withdrawing 8,000 troops from Iraq.

BACK

 
Why did London Tod Singh’s brother adopt London as home?

Gurpreet Singh

WHEN late Comrade Harkishan Singh Surjeet identified himself as London Tod Singh (One who could break London) in a British Court, he may not have realized that his younger brother will one day adopt London as his permanent home.

Jujhar Singh, who lives in London, defended his decision to make the city his permanent home by explaining that his brother did not mean to destroy London but the British Empire that forcibly occupied India.

Surjeet had joined the party of Bhagat Singh, the most revered martyr of India and had removed the Union Jack from the Hoshiarpur Court during the British rule. He was shot at by the British troops and later jailed for doing so. He had identified himself as London Tod Singh to a British judge.
In an interview with the SAP from London, he said that he still loves his country and the struggle his brother had launched against the British imperialism still goes on. ``While living in UK, I continue to participate in the international campaigns against war and imperialism’’.

Jujhar Singh said that he came to London for economic reasons as most working class people from across the world do. ``I have not become a capitalist or an exploiter by becoming a Londoner. I still identify myself with the working class and those exploited by the rich’’.

He said that his brother was respected by the local communists, who held a series of condolence meetings for him in London and other parts of UK. ``They respected him for his participation in the international solidarity movement’’. Surjeet had passed away on August 1. Apart from UK, such meetings were also organized in USA and Canada.

In Surrey, the Indo Canadian Workers’ Association (ICWA) organized a condolence meeting at the Newton Recreational Center that was decorated with his posters on August 7.

Surjeet visited Vancouver frequently until he fell ill and relinquished the post of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in 2005. The Surrey meeting was also attended by the moderate Sikh leaders, who were supported by the ICWA in their fight against the extremists.
The Communist Party of Canada leader, Nazir Rizvi remembered Surjeet’s active participation in the international solidarity movement. ``He had arranged for wheat stock in India for the people of Cuba when they were suffering because of the US blockade.’’

An ICWA member, Kulwant Dhesi underlined Surjeet’s involvement in the freedom struggle. ``He had dared to hoist an Indian flag atop a British Court by defying the restrain orders of the police when he was only 16’’. The ICWA President, Surinder Sangha recalled how Surjeet had inspired them to organize annual carnivals in the memory of the ``great freedom fighters’’ to promote unity and secularism.

While giving a communist ``red salute’’ to Surjeet, the leader of the Taraksheel Sabha - a rationalist society, Avtar Gill urged to continue Bhagat Singh’s struggle against imperialism.

BACK

 
The 'Drill Baby Drill' Scandal
How American officials help private sector get rich

THOSE Asians who never stop praising American system of governance should carefully read this report and other scandals s now threatening the ‘American way of life.’
According to Center for American Progress, this week, the Interior Department Inspector General released the results of a two-year, $5.3 million investigation finding that workers at the Minerals Management Service (MMS) royalty collection office were "partying, having sex, using drugs and accepting gifts and ski trips and golf outings from energy company representatives with whom they did government business." MMS, which takes in royalties on oil leases on public lands, "came under fire two years ago for a costly bureaucratic snafu -- leaving out important language in some oil leases, written in 1998 and 1999, that may have cost the government as much as $7 billion in revenue."
Center for American Progress observed, "The federal watchdogs are in bed with the oil companies that they are supposed to oversee." The revelations come as conservatives have initiated a battle cry of "drill baby, drill" and "drill here, drill now" to push for expanded drilling. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said his staff is investigating the scandal. Already, Sen. Bill Nelson has called for MMS Director Randall Luthi, to resign. "This all shows the oil industry holds shocking sway over the administration and even key federal employees," Nelson said.

The IG report is full of accounts detailing the unethical relationships between government officials and the oil industry, calling it "a culture of ethical failure" and "a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." The report notes that "employees frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and natural gas company representatives," despite being subject to restrictions on taking gifts. Royalty in Kind (RIK) officials, however, attempted to rewrite the ethics rules to cover up their misdoings. Two employees engaged in "brief sexual relationships" with oil and gas representatives, yet they did not recuse themselves from work with those companies and officials. Oil giant Chevron gave roughly $2,500 over the course of five years, "most of it spent on meals and drinks." Three others, Shell, Gary-Williams Energy Corp. and Hess Corp., also were named as gift-givers. Other agencies, such as the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM), were implicated as well. MRM Associate Director Lucy Denett created a "lucrative contract" for her special assistant Jim Mayberry, upon Mayberry's retirement and later sought to increase funding for the contract. Gregory Smith, who managed RIK at MMS, was said to have demanded sexual favors from an employee; Attorney General Michael Mukasey in May 2008 "declined to prosecute Smith on various charges," the report notes.

The MMS, the agency that would oversee the expansion of offshore oil drilling, is now front and center in the oil drilling debate in Congress because of the IG report. This week, House Democrats announced that they would bring an energy bill allowing for expanded oil exploration off the coasts. "On the eve of Congress starting this big debate you've got a horror story of mismanagement and misconduct in programs that are going to be a key part of the discussion," Sen. Ron Wyden, observed. Conservatives are attempting to block the legislation because it would eliminate an estimated $17 billion in tax breaks for oil companies over 10 years. "So we're saying: OK, you want to drill, this is how it will be. No more subsidies," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday. Pelosi said the energy measure in Congress will now include a "strong integrity piece" to shield the government from oil industry influence.

The IG previously found that the Department under-collected billions of dollars of revenue owed the U.S. taxpayer from oil companies that produce and sell oil and gas from public lands and waters. Government workers "routinely failed to seek out legal advice on complicated deals and that the agency used outdated computers and a $150 million software program that resulted in royalty money going uncollected." J. Steven Griles, former mining lobbyist and Interior Department Deputy Secretary, pleaded guilty in 2007 to obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff scandal. "Vice President Dick Cheney packed the top posts at the Department of the Interior with lobbyists who had spent their careers representing the very industries they were now being asked to regulate," the New York Times noted.

BACK

 
Hunger pangs grow as food gets wasted

HUGE quantities of food are wasted after production worldwide. Edible food is discarded in processing, transport, markets and kitchens. This could feed millions of hungry people. According to Stockholm International Water Institute, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the International Water Management Institute the current food crisis is a crisis of waste.

More than enough food is produced to feed a healthy global population. Distribution and access to food is a problem -- many are hungry, while at the same time many overeat. However, according to these organisations, "we are providing food to take care of not only our necessary consumption but also our wasteful habits. As much as half of the water used to grow food globally may be lost or wasted."

Take the case of the United States where as much as 30 percent of food, worth some $48.3 billion, is thrown away. The first global food crisis is already threatening 20 million of the world’s poorest children. The price of rice has more than doubled in the last five weeks alone, and it’s estimated that food prices have risen by 83 percent in three years.

People in the West, including the United States, may need to eat less meat and consume or waste less food. Experts have also called for a reexamination into the production of biofuels, which is said to destroy forests and take up land available to grow crops for food.

Unrest over the food crisis has led to deaths in Cameroon and Haiti. It has cost Haitian Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis his job.

In poor countries, food waste happens before it ever reaches those most in need. Depending on the crop, an estimated 15 to 35 percent of food may be lost in the field. Another 10 percent to15 percent is discarded during processing, transport and storage, the brief states. . Currently, more than one out of six people lack access to safe drinking water, and another two out of six lack adequate sanitation, according to the World Water Council. Yet, as with food, it seems the problem isn’t about dwindling supplies so much as it’s about proper management and reducing waste.

According to researchers, up to half of the water used to grow food around the world may be lost or wasted. In fact, the report mentions a 2008 article in the New York Times that found an average family of four people in the United States throws away 112 pounds of food every month!

The story is the same everywhere including India and other Asian countries.

BACK