...Gone?

The tale of Eve Adams gets increasingly melodramatic, and increasingly reminiscent of Helena Guergis. That she will suffer Helena's political fate is looking more likely with each passing day.

Readers may recall that prior to her fall from grace, Helena Guergis, at the Charlottetown airport in February of 2010, allegedly threw a tantrum and screamed obscenities at staff who asked her to take her boots off for security screening. An airport worker said it was among the worst meltdowns he had ever seen.

Fast forward a few years and a similar outrageous sense of political entitlement was acted out this past December by Ms Adams who, it seems, showed her displeasure over a bit of ice remaining on her bumper after a car wash by blocking some gas pumps for 15 minutes at an Ottawa gas station.

John Newcombe, a Conservative supporter and the owner of the Island Park Esso station in Ottawa’s west end, said he contacted the Prime Minister’s Office in January to complain about an incident with Adams in December 2013:

An analysis of the incident can be seen here, from yesterday's Power and Politics:

Finally, also like Guergis, who suffered her lethal blow over allegations of misuse of her office, Ms Adams is being accused of misusing her political clout in seeking the nomination for the riding of Oakville North-Burlington. It has already cost her affianced, Dimitri Soudas, his job as executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada.

On yesterday's Power and Politics, Jeff Knoll, a board member of the riding association in question, explained why he signed a letter asking the prime minister to look into allegations about MP Eve Adams:

One wonders what particular brand of bottled water our elected public 'servants' drink from. If the kind of outrageous and contemptuous behaviour evinced by Ms Adams and countless others proves to come from something they drink, the product should come under immediate investigation by Health Canada and recalled.

Then again, perhaps it is just the Kool-Aid that is served to the entire Harper caucus.

How Many Fingers Am I Holding Up, Winston?

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the
thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
"Four."
"And if the Party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?"
"Four."
The word ended in a gasp of pain.
-- George Orwell 1984

As a resident of Harperland, there are indeed days when I feel like Winston Smith, the beleaguered protagonist of Orwell's prescient novel, 1984. Like Smith, I live in a land of lies perpetrated by a government that claims to represent its citizens, claims that are as far from truth as most of us are from sainthood. It is a land where civic engagement is discouraged, genuine concerns derisively dismissed, and the most passionate often find themselves on government enemies' lists. It is a land of cruel delusion.

My friend Steve yesterday alerted me to yet one more instance of the kind of Harper propaganda and subterfuge that bears little relation to truth.

Most of us assume that when we fly, we are protected by stringent government oversight, and that when we purchase a ticket from a Canadian airline, we are purchasing the services of both a Canadian plane and crew. That is not necessarily true.

There is a term in the airline industry called wet leasing, a practice that allows Canadian companies to lease not just a foreign aircraft but also its crew, maintenance and other essential elements.

While there is nothing illegal about the practice, it does open the door to potential threats to safety.

Take, for example, an incident that occurred on July 16, 2012, when two Canadian CF-18 Hornet fighter jets scrambled to intercept a Sunwing Airlines flight near Quebec City, after the Toronto-bound aircraft lost contact with air traffic control for more than an hour. The plane and crew, leased from Portugal, placed everyone in danger of being shot down as a terrorist threat for one simple reason: the pilot forgot to change radio frequncies when he entered a new flight zone, a standard requirement that even the most unseasoned of domestic pilots are well-aware of.

Yet in Harperland, we are told not to worry. Last week, six months after CTV News reported the near-death experience of the Sunwing passengers, Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt announced the government will limit wet-leasing by imposing a cap of “20 per cent of a Canadian carrier’s fleet that can be wet-leased from a foreign company for periods of more than 30 days.”

In addition to this wholly inadequate and belated response, Minister Raitt had the audacity (or is it just the usual contempt for the intelligence of Canadians?) to issue the following statement:

“Our government is working to make sure that Canadians are first in line for Canadian jobs, to open new markets for Canadian companies and to give more options to Canadian consumers”.

Message to Ms. Raitt and the other apparatchiks of Harplandia:

You are holding up four fingers.

Will He Or Won't He?

2015 is not very far away. It may be the year of liberation, the year Canada reclaims its collective soul, or it may be the year in which Canadians elect to continue their enslavement to the neo-conservative agenda. (Please forgive the rather overblown rhetoric in the previous sentence, but in my heart it sums up what lies before us.)

The question of whether Stephen Harper will run in the next election is on many people's minds. Some are entirely convinced that he will, while I am of the view the public opinion surveys and their consistency will be a heavy influence on his decision. If they suggest that he is held in wide and consistent public odium, I suspect he will choose to forgo another election. Like Brian Mulroney before him, and the detested former Ontario premier Mike Harris, whose massive egos didn't blind them to the likelihood of defeat at the polls, I suspect Harper will decide to cut and run (the contemptuous term Harper always used to when anyone suggested we get out of Afghanistan) rather than confront the truth about himself: that despite his delusions, he is a leader who has failed abysmally in inspiring anything but division, rancour and selfishness within the country he was elected to serve.

A letter in today's Star offers this view:

Re: Harper resignation no longer a far-fetched notion, Aug. 25

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not risk the humiliation of losing the next election as the momentum is building against him across the country. Harper will not run in the 2015 election.

He may be able to prorogue Parliament to avoid a confrontation in the House of Commons and the intense questioning over Senators Pamela Wallin, Mac Harb, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau. But he cannot prorogue the fact of his alienating Quebec.

He is unable to prorogue the 2015 election and will not want to preside over the break-up of the country.

Robert G. Sheehan-Gauthier, Ottawa

Of course, my political instincts are not what they once were, and I could be completely wrong. For a more nuanced and detailed analysis of the factors that will influence Harper's decision, take a look at the CBC's Greg Weston's piece here.

Why Mandela Is So Important

Although I have only made reference to him three other times in this blog, Nelson Mandela is a person who I revere like no other. And of course, I am hardly alone in that sentiment, attested to by the fact that millions of people, not only in South Africa but around the world, are in a state of anxiety over his latest hospitalization.

But in frail health at the age of 94, hospitalized yet again with a stubborn lung affection many attribute to his 27 years of incarceration, most of it on Robben Island off the coast of Cape Town, where he contracted tuberculosis, it is unlikely that Mandela will be with us much longer.

Why is the world so reluctant to let him go? I can think of no other world figure who will be as mourned upon death as Mandela will be, and for some fairly obvious but crucially important reasons:

He is, without question, a man of outstanding character and deep morality. Not only did he show the courage of his convictions against apartheid by remaining in prison for 27 years (he could have been freed much earlier had he renounced the African National Congress), but upon release, when ordinary people would have been consumed by bitterness over that suffering and the lost years, he went on to become the President of South Africa and led the way to reconciliation with, not revenge against those who had treated him and his fellow blacks so abominably over the decades.

In doing so, Mandela held up a mirror to all of us, showing the potential that resides deep within and discoverable if we are willing to do the work that that entails. He taught us, political and corporate culture notwithstanding, that we are much more than mere fodder for that thing called the economy, that we have an innate dignity and a worth current propaganda would gladly deny.

Mandela showed us that we do not have to defined and circumscribed by our circumstances, that transcendence is possible.

I suspect that current rulers, both domestic and international, would like us to ignore those glimpses of our better angels that Mandela's life has afforded us. Those glimpses might lead to other things, like an expectation that those we elect put the people and their dignity before the exultation of corporate forces. They might demand that government not move in lockstep with those forces who see, not human dignity but only human fodder, mere fungible commodities to feed the machine in its quest for never-ending growth.

People might also begin to expect character from those they elect, not the subterfuge, not the opacity, not the arrant greed which have been mainstays of so many so-called democracies, not the least of all our own in Canada. They might demand real integrity, not a manufactured image, to define those who ask for our trust. They might demand real accountability.

I suspect our rulers would like us to ignore the lessons in life and humanity that Mandela's example has given us. Better for them if we continue upon our frightened and frequently insensate path, either disciplined by the ever-present fear of job loss or anodized by the latest in reality programming that invites us to mock our fellow human beings, the latest fashions, the latest technological marvels.

We are, of course, free as in the many opportunities that life presents to either ponder and learn from or ignore the truths that the long existence of Nelson Mandela has provided us with.


I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.

Nelson Mandela

In Praise of Political Cartoonists

Where would we be without their pithy insights?

On The Politically Compliant

Woke up this morning thinking of our friends in the animal kingdom, and their affinity for their counterparts in Ottawa.

A Larger Problem

In his column this morning, Thomas Walkom suggests that Mike Duffy's current scandal-plagued problems are representative of much deeper ones in the Senate, namely that our much-cossetted members of that 'chamber of sober second thought' are appointed, not because of their expertise (many of them have none), not because of intimate knowledge of a particular province (Duffy has none, having lived in Ottawa for over 30 years and not even legally qualified to represent P.E.I.), but because the Senate has become, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, a repository of party strategists and bagmen where they can continue their partisan wizardry.

No doubt Walkom is correct as far as he goes. But the above, it seems to me, are simply symptomatic of two much deeper problems in public life, the widespread disengagement of our citizens, about which I have written before, and the shocking dearth of integrity in those who achieve high office.

For example, all of the events surrounding the Duffy porkbarreling have, quite rightly, provoked widespread outrage. However, when the abuses and betrayals of the public trust are not so obvious or so sensational, far too many citizens just shrug their shoulders and say that politics doesn't interest them. This marked indifference is precisely what has permitted, even encouraged, the depradatory environmental, science, economic and social policies the Harper regime has so avidly embraced and promoted. It is this indifference that enabled Harper to prorogue Parliament twice. It is this indifference that enabled, without even a hint of contrition, the excesses of Treasury Board President Tony 'gazeebo' Clement. I could go on and on.

A sleeping public enables, even encourages the unethical, the unprincipled, those for whom integrity is an alien concept, to prey upon and erode the public good.

I have always tried to live my life with principle and integrity, as do so many others throughout the world. Because we inhabit a world requiring adaptation and compromise, integrity and principle are ideals toward which we strive, providing, as they do, a moral compass and the recognition that the solely material and secular things of this world often come with a price too high to pay.

I will close this post with a quote from Shakespeare's Macbeth, a man who learned that hard truth far too late, recognizing, as the end of his life approaches, that he has sacrificed everything of enduring value in his lust for power and pomp:


My way of life
Is fall'n into the sere, the yellow leaf;
And that which should accompany old age,
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have; but in their stead
Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honour, breath,
Which the poor heart would fain deny, and dare not.

-- Act v, Sc. 3

Are Canadians Experiencing Buyers' Remorse?

Many of us who blog, tweet, or post political views on Facebook cannot, I suspect, avoid the periodic and unsettling notion that we are simply 'preaching to the converted' instead of reaching a larger audience with our perspectives and commentaries. Yet we persevere, both as a catharsis for our own outrage over social and political injustices, especially (at least for me) those induced by the Harper cabal, and in the hope that our words may influence those who don't necessarily feel as we do. But it is always just a hope.

That is why I take such delight when I read things in the mainstream media that suggest our discontent is shared by a constituency much wider than our blogosphere, thereby offering reasons for renewed optimism that changes in Ottawa are indeed quite possible. Such is the case today in reading The Star's Chantal Hebert. Entitled Stephen Harper’s legacy in government may be nastiness, her column suggests that those who made possible the Harper majority are now feeling buyers' remorse:

The latest voting intentions sounding — done by Harris/Decima for The Canadian Press earlier this week — shows the Conservatives in second place, seven points behind the Liberals and more than 10 points down from their 2011 level.

While acknowledging that the results stem in part from Justin Trudeau's recent assumption of the Liberal Party leadership, Hebert suggests they are also a natural consequence of the politics of negativity that Harper and his functionaries have continued to embrace so rabidly, despite their majority:

With a consistency that would have been exemplary if only it had been exerted on the policy front, the majority Conservatives have treated Parliament and the country to [ongoing contempt].

At times it has seemed as if, having fought so hard to conquer a majority, they felt compelled to act like an occupying army rather than a government accountable to all.

Hebert makes the point that Canadians are used to their politics being rough, reminding us of some of the antics and abuses of power that characterized the Chretien reign. She does observe, however, that his government's saving grace was

a series of signature policies for which support extended outside the core Liberal base. A return to balanced budgets, the Clarity Act and a refusal to follow the Americans’ lead on Iraq are three examples.

By contrast, all Harper has left is his die-hard 'true believers', the rest totally alienated from his antics:

He promised to fix the democratic deficit that plagued Parliament. Instead Harper’s contribution to that deficit already surpasses that of his predecessors.

The Conservatives were going to end the culture of entitlement that pervaded previous governments. Instead, some of Harper’s senators and ministers have embraced that culture in relative impunity.

The prime minister also vouched to restore accountability to government. Instead, he has presided over increasingly opaque budgets and a Kafkaesque regime of communication designed to obscure rather than inform. The auditor general himself has trouble following the money through the federal system these days.

Despite my retirement, the English teacher within lives on. Upon reading Hebert's observations, my mind went to a scene in Shakespeare's Macbeth, when, near the end of his unjust and cruel rule, Macbeth is facing invasion from the English, who are helping Scottish patriots overthrow the tyrant. Someone asks about Macbeth's status:

13 Some say he's mad; others that lesser hate him

14 Do call it valiant fury; but, for certain,

15 He cannot buckle his distemper'd cause

16 Within the belt of rule.

ANGUS

Now does he feel

17 His secret murders sticking on his hands;

18 Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach;

19 Those he commands move only in command,

20 Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title

21 Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe

22 Upon a dwarfish thief.

(Act 5, Scene 2)

I, and many others live in the hope that the dwarfish thief currently reigning in Ottawa is soon to experience a 'wardrobe malfunction' and lose his Prime Minister's robes. Hebert's article gives me renewed hope for that outcome.

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.

The Dominoes of Democracy

Cause and effect. Sometimes the relationship is obvious, as in, for example, a cigarette left smoldering on a couch and the subsequent conflagration that destroys a house. Other times, to see the relationship requires some digging, some thinking, some connecting of the dots. To its shame the Harper regime, as retrograde and benighted as it is, has proven quite adept at obscuring such relationships. Thanks to this Machiavellian bent, we are all the poorer.

In a recent address to the Alberta Federation of Labour, one that, curiously, was not reported in the mainstream Alberta media, former Tory pollster and strategist Allan Gregg gave another version of his Assault on Reason speech he gave at the opening of Carleton University’s new School of Public Affairs.

Gregg made the following unassailable assertion to the group:

..."effective solutions can only be generated when they correspond with accurate understanding of they problems they are designed to solve. Evidence, facts and reason, therefore, form the sine qua non not just of good public policy, but of good value."

He went on to lament the steady decline of these criteria under the Harper government that began with the elimination of the long-form census, followed by

the destruction of the national long-gun registry, despite the pleas of virtually every police chief in Canada that it be saved. After that, under cover of an austerity budget, there were massive cuts to Statistics Canada, Library and Archives Canada, science and social science activities at Parks Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office, the CBC, the Roundtable on the Environment, the Experimental Lakes Area, the Canadian Foundation for Climate Science and so on.

Gregg notes that these assaults on evidence-based decisions were followed by a multi-billion-dollar penitentiary-building spending spree which flew directly in the face of a mountain of evidence that suggested that crime, far from being on the rise, was on the decline.

Gregg draws the following conclusions:

"This was no random act of downsizing, but a deliberate attempt to obliterate certain activities that were previously viewed as a legitimate part of government decision making," Gregg stated. "Namely, using research, science and evidence as the basis to make public policy decisions.

"It also amounted to an attempt to eliminate anyone who would use science, facts and evidence to challenge government policies," he added.

So, beyond the obvious consequences of flawed government policy that is based on ideology instead of empiricism, what is the effect of all of this?

To be continued later today...

The Good News: It's a New Year - the Bad News: Expect More of the Same

Best wishes to everyone in 2013. I would like to express my hope that all will enjoy a prosperous 12 months ahead, but given both domestic and international realities, I know that will not be the case for many.

This, despite the self-congratulatory tone Stephen Harper frequently strikes when talking about how Canada is doing so well vis-vis the rest of the world. Yesterday, this boast was placed in its proper context by The Globe's Lawrence Martin, who offers the following observation:

If Canada’s doing well compared with other well-functioning economies, it’s something to boast about. But if the barometer is basket cases, let’s not get out the pompoms. It’s no great measure of success.

He points out, for example, that only a half-point separates our unemployment rate (7.2%) from that of the United States (7.7%).

Martin suggests that our real economic state is hidden:

We have a manufacturing sector that’s in steady decline, leaving an economy overly dependent on staples and their price fluctuations. It’s chiefly our natural resource endowments that have helped us outperform others. Should we pat ourselves on the back for that? What country, blessed with such abundances, couldn’t have done the same?

His piece goes on to adumbrate our myriad failures both internationally and domestically, a few of which I reproduce below:

- On climate change, this great green land has taken on the reputation (Liberal governments share the blame) of a black sheep.

- In regard to first nations, the acute adversities find little alleviation.

- We left Afghanistan with our mission mostly unaccomplished. We now witness the F-35 muck-up.

- On foreign affairs, our long-time open-minded country is now steering closer to a path of unilateralism. Our self-righteousness is striking, and we’ve become a United Nations basher.

- While other jurisdictions move progressively on criminal justice, we renew our emphasis on incarceration. While other jurisdictions move to decriminalize soft drugs, we maintain a war on them.

Martin ends his piece by reminding us of how much our beloved democracy has suffered under the Harper cabal. It does not take a long memory to recall unnecessary omnibus bills, parliamentary prorogation, and the contempt shown both inside and outside of parliament for those who dare disagree with the Tory agenda.

I am well past the age where I make New Years' resolutions, but my resolve is the same as it has been since 2006, when these renegades first came to power: to do everything I can to inform as many as possible about the true nature of this government, and to encourage as many as possible to engage or reengage in the political process.

May it be a productive year.

An Odious Servitude

In its ongoing and odious servitude to a reactionary constituency, the Harper regime continues to use the heavy hand of government to target and harass those whose ideology differs from its own.

I have already written several times about Bill C-377, the private members bill designed to flame discontent with unions in this country. Apparently, anyone who seeks to challenge that bill now becomes a victim of one of the favourite tools of the Harperites, name-calling.

As reported by The Star's Tim Harper, this childish and manipulative tactic, a sad substitute for reason (never a strong point with Harper and his ilk), was used to 'answer' what most would deem to be a reasonable question about Bill C-377:

Opponents of the bill wonder why the government is not forcing the same type of financial disclosure upon doctors, lawyers and others who, like union members, pay tax-deductible dues to professional organizations.

The answer was provided by Ottawa-area Conservative Pierre Poilievre after the NDP filibustered the Hiebert bill at committee.

“The NDP’s attempt to block this union transparency bill and block workers’ rights only strengthens our party’s resolve to support that member’s bill and its amendments,” Poilievre said. “The reality is that never before has one party in Parliament been so dominated by a single-interest group.”

He told the Commons that a third of NDP MPs are “past union bureaucrats or union bosses.”

Yet this unwarranted and unprecedented attack on unions is not the only way in which government power is being misused. As also reported by Tim Harper, Conservatives sitting on the natural resources committee have summoned Justin Trudean and David McGuinty to explain their anti-Alberta remarks. How long will it be before we see show trials in Canada?

Finally in his piece, the star columnist points out the egregious hyprocrisy of a government that insists that the principles of accountability and transparency are its sole motivation:

As the Conservatives cast their light of accountability about the halls of Parliament, they have ignored their own lack of accountability — on the true cost of the F-35 fighter jets, on spending on the G20 summit, on the use of a discredited marketing agency to spread lies about Liberal MP Irwin Cotler or on its recent fun-with-figures budget numbers aimed at delivering goodies in the 2015 campaign.

So far, the Canadian public has given no indication that its appetite for the government's reprehensible behaviour is reaching the saturation point. Until it does, expect more of the same.

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

Eugenics in Alberta

Given the province's rather fanatical conviction that its tarsands projects should be subject to little or no oversight, it might be useful to bear in mind another kind of fanaticism it embraced between 1928 and 1972: eugenics.

Between 1929 and 1972, 4785 cases [for sterilizations] were presented to the board, and 99% of these cases were approved. The 60 cases that were not approved were deferred cases that were later re-considered, and 14 of them were eventually passed. Only 60% of all cases that were sanctioned by the Board were actually completed, resulting in 2832 sterilization procedures performed in Alberta during the 43 years that the Alberta Eugenics Board was in power.

The majority of the Board’s activities were conducted in secrecy, away from the criticism of the public eye, and even away from legislative inquiry.

Apples and oranges, you say? I'm not so sure. At the very least, it attests to the power of government to abuse its authority.

How The Harper Omnibus Bill Disrupted My Sunday

Yesterday started out pleasantly enough. After enjoying my wife's home-made cereal, a piece of toast and some coffee, I decided the weather was so fine that it warranted my going out on my bicycle to be among nature's delights. Returning home after about an hour-and-a-half, in an unusually serene frame of mind, it seemed like a grand idea to have another cup of coffee, watch the birds at my feeder and bird bath, and read the Insight Section of The Star.

It was that last decision that ended my hard-won equanimity, as I read an analysis of the Harper budget omnibus bill. Although I was previously aware of many of the bill's major contents, the stealthy scope of this grossly undemocratic legislation, and the palpable contempt for the Canadian people implicit in it was, to say the least, unsettling. Indeed, after I read the article, relaxing amidst the sylvan setting of my backyard while Rome burns seemed a bit of a guilty indulgence.

The following aspects of the bill were highlighted in the article:

• Cuts 19,200 government jobs amid $5.2 billion in spending reductions.

• Eliminates a wide range of agencies and organizations, from social policy-oriented agencies like the National Council of Welfare and National Aboriginal Health Organization to the watchdog responsible for monitoring the activities of Canada’s spy agency, CSIS.

• Sweeping changes to immigration law that will allow the government to delete the applications of some 280,000 people who asked to come here as federal skilled workers before 2008. Application fees will be returned. The legislation also refocuses immigration policy on economic needs with measures intended to attract younger, better-qualified workers to directly meet labour market demands.

• Changes the Temporary Foreign Worker Program so that foreign employees can be paid up to 15 per cent less than the prevailing local wage under certain circumstances.

• Alters the administration of parks, meaning shorter seasons and fewer services at parks and historic sites.

• Cuts spending on culture, foreign aid and future health-care transfers to the provinces.

Like the cowards that they are, the Harper regime has refused all opposition demands for a legislative breakdown of the omnibus bill that would allow full and public debate on each of its elements.

Like all evil that thrives, the Conservatives know that it is only through the shroud of secrecy and darkness that their vile efforts to reshape Canada can succeed.

And like the true betrayers of democracy's ideals that they are, Harper Inc. is doing everything within its power to keep the people who will be most affected by this reshaping, i.e., the majority of Canadians, as ignorant of its plans as possible.

If you want to know more, including some of the details of the bill's scrapping of environmental regulations that has prompted Greenpeace Canada spokesperson Keith Stewart to describe it as an attack on nature and democracy. It’s being done, basically, on behalf of the big oil companies, I hope you will check out the article.

The Sad Saga Of Our Declining Democracy Continues

During the past year I have written many posts on the sad spectacle of a Canadian democracy in decline, citizen cynicism and apathy rather than vigorous engagement becoming the default position of more and more Canadians. I have also offered the opinion that this is in large part the result of practices purposely pursued by our political 'masters', most egregiously by the Harper regime, so as to leave the field pretty much clear for the 'true-believers' to exert a disproportionate influence on election results when they turn out and the rest of us tune out.

Extreme partisanship has relegated the public good to an afterthought, an example of which is highlighted in Martin Regg Cohn's column today in The Star. He writes about how the clash of politics has impeded anti-bullying legislation that was supposed to proceed smoothly as a response to the suicides of gay students, but has instead degenerated into open displays of bigotry, taunting, tweeting, sulking and shouting (or heckling, as parliamentarians call it).

An even more penetrating assessment of the price we all pay for the debasement of the political process is to be found in Chantal Hebert's column today, also in The Star. Entitled Ballot box seen as dead end rather than means to an end, Hebert first uses the ongoing Quebec student unrest to advance her thesis that our elected representatives are no longer looked upon as a viable source of representation, a notion which, when you think about it, strikes at the very heart of democracy:

Their movement increasingly boils down to an extreme manifestation of a widespread disenchantment toward Canada’s elected institutions; one that is leading alienated voters of all ages and in all regions to see the ballot box as a dead end rather than as a means to an end.

Hebert then turns her sights on the Harper regime:

In the national capital, a government elected with barely four in every 10 votes a year ago has since been going out of its way to disenfranchise the majority that did not support it.

Over the opening year of their majority mandate, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have moved to discourage civic dissent — in particular but not exclusively on the environmental front.

They have replaced federal-provincial dialogue with diktats and adversarial litigation.

They have placed themselves on a collision course with the courts over the place of the rule of law in the exercise of ministerial discretion.

The concept of ministerial responsibility has been reduced to a quaint historical footnote and parliamentary accountability is on the same slippery slope.

In the House of Commons, the government has moved to stifle the input of its opposition critics at every turn, systematically curtailing debate on bills or more simply subtracting legislation from competent scrutiny by cramming it inside inflated omnibus bills.

It should surprise no one that governments who treat the rule of law as a pesky inconvenience will eventually breed the same attitude in those that they purport to legislate for.

Hebert ends her piece by referring to ours as a debased democracy.

I have one questions that burns in my soul - Is there anyone or anything that can reinvigorate us at this point to reclaim our birthright?

The Harper Perversion Of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program

In what looks like yet another invitation by the Harper regime to corporate thievery in Canada, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley last week announced that employers will now be able to pay temporary migrant workers less than would be paid to Canadians doing the same job.

What is especially alarming about this, beyond the obvious exploitation of foreign workers, is how migrant labour is being defined these days. As reported by The Star's Thomas Walkom,

The temporary foreign workers program began as a stop-gap measure in 2000, specifically to deal with a shortage of software specialists. But under pressure from employers — particularly in the Alberta oil patch — it has vastly expanded.

By 2011, there were some 300,111 temporary foreign workers of all kinds in Canada — 106,849 of them in Ontario.

He goes on to discuss how these workers are now doing a variety of jobs ranging from serving coffee to working in Maritime fish-processing plants, and of course, in Alberta's oil fields. Coupled with the latest changes in the rules governing Employment Insurance, the implications are worrying. Walkom writes:

[Jason]Kenney has warned that unemployed workers who refuse to take low-wage jobs will have their EI benefits cut off. If Canadians agree to work for less, he explains, Ottawa won’t have to bring in as many low-wage outsiders.

If the great Canadian slumber continues, watch for more regressive legislation from this 'Prime Minister.'

UPDATE: Here is a sector that appears to heartily approve of this downward pressure on wages.

Discouragements to Democratic Participation

The litany of abuses, even crimes, against democracy committed by the Harper government is indeed long. Probably the gravest damage done by this regime, and I believe the damage is intentional, is to alienate increasing numbers of citizens from the electoral process.

In his column today, Bob Hepburn, in writing about the renewal of attack ads Harper is so famous for, has this to say:

Indeed, since he became Prime Minister, Harper has lowered the overall standard on what is acceptable in Canadian politics. He has allowed his attack dogs to operate with impunity, taking his cue from poisonous American campaigns. With his new ad, Harper is clearly signalling he believes “going negative” is the only way of winning and he is not about to stop.

For years, political scientists in Canada and the U.S. have argued that the growing use of negative ads, which topped 60 per cent of all ads in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, fosters lower voter turnout and a loss of trust in governments.

While others may seek a deeper strategy behind these despicable ads, I sincerely believe that their main purpose is to do just that, foster lower voter turnout so that a strong turnout by their own rabid supporters ensures a Conservative majority in perpetuity.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again: the damage this regime is doing to our democratic traditions renders it roundly and manifestly unfit to govern.