A Motivational Video

If Stephen Harper's contempt for the things we hold dear as Canadians isn't reason enough to vote, what is?

He Said, She Said ....

Yesterday I wrote a post detailing a CTV report on the obstruction from the PMO over its refusal to hand over an email pertaining to the the Wright-Duffy Senate payoff scandal. The RCMP was reported as having been trying to obtain it for two months.

It seems the PMO has now moved into high propaganda gear, claiming it has not been asked for any such email:

Contrary to CTV’s reporting, our office has not been asked for this email,” spokesperson Julie Vaux said in an email statement.

“As we have always said, we will assist investigations into this matter.”

However, Vaux refused to say whether the RCMP has asked for other emails or documentation regarding the $90,000 cheque Wright wrote to Duffy or whether the Mounties have interviewed anyone at PMO.

Sounds to me likes its time for a supoena, which apparently would be a first:

Reg Whitaker, University of Victoria professor emeritus who has studied and written about the history of the RCMP .... said he’s unaware of any instance in the history of the RCMP when it had to resort to legal instruments to compel criminal evidence from a sitting prime minister or his office. Nor could he think of any justification the PMO could use for obstructing the investigation.

But then again, many sad precedents have been set by this government, the likes of which Canada has never before seen.

Judgemental? Yes

But true nonetheless:



You can read more about our perilous state here.

For Those Who Don't Mind Gov't Surveillance Because They Have Nothing To Hide

You might want to take a moment to read Rick Salutin's thoughts on the implications of living in a country where environmentalists and others who oppose the government's corporate agenda are regarded as terrorists.

As well, this Canadian Dimension piece might also give you pause.

Shh! Don't Ask!

I have to confess to feeling a small measure of guilt each time I reproduce someone else's words with little editorializing on my part. Yet my ego is sufficiently robust to be able to acknowledge the fact that there are many others with views that merit space in this blog, views that are in many cases expressed more elequently and succinctly than mine.

Such is the following letter from today's Star by Judy Ward of Oshawa as she opines on CETA, about which I have written in the past. Ms Ward speaks for many as she strongly objects to the Harper cabal's obsession with keeping Canadians ignorant about a trade deal that could have devastating domestic effects:

Canada-EU trade deal is wishful thinking, Business June 20

We read day after day about our prime minister travelling about the world and talking free trade. Why doesn’t he talk to Canadians? He wants a free-trade pact with the EU. What is he planning to trade away in order to secure this agreement? Why doesn’t he let Canadians know what is on the table in these talks? We have a right to know.

It is rumoured that the EU wants to change our banking rules. Why? So we can end up like Spain or Greece or Portugal or Cyprus or even Ireland? It is also rumoured that if businesses didn’t like our rules they could sue us for loss of income.

But what frightens me is that our prime minister may be trading away our health care. We have a right to know what is on the table and health care should not in any way, shape or form be on the table. No hospitals, drugs or any aspect of health care should be bartered in the name of free trade.
The secrecy surrounding these talks is frightening. This information should be available to Canadians. We are the ones who have to live with the decisions made by the government. We have a right to know what its plans are. If the opposition parties know what is happening with these talks, then they should make it public.

This is the most secretive government I can ever recall. Tell us what is being bartered in these talks before an agreement is signed.

Let's All Be Good, Quiescent Citizens, Eh?

It is no secret that this country, under the 'leadership' of the Harper cabal, has suffered a significant loss of democratic freedoms reflected in the abuse of and contempt for parliamentary procedure, the subversion of senate inquiries, the muzzling of civil servants, and the extollment of opacity in place of transparency (anyone made a freedom of information request lately?) to name but four 'crimes' of the government. A new threat, of which I have already briefly written twice, is the new law, Bill C-309, which makes it a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison to wear a mask during a riot (cue the misdirection here) or an 'unlawful assembly'. It is the latter stipulation that should be of concern to all of us.

First, what constitutes an unlawful assembly? It would seem that it is in the eye of the beholder. The Criminal Code defines it this way:

"An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they will disturb the peace tumultuously; or will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously."

You can see that one of the problems here is the rather subjective nature of an unlawful assembly, the determination of which would ultimately fall to the authoriteis on site to make. For example, if a group of people, without a permit, assemble to loudly and very publically protest, for example, environmental degradation, and one of them, because he/she fears retaliation from an employer, dons a disguise, if the authorities call it an ulawfual assembly, that person is potentially facing a very protracted period of incarceration.

Are people who might be present at a current protest in Westover over Enbridge plans to pump tar sand crude to Montreal but don't want to run afoul of employers thereby deterred from this 'unlawful assembly'? Those who embrace the corporate agenda would doubless be hearted by such deterrence; those who can think beyond the bottom line, not so much.

While the author of the bill, Conservative M.P. Blake Richards has insisted that the law is necessary for dealing with protesters "pre-emptively,", Osgoode Hall Law School Professor James Stribopoulos [has] pointed to the possible "chilling effects" posed by making it unlawful to disguise one’s identity at a protest, say to prevent against reprisals from your boss or coworkers, or to avoid facial recognition software.

Given that existing law already makes it an offence to wear a mask during the commission of a crime, some are suggesting the new law will not withstand a constitutional challenge. Writes the Huffington Post's Marni Soupcoff:

The problem with the new law is that it threatens to chill the political and social activities of completely innocent people -- or to land them in jail for doing nothing more serious than trying to stay anonymous. What if a .... particularly creative environmentalist wanted to make a point at an anti-oil sands demonstration by wearing a handmade sludge-covered duck mask?

Can the government really get away with this level of intimidation, dampening, and punishment of public demonstrations... Not if the Charter's protections of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly mean anything. Which is why I hope the new law will be challenged in court -- and soon. It deserves more serious constitutional scrutiny than it has been afforded, and it deserves more outrage too. Canada should not feel comfortable joining the ranks of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia -- countries (none of them exactly known for their respect of civil liberties) that have ... recently banned Guy Fawkes masks.

So the choice becomes a very basic one: Will we play the role of the quiescent citizen that coroporate/governmental interests are so avidly casting for? Or do we think that democracy is something well-worth vigourously fighting for and defending?

Is Our Freedom More Illusion Than Reality?

That is a question you may be prompted to ask yourself after reading this piece by Kevin Logan and watching the video below. Described therein are the measures and efforts designed to realize what I suspect is Mr. Harper's fondest dream: a compliant, unquestioning, 'disciplined' and very passive populace, not surprisingly the same goal of the corporate agenda.

Cry Me A River? Updated

Can't help but wonder if this is a salvo in the Conservative battle to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of Elections Canada, given the recent and past party 'indiscretions' that have come to the attention of that body.



UPDATE: It seems the weepy Del Maestro recovered his equilibrium sufficiently to launch this cowardly attack (protected by parliamentary privilege) on one of the witnesses against him in his overspending scandal.

In Praise of Political Cartoonists

Where would we be without their pithy insights?

A Sad Truth Here

H/t Chris Andersen

More From Our Friends at Canadians Rallying To Unseat Stephen Harper

I doubt that any of this requires further explanation.

On Our Democratic Deficit

These Star readers, whether you agree with them or not, have some interesting perspectives to offer:

Re: Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, May 2

Democracy is just a mirage, Letter May 5

Al Dunn is essentially correct in his characterization of democracy as it is generally practised today. But the fact that democracy is clearly the ultimate bait-and-switch trick pulled on us by the elites — keeping up the illusion of a fair say whilst actually holding us at arm’s length from the levers that could operate our share of the balance of power — doesn’t mean there is no hope for us or for democracy. It doesn’t have to be this way. The funny thing about democracy is that behind that veneer is an institution that can be reconfigured to actually work as advertised. The trick wouldn’t have worked otherwise.

Democracy can be a true and substantive system for the rest of us but only when each and every representative in our parliaments owes their seat and their allegiance to their electorate more than to their party and every voter gets a rep insofar as the number of seats in the House permits. This is achievable; it only needs a properly designed electoral system.

When voters are truly empowered to truly empower their representatives, democracy will no longer be an illusion. That is the “paradigm shift” our democracy needs.

And while our party elites have (unsurprisingly) seen fit to reject calls to cooperate for meaningful electoral reform the door is still open for individual candidates to respond to the challenge. What do you say, chaps: will you cooperate with us to empower each other or are you content in your role in maintaining the pretense in the face of our dire need?

Mark Henschel, Toronto

Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, May 2

Over the past few weeks there have been numerous opinion pieces in your paper discussing the “disconnect” between Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the general public. This is by no means an unplanned occurrence. Governments in general — Conservative ones in particular — have been changing the way that governments and the governed interact. They have done it through simple changes to the lexicon.

The most notable change is the words that governments use to describe those who are governed. We are no longer referred to by politicians as “residents” or “voters,” “citizens” or even “Canadians.” We are referred to as “taxpayers,” even by your newspaper and the media as a whole. To be fair, everyone pays taxes, whether it is on one’s salary, real estate holdings or a $2 bag of candy at the corner store. But being referred to primarily as a “taxpayer” by the government carries with it a certain understanding.

Taxpayers pay for goods and services provided by the government for personal use. It is a consumer transaction. As long as you get your money’s worth, there is no reason to expect more or to know how it got to you, as long as you received value for your dollar. If someone else cannot access these goods and services, it is because they cannot contribute as much as you can, not because the government won’t provide.

Moreover, your responsibility ends the moment you sign the cheque. There is no need for any additional input or concern. You can’t question Walmart’s foreign policy, environmental track record or how it deals with dissent from within or without either. After all, your only decision is whether you will purchase or not.

“Citizens.” on the other hand have both rights and responsibilities. Yes, they pay taxes, but their duties go beyond the financial transaction. They are expected to engage in public debate, care for those who need to be cared for, and concern themselves for the community at large. They often put the good of society before themselves. Unfortunately, from the government’s perspective, “citizens” tend to question agendas, complain on grounds of principle, and worst of all, vote … sometimes for other parties.

Many “taxpayers” are content to simply give up their rights as citizens if it means they pay their taxes and not be bothered beyond that; after all, the government has everything in hand, right?

Being a “citizen” is a lot of work, requires you to be passionate about mundane things and pay attention, but the citizenry develops the political power necessary to steer public discussion. Is it any wonder that these two aspects define the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy?

Neil McClung, Brampton

Your editorial and the excellent article a few days earlier by Bob Hepburn on the disconnect between Canada’s parliament and its people accurately indicates that something here does not work well.

I am familiar with the governance structures of both Germany and Sweden and both have far more involved and informed electorates and a far better relationship between their people and their governments, and what their governments do. They both have an electoral system based on proportional representation, where every vote counts.

Our system gave Mr. Harper a strong mandate to govern although only 24 per cent of the electorate voted for him, 76 per cent did not. If we had had PR at the last election we would have since had a Liberal-NDP coalition probably supported by the Greens and an overwhelming majority of the voters. I am sure they would have done many things differently than Mr. Harper, things both you and I would have supported.

The Star has always strongly opposed proportional representation and consequently we must thank you for giving us the current Conservative majority. It would be wonderful and a great blessing for Canada to fix our mess on Parliament Hill.

In your case it might be useful to fix your attitude toward what is a far superior and more democratic electoral system. We can really only fix ourselves.

Chris Smith, Toronto

Stephen Harper - He's Not Here For You

But of course I state the obvious here, don't I? Nonetheless, for those who like regular and ongoing illustrations of the fact that the Prime Minister and his acolytes are in the thrall of 'special interests,' one need look no further than a report in today's Toronto Star.

Currently, non-financial businesses are sitting on over $600 billion in cash reserves, thanks to a very favourable tax regime from the Harperites and similarly obeisant and compliant provincial governments. At the same time, however, these 'masters of the universe,' reluctant to spend their largess on research and development, new equipment purchases, or just about anything else, have gotten new incentive to hoard and count their cash:

The Conservative government says the National Research Council is now “open for business” and will refocus on large-scale projects “directed by and for” Canadian industry — a change some scientists call a mistake.

Part of the mandate of the NRC is to work with and help support industry, but what is new here is the fact that it appears this will now essentially be its exclusive mandate, dictated by the 'needs' of industry.

While one understands that it is difficult for the current government regime, looking as it does with grave suspicion upon critical and nuanced thinking, to comprehend, the words of Nobel laureate John Polanyi, who says that steering the NRC away from basic research is misguided, need to be heard:

“One should structure things so (scientists) have the freedom and responsibility to provide ideas to industry, not just receive commands,” ...

Queen’s University professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, John Smol, explains it this way:

“I look at science as a pyramid. At the bottom you have all this basic fundamental research and at the top you have the applied. But you can’t have the applied without the basic,” he said.

Smol goes so far as to see something quite sinister in the Harper decision to make the NRC the handmaiden of the corporate agenda:

Smol, a lakes ecosystem expert, believes the decision to recast the NRC is part of a Conservative pattern of cutting funding for basic science in favour of applied research that will generate a profit.

“What you find in environmental research are things that will cost industry money,” he says. In a recent study, Smol showed that lakes near Alberta’s oil sands are filled with contaminants.

One assumes that with its new orders, the National Research Council will not anytime soon be conducting such embarrassing studies that could hamper the ever-stronger march of corporate dominance.

Another victory for the Harperites. Another loss for the non-corporate citizens of Canada.

An Anniversary Many Would Like To Forget

In his column today, Tim Harper reminds us that yesterday marked the two-year anniversary of the Harper majority government.

It is hardly an occasion that progressives take delight in as columnist Harper makes reference to some of the regime's retrograde policies and 'achievements':

- streamlined environmental regulatory reviews

- the formal withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol

- the radical overhaul of the Navigable Waters Act and the Fisheries Act

- the uncertainty over the future of the Experimental Lakes Area

- the shuttering of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

- cutting of scientific research

- muzzling of federal scientists

- compromising the independence of Statistics Canada

- abdicating the federal role in setting national health care policy

- raising the age at which Canadians are eligible for Old Age Security

- the odium and loss of international reputation Canada has experienced thanks to its uncritical and unwavering support of Israel in all matters

Tim Harper concludes with the following observation:

All of the above took a mere two years. It is also reads like a blueprint for continued support from the party base. As it turns the corner on this mandate, the real test will be how the Conservatives try to reach beyond that base heading to 2015.

My suspicion is, as I have mentioned before in this blog, that the regime hopes that the vast majority of Canadians will have lost all faith in government by 2015, in which case the election will be an unfettered opportunity for the 'true believers' to give Harper another majority, thereby enabling him to complete the task of dismantling whatever remains of the Canada that we still take pride in and cherish.

UPDATE: H/t Michael Scott for this sad but telling link to a new story about Harper muzzling of scientists.

The Dominoes of Democracy - Part 2

What is one of the chief effects of the Harper regime's preference for an ideologically-based policy model over one premised on logic, facts and empirical evidence, as explored in my earlier post? The decline, perhaps even the demise, of a healthy democracy in which citizens are engaged and informed participants, thereby allowing an ideologically-driven government to pursue its agenda largely unimpeded.

In today's Toronto Star, columnist Bob Hepburn writes about the state of our democracy and the growing gap between Parliament and Canadians. An interview with David Herle, former Paul Martin campaign strategist and principal partner at The Gandalf Group, a Toronto-based research and consulting company, yields a portrait of a population deeply disaffected with politics in general and Parliament in particular.

And there are ample studies and surveys to back up that portrait:

For example, a poll last fall suggested barely 27 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa is dealing with issues we really care about.

Most people are worried about daily issues, such as their children’s education, looking after aging parents and getting decent health care. But other than writing cheques to the provinces, Ottawa has opted out of health care, education, transportation and other issues that affect our normal lives.

Instead, there is a narrow set of issues that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pursuing and for the most part the opposition parties are adhering to them. Because voters have stopped looking to Parliament for help, Ottawa has stopped responding to their needs, Herle believes.

“People are no longer putting demands on government (bold type mine) and aren’t flocking to politicians who claim they can help them,” he says. “They’ve simply given up on Ottawa altogether.”

Although I am not a person given to conspiracy theories, I have written extensively on this blog about both democracy and democratic participation, and long ago concluded that one of the secondary goals of the Harper regime is the discouragement of an engaged electorate, thereby making it easier to push through an agenda in which the role of government in people's live is minimized, one of the chief beliefs of the reactionary right. What better way to pursue that goal than to convey to people, via policy pursued through the very narrow prism of ideology and rabid partisanship, that their voices mean nothing and their engagement in the democratic process is both unnecessary and unwelcome?

Conservative MP Michael Chong, the only former member of Harper's cabinet who has ever displayed real integrity, puts it this way:...if voters have given up on Parliament, it means they have lost faith in politicians to look after their interests.

Part one of this post dealt with causes, and I would argue that Chong's observation is precisely the effect that the Harper regime so avidly desires.

This Can't Be Healthy

As deeply suspicious and cynical as I am about institutions, it is probably not surprising that I view with a jaundiced eye the events surrounding the arrest of two terror suspects accused of a plot to blow up a Via Rail train. Many have asked questions about the sudden urgency of Harper's rearranging the parliamentary agenda so that his terror bill could begin to be debated on Monday, coinciding with the RCMP announcement of the arrests.

Coincidences happen, but I am always suspicious when they do. And given the well-known politicization that the RCMP has undergone in recent years, any person with a modicum of critical-thinking skills is bound to wonder if this is not yet another example of our national police force allowing itself to be used by its political masters, something undoubtedly unhealthy both for democracy and general trust in government.

In his column today, The Star's Tim Harper implies an element of manipulation:

Governments have long used fear to their advantage.

The former George W. Bush government in the U.S. used to change the colour of its “terror threat” if it was marching into headwinds on other matters. In this case, by abruptly changing gears last Friday and deciding to move on its long-neglected anti-terrorist legislation, Conservatives immediately faced charges of using the Boston Marathon bombings for political expediency.

Security expert Wesley Wark believes there was a degree of opportunism in the Conservative move to bring the anti-terror debate to the Commons floor Monday...

But no one Tuesday wanted to try to connect the other dots. It had become too perilous with two terror suspects in custody.

The Star's Heather Mallick is less opaque in her accusations, stating bluntly about the RCMP,

I do not trust them, just as I no longer trust Toronto police after the G20 debacle and do not trust a Harper majority government. Its calling card is to warn us non-stop of “Muslim terrorists,” which might not offend were this government neutral on religion.

Mallick reminds us of the terrible erosion of civil liberty the Conservative's anti-terror bill entails:

... “preventative detention” would mean that any Canadian could be arrested and held for three days on suspicion of terrorist involvement with no charge being laid.

“An investigative hearing” means that someone suspected of knowing about a terrorist plot could be imprisoned for up to a year if they refused to answer questions.

She points out that another provision of the bill is that it makes it a crime to leave Canada to commit an act of terrorism, and raises the specter of a false arrest abroad:

Do you trust Stephen Harper and the Conservative government and the RCMP to do the ethical, informed, reasonable thing in your case? Or do you expect them to follow a hard-right ideology, to overreact as the Americans do?

The answer for many of us to that question is sadly negative. And such a complete loss of faith and trust in one's government can't be healthy, either for individuals or for our democracy.

The Perilous State of Democracy in Canada

Over the past year I have written several posts on the woeful state of democratic participation in Canada, a state I am convinced is at least in significant part due to the debasement of our traditions engineered by the Harper regime. Contempt of Parliament and disdain for those whose vision of Canada disagrees with their own are but two elements of that debasement.

I am old enough to remember when there was a measure of civility in politics which, probably not coincidentally, began to seriously erode with the introduction of cameras in the House of Commons in the 70's. At that point, it became the fashion for parliamentarians to begin to grandstand before their viewers, to the point today where poisoned partisanship takes precedence over enlightened and progressive policy-making.

In today's Star Bob Hepburn returns to this theme. His analysis, and his discussion of what seems to be taking the place of political engagement, makes for important reading for anyone concerned about this very worrisome pattern.

Whither Goest Democracy?

This thoughtful Star reader provides his answer:

As I attended the Remembrance Day ceremony on Sunday, I thought of all those who died and suffered for our democracy. It made me very sad, sadder than in past years, to think of the current state of democracy in Canada and how our government seems to have so little respect for it.

It makes me sad when our prime minister, with disdain, avoids the democratic process with his omnibus bills. There is more to passing a bill than the vote in the legislature. It makes me sad when federal scientists are ordered not to discuss their research in public forums because it does not support the prime minister’s agenda. Giving scientists government scripts to read was used by the communists and Nazis.

It makes me sad when our elected representatives are ordered to read from scripts prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office. Even our federal employees must direct simple questions from the public to the PMO to further control agenda communications.

Signing secret trade agreements with other governments without discussion or debate make me sad and very nervous. It makes me sad when our government closes an internationally celebrated research facility because it produces science that interferes with government agendas. Experimental Lakes Area, near Kenora, costs taxpayers $2 million a year. It will cost $50 million to shut it down and the feds are apparently trying to secretly sell the property.

It is sad that our government is spending $16 million tax dollars for a media propaganda campaign cloaked as the Canada’s Economic Action Plan. It must be propaganda because the “action plan” program no longer exists — it’s over.

As I stood there on Remembrance Day, my sadness turned to anger. You may be surprised to read that I consider myself a conservative, having never voted Liberal at any level of government. For the next federal election (unless we lose that right as well), I will be working for which ever party has the best chance of beating our local Conservative puppet.

We will have to fight to preserve whatever is left of our democracy after the Harper government term. Democracy is for more important than any economic vision. Canadian’s died for it.

Rick Geater, Beeton

Stephen Harper's Sins

On the day that Stephen Harper is to receive his World Statesman of the Year award from the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, presumably for his unstinting and uncritical support of Israel, the Huffington Post has a timely piece reminding us of some of the Prime Minister's myriad failings on both the international and domestic front.

Those who prefer to think critically rather than simply absorb propaganda will find the article of some interest.

Democratic Renewal

I just got back from my Algonquin trip, so just a very brief post. In skimming today's Star, there is a very interesting piece by Bob Hepburn on efforts at democratic renewal in Canada to combat the ongoing Harper attack on citizen engagement and voter participation. Small seeds can yield tremendous fruit if properly nurtured.