Fear And Loathing In Peace River

While the Harper cabal proceeds full-tilt with its tarsands advertising campaign, the details of which Canadians are being denied, a game of inconvenient truth versus consequences is being played out in Peace River, Alberta.

According to a report in The Edmonton Journal, Peace River may be making people sick. The suspected culprits? - its gas well emissions and its storage tanks in which bitumen is heated as part of the process of separating sand from the oil. Residents' health complaints range from dizziness to insomnia to cognitive impairment. Unfortunately, a conspiracy of silence in the medical community is exacerbating their problems:

Some Peace River area doctors are afraid to speak out about health impacts of oil and gas activity and in some cases have declined to treat area residents who wondered if their health problems were related to emissions, says one of two independent health experts hired by the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Dr. Margaret Sears is an Ontario expert in toxicology and health who will appear this week at a special hearing into complaints about emissions from the Baytex oilsands operation 32 kilometres south of Peace River. Her interviews with residents found physician care was refused when a resident suggested a connection between their symptoms and oil and gas emissions.

"Communications with public health officials and medical professionals revealed a universal recognition that petrochemical emissions affect health; however, this was countered by a marked reluctance to speak out,” wrote Sears.

As the article makes clear, physicians face tremendous pressure to conceal this possible relationship, pressure that seems to be leading some to violate their Hippocratic oath:

“Physicians are quite frankly afraid to diagnose health conditions linked to the oil and gas industry,” wrote Sears, adding she heard several times about the case of Dr. John O’Connor who was threatened with losing his licence after raising an alarm about cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan.

Although I am not a conspiracy buff, the pervasive kind of corruption this suggests is astounding, something we would ordinarily have a hard time accepting in Canada.

Perhaps equally astounding, but in a good way, is that this perversion is being seriously investigated by both the Alberta government and the Alberta Energy Regulator, which hired eight independent investigators to comprehensively explore the health problems and their possible relationship to the oil processes and emissions in Peace River. As well, the AER is going to hold a special ten-day public hearing into the entire affair.

Wonder if the Harper cabal will now take to labelling both the Alberta government and the AER as additional enemies of the people.

Some Things Never Change

Although the following Rick Mercer rant was made early in 2013, most, I think, would agree that nothing has changed in the interim:

Cowardly Stealth - UPDATED

It has been said that at their core, bullies are cowards. Usually they set their sights on weaker targets, and when the time is propitious, unleash their fury. Stealth is often the preferred tactic, given their reluctance to have their deeds exposed for what they are. It is hardly earth-shattering to observe that Stephen Harper is a classic bully, his cowardice and his bullying capacity existing in almost equal measure.

While those Canadians with even the slightest interest in politics have been understandably transfixed by the increasingly dark revelations about the government's efforts to subvert the Senate by exercising its oppressive influence, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introduced another omnibus bill the other day, Bill C-4.

Following the pattern established in previous Harper omnibus bills, Bill C-4 covers a lot of territory that has nothing to do with budgetary matters. And like previous bills, it is massive at 321 pages, the better to confuse and obscure some of its more anti-democratic elements.

What are those elements? In today's Star, Thomas Walkom identifies one of its most sinister, designed to amaze and delight his core, another attack on unions:

The bill would give the government the unilateral power to determine which civil servants are essential workers and thus disqualified from striking.

However, the most insidious aspect follows:

But the real bite in the government’s proposed changes to Canada’s Public Service Labour Relations Act has to do with arbitration. Most federal public service labour disputes are settled by neutral arbitrators without the need for strike or lockout action. The new law would permit arbitration only when the government agreed.

Even in areas deemed essential, the government could veto arbitration unless it had designated at least 80 per cent of the workers as ineligible to strike.

This bill also ensures that the arbitration process is rigged:

... in those instances where arbitration was permitted, arbitrators would be required to give a “preponderance” of weight to the government’s claims as to what it could afford.

The abrogation of basic bargaining rights, no doubt appealing to those who hate and envy unions, is striking inasmuch as it upends the customs and practices that have worked reasonably well in labour relations for many many decades.

As pointed out in today's Star editorial, just this small part of the bill deserves its own separate bill:

Canada’s lawmakers ought to have the chance to carefully study and debate the merits of handing the government such power, and the Tories should have to make a compelling case for its necessity.

Instead, of course, this and a host of other non-budgetary items ranging from Supreme Court appointments to workplace safety to immigration policy have been hidden, as is the practice of the cowardly, from open view.

Cowards always like to conduct their nefarious activities by way of stealth lest the light of day expose them for what they are. So far, Stephen Harper and his cabal are adhering to that classic pattern without deviation.



UPDATE: The sneering contempt of Tony Clement in a CBC Ottawa radio interview tells you all you need to know about Conservative arrogance regarding their attack on public sector unions.

Who Do You Trust?

Two seeming unrelated stories, both connected by one pernicious element: unwarranted government secrecy.

In this morning's Hamilton Spectator is the sad tale of Marit McKenzie, an 18-year-old Calgarian who died after taking an anti-acne drug known as Diane-35. Often prescribed off-label as a birth-control pill, the drug's side effects can include formation of blood clots, a contingency that led to the girls's death.

Bruce McKenzie would like to know how a controversial acne drug suspected of killing his healthy teenage daughter this year has, in Health Canada's words, "benefits" that "continue to outweigh the risks."

But the report that could explain how the federal agency arrived at this conclusion is a secret. It's one of more than 150 classified safety reviews completed by Health Canada this year alone.

Despite the fact that France has banned the drug, and despite the fact that even the bastion of free enterprise, the U.S., along with the European Medicines Agency, routinely publish details of post-market safety reviews of drugs as a basic accountability measure, Health Canada refuses to provide any details about its alleged efficacy. The reason? According to our government, it is due to "confidential business information."

The implications of this stance are indeed frightening for anyone in Canada on long-term medication, given that the current database for adverse reactions is simply based on voluntary reports from doctors and patients. But at least the health of our pharmaceutical industry will be protected, the obvious priority with the Haper cabal.

On a similar, though ostensibly unrelated corporate note, is the CETA agreement that Stephen Harper is crowing about. Will it be a net benefit or a net detractor of Canadian jobs? Will it be an impediment to environmental protection and other matters crucial to our sovereignty? Who knows? As Tim Harper points out in today's Star,

But no one can say that definitively right now ...This was an agreement in principle, but there was no fine print.

Despite Harper's claim that these negotiations were the most “transparent and inclusive in Canada’s history”, the truth is that they have carried out in a cloak of secrecy that perhaps rivals that which shrouded the development of the atomic bomb. Secrecy, that is, for everyone but business groups who have been in a position to dictate their demands for quite some time.

And as for Harper's promise that affected sectors will be compensated for any losses, such as the probable $2 billion extra that the provinces will have to come up with due to increased drug costs thanks to another gift to the pharmaceuticals, a two-year patent extension on drugs, I leave that to the overly credulous to believe.

Who do you trust? Not this government, and not this Prime Minister who has proven countless times that truth and honesty are merely quaint notions that sound nice on paper, but have little to do with the debased elements by which he operates.

Wading Back Into The Fray

Having spent yesterday recovering from the temporal vicissitudes imposed by trans-Atlantic travel, my first post back will be brief and on one of my favorite subjects, The Man Who Would Be King, a.k.a. Dear Leader, the ersatz head of a country whose government, thanks to his contemptuous and heavy-hand ministrations, is at least as democratically dysfunctional as the one I just visited, Italy.

While away, I read about his office's attempt to ban CTV cameraman Dave Ellis from boarding Herr Harper's plane leaving for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for daring to try to pose a question to the Exulted One in New York, thereby running the risk of puncturing his carefully cultivated, orchestrated and, of course, completely false public persona while out of the country.

As usual, Toronto Star readers confront the issue with their usual perspicacity:

Re: When shot at, messenger fights back, Oct. 3

It is laughable that Prime Minister Stephen Harper thinks he can “set the rules” for engagement with the press, and pitiful that we’re letting him get away with it. Mr. Harper is our employee. He is bound to answer any question we ask, at any time or place, about anything at all.

He is not in charge. He is in service. And as a civil servant, his conduct is open to constant scrutiny.

When we can’t be in Ottawa, the investigators of the press are our stand-ins. And they may ask anything they please, on our behalf.

Mr. Harper and his claque have become overweeningly arrogant, imperial and dismissive of the citizenry and our press. We are his employers. He doesn’t set the rules of engagement. We do.

Here’s to this paper, and rest of our ink-stained wretches, for working to puncture Mr. Harper’s self-regard and hold his feet to the fire.

Peter Ferguson, Kimberley


Tim Harper’s report that Stephen Harper wanted to ban the sole TV cameraman from boarding the prime minister’s plane (more appropriately, our plane) for the trip to Asia, because he asked him a question, is appalling but not surprising.
Stephen Harper has a long history of threatening to sue journalists, avoids unscripted contact with Canadians at all costs and spends millions of tax dollars on Action Plan propaganda.

During a recent trip to U.K., I was amazed and impressed to see that David Cameron has the guts and ability to vigorously discuss and debate his policy, on TV, with an interviewer who was asking intelligent and aggressive questions.

This was not the “conversations with a deity” that pass for interviews with Stephen Harper.

Geoffrey Kemp, Mississauga

A Scientist Speaks Out

By now, the plight of government scientists is reasonably well-known. Despite the Harper propaganda machine's vehement campaign to deny the practice, more and more Canadians have become aware that the regime has been systematically muzzling its scientists, whose research and hard data frequently contradict and expose as lies the ideology that passes as truth in our debased democracy.

Because we have a collectively short memory, every so often we need to be reminded of some harsh realities, as was done on September 16 when scientists rallied against government efforts to suppress much-needed information.

David Schindler, described as the Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the University of Alberta, has a well-written piece in today's Star reminding all of us of the government's odious practices.

Entitled Remove the muzzle from government scientists, the article begins by reminding us of the proud and often pivotal role Canadian science, much of it governmental, has played in some far-reaching environmental initiatives, including the fact that

Canada was the first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms.

Canada also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.

...policies to control acid rain, based largely on science from government departments, were implemented.

Shindler himself left government science when things began to change. The first changes were somewhat subtle, beginning in the 1990s:

Scientists ... were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put on your file.”

Things steadily deteriorated, with restrictions reaching their nadir once the Harper regime became ensconced:

Shortly after it took office, scientists were told they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be embarrassed by using them.

This weakening of the scientific voice had dire consequences, including the collapse of the cod industry, but much worse was to come:

The government divested itself of the Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while expediting large industrial developments.

And now, of course, we have the almost daily spectacle of government ministers defending the indefensible, with lies about subjects ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of fisheries.

Shindler ends his piece with the following sobering thoughts:

We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.

Government science once provided this information, and it must be changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of Canadian democracy, depends on it.

We can expect the Harper cabal to continue to fight any such ideas vigorously, as is the wont of repressive regimes everywhere.

Please Sign This Petition

While many of us know that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is being conducted in unprecedented secrecy (except, of course, in the case of the corporate sector that has full access to the discussions), it is difficult to rally opposition to it with few facts. I received a petition request today from Doctors Without Borders along with a sobering reminder of what could emerge if the agreement comes to pass in its present form:

The Anti-Harper

I'd like to make it clear at the start of this post that I have by no means been converted to the belief that Justin Trudeau would be an appropriate choice to lead the country, for reasons that I will conclude the post with. However, I simply want to make a few observations about the striking contrast he presents to Stephen Harper.

By now, everyone that follows such things is likely aware of the stark and tight control Harper tries to extend over his entire regime. Parliamentary secretaries, M.P.s and others who speak publicly on the government's behalf are given very strict speaking points from which they cannot deviate. A recent Power and Politics panel on Trudeau's admissions about pot-smoking vividly attested to that fact whenever Conservative M.P. Blake Richards spoke, as do numerous past public discussions on other matters. Journalists, as we were reminded the other day, are limited to five questions of the Prime Minister on those rare occasions when he deigns to allow them access to him. Any attempt at deviation from that regimen is met with severe consequences, as was evident to the world when Chinese reporter Li Xuejiang was roughed up and ejected by Harper's staff and the RCMP when he tried to ask a question:

Everything about Harper bespeaks an overweening control of the message, disdain for the truth, and contempt for the electorate.

Trudeau, by contrast, projects the image of an honest and transparent politician. In today's Toronto Star, columnist Tim Harper makes some interesting observations about the nature of what he sees as Trudeau's strategy:

Since entering federal politics, the Liberal leader has taken a series of risks.

They’ve all been calculated risks, but risks nonetheless.

He’s surviving, even flourishing, with a combination of charisma, favourable treatment from a national press pack desperate [emphasis mine] for a little colour in a drab political landscape, mastery of social media — and a little luck.

Tim Harper characterizes Trudeau as a risk-taker:

He has taken mock pratfalls down a flight of stairs for the television cameras, he did a faux striptease in front of the cameras at a charity fundraiser, he stepped into the boxing ring against a then-Conservative senator.

He took a risk in coming clean to an Ottawa reporter about his personal wealth and the money he earned on the speaking tour...

Harper then turns his attention to Trudeau's recent admission, saying it is hardly news that someone has smoked a bit of of pot over the years. He says the real risk for him is the unsolicited details he provided:

Trudeau could have acknowledged he had fired up a joint, five or six times, as he did, but he took the risk in volunteering that he has smoked a joint since becoming an MP, an MP who was clearly thinking of federal leadership, and an MP who voted in favour of tougher marijuana possession penalties.

In a country tired of the mean-spirited, controlling and spiteful nature of its Prime Minister, this is likely a refreshing change. But columnist Harper makes a crucial observation toward the end of his piece which addresses the same deep reservations I have about Trudeau's leadership capacities.

But I’m not sure I have any idea where Trudeau stands on prorogation, the latest twist in the Senate spending fiasco, or the potential of a giant American player entering the Canadian wireless market.

It is all well and good to project an image of openness and honesty, but without any articulation of policy, Trudeau runs the real risk of reinforcing the other image he has as a political and intellectual lightweight, something that even a country desperate for change will not and cannot support.

The Ad the CBC Refuses To Air

Are they right or wrong? You decide.



You can read the full story here.

Are You Psychologically Fit To Be The Next Parliamentary Budget Officer?*

The Globe and Mail reports that those vying to replace Kevin Page, the man who so distinguished himself as our last Parliamentary Budget Officer, are being asked to undergo psychological testing.

I understand there is also an asterisked portion at the bottom of the application.

* Those with integrity need not apply.

A New Transparency For Harper?

Sometimes the truth can be ugly indeed.




H/t Canadians Rallying To Unseat Harper

Remembrances Of Things Past (A.K.A. Harper's Empty Promises, A.K.A Lies)

I trust these pictorial efforts speak for themselves:


H/t Piper McKinnon - Canadians Rallying To Unseat Stephen Harper


H/t The Toronto Star

Harper's 'Accountability'

This raw video from this morning's efforts at damage control says all there needs to be said about Harper and accountability:

More Praise for Kevin Page

Readers of this blog will know that I have a deep and abiding respect for people of real integrity, those capable of moving beyond narrow self-interest to embrace ethics and principles in the conduct of their lives. Kevin Page, of whom I have written several times, is one such individual who has set a sterling example for all of us.

Today's Star has several letters of praise for the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, several of which I am reproducing below. Please be sure to check out the full array of them on the Star website. The respect accorded him in the letters suggests his example will be remembered long after Harper and his ilk are but historical footnotes.

The job no one wanted, Opinion April 1

Not only does this reveal a man of courage, but it highlights the courage we all need to resist “the consolidation of power at the expense of citizens” taking place in our time.

Whenever privilege becomes concentrated to a few, whether we are talking wealth, political power or mass communication, nations fail. Canada is failing because political, economic and educational privilege is being consolidated to a few rather than dispersed among many.

But the remedy doesn’t lie within Parliament, or with big business or with the media conglomerates. It lies as Kevin Page rightly diagnoses, in our “need to wake up.”

Not only is ‘Canada’s Parliament losing its capacity to hold the government to account” but we are losing our capacity to hold our markets to account for making a few wealthy at the expense of the many, and our capacity to ensure the vulnerable are provided for by our social programs and our institutions of care.

To speak up against this trend is a job nobody wants, especially if job security is threatened. But without that courage, our democracy and prosperity are at stake. Not just for the vulnerable, but for all of us.

We need to wake up.

John Deacon, Toronto

Wow! What a letter. I am blown away by Kevin Page. Now here is a guy who gets it. He understands his role and does so with integrity and professionalism and with the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer in mind.

One may reasonably think that the Conservatives would do everything possible to ensure he stays on board instead of showing him the door and replacing him with someone nice but “not so efficient.”

This reminds me of Dalton McGuinty balking at the rehiring of Ombudsman Andre Marin in 2010. It turned out fortuitous for the provincial leader as his government needed transparency after the G20 debacle and Marin’s office was there to help.

Maybe Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his tired cloak and dagger routine.

Jeff Green, Toronto

Kevin Page and the PBO have made a great contribution to Canada in the past five years. What Canada needs to succeed in the future are more Kevin Pages and fewer Stephen Harpers. On behalf of Canada, thank you Mr. Page.

Charles Campisi, Oakville

Thank you Mr. Page for sharing your thoughts with Canadians. In spite of continual stonewalling from the present federal Conservative government, you, as head of the PBO, were truly a very conscientious, thorough, “sticking to the facts” and “no axe to grind” type of civil servant and we all Canadians should be proud of you. Best wishes in your future endeavours. Aquil Ali, Toronto Kevin Page is one of my heroes. I copied his letter in the Star and sent it, along with my own cover letter, to 20 of my family and friends. I asked them to contact their MPs and demand that they support even more power to the position to the PBO’s position in the future.

I sincerely hope that we have not heard the last of Kevin Page. We need his courage, character, skill and sense of right in this country. I hope that his service to Canadians will be recognized with an Order of Canada. (It certainly won’t be given by the Conservative government with Harper as leader!)

Listen up Justin Trudeau! Kevin has gifted his sons with an amazing legacy and has given “We The People” an incredible example to follow. This is a wonderful example of turning a tragedy into something very positive.

Kathryn Walker, Toronto

My sincere thanks to Kevin Page for his dedicated service to Canadian taxpayers like me. Under difficult circumstances, he has shown himself to be a man of integrity, class, and principle. It’s a shame his political masters in the Conservative government couldn’t manage something similar. Bravo, sir.

Susan Sterling, Toronto

Just Trust Us

We all remember the abortive attempts by Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer, to find out specifically how federal budget cuts were going to affect programs. The Harper regime was of the view that such detailed information wasn't to be shared, despite the pesky expectations that a putative open democracy tends to foster among its citizens. Essentially, the answer we were given was, "just trust us."

A detailed analysis of recently released spending reports conducted by the Globe and Mail suggests two things: thanks to cuts in the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we can trust the regime to render our food system less safe, and thanks to cuts to Aboriginal Affairs, we can trust that the concerns of natives will continue to be only a political irritation for Ottawa.

But hey, the regime is well on its way to keeping its promise to balance the budget by 2015, and as we should all know by now, our function is to serve the economy, no matter the unfortunate consequences that may ensue.

Some Inspiration From Kevin Page - UPDATED

There is an excellent piece in this morning's Star by outgoing Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. In it, he talks about how his son's death was the catalyst for his abandoning a natural desire for job security and his subsequent pursuit of the job which has incurred so much Harper wrath while at the same time endearing him to millions of Canadians. Unfortunately, the piece seems to be only in the print edition, but should it become available online, I will provide a link.

At the end of his article, Page urges all of us to write to our M.P. and let them know how they feel about the government's purposeful and myriad efforts at concealing information essential to a healthy democracy and informed Parliamentary debate. Inspired by his words, I have sent off an email to my Conservative M.P. David Sweet. I reproduce it below. If you find any part of it useful, feel free to use it in your own communications with your representative:

Dear Mr. Sweet,

Having read outgoing Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's column in this morning's Star, I have decided to take his advice and write to you. As his five-year tenure made abundantly clear, your government has consistently betrayed its commitment to openness and transparency in a number of ways, not the least being its refusal to provide the kind of financial information to Parliament that would have allowed for a full and informed debate and evaluation of government policies. While examples abound, the true costs of the F-35 fighter jets and details on how the government will meet its deficit-fighting targets are but two. A true democracy does not conceal information as a kind of precious commodity to be guarded at all costs.

I have written to you several times in the past, not so much with the expectation that my words would in any way influence you or your government but rather to make you aware that there are many who oppose Mr. Harper's policies in general and your constituency representation in particular. I am writing now to ask you to look within and ask yourself why you went into politics in the first place. Have the goals, methodology, and policies of your government, which have done so much to impair democracy and disaffect so many citizens from its processes, been consonant with your original purpose?

If they have not, then I call upon you to try find the kind of moral courage shown by people like Mr. Page and the former head of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, and do the right thing by speaking out for the needs of Canada and not just your party's narrow interests.

I know that what I am asking is not easy, but I firmly believe that the future of this country depends upon M.P.s who are willing to risk their careers for the betterment of all citizens. Otherwise, our democracy will continue its descent into a sad parody of what it once was.

Sincerely,

Lorne Warwick

UPDATE: Kevin Page's article is now available on the Star's website.

More On Harper's Censorship of Science

The other day I wrote a post about the Harper regime's ongoing efforts and measures designed to thwart government transparency; the Prime Minister's abuse of power is most flagrant in his suppression of the voice of science, thereby effectively denying information vital if citizens are to have any hope of evaluating government policy. Unfortunately, in a regime driven by ideology, as Harper's is, the end justifies the means, no matter how much those means might violate the basic underlying principles of democratic government.

I am taking the liberty of reproducing the editorial appearing in today's Star that rebukes the regime for this dangerous drift toward an autocratic rule that promotes and extols ignorance over knowledge and manipulation over meaningful deliberation. The bolded parts are mine, added for emphasis:

Apparently Stephen Harper is unmoved by the embarrassment of international reprobation.

It has been a year since Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, chided the federal Conservatives for their antagonism to openness and declared, “It is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.”

Since then, other major international publications, including the Guardian and the Economist, have followed suit, calling on our government to take a more enlightened, democratic approach to scientific findings. Yet clearly not much has changed: the federal information commissioner is now considering a request to investigate the persistent and worsening problem of the government’s so-called muzzling of Canadian scientists.

Since the Conservatives took power in 2006, Canadian media have had little direct access to government scientists. In Friday’s Star, Kate Allen reported on the difficulty this paper has had working around the government’s unusual restrictions. Requests for information are usually routed through communications officials, yielding either perfunctory, inexpert responses, or circumscribed interviews with scientists often days past deadline. One way or another, scientists are kept from sharing their work with the public.

This silencing poses a significant democratic problem. How are Canadians supposed to evaluate energy or fisheries policies, for instance, when we aren’t exposed to even the most basic information about their environmental consequences? Moreover, the muzzling creates a problem for science itself, an endeavour that depends on the widespread dissemination, scrutiny and discussion of data. As Dalhousie University ecologist Jeffrey Hutchings wrote on thestar.com last week, “When you inhibit the communication of science, you inhibit science.”

That ought to be unacceptable. But as the thousands of scientists who gathered in protest on Parliament Hill last summer made clear, this government seems to regard evidence as worse than irrelevant. It regards it as a hindrance. Why else scrap the Experimental Lakes Area, the world’s leading freshwater research centre, despite the steep economic and scientific cost of that decision? Why else do away with the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, the national science adviser or the long-form census, among other integral parts of our scientific infrastructure lost in recent years?

Keeping Canadians in the dark is undemocratic; governing in the dark is reckless. Good government needs good science, and good science needs a level of openness this government may be incapable of.

The Quasi-Police State In Our Midst: UPDATED

He who controls the media controls the minds of the public. - Noam Chomsky

In some ways, it is very much reminiscent of what occurred during the time of the Soviet Union, when athletic or cultural figures would visit the West, always accompanied by 'escorts' whose ostensible purpose was to act as facilitators and translators, but whose real purpose was to keep a very close eye on their fellow citizens lest they bolt for freedom or say something 'unscripted', thereby causing the homeland some embarrassment. Control of information was paramount.

And ironclad control would seem to be both the guiding model and ethos governing the Harper regime. Already infamous for its war on transparency, about which I have written before, Canada is now ranked 55th in the world for upholding freedom of information, a designation Harper disputes (black is white, freedom is slavery, etc. etc.). Another ongoing international embarrassment and affront to democracy is the muzzling of our scientists. But perhaps a measure of relief from that oppression is possible.

A story appearing in today's Star reveals the following:

Federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is being asked to investigate the “muzzling” of Canadian government scientists in a request backed by a 128-page report detailing “systemic efforts” to obstruct access to researchers.

“She is uniquely positioned, and she has the resources and the legal mandate, to get to the bottom of this,” says Chris Tollefson. Tollefson is executive director of the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, which issued the request with the non-partisan Democracy Watch.

And make no mistake about it. This regime is desperate to control the flow of information that is at odds with, among many other things, its current propaganda campaign to convince the world of how environmentally 'progressive' it is. Readers may recall, for example, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's recent trip to Chicago on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline in which he touted Canada’s unmatched environmental record. This was quickly followed up by Oliver's attempt to repudiate Thomas Mulcair's comments in the U.S. about Keystone and the tarsands.

The stakes are indeed high, which may explain the extraordinary lengths to which the 'Canadian Kremlin' is going to censor and control information. The piece in The Star goes on to describe the ease and with which an information request on how climate change is affecting the Arctic and Antarctic was answered by NASA scientists, usually the same day and with offers to talk in person or by phone.

However, the same request to scientists at Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada,

led to apologetic responses that the request would have to be routed through public relations officials. Public relations staff asked for a list of questions in advance, and then set boundaries for what subjects the interview could touch upon. Approval to interview the scientists was given days later. In all cases, a PR staffer asked to listen in on the interviews. (italics mine)

I wish Democracy Watch and the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre the best of luck in its attempts to break the embargo on unfiltered information through Information Commissioner Legault. Yet I can't help regret that Canada has sunk so low that now the efforts of non-governmental agents are so desperately needed in a country that was once a proud and open democracy.

UPDATE: For those who feel strongly about this government control over information, here is a petition worth considering.

More Harper Contempt for Transparency and Democracy

This story about Kevin Page's relentless and noble ongoing attempts to extract information about the public service impact of government budget cuts from the secrecy-obsessed Harper regime appeared in today's Star. Consequently, I couldn't resist the impulse to send the story link to the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, the body that recently named Stephen Harper The World Statesman of the Year for his 'stellar' efforts at promoting democracy and human rights.

By the way, it is not too late to sign the Avaaz petition to register your disgust with the foundation's decision.