He Can Talk The Talk

But his sandal-clad feet cannot walk the walk.


After the disastrous tenure of Paul Wells as national political affairs commentator, it was a real pleasure to see that The Toronto Star has called Tim Harper out of retirement. In his column today, Harper reminds us of some things that Justin Trudeau acolytes would prefer to ignore.

Among Trudeau's less-than-stellar achievements thus far,

Constitutional Debate, Anyone?

... this government is now facing the prospect of having a budget bill split, or stalled, in the non-elected, non-accountable Senate. It has wandered into this muck by tabling the type of omnibus budget bill it railed against in opposition when it was done by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and by appointing independent senators who have taken that label literally.

Sen. André Pratte may have been quite right in pushing to have the government’s infrastructure bank yanked out of the Liberal budget bill for separate scrutiny. And Trudeau’s point man in the Senate, Peter Harder, may have been quite right in arguing that splitting the bill would mean a spending bill would originate in the Senate — powers the upper chamber does not have.

Harper suggests as with other issues, this one will escape the public's scrutiny thanks to the impending summer recess.

But when we all return from our summer holiday, there are other issues that the public will likely notice.

The Federal Deficit

On the economy, they will see that behind what looks to be a chugging locomotive is a federal deficit that goes much beyond — almost three times beyond — the $10 billion or so Trudeau promised in 2015. It conjures memories of a mocking Harper holding his thumb and forefinger almost together and laughing at Trudeau’s plan for those “tiny” deficits.

Indigenous Issues

... the Trudeau Liberals lifted expectations sky high for historic national reconciliation with First Nations.

But they have not walked their talk on spending on health and social services for Indigenous children living on reserves. They have instead ignored a series of non-compliance orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in January 2016 that Ottawa was discriminating against the children. It is also seeking individual hearings for thousands of children taken from reserves and placed with non-Indigenous families in the so-called ’60s Scoop, despite losing a court battle over compensation.

The inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women has turned into a morass, way behind schedule, certain to miss its deadline, sure to seek more money and losing the support of frustrated family members. Thursday, it lost another key member, Tanya Kappo, one of the Idle No More founders, who resigned as a community relations manager, one more dropping shoe indicating the commission is floundering.

The Environment

...the Trudeau government is still operating under the Harper emission targets, and it faces challenges with Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord. So far, the Trudeau environmental package includes a carbon tax in return for a pipeline, and the future of that Trans Mountain pipeline is clouded by the chaotic politics of British Columbia.

I feel bitter about this government, given the fact that it rose to majority status thanks to the promise of doing things differently. Thus far, outside of a more pleasing manner, I see little to distinguish Justin Trudeau from the neoliberal policies of the Harper government.

Time for people to start paying attention again.

A Day Well-Spent

There is something both restorative and energizing about spending time among people who are politically engaged, and that is probably the best way to describe those in attendance at both the Toronto Star Tent and the Amazon.ca Bestsellers Stage yesterday at Toronto's Word On The Street. As much as I have a strong aversion to Toronto's congestion, it has an energy that so many other cities lack.

It was, weather-wise, a perfect day to go down to Harbourfront Centre, the new home of the annual celebration of the written word. And for the first time, I got there early enough to snag a decent seat (actually, it was front-row) at the Toronto Star Tent, where Tim Harper, Thomas Walkom and Bruce Campion-Smith held forth on the current federal election campaign. That alone was worth the trip.

Hilariously hosted by Dan Smith, who described himself as "a recovering journalist," the format this year lent itself to far more questions from the audience than did last year's event. Here are a few highlights:

While none of the journalists was able or willing to predict the outcome of the election, Thomas Walkom said that its outcome depends on the answer to this question: "How sick are you of Harper?" Assuming the majority of Canadians are very fatigued of the current regime, the outcome will depend upon how the vote splits. He would not even rule out the possibility of a majority government.

Tim Harper said the two things were a surprise to him in this campaign, one being the fact that Justin Trudeau is still very much a contender, having brought control to his messaging after having had an earlier propensity for speaking off the cuff and getting himself into trouble. The other surprise is the Mulcair campaign having adopted a very cautious strategy; it is, in fact, something he writes about in today's Star.

All three journalists were rather dismissive of polls as merely being "snapshots in time" rather than predictors of election results. What surprised me was that the 'free polls' made available to the media are what were described as "cheap polls," ones with shallow samplings that pollsters provide for the free publicity it brings their companies. Parties' own commissioned polls, which are not released to the public, are much deeper and expensive. Were I able to have a real conversation with these fellows, however, I would question the relatively benign cloak they cast over polls; I have always been of the opinion that they not only reflect public sentiment but also influence it.

Disheartening for me was the assertion by Tim Harper that the niqab is an election issue, and not just in Quebec. The banning of it at citizenship ceremonies has widespread support judging by the email he gets, and it could cost Mulcair support. Walkom has no doubt that it is simply Harper playing upon anti-Muslim sentiment. Writer Michael Harris has some interesting things to say today about the issue in iPolitics.

Despite my repeated efforts to be recognized by the host to ask a question, it was not to be. I therefore approached Tim Harper at the end of the session to ask him what he finds most disappointing about this campaign. His answer echoed what I think many of us feel - the fact that big issues like climate change and pharmacare are not really being addressed, attributing it to the caution the two opposition parties have adopted owing to the closeness of their standings in the polls. He did add that this campaign is hardly unique in that failure, which reminded me of what Robert Fisk said the other night about the lack of statesmanlike vision afflicting contemporary politicians.

The afternoon session I attended was interesting as well, featuring Kevin Page and Bob Rae speaking about their respective new books.



Addressing the general dysfunction of our politics, Rae observed that its hyper partisanship, and the fact that campaigning seems to go on year round, 24/7, is a major problem and has debased discourse. He said that it is incumbent upon both citizens and the media to ask the hard questions and hold the parties responsible, a prescription I usspect is far easier said than done. I was able to get myself recognized to ask him a question, which basically revolved around whether or not the Canadian soul has been too debased these past several years to be able to recover to the point where a healthy democracy is now possible.

Rae answered by saying he did not think that was the case, and he cautioned against laying all the blame on the Harper regime, as it is far from the only party responsible for our sad state of affairs. Had I been permitted a follow-up question, I would have asked him that since all parties have contributed to the problem, what are the chances of any kind of rehabilitation of the Canadian psyche taking place?

While still trying to maintain a certain objectivity that, I suppose, comes from the years he spent as a civil servant, Kevin Page, who has a surprising facility for deadpan humour, lamented the loss of nobility that once came with being an MP out to serve the public good and to hold the executive to account. He observed the loss of values and vision that echoed what Tim Harper alluded to, but he also said that decision-making has become debased (that is my word, not his).

Page says that spending information has to be made available to the entire parliament, but he relayed his frustrating experiences while serving as the Parliamentary Budget Officer seeking such information from deputy ministers only to be told that he couldn't have it. Decisions are therefore made in a fiscal vacuum; the cost of a politicized public service has been high.

Beyond the monetary considerations, however, Page observed that there is no discussion on what kind of institutions we want, be they military, parliamentary, or what have you. This is an ideological government bent on enacting legislation on that basis alone. It used to be that civil servants, for example, would present three options for a decision. Now they are told those options are not needed if they don't fit into the government's 'vision.'

I will end this rather lengthy post with an anecdote Bob Rae told about talking to a cab driver. Rae asked him who he favoured, and he replied, "Rob Ford and Donald Trump." When asked why, he said that they speak what is on their minds. In other words, to this man they had 'authenticity.'

A sharp and perhaps bitter reminder of what mainstream politicians seem so sorely lacking in today.

Oil Spills And The Harper Brand

Time for a brief follow-up to Elizabeth May's fine dissection of how Harper environmental cuts contributed to the slow response to Vancouver's English Bay oil spill. In today's Star, Tim Harper repeats and reflects upon the facts May addressed.

Denunciations are flying fast and furiously from the likes of May, B.C. Premier Christie Clark and Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. Of course, predictable denials of culpability are coming from the likes of Industry Minister James Moore (“Politicians piling on by spreading misinformation is unhelpful,’’) and Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford (“I won’t engage in speculation,’’ “it’s not helpful to finger point,” “I think we should all concentrate on the cleanup").

Here are the facts that set the rhetoric into perspective:

The Conservatives closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

The city of Vancouver says it was not informed of the leak until 12 hours after it was detected, but the federal government disputes that.
It took six hours for the Coast Guard to get booms in place in response to the leak, but a former commander of the closed station, Fred Moxey, told the Vancouver Sun the response would have been six minutes if the station was still open.

The closed station was within hailing distance of this leak, something that should have been so easily contained, occurring in calm waters in an urban area.

Conservatives also closed the Vancouver Environment Canada station of Environmental Emergencies and the Marine Mammal Contaminants Program within the department of fisheries and oceans.

Conservatives also closed regional offices of the emergency in Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Dartmouth, N.S., and St. John’s. It has been replaced by a 1-800 number which rings in Gatineau, Que., and Montreal, says Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

We can, of course, look forward to a full-court press from the Harper regime in order contain the damage to its brand the anemic and belated response is causing.

One can only assume that will take the usual form: vilification of all Harper critics, the only strategy this hateful regime seems to know.

Chris Alexander's Faustian Pact

By all accounts, before he entered politics, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander was a competent and respected member of Canada's foreign service; his resume includes the fact that he was Canada's first resident Ambassador to Afghanistan. The lustre attending his career, however, has vanished since he become a member of the Harper cabinet, surely a Faustian deal if there ever was one. To dispense with integrity to merely parrot one's master is a choice hard to comprehend.

Earlier in the week, Tim Harper wrote a column on some of the Prime Minister's 'performers' and non-performers. Here is what he said about Alexander:

While his predecessor Jason Kenney could look tough but sell what he said were necessary immigration measures, Alexander usually looks defensive and a little flinty.

He has been accused of fudging the numbers of Syrian refugees who have been accepted by Canada, looked heartless in cutting medical care for refugee claimants, triggered a constitutional challenge with changes to the Citizenship Act and hung up on a CBC host on live radio.

That, in my view, is a rather restrained assessment of the man. In today's Star, letter-writer Pam Churchill of Toronto offers what is perhaps a more penetrating evaluation:

Re: Some weak players in PM’s dream-team cabinet, Dec. 8

Columnist Tim Harper speaks for many of us when he ponders the mystery of Chris Alexander, “a young, smart, former ambassador with world experience who should be a natural, but is still finding his way in a complicated portfolio.”

Maureen Dowd offers some insight (New York Times, May 19, 2014). When I think of Chris Alexander, her words come to mind.

She was speaking of Condoleeza Rice, “who had all the qualities to dazzle. Smart, attractive, hardworking, personable, chic . . . she sailed to success at an early age.” Yet, says Dowd, “she exceeded at failing better” because “her real ideology was succeeding.” So, says Dowd, “in order to succeed, she rejected old mentors, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell, and went along with the preposterous pre-emption plan of the old hawks who had far less respect for her: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld” and “made a Faustian deal to sell a fake war.”

To Dowd, it is a lesson in selling your soul, which should teach us about “the perils of succeeding at any cost, about how moral shortcuts never lead to the right place.”

Perhaps Chris Alexander does not believe what he says nor support the policies he espouses. That could explain why he is still finding his way. Whatever the answer, thinking about him always brings Dowd to mind and leaves me sad.

To be sure, both Rice and Alexander are sobering object lessons of the heavy price many are willing to pay to be key participants in today's political arena.

The Harper War Against Unions Continues

So what else is new? In today's Star, Tim Harper tells a tale of the ongoing indefatigable contempt Canada's putative prime minister has for unions.

Like another Conservative entity, C-377 refuses to remain dead. The bill, proposed by a private member, Russ Hiebert, who is actually a front for Harper and Merit Canada, was actually severely amended/gutted by the senators (including 16 Conservatives), but when Harper prorogued Parliament,

instead of going back to the Commons in amended form, [it] remained in the Upper House, restored to its original form, where it is now up for second reading.

The bill would require unions and employee organizations to give the Canada Revenue Agency details of all transactions over $5,000, along with the salaries and benefits of union officials over $100,000 and a detailed breakdown of spending on political and lobbying activities. It would all be publicly posted on the revenue agency’s website.

That the game was rigged from the start is evident by what Tim Harper has uncovered. Terrance Oakey, the Merit lobbyist with a long association with the Conservatives, has been given preferential treatment and access to the upper echelon of the government:

As Merit’s man in Ottawa, Oakey had 117 meetings with public officeholders on the bill since November 2011, but it’s his level of access which sets him apart.

He had 13 meetings with [backbencher] Hiebert, but also 12 meetings with Harper’s (since departed) director of stakeholder relations, Alykhan Velshi, as well as a meeting with Rachal Curran, Harper’s director of policy. Harper’s former chief of staff Nigel Wright attended one of the meetings with Hiebert and Velshi. Oakey also had a separate tête-à-tête with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.

Contrast that with labour's access:

[T]he Canadian Labour Congress says the closest it got to Harper’s office in lobbying against the bill was an early 2013 phone conversation between then-president Ken Georgetti and Wright. Georgetti raised it briefly with the prime minister in an unrelated meeting.

The CLC was told there was no time for a face-to-face meeting.

Senate opposition leader James Cowan perhaps best sums up the Machiavellian intent behind Bill C-377:

“Bill C-377 is an anti-union bill,’’...“It is designed to bury labour unions in so much paperwork that they will not be able to represent their workers as fully and capably as they do now.’’

Unions are being punished for opposition to government measures, ... and “this is a message that if you disagree, then the heavy arm of the law can and will be brought down upon you.’’

Yet one more of the countless examples demonstrating the illusory nature of democracy under the Harper regime.

Word On The Street - Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper

Although it started out quite ominously with heavy downpours, yesterday turned out to be a good day. As the clouds cleared, we hopped on the GO bus to attend Toronto's Word on the Street, an annual celebration of literacy. I always take heart when I see a strong cross-generational presence among the many thousands gathering for the love of reading and learning.



This year was especially gratifying, as we actually got seats in the Toronto Star tent to hear Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper discuss the national political scene and take numerous questions from the audience, moderated by the Star's Bob Hepburn.

Tim Harper qualified his remarks with two provisos: he has been regularly wrong in his predictions, citing his failure to foresee the demise of B.C.'s Adran Dix as one egregious example, and his assumption that he would be enjoying a long journalistic relationship with Alison Redford, the now former premier of Alberta.

He and Chantal Hebert also agreed that what the federal landscape will look like following next year's election will only become clearer once the campaigns are in full throttle.

Nonetheless, based on present indicators, they offered their views on a variety of topics:

On Justin Trudeau: Drawing upon the analogy of a colouring book, Tin Harper said that much of Trudeau's picture is at present not coloured in. His employment of platitudes rather than policy statements may work for now, but the crucible of the election campaign will determine whether he can retain his 'rock star' status. He suggested that one of the reasons Stephen Harper has been burnishing his foreign policy credentials is to offer a sharp contrast to the unseasoned Trudeau.

On Thomas Mulcair and the NDP: Hebert and Harper suggested that the party has a problem branding itself in places like Ontario and the west. Those who have grown weary of the Harper machinations are more likely to go to the Liberals than the NDP, despite the fact that Mulcair has shone during Question Period, which very few people ever watch. And even though Mulcair has proven himself to be a much sharper politician than Trudeau (e.g., Trudeau immediately endorsed our adventure in Iraq, 'as long as it continues to have parliamentary oversight', while Mulcair has withheld his party's approval, saying that neither the terms of the engagement have been revealed and no parliamentary oversight exists), it doesn't translate into greater electoral support.

On Mike Duffy's Trial: While it seems unlikely that Harper will be testifying at the trial, Chantal Hebert was of the view that ultimately it won't make much difference because, unlike the aforementioned Trudeau, Harper's picture is fully coloured in. Those who support him will not change their opinion, no matter what happens, and those who oppose him wouldn't believe him even if he testified that he had no knowledge of the payoff from Nigel Wright.

Tim Harper also pointed out a couple of interesting points. Given the array of charges Duffy is facing, the Wright payoff is only one of about 31 crimes Duffy is alleged to have committed. It, in fact, will likely occupy only a relatively small portion of the trial, and a judge would not allow it to be turned into a political circus, even if that is Duffy's intent.

Canaries in the Conservative coal mine? Referring to the column he had just written that appears in today's Star, Harper noted that about 30 Conservatives will not be seeking re-election in 2015. Is this an indication of widespread backbencher dissatisfaction? Is it normal attrition? Do members genuinely want to spend more time with their families and earn money in the private sector? These are all unanswerable questions at this point, but the columnist did point out that without the power of incumbency, many seats will be up for grabs, which could prove significant.

On CETA: This was probably the most discouraging aspect of the discussion, reminding me of the harsh and unprincipled nature of politics. Trudeau has endorsed the agreement, text unseen, while Mulcair has temporized, saying that he needs to see the text first. Both Hebert and Harper are of the view that both opposition leaders have little choice but to support it, given its widespread endorsement by Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces. Challenging the agreement would be too expensive politically.

All in all, a very good day for a political junkie.

The Perspective That Age Bestows

Unlike some, I do not bemoan the passage of time. True, I am of that generation known as 'the baby boomers,' but while I am at times mildly bemused about certain things ('How can it be 50 years since the Beatles first played in Toronto?'), I was never beguiled by the notion that we would be young forever. Yes, I try to keep fit and hope to be active throughout the rest of my years, but ceding my place to others in both the workplace and the larger world bothers me not in the least. As Margaret Wente recently noted in a surprisingly (for her) good column, the real surprise is that there is no adventure remotely like aging.

Probably one of the biggest benefits (and potentially one of the biggest curses, depending upon one's frustration threshold) of growing older is the perspective that age bestows. The experiences of a lifetime offer a tremendous filter by which to assess the things that we see and hear, the people we meet, the 'truths' that are offered to us, etc. It was with this filter that I read Tim Harper's column the other day in the Toronto Star.

Examining the Harper regime's decision to send troops to Iraq as 'advisers' to help in the fight against ISIS, Tim Harper seems to lament the complacence about terrorism felt at home:

When Abacus Data asked Canadians voters to rank the importance of 13 different issues in a poll done last month, security and terrorism ranked 13th, cited by a mere six of 100 respondents as one of their top three concerns.

He seems to suggest we should be alarmed for reasons of domestic security:

We know there have been at least 130 Canadians who have travelled to join radical fighting forces, including the Islamic State. At least 130. That number was released early in the year and other estimates put the number much higher.

We know that at least 80 of them have returned to this country, with the training and the motivation to cause much harm here.

And he reminds us of this:

Even as daily dispatches of Islamic State barbarism, mass executions, beheadings of two Americans with a Briton now much in danger, and genocide come into their homes, Canadians apparently believe it is something which merits a baleful shake of the head.

While not an outright endorsement of the government's decision to dispatch troops to Iraq, it seems to me that the columnist is providing the context within which that decision makes sense.

It is an analysis with which I profoundly disagree.

And that's where the perspective offered by both age and history becomes most relevant. Having lived through times when the rhetoric of threat has been used to frighten people into compliant thinking, surely some critical reflection is warranted here. I remember oh so well how, during the years the U.S. was fighting a losing war in Vietnam that cost so many lives and exacted so many grievous injuries, the justification was 'The Domino Theory', the idea that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, a cascading effect would ensue throughout southeast Asia, and would end who knew where.

But the fact of the matter is that the Vietcong were employing a form of warfare that was not amenable to traditional methods of containment, thereby rendering the war futile, and the lives lost and injuries sustained meaningless.

The same is true about Afghanistan. Ignoring the lessons of history provided by Alexander the Great, the British and the Russians, the Americans and their allies plunged headlong into battle, again with the same results. As to the egregious failure of Iraq, the same lessons apply.

Yet here we are, back at the beginning, once more embracing the hubristic belief that hydra-headed terrorism can be contained. While it may be humbling and frightening to admit, there are some things over which we have no control.

Thus endeth a hard lesson.

A Prime Minister Hath No Honour In His Own Country

That paraphrase of a famous line from the Bible perhaps sums up the pitiable plight of Stephen Harper, gallant man of the world and fearless foe of evil on the world stage. Despite his indefatigable efforts to denounce the Teutonic tendencies of Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine or stand unreservedly with Israel in its disproportionate responses to Gazan irritants, like the late Rodney Dangerfield, he appears to be unable to secure any respect.

There is, for example, that chronic naysayer at The Toronto Star, Tim Harper, who opines that for all of his tough talk, Mr. Harper has no defining accomplishment on his foreign policy ledger.

But is nothing sacred? Rewarding the prime minister's unyielding support of and service to Israel, B'Nai Brith CEO Frank Dimant has announced his intention to nominate Dear Leader for the Nobel Peace Prize.

He said Mr. Harper has demonstrated international leadership and a clear understanding of the differences between those who “seek to do evil” and their victims. As a professor of modern Israel studies at Canada Christian College, Dimant qualifies as a nominator under the rules.

Let's just say that the announcement was met with outrage in some Canadian quarters.

But what do the people think about this singular honour possibly being bestowed on Canada's leader? Alas, there is no comfort to be had, apparently, even from one of the perennial cheerleaders of the Harper regime, The Globe and Mail. Here is what two of its readers think:

Re B’nai Brith CEO To Nominate Harper For Nobel Peace Prize (Aug. 30):

Why stop at the Nobel? Let’s nominate Stephen Harper for a Polaris for his music covers; an Emmy for his online TV show and a Governor-General’s award for his hockey book. Make him a trophy – a silver glazed donut on a plinth. It would cost us less than $30.

Clive Robertson, associate professor, art history, Queen’s University, Kingston


I was interested to learn that the CEO is eligible to nominate the PM as a professor at Canada Christian College. As a retired professor previously unaware of this credential, I shall hasten to nominate my miniature schnauzer, Guinness.

Like our PM, Guinness “has consistently spoken out with resolve regarding the safety of people under threat.” I refer to his shrill, predictable barking to defend the Bowd family’s territory from the daily invasion of the postman.

Alan Bowd, professor emeritus of education, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay

Of course, I suppose the Harper crew could simply dismiss such carping as the ranting of 'liberal elites.' Guess they'll have to hope it doesn't spread in 2015.

On Federal Byelections

It is commonly held that Stephen Harper chose June 30 for the four recent byelections in the anticipation that turnout would be low. Even the advance polls, which were set for Friday and Saturday of what for many would be a long weekend, offered little motivation for the winter-weary to cast their ballots before escaping town. The turnout statistics show that the Prime Minister got his wish:

Fort McMurray-Athabasca (15.2 per cent)
Macleod (19.6 per cent)
Scarborough-Agincourt (29.4 per cent)
Trinity-Spadina (31.6 per cent)

However, according to Tim Harper, not everything worked out according to plan. He points out the following in his column today:

...there is a federal political trend that is unassailable — in nine trips to the polls under Justin Trudeau, Liberal voting percentages have grown nine times, in ridings as diverse as Labrador, downtown Toronto and Montreal, rural Manitoba and rural and northern Alberta.

Having achieved victory in two out of the four contests,

... it is the growth of the Liberal vote in Manitoba and Alberta in contests over the past seven months that could hold an omen for 2015.

In Brandon-Souris last November Trudeau grew the Liberal vote by 39 points, and in rural Provencher he grew his party’s vote by 23 points.

Monday, in the seemingly impenetrable Conservative vaults of Macleod and Fort McMurray-Athabasca, the Liberal vote grew 13 points and 25 points, respectively since the 2011 general election.

These numbers should worry Harper for two reasons. The first is obvious, if indeed a Liberal trend has been developing. The second, more ominous indicator, however, is that Harper's base, at least if the byelection numbers are to be taken as harbingers, are losing their own motivation to turn out at the polls; if this proves an accurate assessment of their mood, implications for the general election next year should be disturbing to Dear Leader.

Having won the 2011 election with 39.2% of the popular vote in which only 61.4% of eligible voters bothered to turn out, Harper knows that two things are eseential for next year's contest: a low general turnout and a high turnout from his base.

It would seem that the second part of his strategy needs some work. The first falls to the rest of us, if we indeed truly care about this country and its future.

UPDATED: Lonely At The Top?

If Stephen Harper isn't 'feelin' the love,' it is a situation of his own making. Two brief excerpts from Tim Harper's column in today's Star, entitled Stephen Harper's slide into isolation, are instructive.

Tom Flanagan, former best-buddies with Dear Leader, wrote in his recent book, Persona Non Grata, this about Harper:

“He can be suspicious, secretive, and vindictive, prone to sudden eruptions of white-hot rage over meaningless trivia, at other times falling into week-long depressions in which he is incapable of making decisions.’’

Also getting in on the tell-all craze, disgraced former senior Harper aide Bruce Carson, in 14 Days, describes his former boss this way:

... a man who was prone to temper tantrums, dressing down aides heatedly, swearing at them, but also getting as good as he gives.

He wouldn’t go as far as Flanagan in describing Harper as prone to bouts of depression — something Harper’s office dismissed as “ridiculous,” — but agreed the prime minister does have his ups and downs.

As well, perhaps his claim that Harper knew all of the details of his troubled past is equally revelatory of the Prime Minister's character.

Whether the state of Harper's psyche is of personal interest or not, getting some insight into the mind of one who has been systematically unraveling so much of what is good about Canada since he first came to power is doubtlessly worthwhile. If the subject is of sufficient interest, you may also wish to view last night's At Issue discussion on these books and whether such are good or bad. Bruce Andersen seemed to be the only one with reservations, as you will see:

UPDATE: Thanks to the link provided by Anon, here is a tune by Randy Newman that perhaps puts everything in perspective:

Well Worth The Read

I'm going to spend much of the day trying to finish off the bulk of my flooring project, so I shall merely offer some reading recommendations for your consideration:

In his Star column today, Tim Harper discusses the taint that will reside over every federal election henceforth if the 'Fair' Elections Act becomes law without significant amendments. He also discusses why former auditor-general Sheila Fraser's condemnation of the act is so significant.

Says Fraser:

“Elections are the base of our democracy and if we do not have truly a fair electoral process and one that can be managed well by a truly independent body, it really is an attack on our democracy and we should all be concerned about that’’.

As well, if you haven't yet done so, read Alison's latest post in
which, amongst others things, she reveals that Elections Canada has decided not to release its report on the Conservative robocall scandal until after the next election.

Finally, check out Kev's post in which he calls for a dramatic act of Parliamentary disobedience as a means of dealing with the Harperites' voter suppression act.

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.

Pondering Pam Et Al.

It was a comment yesterday that The Mound of Sound (a.k.a. The Disaffected Lib) made in response to a cartoon I posted depicting the much beleaguered Senator Wallin that made me think. He reminded me of an earlier time when there was honour associated with public service, and expressed the hope that Harper's poisonous partisanship is something that we will eventually recover from.

I have been following politics for a very long time, something that no doubt partially accounts for my deep cynicism. I am well-aware that the current scandals engulfing the notorious quartet of senators under investigation cannot be seen as an indictment of the entire institution; in fact, in many ways it is a mere diversion, or at best a sensational tip of the iceberg, of much deeper problems plaguing our democracy, problems that have only worsened under the dark reign of the Harper cabal, problems that may seem irrelevant to the majority but are in fact threatening the kind of life and values that we enjoy as Canadians.

Yet my gratification at the public squirming of people like Wallin and Duffy is deep and abiding. Mound's comments set me to thinking about why. In my daily life, I like to think that I have a reasonable amount of empathy for others. Why is it totally absent when it comes to public figures who hold authority? Why does the betrayal of public trust, the abuse of power, inflame me so much? I think there are likely three reasons:

Having been 'taught' in the Catholic school systems many years ago, I and many of my fellow students were regularly subjected to both physical and verbal abuse by our teachers, abuse that began in elementary school, only to be intensified at the secondary level. It took me many many years to overcome my anger and bitterness over that mistreatment.

As a teacher, I was keenly aware of the responsibility and trust the position entailed. Almost all of the people I worked with over the years respected that trust. All of us knew that the rare instances in which it was violated reflected badly on all of us. it was a trust we did not take lightly.

Also during my teaching career, I was witness to administrative abuse of authority, decisions made that favoured students and their parents in the effort to stave off parental complaints that could impede their upward career trajectory. Once, I was myself the victim of a vindictive principal who disciplined me with an insubordination charge for the campaign I mounted to get a candy vending machine removed from beside my classroom due to the noise and distraction it caused, as well as what I considered to be the inappropriate commercialization of an academic area. It was a charge I later successfully fought and had removed from my record.

So I guess my point is a public justification for the animus I hold against people in high places who treat others, mainly the electorate, with contempt. Stephen Harper does it, his acolytes do it, as do his Senate appointees. I ardently look forward to their fall, but hope the damage they have done to people's faith is not irreparable.

For those interested, Rosie DiManno has Ms Wallin in her sights today, as does Tim Harper. As well, the Star editorializes on how all of this reflects very very badly on our Prime Minister and his abysmal judgement in appointing three of the four senators now at the receiving end of profound public odium.

Stephen Harper - Then and Now

“I have looked at the numbers. Her travel costs are comparable to any parliamentarian travelling from that particular area of the country over that period of time”
- Stephen Harper, February 13, 2013, as part of his staunch defence of Senator Pam Wallin's extravagent expenses, now under investigation.

Wallin resigns from Tory caucus to sit as independent - May 17, 2013: A source tells The Canadian Press that Wallin was told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that she could not stay in caucus.

Hmm, why did things change? Perhaps the answer can be found below:



For a less sensational take on the deepening scandal, Tim Harper in today's Star is well-worth the read.

Absolutely!

For me, one of the biggest offenses against logical thinking is absolutism, which essentially says there is only one right answer, that everything is black or white, with no gradations of gray. An example would be Vic Toews infamous assertion, when controversy erupted over his deeply flawed Internet surveillance bill, that those who opposed the legislation were siding with child pornographers. Another would be George Bush's claim, after 9/11, that 'You are either with us, or with the terrorists.'

Despite what the above examples might suggest, such thinking, sadly, is not the exclusive domain of those with limited intelligence; we all have the potential to fall into the absolutist trap. I am no exception, despite the fact that I try as much as possible to practise critical thinking.

Yet sometimes, there seems to be only one ineluctable conclusion to be drawn, as absolutist as it may appear. Such is the way I felt this morning upon reading Tim Harper's latest column. Entitled A hand stretched across the aisle in the print edition of the paper, the piece details the efforts of the NDP's Nathan Cullen and Liberal leadership candidate Joyce Murray to promote a one-time co-operative pact among the three parties in order to unseat Stephen Harper in the next federal election. Elegant in its simplicity, the plan would work as follows:

... seats held by the Conservatives in which the governing party received less than 50 per cent of the vote would be targeted for co-operation... Each of the three parties would nominate their own candidates and, assuming all three parties backed co-operation, the single candidate would be chosen in a run-off.

This way, of course, the centre and left would not be siphoning off votes from each other, which is what occurred in the last election, allowing Stephen Harper's crew to come up the middle and form a majority government despite being supported by only a minority of voters.

Joyce Murray avers that the majority within the three parties (this includes the Greens) support the notion, but what is telling is the reaction of the party leaders and leadership aspirants: NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has forbidden his MPs from responding to a letter from Green Party leader Elizabeth May championing the notion. Montreal MP Marc Garneau accused [Murray] of giving up on her party. And Justin Trudeau, of no fixed ideology, and, who once flirted with the idea of co-operation, has slammed the door on the prospect.

For me, there are no shades of gray, no nuances, in their flat rejection of the one strategy that could break Harper's stranglehold on Canada. Each is consumed with the bald lust for power. All other considerations, including what is best for the country, are secondary. I can see no other explanation.

So whether I am guilty of absolutist thinking or have drawn the only reasonable conclusion possible, I leave to the reader to decide.

"His Most Preposterous Policy Statement Yet"

As noted here the other day, young Tim Hudak, in another move that shows the caliber of his leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, announced that student loans should be tied to student marks. This morning's Star describes his proposal as silly and his most preposterous policy statement yet (although I do suspect there will be some more headshakers coming from his office down the road.)

You can read the full editorial below, although I suspect its position will fork little lightning with Hudak, who tends to think only in very broad strokes:

American president Harry S. Truman once observed that “the C students run the world.” If Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak gets his way, they won’t even obtain a post-secondary education — at least one funded by government loans.

In his most preposterous policy position yet, Hudak says university and college students should receive loans only if they reach a certain — undefined — level of academic success.

It’s an absurd idea, tucked into an otherwise innocuous 27-page plan detailing Hudak’s vision for higher learning. As Truman (a Democrat) noted, it’s not just academic marks that propel people to success: character, drive and ingenuity are even better predictors of future triumph. But Hudak wants bureaucrats to create an academic cut-off point, blocking students with middling grades from getting student loans. “We feel it prudent to inject the student financial aide system with more market discipline,” his report says.

It’s worth noting that a political leader who preaches the merits of smaller government now wants bureaucrats to decide the academic future of our youth. Did he give any thought to this?

Many middle- or lower middle-class students rely on loans — which they pay back, with interest — to get an education. Curiously, wealthy students who don’t need to borrow will be free to explore academic mediocrity with no government slap-down.

It is true that many graduates struggle to find jobs in these challenging economic times. But the new reality is that most need more than one degree to find a viable career. Blocking education will not create economic growth.

While it’s not a new idea, Hudak’s plan rightly focuses attention on Ontario’s desperate need to train youth in the skilled trades. But not all young people should, or even could, become electricians or plumbers.

It’s already hard enough for young people to get ahead, and the government should not add more restrictions. Before an Ontario election is called, Hudak should drop this silly plan.

Perhaps Hudak needs inspiration from the words of Republican President George W. Bush in a speech to the 2001 graduating class at his alma mater, Yale: “To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students, I say, you, too, can be President of the United States.” In other words — with a little financial help — you never know what a student might become.

The MacKay Mission

I really have nothing new to add to the sad spectacle of ministerial incompetence epitomized by Defense Minister Peter MacKay, whose ongoing mission and primary responsibilibilty seems to be never admitting to error or apologizing. However, the Star's Tim Harper does have some thoughts on the reasons for his intransigence in today's column:

For his part, MacKay has adopted the warrior stance of the men and women he represents in his ministry. No surrender, no weakness.

In politics, an apology is seen as a sign of weakness, a hole to be exploited by your opponents and, in MacKay’s case, it is far better to endure humiliation than to utter a mea culpa after more than two years of obfuscation, lowballing and attacks on the patriotism of anyone criticizing the F-35 fighter jet procurement program.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for his reticence lies in what an admission of error would really mean:

... it would cut to the core of the Conservative brand — its financial rectitude — and dredge up the charges that the government deceived the public during the 2011 election campaign.

Harper goes on to detail the internal humiliation that this proud soldier of the No Apologies PMO has had to endure:

He had his toys taken away. After the auditor-general’s report, the government created a fighter jet secretariat and handed the file to Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.

He had to sit, mute, in the Commons while Liberals brayed for his resignation and surrogates answered for him.

His increasingly chippy parliamentary secretary, Chris Alexander, has an ongoing starring role in political talk shows trying to explain this failed process for MacKay.

He had to endure those Top Gun images, played on an endless loop, of him strapped in the cockpit in 2010.

All doubtlessly hurtful to Central Nova's favourite son.

I find myself curiously unmoved by his plight.

Stephen Harper's Worldview

For those seeking insight into how Stephen Harper and his regime views the world, The Star's Tim Harper offers some interesting insights.

In New York snubbing the U.N. while accepting his reward award as World Statesman of the Year from the Appeal of Conscience Appeal, the Prime Minister offered the following justification, which is patently emblematic of his Manichean view of the world:

He said Canadians expect their governments to act with international partners for the “wider interests of humanity . . . that is, of course, not the same thing as trying to court every dictator with a vote at the United Nations . . .

... Harper said the world must not shrink from recognizing the evil that is Iran, and called on the international community to do more to further pressure and isolate the regime.

It is this Iranian evil that compels Canada to speak out in support of Israel, Harper said, because those who would target Israel threaten all free and democratic societies.

“We should never consider others evil merely because they disagree with us,’’ he said, “or because they compete with us.’’

But when evil dominates, one will find irreconcilable disagreements with Canada, he said.

And now to the 'good':

It is this Iranian evil that compels Canada to speak out in support of Israel, Harper said, because those who would target Israel threaten all free and democratic societies.

“Our government does refuse to use international (forums) to single out Israel for criticism.”

Sorry for the lengthy excerpts, but I find the repetition of the word evil quite revealing of Harper's unsophisticated and simplistic worldview.

No word on what adjective the Prime Minister would use to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, or the fact that the military attack against Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is advocating would cost countless lives.

Social Media and Margaret Wente

About two years ago, I wrote a blog post explaining why we cancelled our subscription to The Globe and Mail. At the same time, I sent an email with a link to the post to Globe editor-in-chief John Stackhouse, suggesting that if he wanted to know why he had lost a long-term subscriber, he should read my post.

Later that evening, I received a response from Stackhouse which I have never discussed in this blog, simply because I regarded it as private communication. While I am not prepared to reveal the content of the letter, I will tell you his closing observation, which was something along the lines of, "You seem to prefer the smaller world of the blogosphere. Sad."

Well, it would seem that the world of bloggers is not so small after all, given it was Medi Culpa's analysis of Margaret Wente's plagiarism that has created something of a firestorm within the world of journalism, shaking to its foundations the once proud Globe. In his column today, The Star's Tim Harper addresses the role it plays in journalists' lives, and how it forces everyone to be very careful in how they write.

Of additional interest is a brief profile of Professor Carol Wainio, the blogger behind Media Culpa.

Oh, and Torontoist has some thoughts worth perusal as well.

What "Flexibility" Really Means

Reading the print version of the story I posted a link to yesterday regarding young Tim Hudak's latest attempt at formulating policy (a.k.a. union busting) got me thinking once more about how politicians misuse and debase language.

In what I guess in his world passes for bold and innovative thinking, young Tim would like union membership to no longer be mandatory and would outlaw the “forced paycheque contributions” unionized workers make to political causes.

Hudak said that “the more flexible the workplace, the greater demand there is going to be for workers.”

“If you have a flexible workplace where businesses can adjust to market conditions the more likely they’ll open up in that jurisdiction.”

I suspect the flexible workplace the callow Master Hudak has in mind would be filled with all kinds of perils for the newly enfranchised worker: