Harper and the Supreme Court

I sometimes think that those of us who write blogs, being the passionate political followers that we are, read more into things than are really there, especially when it comes to alleging biases in the media. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Nonetheless, as the saying goes, even paranoid people really do have enemies.

I was thinking about this last night as I watched a segment of the 8:00 p.m. Power Play in which Patrick Monaghan, Osgoode Hall's former dean, held forth on what might happen to the composition of Canada's Supreme Court should Harper win a majority this election. From the first question posed by the reporter, I had the feeling this was a pro-Tory piece leading to the inevitable conclusion that there is nothing to fear in such a scenario.

Given the right-wing proclivities of Harper and his acolytes, being told, “Nothing to see here. Move along,” did not seem credible. Monaghan, for example, attempted to allay fears by pointing out that Harper's two appointments to the Supreme Court thus far were good and restrained choices, totally ignoring the political reality that for the Prime Minister to have made controversial choices whilst leading a minority government would have given considerable ammunition to those who fear the restrictive and state-directed nature of the social conservatives who wield considerable influence in the Conservative Party. Why would anyone think that the kind of incrementalism that has characterized Harper's legislative agenda thus far be any different when it comes to judicial appointments? Wouldn't it be logical for him to wait until he has complete power before pulling back the curtain?

Everything I know about the Conservative philosophy under Harper suggests we should all be very afraid of what will happen if this man rises above minority government status.

You can watch the six-minute interview here.

The Monsters are Due on Parliament Hill

On this Easter Sunday, I'm feeling in a nostalgic frame of mind, no doubt inspired by the shifting array of attack ads given the surge in popularity of the NDP. Thanks to the last two years of Conservative ads attacking Michael Ignatieff, we have become so conditioned to seeing him as the enemy, the sheep in wolf's clothing, the fifth colonist, if you will, that it is somewhat jarring to learn that we've been wrong all along.

Now, it turns out, according to the latest word from Stephen Harper, Jack Layton is the true threat to all things that we hold dear:



Perhaps it was this ad that got me thinking about The Twilight Zone, a favourite of mine when I was a young lad. One of its most memorable episodes was entitled, “The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street,” perhaps the finest exploration of mob psychology ever presented in popular entertainment.

Without giving away the entire story, I will say that it revolves around the aftermath of an apparent meteorite flying over Maple Street, an ordinary suburban neighbourhood, on a mild and relaxed Saturday afternoon. Soon, the people find themselves without electrical or automotive power, and the situation quickly degenerates into suspicions and accusations that someone in their midst is responsible for the power loss, and may not be who he seems to be. The ensuing confusion and mayhem, seen in the last third of the episode, represents the kind of mentality I suspect is at the heart of such attack ads.

Harper and the Supreme Court

There is a thoughtful and balanced online piece today by Adam Radwanski on how the composition of the Supreme Court could be affected by a Harper majority.

A Great Anti-Harper Video

For those interested in what Stephen harper has done to set back issues important to all of us, but especially to women, give this about a minute of your time:

But Can You Convince Laurie Hawn?

I have to confess that in some ways I envy the Conservative mindset. For its adherents, life is satisfying because it is so uncomplicated, all issues are black and white, and they never allow facts to get in the way of a good narrative or otherwise ruin their day.

One of the greatest practitioners of this singular and simple-minded approach to life, dominated as it is by magical thinking, is Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay.

I have written previously about Hawn's adamantine insistence that the 65 F-35 fighter jets will be purchased by the Harper overnment for $75 million each, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. While I doubt that his religious zeal for that figure can be shaken, there is a compelling story in today's Star offering even more evidence that the jets will cost much much more, and once more leads the rational thinker to question the wisdom of committing to the purchase of craft whose technology is unproven and still undergoing development and revision. I hope you will take a look at it, but don't be expecting any 'road to Damascus' moment for the aforementioned Hawn.

Evan Solomon's Explosive Interview Demonstrating Harper Lies

I have made no secret of my absolute disdain for the Harper government and the threat I sincerely believe that it poses to both democracy and our Canadian way of life. While Conservative true believers quite blithely dismiss such concerns as partisan hyperbole, sometimes something comes along that objectively suggests the foundation of lies upon which the Conservative Party is building its campaign.

That something occurred on today's (Tuesday's) installment of Power and Politics with Evan Solomon. Solomon first interviewed Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, who insisted that the Conservatives, despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assertions to the contrary, will be able to buy 65 F-35 jets for $9 billion, including all of the associated infrastructure. He dismissed the objections raised by NDP candidate Jack Harris and Liberal candidate Dominic LeBlanc that this figure cannot withstand scrutiny, and that the costs will be much higher, ($120-$130 billion for each jet), telling them that they didn't understand the math behind the figure.

After the interview, Solomon conducted one with Mike Sullivan, the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office equivalent to both our Auditor General and our Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was during this interview that the deceptions being perpetrated by the Harper regime should have become obvious to even the most ardent Tory supporter who still claims to think independently. Click here to watch the interview.

Power and Politics: Evan Solomon's Interview with Helena Guergis

Watching last evening's interview with Helena Guergis, a politician I have never been particularly fond of, especially given her airport tantrum a couple of years ago, I couldn't help but think that the Harper Conservatives probably now wish that they had treated her better.

Readers will remember that she was summarily removed from Cabinet and expelled from the party for reasons that were never fully explained; the fact of her marriage to Rahim Jaffer, who came under suspicion for influence-peddling, presumably made her a victim of guilt by association and hence a liability to the party. This, despite the fact that embarrassments by other Conservative M.P.'s (Bev Oda and Maxime Bernier come to mind) have not resulted in similar party retribution.

Now sitting as an Independent Conservative, she acquitted herself with impressive grace, saying that she hopes to return to the Conservative Party when it is under 'a different leader.' She also talked about the freedom she feels as an Independent, no longer having to go through a long and complicated approval process for permission to speak publicly, fetters she has been bound by in the Harper regime, given as it is to exerting complete control over all government members, requiring them, amongst other things, to fill out a Message Event Proposal (MEP) detailing who they would like to talk to, why, and what, precisely, they wish to say.

She also revealed how her sister, Christine Brayford, Guergis' riding's chief financial officer, had been asked to be part of the 'in and out' scheme but refused, as it didn't seem legitimate to her.

You can see the entire interview here.

Will the Harper Government Sacrifice Lives to Score a Political Advantage?

The answer to this question, as I have feared since election speculation started, is likely to be yes. A story in today's Star talks about the bills the Harper Government wants to pass into law before dissolution comes, and they include two crime bills and one that will better compensate injured soldiers.

Unfortunately, getting the Senate's final approval on Bill C-393, the NDP bill that passed in Parliament recently amending Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, is of little interest to Harper and his Conservative-dominated Senate. C-393 would make it much easier for generic drug manufacturers to send to Africa life-saving drugs to treat aids, tuberculosis, and malaria, potentially saving millions of lives. etc.

There is little doubt in my mind that the Harper team, which to my knowledge has never felt constrained by moral considerations, sees real campaign advantages in enacting crime and compensation bills, their supporters tending to believe in the need for more incarceration and better support for the troops. Very likely as well, Team Harper will blame the 'parisan games' of the 'coalition responsible for this unnecessary election' for the drug bill not having time to complete its way through the Senate.

The untold numbers of Africans who die as a result of this bill's obstruction will be the victims of the Harper regime's immoral but hardly surprising decision to put their political fortunes above all else.

So yes, to answer the question that pundits have been asking, the integrity of the Government will be an issue in this election.

What Do Peter Mansbridge and Ed McMahon Have in Common?

In my younger days, I was quite a devotee of late-night television, my allegiance owed almost exclusively to The Tonight Show starring, as they used to say, Johnny Carson. The nightly ritual was the same. Ed McMahon would introduce the star, and Johnny would come out to perform his droll monologue, periodically assisted by the always-reliable Ed. For example, Johnny might make a declaration such as, “Boy, it was really hot in downtown Burbank today,” and Ed, the perfect second banana, would ask, “How hot was it? at which point Johnny would say, “It was so hot that....(followed by a punchline that usually elicited sufficient laughter to ensure that the routine would survive in one form or another for as long as Johnny wanted.)

Because of its importance in spotlighting the star, being a second banana in show business has a long and respected history. Being a journalist and behaving like a second banana does not.

Watching The National last night, I couldn't help but remember that relationship between Ed and Johnny. Peter Mansbridge's brief interview last night on The National with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was, to say the least, disappointing, given that his questions were reminiscent of a second banana whose job it is to make the star shine.

Take, for example, the first softball question Mansbridge lobbed to Flaherty:

You've said all along that you didn't want an election. You reached out to the NDP, met with them, and today there was stuff in the budget for the NDP. Did you miscalculate what would be enough for the NDP?

This gentle query offered Flaherty the predictable opportunity to appear statesmanlike and beyond political games by saying he didn't know what it would take to satisfy the NDP (of course implying how unreasonable the party was being) and then talking about how it is the Finance Minister's responsibility to “look at the big picture,” consult widely and look out for “the best interests of the people.” He went on to talk about other things in the budget intended to meet some of the Liberal demands, but concluded that none of the measures seemed "good enough for the opposition parties" (at least he didn't say 'opposition coalition' this time).

Peter then threw another dainty slo-pitch, this one even more leading, by asking:

If it does end up in an election ... does that cause damage to the recovery program?

He could very easily have asked a much less biased question by inquiring how an election now might affect the economy.

Mansbridge's final question came when he asked Flaherty that if he didn't want an election, "Why didn't you try putting through an amendment?” Notice how he didn't make a much more hard-hitting query such as why Flaherty didn't ensure Bloc Quebecois support by including in the budget $2 billion for the harmonization of federal and provincial tax that Quebec undertook in 1992, a precondition for support already previously articulated by Giles Duceppe, an agreement, by the way, that most are saying is essentially already a done deal. In other words, Mansbridge allowed to stand the fiction that the Harper Government has done everything it could to avoid an unnecessary election, a fiction that will doubtless form a large part of the government's election narrative.

As frightened of offending the Harper regime as the CBC may be, I expect much much better from our national broadcaster.

To watch the entire 3:48 minute interview between Mansbridge and Flaherty, click here.

A Harper-Orchestrated Attempt To “Change The Channel”

Watching last night's edition of CBC's Power and Politics, as I frequently do, offered yet another opportunity for insight into the Harper mind, a mind that many would describe as dark, manipulative, and contemptuous of everyone outside of 'the Conservative philosophical tent' (which, when you think about it, must be a small abode indeed, given its very restricted range of thought and vision.)

The predictable discussion occurred throughout the first half-hour of the show, as Liberal Scott Brison, Conservative Tom Lukiwski and the NDP's Yvon Godin discussed the contempt of Parliament verdict by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As was to be expected, Tory Lukiwski spun the partisan and already frequently-repeated line that the contempt finding was simply partisan politics and a sham. This is, of course, the Conservative narrative, one we will hear incessantly if an election is called. However, the really interesting development came in the next half hour.

In that segment, Solomon was interviewing Conservative James Rajotte, Liberal Ralph Goodale, and the NDP's Thomas Mulcair about the pending federal budget and how the contempt finding might affect the vote on it. Suddenly, looking at his Blackberry, Evan Solomon broke in with the news that there had been a leak about the Conservative budget, and he then went on to articulate the details of the leak: forgiveness of student loans for medical personnel willing to work in isolated areas, money for research and development, etc. At that point I believe Mr. Solomon thought that the CBC had scored a coup. I told my wife that there are no leaks in the Tory 'ship of state' (please forgive the tired metaphor), and that this revelation was clearly designed for another purpose.

My 'spider sense' tingling, I switched over to CTV's Power Play with Don Martin where, lo and behold, he was announcing the same leaks, when previously he had been talking about the contempt finding. Back on CBC, Solomon was trying to get Mulcair and Goodale to evaluate the specific details leaked and wisely they demurred, suggesting to the host that he was simply being used by the Tory apparatus for spin purposes. Solomon did look decidedly disappointed a few minutes later when he announced on-air that the leaks had been sent to several news agencies.

This transparent attempt to 'change the channel' away from discussion of the contempt of Parliament finding, I think, gives us an idea of how the Harper regime will conduct their campaign, should an election be called. Today may well see the beginning of the process culminating in a non-confidence motion on the budget so that the Government will fall on that issue, thereby circumventing a formal vote in Parliament on the contempt findings, which would allow the Conservatives to continue during the campaign with the narrative that the Committee’s finding of contempt is, once more, only a partisan sham, proven by the fact that the opposition voted down a responsible budget that would have benefited all Canadians.

It is clear to me that yesterday's above-described events offer potent proof that the Harper Government's contempt is hardly limited to Parliament. It suggests a mentality that cynically views most people as easily manipulated, easily distracted, and easily convinced to overlook all of the egregious violations of democracy they are guilty of.

God help us if they are right.

The Dark Shadow of Stephen Harper

The dark presence of Stephen Harper loomed heavily today during the Parliamentary Committee hearing into whether International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda should be held in contempt of Parliament for her earlier misleading and evasive answers regarding her department's defunding of KAIROS.

While the evaluation of her testimony will undoubtedly split along party lines, her 'answers' to the Committee's questions, in which she frequently simply proclaimed her probity, had all of the earmarks of a carefully scripted and carefully rehearsed performance, doubtlessly orchestrated by the Prime Minister's minions (a.k.a. The PMO). Her inability or unwillingness to answer questions with either a 'yes' or a 'no' without very animated prompting by M.P. Pat Martin bespoke the evasiveness of someone with something to hide. While watching this performance, I was reminded of all the evidence Lawrence Martin brings forth in Harperland that nothing happens in the Harper Regime without the explicit approval of Mr. Harper or his operatives.

Let the spin begin.

The Facade of Integrity – Harper Regime Calls in the RCMP

With an election in the air, the past few days have seen the Harper regime trying to perpetrate the illusion of integrity. On Tuesday we learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose called in the RCMP to investigate allegations that Sebastian Togneri, a former staffer, tried to impede access to information requests by first trying to retract and then ordering heavy censoring of documents that had already been cleared for release. His subsequent resignation has allowed Ambrose to claim that “no current member of this government is involved in this case." Today we learn that former Conservative bigwig Bruce Carson is being investigated for influence-peddling. The investigation was ordered by Harper.

To the naive, the requests of Ambrose and Harper for police investigation might suggest an underlying integrity to the Harper Government. To many of us who follow Canadian politics, their actions bespeak a desperate attempt at damage control.

One need only look at the sequence of events in the Carson scandal. As reported in The Toronto Star,

“Carson reportedly illegally lobbied Indian Affairs Minister John Duncan on behalf of a company that was trying to sell water filtration systems to First Nations reserves with poor water quality. “

Federal law stipulates that no former employee of the government can engage in lobbying of that government for at least five years after leaving its employ.

I have a simple question for a Government that trumpets its empty rectitude: When he was being lobbied, why did Minister Duncan not report it and initiate action against Carson? Since Duncan had to have been well acquainted with both Carson and the lobbying regulations, why did he conceal his contacts with the former adviser?

My other question, which I think can readily be answered, is why has Harper called in the authorities at this point? The answer, I believe, is not difficult to deduce. As reported in The Star,

The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network uncovered the alleged wrongdoing in an investigation into the activities of Bruce Carson, a longtime Tory political operative who advised the Prime Minister on energy and environmental issues.

Since APTN is planning to broadcast a program on March 25 revealing the full details of its investigation, it would seem that Harper had no choice but to call in the authorities. In the letter (which APTN quoted) Harper's office sent to William Elliot, Commisioner of the RCMP:

a government official writes that Harper’s office “became aware of the existence of materials in the possession of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.”

“These materials contain troubling details about recent actions and claims made by Mr. Bruce Carson, a former employee of the Prime Minister’s Office,” wrote Ray Novak, Harper’s principal secretary.

The inference I draw from all of this is that because APTN is about to run this explosive expose, the Harper Government had no choice but to call in the RCMP in a desperate play at damage control and misdirection.

To attribute anything but the basest and most cynical motivation in this affair is to caught in the sleazy game the Prime Minister and his operatives play.

Ethical Politicians – A Contemporary Oxymoron

While I know that I am hardly alone in harbouring a deep cynicism about almost all politicians, sometimes their lack of moral fibre is made apparent, not by way of spectacular revelations, as in the Liberal sponsorship scandal or the sordid Mulroney-Schreiber affair, but in much more subtle ways, such as the personal choices they make.

This occurred to me last evening while I continued to digest in small amounts, as mentioned in a previous post, Lawence Martin's Harperland. The passage pertained to the televised debate in 2008 between Harper, Dion, Duceppe and Elizabeth May. The rules stipulated that participants could not bring notes for the exchange, although they were permitted to write down notes during the debate. During both the French and English debates, Green Party leader May, seated beside Harper, noticed the Prime Minister, below table level (doesn't that bring back memories of less than apt high schoolers?) using 'cheat sheets,' describing them as “small index cards with reprinted font all over them.” Because she lacked the confidence to confront Harper, she said nothing.

After stepping down as Harper's communication director, the sometimes ethically-challenged Kory Teneycke, in reference to the cheating, responded with the kind of misdirection we've come to expect from the Conservatives: ”...who cares? ...She's just lucky she was in the room.... The process was poorly served by her presence.”

Both Harper's dishonest behaviour and Tenecke's dismissal of its significance reveal much about the kind of government operated by the Harper regime.

Lawrence Martin's Column Today

In today's online Globe, Lawrence Martin offers a lacerating analysis of the departure of what he calls “the ethcially upright” (Chuck Strahl, Stockwell Day, and earlier, Jay Hill) from the Harper regime. He describes them as “low key and reasonable, not inclined to engage in character assassination. They won admiration for their sense of decency, so it’s in this respect that their departures will hurt the government.”

Consider the key material Harper has to work with in terms of Cabinet representation from Ontario: ”From the old Harris government, the Tories have House Leader John Baird, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Trade Minister Peter Van Loan, Industry Minister Tony Clement and campaign manager Guy Giorno.”

Need one say more?

A Very Effective Video Denunciation of the Harper Regime

Thanks to the Progressive Bloggers site for posting this video:

A Refresher Course in Harper's Disdain for Democracy

I am currently reading Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, which anecdotally confirms some of our worst fears and suspicions about Stephen Harper and the Harper Government (see, even I've taken to referring to our government that way), and even though I no longer subscribe to The Globe and Mail, I do check it regularly for columns by Martin.

Today's piece, entitled On the road to the Harper government's tipping point, is a reminder of the myriad abuses of democracy that the Prime Minister is responsible for. At a time when many of us despair of the possibility of any change in the next federal election, it is useful to remember that the fate of our democratic traditions and institutions ultimately does reside in our hands, no matter how much the government seeks to undermine those traditions and institutions.

Harper's Orwellian Use of Language

One of the greatest pleasures I derived as a teacher was doing a unit on language as part of the Grade 12 English course that I regularly taught. At the beginning of that unit, we read George Orwell's seminal essay, Politics and the English Language, which offered a trenchant, if at times challenging analysis of how language can be used to curb freedom and undermine free and critical thought. It was a theme that later formed the basis of his most popular novel, 1984.

After further study which included exploring fallacies of logic, I would give students an assignment requiring them to analyze the misuse of language and logic in our society today, which invariably led them to look at the pronouncements our politicians make. I was reminded of those times yesterday morning as I read Heather Mallick's amusing yet perceptive column in The Toronto Star on the Harper Government's manipulation of language. I would encourage everyone to read it.

Do We Need A New Political Literacy? Part 1

I take much comfort in reading the political views expressed by many members of Progressive Bloggers, giving me as it does a sense of community, shared purpose and the knowledge that passion for politics and love of our country is alive and well.

Nonetheless, I cannot help but be discouraged by poll results showing strong ongoing support for the Harper Conservative Government, despite its regular and unapologetic attacks on what many of us see as the fundamentals of democracy and good governance.

While there is hardly a need to provide a comprehensive list of those attacks, a few of the more recent and egregious examples will serve to illustrate that my antipathy toward this government goes well beyond philosophical disagreements:

- The request by the opposition members for the Afghan detainee documents was met by deep resistance and cries of confidentiality. Even a ruling by the Speaker of the House ordering those documents be made available was met with an unsatisfactory compromise, foolishly accepted by The Liberal Party.

- The unnecessary proguing of Parliament by Stephen Harper to avoid defeat of his Government in the House was a gross misuse of privilege, sadly abetted by former Governor-General Michelle Jean

- The contempt shown to Parliament by speaking lies about the need to reform the Census with the claim that many hundreds had complained about its intrusive nature when, in fact, there might have been no more than a dozen objections.

- The refusal by the Government to permit Ministers' aides to testify before Parliamentary Committees, despite the fact that the latter have the power to compel such testimony.

- The entire tissue of lies surrounding the cessation of funding to KAIROS by Bev Oda.

I have asked myself why, despite these serious offences, they are dismissed so readily by so many. Of course, there are several combinations of possible answers, ranging from people's inertia, indifference to, or alienation from the political process to being too busy working and maintaining a family life to have the time for such concerns. I wonder, though, if there might be an additional factor at work: an ignorance of and therefore an inability to understand the very principles that are the foundations of our government.

We hear many cries coming from government and business that it is time to teach financial literacy at a young age so that people can avoid falling into crippling debt in the future. While I don't disagree with that notion, in my mind of equal if not greater importance is the imparting of a kind of political literacy by our schools that will help to bring about a more knowledgeable and engaged citizenry.

In future posts, I will try to suggest what such a model might look like, and some of the changes that would be necessary to bring this about.

A New and Damning G20 Report

As reported in The Toronto Star, a 59-page report by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Union of Public and General Employees, set to be released today, calls for a full-scale enquiry into the abuse perpetrated by the authorities during last summer's G20 Summit in Toronto.

During three days of hearings last November which the police refused to take part in (no surprise there), a strong picture emerged from the testimony of dozens of witnesses who were physically abused and/or had their Charter rights taken away from them (a Kafkaesque and oxymoronic situation if there ever was one in Canada) of large-scale malfeasance on the part of the police, aided, abetted, and emboldened by both the McGuinty and Harper Governments.

Despite the damning nature of this report, despite the compelling video evidence to be found on YouTube and last Friday's fifth estate, and despite the fact that Ontario Ombudsman has said that “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history” had occurred during the G20 weekend,
my dark suspicion is that governments will continue to deny responsibility for what they wrought, police chiefs will continue to mouth platitudes about prosecuting where evidence warrants, officers will continue to go unpunished, and the scars of that weekend will continue to haunt the Canadian psyche for a long time to come.

The Fifth Estate and the Shame of the G20

While I have believed in the power of the written word my entire life, sometimes images are a more potent way to convey the outrages that frequently occur in the world. Probably the best examples of this power have been in the images we have been inundated with since the upheavals in the Middle East began.

Another example is surely to be found in last night's fifth estate program, broadcast on C.B.C., showing the horrific results of having a police force, apparently unfettered by the normal rules and expectations of behaviour in a democratic society, routinely abusing people, with absolutely no regard for their Charter Rights.

Now available on the C.B.C. website, I defy even the most inveterate supporter of the police to watch the program and tell me that the police (aided and abetted by both the McGuinty and Harper Governments) did nothing wrong.