Harperian Hypocrisy: The Family Values Regime Disappoints Yet Again

While the Harper regime always touts itself as a government that stands up for family vlaues, evidence once more indicates this is little more than rhetoric and rank hypocrisy, aided and abetted by an almost completely politicized RCMP.

The CBC reports

RCMP have been holding back millions of dollars from the force's vaunted program to fight online child pornography, partly to help the Harper government pay down the federal deficit.

CBC News has learned that over a five-year period, Canada's national police force Mounties withheld some $10 million in funds earmarked for its National Child Exploitation Co-ordination Centre and related projects, linchpins of the government's anti-child-pornography agenda.

The cuts, made partly as an RCMP contribution to the government's so-called deficit reduction action plan, have occurred even as the number of child-exploitation tips from the public increase exponentially.

The systematic underfunding is highlighted in a draft report prepared for Public Safety Canada, and obtained through the Access to Information Act.

For its part, the Harper regime denies that the underexpenditures have anything to do with fiscal matters; it's just that the force can't find good people to do the job.

Really? And this problem goes back to 2008? Past evidence suggests that explanation simply won't fly.

Hammering Harper's Hypocrisy - Rick Mercer Does It Again

Should you ask Rick Mercer if he thinks the Harper regime is treating our vets fairly, he will give you this earful:

Harperian Hypocrisy

Keep spreading the word, brothers and sisters:



H/t Michael Nabert

'Dear Leader' Decries Attacks On Democracy

This is indeed rich.

Said Prime Minister Harper, in response to the French massacre:

"When a trio of hooded men struck at some of our most cherished democratic principles — freedom of expression, freedom of the press — they assaulted democracy everywhere.

Actions, Sir, speak much louder than words.

Charities And Political Activities

I am not a lawyer, but I post the following information for those who are, and for those deeply offended by the Harper government's ongoing attacks on non-profits that dare question the regime's wisdom while giving a free ride to right-wing entities whose ideology matches that of our overlords.

Here is the CRA policy statement on the difference between political purposes and charitable purposes (Reference number CPS-022):

All registered charities are required by law to have exclusively charitable purposes. As the Act does not define what is charitable, we look to the common law for both a definition of charity in its legal sense as well as the principles to guide us in applying that definition.[Footnote 2] The formal objectives or goals of a charity must be set out in its governing documents.

Under the Act and common law, an organization established for a political purpose cannot be a charity. The courts have determined political purposes to be those that seek to:

-further the interests of a particular political party; or support a political party or candidate for public office; or
-retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country.

The main reason why the courts rule out political purposes for charities is a result of the requirement that a purpose is only charitable if it generates a public benefit. A political purpose, such as seeking a ban on deer hunting, requires a charity to enter into a debate about whether such a ban is good, rather than providing or working towards an accepted public benefit.

It also means that in order to assess the public benefit of a political purpose, a court would have to take sides in a political debate. In Canada, political issues are for Parliament to decide, and the courts are reluctant to encroach on this sovereign authority (other than when a constitutional issue arises).[Footnote 3]

It is important to remember that although the stated purposes of an organization are the obvious source of reference of whether or not an organization is constituted exclusively for charitable purposes, it is not the sole indicator. The Canada Revenue Agency also takes into account the activities that the organization is currently engaged in as a potential indicator of whether it has since adopted other purposes

To a mere layman such as I am, something smells very, very rotten in the state of Harperland.

Anyone up for taking this on?

The Harper Regime: 90 Pound Weaklings When It Comes To Heavy Lifting

As I indicated in yesterday's post, the Harper Conservatives seem very selective in 'standing up for the vulnerable'; they just don't seem to have what it takes to do the real heavy lifting that is required in our troubled world, preferring instead to utter bellicose rhetoric and put our young men and women in harm's way battling an enemy that defies traditional methods of combat.

Globe reader Andrew van Velzen of Toronto offers his view of their performance thus far:

Stephen Harper badly wants to be a player – a contender, if you will – on the world stage (On Balance, Harper Is Right – editorial, Oct. 8). But Canada’s symbolic military contribution to the air assault on Islamic State targets won’t do it.

Canada has lost a huge amount of credibility on foreign affairs under Mr. Harper’s tutelage. Just look at the climate change file (Tories Behind On Climate Targets – Oct. 8). If Mr. Harper wants the world to notice him, how about committing Canada to working diligently for a political solution to the Syrian civil war, even if it means talking with Iran and Bashar al-Assad? Better yet, let’s settle thousands of Syrian refugees in Canada. That would be a concrete and positive step.

Maybe then the world would begin to show Mr. Harper some of the respect he so craves.

And speaking of protecting the vulnerable, National Post letter writer John Shaw of Newmarket makes this point:

The arrogant idea that Canada can bomb people in Iraq into a more peaceful existence is being widely promoted. The reality is that there are now more innocent civilians being killed and even more bad guys than before the last Gulf War. ISIS has skillfully manipulated politicians, such as Stephen Harper, to act exactly as they wish — and war is exactly what these groups thrive on.

The Curious Case Of Conservative Compassion

Some would say that the Harper regime's justification for its decision to commit militarily to the fight against ISIS was patriotic and stirring:

Said John Baird:

“My Canada heeds the call’’.... “My Canada protects the vulnerable. My Canada does not leave all the heavy lifting to others.’’

Said Mr. Harper:

“If Canada wants to keep its voice in the world — and we should since so many of our challenges are global’’ ... “being a free rider means you are not taken seriously.’’

Also from Mr. Harper:

“Our government has a duty to protect Canadians and to shoulder our burden in efforts to combat threats such as ISIL. We must do our part.”

Such compassion, such commitment to the world that exists beyond Canada, such a stirring reminder of the duty to protect .... such utter and complete nonsense.

Actions, and in many cases, inactions, speak far louder than lofty rhetoric. Perhaps it is only the particular brand of conservatism practised by the Harper regime, but these clarion calls to duty and compassion expressed above seem more honoured in the breach than in the observance when this government's sorry record is scrutinized.

Consider the following inconvenient truths about our current regime:

Canada's cut to foreign aid was the biggest of all countries in 2013. According to One Campaign’s 2014 Data Report, as reported in The Star,

In 2013, Canada’s aid spending sunk to 0.27 of GNI — below the international average of .29, according to the One Report, which does not include debt relief in its calculations.

This leads Stephen Brown, a political science professor at the University of Ottawa, to conclude

“We have a moral imperative for bombing, but not so much for helping the poor”.

Now hot to protect the vulnerable, one wonders where the Harper regime's philanthropic impulses were in its refusal

to sponsor any more than 200 Syrian refugees, though the UN’s refugee agency asked us to take at least 10,000 refugees.

Or, as Haroon Siddiqui recently pointed out,

He has also refused to allow a mere 100 children from Gaza, victims of Israeli bombings, to be brought to Canada for desperately needed medical treatment and rehabilitation. His sympathies are selective, mostly ideologically and politically driven.

Of the government's refusal to provide proper health care to refugees, I will not even speak.

Or consider how trying to track and help our domestic vulnerable has been hobbled by government's decision to cancel the mandatory long- form census:

It took David Hulchanski five years to create the most sophisticated tool to track urban poverty ever devised. The work was painstaking. The result was startling and worrisome.

It took Tony Clement five minutes — if that — to destroy Hulchanski’s mapping device.

Without the reliable data provided by the long-form census data, his methodology, which was on the verge of being used across the country, was useless.

How about the regime's abject failure to protect the environment and help combat climate change, as outlined by The Globe and discussed in this blog yesterday?

And the muzzling of our scientists, virtually forbidden to share their worrisome research on the environment and climate change lest it hamper the imperative of economic development via such Harper-favoured projects as the Alberta tarsands, has been well-documented.

The list goes on and on, of course, but I believe the pattern is abundantly clear in these few examples. The latest war cries on the basis of patriotism and compassion for the vulnerable, certain to appeal to its base, is simply more evidence of the egregious hypocrisy of the Harper Conservatives that has only gotten worse the longer it has stayed in power.

A New Addition To The Harper Enemies List

But then again, no surprises here, except that it is being leveraged into a fundraising appeal.

But it is a bit rich, isn't it, that given their expertise in the area, the Harper cabal should be carping about disgusting personal attacks?



Is hypocrisy too obvious a word?

On Harper's Hateful Hypocricsy

There is little doubt that Alana Westwood will now be joining that ever-growing pantheon of proud Canadians inscribed on Harper's Enemies List. The PhD Candidate at Dalhousie University and volunteer coordinator at Evidence for Democracy has written a fine piece in today's Toronto Star entitled Stephen Harper’s blatant hypocrisy on science which merits reading.

Her starting point is what she describes as a rare one-on-one interview this past Thursday with the CBC (surely an act of hypocrisy in itself, given his abiding contempt for and constant cost-cutting of the public broadcaster). Out of deference to those delicately constituted, I shall provide no link to the interview - that are certain things no one should have to subject him or herself to, and watching Dear Leader is one of them, in my view. From past exposure, I know that I always have, shall we say, a Pavlovian response to him that is not pleasant to behold.

During said interview, in which Harper espoused his enthusiasm for vaccines, he chided Canadians, “Don’t indulge your theories; think of your children and listen to the experts.”

He added, for good effect, that “it’s a tragedy when people start to go off on their own theories and not listen to scientific evidence.”

The irony, as she calls it, is not lost on Ms. Westwood:

The PM’s sudden endorsement of science is a peculiar turn in the wake of systemic and sustained affronts to Canadian scientists, statisticians and record keepers. Just recently, we have seen announcements of cuts to research funding for the Department of Justice, massive closures of libraries (including consolidation and loss of collections from Health Canada) and even restrictions on the ability of meteorologists to say the words “climate change.”

She goes on to enumerate other examples of Harper's manifest hypocrisy and unfitness to lead the country:

- over 2,000 federal scientists dismissed since 2009

- the cut/closure of about 200 scientific research and monitoring institutions, many dealing with issues of monitoring food safety, environmental contaminants and other domains directly affecting the health of Canadians.

While Harper apparently extolled the crucial role of good baseline data during the interview, Westwood reminds us of this inconsistent and inconvenient truth:

How long after the axing of the mandatory long-form census will Canada hit the wall? From the drastically insufficient national household survey, we won’t even have appropriate baseline data about the basic demographics of our own country to plan hospital locations.

And of course, as has been noted previously, the avidity with which the Harper regime muzzles its scientists is behaviour worthy only of a third-world martinent.

To be sure, none of this is new or shocking to those of us who follow the downward trajectory of our country. It is only the latest reminder of the urgency with which each of us must convey, in whatever means are at our disposal, the truth of this autocratic regime so that as many as possbile are as engaged as possible, in 2015.

C'Mon, We've All Been Thinking It

And now, thanks to Michael de Adder, we've got a picture to go along with those thoughts:

Harper Lies: The Dismal Truth About Corporate Tax Evasion

My friend Gary recently alerted me to this, which should sicken all Canadian citizens. It is a story of corporate greed, massive amounts of lost tax revenues, and a government that aids and abets both. After viewing it, be sure to read the missive from Star letter-writer Robert Bahlieda that follows, and think about it when you hear the empty rhetoric from the Harper cabal about its 'tough on crime' agenda:



Recently, a Global TV investigative report on offshore tax havens indicated that as much as $20 billion of uncollected taxes are owed by major Canadian corporations and other wealthy individuals who employ these tax loopholes to evade/avoid taxes in Canada.

To add insult to injury these same individuals are given generous tax credits for moving their businesses offshore, leading many corporations like Gildan and the Toronto-Dominion Bank to pay little or no taxes year after year while making millions and billions in profits. This is not new — it has been going on for decades and there are thousands of companies doing this.

In effect, the Canadian government is subsidizing Canadian companies for moving jobs offshore to other countries, killing jobs in Canada and raising everyone else’s taxes in the process while implementing austerity measures here to supposedly stimulate the economy.

The final insult is all this is legal. While federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty talks a good game on tax cheats, it appears he has intentional blindness about these egregious abuses of his own tax policy and no interest in pursuing his corporate friends.

Even more disturbing is the complete lack of interest and deafening silence on this important issue by government, business, academia or the public and particularly the media as indicated by the recent headlines. The antics of Rob Ford, senators like Mike Duffy who have evaded a few thousand dollars or selected abuses by a few nursing homes are deemed to be a more salacious and newsworthy headline than $20 billion in missing tax money owed by the corporate elite of Canada.

The self-righteous opposition parties are also silent on this issue. Better not to bite the hand that feeds them. Academics and economists who regularly opine on the abuses of unions have nothing to say about this unrealized multi-billion dollar tax windfall.

The massive amount of money owed by these upstanding Canadian tax cheats is a serious issue and should be top of the agendas of all in Canadian society. It is unfair, unjust and illegal despite what the tax law says. These “loopholes” (a polite term for legal corporate tax fraud) are quietly put in place and ignored by governments of all stripes to maintain their cozy relationships with powerful big business interests who have them in their hip pockets.

This is how capitalist democracy works. Powerful special interests lobby the government to get special treatment that ensures they remain powerful special interests. Meanwhile we prevaricate about increasing the Canada pension by a niggling amount or introducing a Guaranteed Income Supplement that would massively reduce social support costs in the long run, saving taxpayers additional billions.

Capitalist economics isn’t about making democracy work better, its about making it work better for the select few. Let’s start getting angry and take action on things that really matter in this world and relegate Rob Ford and the Senate scandal to the comics section.

Robert Bahlieda, Newmarket

The Hypocrisy Of The Harperites

It is no revelation to state how hypocritical the current Conservative cabal is. However, those tough-on-crime zealots are betraying new depths of their natures by their advocacy of 'compassionate', or should I say expedient, treatment of that exemplar of all that is wrong with the right, the disgraced Chief Magistrate of Toronto, Rob Ford. Not for them the fury they direct at Justin Trudeau for admitting to smoking a joint, but rather compassion for those who need to seek treatment.

Contrasting, for example Peter MacKay's public musings about Trudeau's unfitness to lead due to his dalliance with weed, the Justice Minister had this to say recently about the beleaguered Ford:

Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay is calling on Rob Ford to get help after the Toronto mayor admitted publicly that he had smoked crack cocaine, an illegal drug.

But Mr. MacKay, whose Conservative government styles itself as tough on crime, declined to offer an opinion on whether Mr. Ford should step down. “That’s not for me to say,” he told reporters in Ottawa.

In his column in today's Star, Tim Harper offers some stinging commentary on this most troubling double standard:

The Conservative party of Canada, most significantly its Toronto ministers and MPs, is now defined by its silence over the tumultuous train wreck known as Rob Ford in the past two weeks.

“Conservative values are Canadian values. Canadian values are conservative values,’’ Stephen Harper told us after he won his 2011 majority.

But watching those “values” daily trashed by a man his party embraced, Harper has remained silent. He has done what he so often does. He has merely made himself unavailable to any Canadian journalist while chaos engulfed Ford.

The reason the conniving Conservatives have adopted what Tim Harper calls their 'hug-a-thug program is obvious:

The Conservatives will not risk alienating what is left of Ford Nation, even if it is the last man or woman standing.

But one would be wrong to think that Peter MacKay, who some regard as an upper class twit, is the only hypocrite here.

Health Minister Rona Ambrose, a woman so unrelenting in her war on drug use she cut off heroin for addicts in treatment, now has nothing but hugs for a self-confessed crack cocaine user.

“It is a touchy subject only because none of us want to pass judgment on someone who is going through a very difficult time,’’ Ambrose said in Calgary Friday.

And who can forget Julian Fantino, the perpetually dour and apparently humourless Veteran Affairs Minister and ex-cop whose selective remorseless pursuit of some ne'er-do-wells is the stuff of legend (Toronto bathhouse raids when he was the chief cop there is but one example)?

“I look at it as a humanity issue,’’ he told his local newspaper. “I’ve been involved in my whole career (in policing and politics) in dealing with situations where people, for whatever reason, get into serious personal difficulties and family difficulties. I’ve looked at it strictly from a human dynamic point of view.’’

Of course, last week Finance Minister Jim Flaherty teared up, brimming with compassion when contemplating Mr. Ford's demons. No judgement there.

Tim Harper saves his greatest scorn for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver:

In the midst of last week’s Ford follies, Oliver appeared on CBC’s Power and Politics and was asked by host Evan Solomon about the unbelievable event of the day in his city.

“This is a sad and difficult situation but I have nothing to add,’’ Oliver offered.

When pressed on to whether he might have a view as an MP from Toronto, Oliver served up a civics lesson.

“Well, they are different levels of government, they are elected separately and they each have their different constitutional responsibilities and we respect the constitutional division of powers.’’

I suppose at his age, Oliver should be commended for his obvious agility in twisting himself out of shape to avoid answering Solomon's questions.

I shall leave you with a picture that my friend Gary alerted me to that perhaps pictorially sums up the Conservative cabal's solution to the problem of Rob Ford, given the obvious importance of altering the optics and 'changing the channel':

Rick Mercer On The Harper Regime's Shoddy Treatment Of Vets

As a supplement to The Disaffected Lib's excellent post on Remembrance Day, take a look at Rick Mercer's thoughts on a government that not only has turned its back on wounded war vets but also tossed them out on the street:

Conservative Hypocrisy

Please forgive the redundancy of the title. I just came across this little gem from Harper's 2006 campaign via Bill Oates on Twitter, who also offered this observation:

In 2006, Harper and the cons lied about "100s of millions of missing $" Now they're missing $3.1B.

Summertime, And The Livin is Easy (For Some)

H/t The Toronto Star

A Boorish Boar

The other day I posted a video in which Don Martin denounces the disgraced Senator Mike Duffy. He makes a reference to the exact point at which Mike Duffy ceased to be his friend. This is the episode I believe Martin is referring to:




H/t janfromthebruce

The New E.I. Tribunal

Last week, The Star's Thomas Walkom had an excellent column on Harer-led changes to the Employment Insurance Tribunal that turn it into a complete repository of patronage, rewarding the party faithful even more lavishly than those who have earned a partisan place in the Senate.

Some contrasts to show the changes are in order:

The New Tribunal


When the tribunal is fully staffed, its 74 full-time members will earn between $91,800 and $231,500 a year. (To put this in context, members of the much-maligned Senate receive a basic salary of $135,200.)

Of the 74 tribunal members, 39 are to hear EI cases. The remainder are to handle appeals related to the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security that are currently heard by other part-time panels.

A goodly number of the 48 tribunal members chosen so far are classic patronage appointments — failed Conservative candidates, local Conservative riding association chieftains and Conservative donors.

The Old Tribunal

The old Employment Insurance Referees Board consisted of about 600 appointees. Unlike the new tribunal, all were part-time and, as a result, received far less money. A typical referee might receive $2,400 a year plus expenses.

But the major difference is that the old referees were deliberately chosen to be representative.

For each three-person panel hearing a case, one member would come from a list provided by employers and one from a list provided by workers. The third was chosen by government.

Walkom goes on to discuss how the new panel is stacked in management's favour, will not allow automatic appeals to decisions, and will hear cases, not in person, but at home over the phone, the latter no doubt due to concerns over atmospheric emissions, something this government has proven to be a world leader in abating ;)

A Star reader in today's edition offers the following assessment of these changes:

Something lopsided about new EI tribunal, Column, May 29

I was disgusted to read in Thomas Walkom’s column that the Stephen Harper Conservative government plans to redefine the employment insurance appeal system, and make it even harder for an applicant to have a rejection of benefits overturned.

The old referees appeal board, consisting of 600 referees equally split among members chosen by employers, workers and government, and working part-time for a small amount of money, is far preferable and certainly fairer than the patronage laden deck of 74 faceless members Harper has appointed. Many of these appointees are Conservative party contributors or hacks, who have a vested interest in toeing the party line.

No wonder people have so little faith in government. The government’s proposed new E1 policy and rules are an affront to every Canadian who has ever contributed to the plan, and constitute nothing more than outright fraud.

Gerry Young, Toronto

Harper Hypocrisy on Full Display

In his column this morning, The Star's Tim Harper points out something that I think many of us are all too aware of: Stephen Harper is a hypocrite. There really is no other way to describe the despicable partisanship that permeates our Prime Minister's deformed soul, most recently on display in London when he took the opportunity to exploit the tragedy of the Boston Marathon deaths and grievous injuries from a terrorist bombing.

As Tim Harper tartly observes, the usual protocol of not criticizing one's own country while abroad depends on who’s talking. There is one rule for Stephen Harper and another rule for everyone else.

The columnist reminds us of how Tom Mulcair, during his recent trip to Washington, offered some trenchant criticism when responding to questions by Canadian reporters:

When Mulcair questioned Canada’s commitment to fighting climate change, raising the Conservative decision to abandon Kyoto and its inability to meet its Copenhagen greenhouse gas emission targets, the government went apoplectic.

Mulcair was accused of “trash talking’’ Canada, killing Canadian jobs, ignoring Canadian interests, refusing to, as Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver put it, “leave politics at the border.”

Yet, of course, while in London on Wednesday to attend the Thatcher funeral, Harper refused to 'leave politics at the border'; even though he was not even asked by reporters about Justin Trudeau's remarks to Peter Mansbridge, our national disgrace launched into a broadside against him in an attempt to score a few political points.

While most of us were taught to show some respect when death and serious injury occurs, apparently Stephen Harper sees such occurrences as opportunities to promote his political 'brand,' one that, I sincerely hope, is becoming increasingly odious to more and more Canadians.

A Brief Reflection On Irony

Given the rather limited scope of the conservative mind, few, I have observed, seem in possession of anything remotely resembling a sense of the ironic.

Sparked by Stephen Harper's recent insensitive 'condolences' to the people of Venezuela on the passing of Hugo Chavez, I was pleased to see a letter in The Star demonstrates that recognizing the ironic has not been lost on those outside the Conservative fold:

Re: Hugo Chavez: Venezuelans can build a better future now, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper, March 5

Our Prime Minister said on the death of Hugo Chavez: “I hope the people of Venezuela can now build for themselves a better, brighter future.” I would first remind Stephen Harper that Venezuela elected Chavez with a 54 per cent majority. Harper rules with a measly 40 per cent and acts as if he has a majority. Chavez improved the lives of the poor in his country, whereas Harper has rarely mentioned the poor let alone tried to improve their lot. The big corporate guns and Washington did everything in their power to oust Chavez and yet he prevailed until now. I think that what Harper is really speaking of when he speaks of “people” are the rich people who ran Venezuela like a private enterprise before Chavez was elected. I hope Canadians are listening to Harper when he speaks of democracy and people and freedom because it doesn't include the poor.

Larry Bruce, Georgetown

On second thought, maybe the above letter is less an observation of irony than it is of our Prime Minister's arrant hypocrisy.

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.