The Pinocchio Effect

Those of us who have followed the machinations of the Harper regime over the years know that it is a rare occasion indeed when Stephen Harper tells the truth, either inside or outside the House of Commons. His capacity to convincingly dissemble, or effect what Stephen Colbert has called 'truthiness,' no doubt comes from long practice. Thursday's leaders' debate was no exception.

Happily, the alternative press rarely lets opportunities to correct the Harper record pass. Press Progress has compiled seven lies the prime minister uttered during that debate. Following is but of the seven, so please make sure you check out the link to see the full array of his prevarications.

The reality is Harper doesn't have a balanced budget.

On two separate occasions during the leaders debate, Stephen Harper claimed Canada has a balanced budget.

"We have a budget that is balanced now and other countries don't," Harper said, later explaining "the reality is the figures out of the Department of Finance show that so far this year we are substantially in surplus."

Unfortunately for Harper, the Finance Canada report he referenced only looks at April and May. Another report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer looks ahead and takes into account dire new projections for the Canadian economy released by the Bank of Canada.

The PBO's projection says Canada will not balance its budget and will run a deficit of $1 billion this year, meaning Harper will run his eighth deficit in a row.

In case you are interested, his other lies ranged from misrepresentations about environmental assessments to greenhouse gas emissions to the 'freedom' his backbenchers enjoy.

The man definitely has no shame.

A Few Thoughts On Last Night's Debate

I generally leave the assessments of debates to other more analytical and attentive minds, so I will offer only a few observations, for what they are worth. My overall impression is that all, even Stephen Harper, performed well last night. Very ably moderated by Paul Wells, who seemed to know when to sit back and when to intervene, the debate offered viewers their first chance to see our four national leaders confront each other as they sought to convince us that they are all worthy of our trust and our vote.

Justin Trudeau, as I think most would agree, did not make any real mistakes, except perhaps to talk over Harper at times; he presented himself as knowledgeable and even, at times, passionate. I felt he was strongest when disparaging Mulcair over his stand on the Clarity Act, in which 50% plus one would be enough for Quebec secession to proceed.

Elizabeth May always impresses, and although her debate contributions seemed modest compared to the others, she always made valid points. One of my favorite moments was when she took Harper to task over his claim that greenhouse gas emissions were down substantially thanks to his government, something she dismissed both as a result of the 20008 recession and Ontario's closure of coal-burning plants. I also thought her closing remarks were powerful, especially pertaining to the fact that this debate might be the only one to include all four national leaders, and that many more topics need to be covered in subsequent ones.

Mulcair was generally measured and quite competent, except for the initial part of last night's encounter, where he seemed to have trouble finding his voice; that hideous simile of his did nothing to enhance his presence, although that moderated as the debate progressed. I thought one of his best moments was when he got Harper to admit that we are in a recession, one the prime minister blamed on the falling price of oil. Did he look ministerial? That's for others to decide, but I doubt many would have come away from the debate not being able to envisage him leading the country.

With regard to Stephen Harper, it occurred to me that unless one follows politics closely, the impression he made last night was not a bad one. He was restrained and respectful, something we rarely witness in his persona, one clearly crafted by his handlers to make him appear prime ministerial. With unusual facility, Harper lied about and distorted his record, especially as it pertains to climate change and the economy; fortunately, as indicated above, he was called on those lies. But it also occurred to me that few watching last night would likely have been political neophytes given that it was conducted during the middle of the summer, so likely few were taken in by his dissembling performance.

What I think I regretted most about the debate was that the issue of the debasement of our democracy, both inside and outside Parliament, got barely a mention. The closest any of them came to that topic were the restrictions imposed by the Fair Elections Act, which Mulcair labelled the Unfair Elections Act that will disenfranchise many voters in October. Harper's response sounded reasonable, ("I'ts not unreasonable to ask voters to prove who they are"), but, of course, that doesn't really address the problems inherent in the act.

I liked the format of the debate, which allowed for more freewheeling discussion than we have seen in the past. I look forward to the next one, hosted by The Globe and Mail on September 17. But since Elizabeth May is being exluded, it will doubtless suffer in comparison to this one.

For more detailed analysis, be sure to check out Maclean's, which includes some video highlights.

A Little Something For The Masochists Out There

A Solution To The Problem Of Vote-Splitting?

Going into this election, probably the biggest fear among progressives is the spectre of vote-splitting. If we follow our hearts, we may wind up ceding another victory to the much-despised Harper regime, well-past its expiry date in the minds of the majority of Canadians. After all, only 39% of Canadians supporting Harper in the last election resulted in his majority government, thanks to his having united the right.

So what is to be done to ensure that Dear Leader does not once again sneak up the middle to form yet another government that will complete the job of dismantling the Canada we knew for so long and want to reclaim? The folks at leadnow.ca have established a website called Vote Together, its purpose to inform voters in swing ridings which candidate has the best chance of defeating the Tory contender:

A growing majority of people want change this election, but Harper could win again because our broken “first-past-the-post” voting system splits our votes and distorts our democracy.

The Vote Together campaign connects people who want change with the tools and information they need to select and support the best local candidates to defeat the Harper Conservatives in their ridings and move Canada forward.

Throughout nearly a decade in power, the Harper Conservatives have gutted environmental protections, sabotaged Canadian institutions and shaken the very foundations of our democracy.

We want to elect a government that reflects the priorities and values of the majority, with representatives who will work together for a strong democracy, a fair economy, and a clean environment.

Will you join us?

If you visit their website, you will get the opportunity to sign a pledge to vote for the candidate with the best chance of defeating the Harper clone running in your riding; there is also an opportunity to volunteer to become part of this very worthwhile effort. I hope you will give it a look.

The Harper Regime's Contempt For Science

Those who follow the depredations of the Harper regime will know of the terrible attacks that science and research have undergone these past several years. Cuts to funding, closing of research centres, and muzzling of scientists are common occurrences. Indeed, not even the recent news of the early success of the Ebola vaccine was enough to lift, even temporarily, the government stranglehold on researchers.

Now the scientific community is fighting back.

Evidence for Democracy (E4D), a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of the scientific community, has created a website that calls out the federal government for actions the group says have sabotaged Canadian progress and prosperity.

“We’re really trying to get across the sort of idea that science and government making smart, informed decisions is part of what made Canada such a great country,” the group’s executive director Dr. Katie Gibbs said in an interview with The Huffington Post Canada.

A great website whose database offers access to heartbreaking stories of countless closings, cutbacks and restrictions on communications, True North Smart + Free, created by Evidence For Democracy is a must to visit to get a sense of the breadth and depth of the Harper regime's contempt for science.

The closure of seven research libraries and an internal government memo accusing an oil sands researcher of “bias” are among cases the website highlights.

Visitors to the website are asked to take the “science pledge” — a non-binding declaration condemning “restrictive rules,” promising support for actions that champion a transparent, evidence-based political system that serves in the public interest.

I hope you will visit the website, take the pledge and, most importantly, help spread the word.

A Record Of Failure

Stephen lacks the requisite skills and temperament to succeed in any position of responsibility; recommend removal at earliest possible date.



Stephen's oil monomania suggests a pathology deeply harmful both to himself and the entire country.


Stephen's addiction to rabid and exclusionary ideology and his capacity for gross fabrications are also cause for deep concern:

Harper moves directly into attack mode on GTA stop, Aug. 4

As Stephen Harper and the ruling Conservative Party have amply proven over the past decade, in the Alice in Wonderland fantasy world of neoconservative ideology, nothing is what it seems to be and anything is justifiable to achieve your aims.

Lying to cover your mistakes is effective crisis management and denying responsibility for them is the prime directive. Corruption is acceptable – just don’t get caught. Cronyism, patronage and double standards are legitimate political practices unless exposed, while saying one thing and doing another is ethically acceptable.
Welcome to the modernist neocon politics of cynicism and despair. In the face of undeniable and self-apparent realities of a sinking Titanic we are reassuringly told not to panic – everything’s just fine by our captain — the economy and our democracy are strong. This while the Conservatives continue to siphon off increasing economic wealth to enrich the 1 per cent and we teeter on the brink of a yet another cyclic recession in the boom and bust globalized capitalist economy amidst ongoing and persistent social decline.

To expose the truth, we must look behind Stephen Harper’s perpetual fixed smile and examine the verity of his claims and those of his movement. Amongst the most persistent and egregious oft-repeated myths perpetrated by neocons is the one that they are the best stewards of the economy and that cutting taxes is the way to improve the financial health of Canada. The lion’s share of these tax cuts always go to the private sector and the wealthy while the messaging is tax cuts for the middle class.

Over the past decade Canada has had one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world and little has changed so clearly this strategy has not worked. There is also little credible economic research that indicates any beneficial effects to the widely employed practice the neocons mindlessly chant. Similarly, cutting interest rates and depressing the Canadian dollar has had marginal positive effects on the economy while significantly raising costs for everyone in Canada in order to benefit a few industries that export goods.

A second mantra of neocons is cutting the wasteful cost of government. This is how tax cuts are paid for and is code for their dedicated bias towards the dismantling of government, social programs and social opposition to Conservative policies. It serves the double function of actually deconstructing the core structure of democracy that these organizations represent such as the changes to the Elections Act, the cuts to Statistics Canada and the muzzling of Government of Canada scientists.

These steps are more sinister than the changes to the economy but both are deeply concerning. Stephen Harper’s government has cut funding to a host of activist and other credible research groups while using the CRA to harass legitimate non-profit organizations that support causes disliked by the right such as the environment or who directly challenge the government on social policy. All this happens while the government covertly allocates billions of taxpayer’s money to corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy and frivolous expenditures like the memorial to the victims of Russian aggression. Our democracy is looking more like an oligarchy every day that Stephen Harper is in office.

Contemporary neoconservative dogma as practiced by the extreme right of Stephen Harper’s Alliance/Conservative Party is a direct threat to real democracy, freedom and human rights that all Canadians should be concerned about that comes in the form of thousands of small and large negative changes to our social and governmental systems intended to weaken the structure of government itself and its democratic protections for citizens while strengthening the powers of the corporate sector and powerful right-wing elites.

When we vote on Oct. 19 we need to understand that the enemy of democracy is not the external threat of ISIS as Stephen Harper would claim but Harper himself and the ideology he stands for. Before we invite the Trojan horse into our Canadian village we need to think carefully about what we are actually getting.

Robert Bahlieda, Newmarket

Joy Taylor Has A Mission

Ninety-two years old and still fighting the good fight.


H/t Operation Maple

Sometimes, Few Words Are Needed.

Many thanks to my sister-in-law, Vicki, for alerting me to this.



The saddest thing for Canada is the fact that from the second panel on, everything is true.

Some Thoughts From ThinkingManNeil

In response to my morning post, ThinkingManNeil offered some passionate and very interesting comments. With his permission, I am featuring them as a separate post:

I was never really interested in politics until the mid-1990's. Up to then I felt like many that it was something that politicians, poli-sci majors, and pundits busied themselves with, and through glacially slow processes it worked its way into our everyday lives with little notice. I voted regularly - usually Liberal, though I did once vote for the PC's because Joe Clarke struck me as a decent man - but my votes were never party- or issue-driven.

Then, in mid-1996 after having had to stop working due to health issues, I decided to take a new tack in my life and I enrolled in college to study commercial photography with the idea of making a new career where I could work at my own pace while doing something I enjoyed immensely, thinking that both would contribute to my overall well being. It was during this time, after just having moved into new digs in the town where the college was that I heard then Ontario Minister for Social Services, David Tsubouchi, say in an interview that people on welfare who couldn't make ends meet should dicker with their local grocery store managers over the price of low-end tuna. When I heard that - something I'd never heard before in Ontario politics - I knew things had changed.

Of course, this was followed by other Mike Harris neo-con travesties and tragedies such as the Walkerton tainted water scandal, the fire sale of provincial assets such as the 407 highway, cancellation of rent controls. defunding of hospitals and the commensurate loss of doctors and nurses, cuts to education while corporations enjoyed grants and tax cuts, the OPP assault on OCAP protesters on the grounds of Queen's Park, and the murders of Dudley George and Kimberly Rogers.

It was during this period of the Harris regime that I finally realized that politics can, and does, have a very real - and sometimes devastating - impact on people's lives. I also realized I could not go on without paying closer attention.

Since then we've seen the horrors of the Bush-Cheney years, and that we now find ourselves in the midst of our own fascist nightmare with Stephen Ratfucking Harper, whose crimes against Canada, Canadians, and, by extension, the world are legion and so familiar to all of us here that they do not bear repeating.

I still fear, however, that the fix is already in for this "election". With a needlessly early call that will stretch it out weeks beyond normal, it's clear that Harper's dirty tricks are already at work, aiming to exhaust the opposition's funding and wear down the public. That and his Karl-Rove-ian gerrymandering of electoral ridings in predominantly Conservative districts shows that Shit Head's "take no prisoners" attitude is still very much alive and well. This bastard isn't going to let the inconvenience of such notions as elections and democracy undo all that he's worked to create (and destroy) in Canada since he came on the scene. The Canada Health Act, tattered as it is, has yet to have the life choked out it by a death of a thousand funding cuts, and the doors opened to a privatized, for-profit healthcare system. And there are still privatized super prisons for protesters, pot heads, and the indigent to be built and sabres to be rattled at ISIL and Putin.

I genuinely fear what what will be left of Canada if Harper takes the next election...or the next...or the next.

He did promise we wouldn't recognize our lovely home after he was finished with it, didn't he? We're already more than half way there...

N.

The Fascination Of Politics

It always astounds me that more people are not interested in politics. Far too many dismiss it as an arcane pursuit that has no relevance in their lives, apparently confusing the recondite measures involved in the development of public policy with the human dynamics at the heart of pursuing and maintaining power. Greed, duplicity, manipulation, nobility, passion and compassion, all this and much more is at play. To dismiss politics is to dismiss any interest in the human animal. It is to sit on the sidelines of life.

That being said, I'm not sure that even as ardent a follower of human machinations as I am is ready for an 11-week campaign. The messages will get quickly repetitive, and the attacks will grow increasing dark and dispiriting. I may take the odd break from this blog to recover my equilibrium.

But since Dear Leader saw fit to visit the Governor-General yesterday as the prelude to spending even more of our money to try to cling to power, I would be remiss not to offer a few of the media's early observations. The Toronto Star sees the call as a blatantly cynical move:

Although Harper positioned the move as “fair,” designed to level the playing field for all parties at a time when the leaders were already out drumming up votes, it’s anything but. As the Conservatives well know, only they are in a position to fully capitalize on the much higher spending limits that come along with a longer campaign. Both the Liberals and New Democrats will struggle to keep up – and that of course is exactly the idea.

This shameless move is yet more evidence – if any was needed – that the Harper Conservatives are long past their sell-by date.

Despite the tremendous spending advantages the Conservatives have, the editorial reminds us of a few facts that no slick strategy can conceal for long:

Over the next two and a half months, voters will have a chance to consider Harper’s record and decide if they want more. Among other things, they should keep in mind:

The Conservatives’ regressive social policies, pandering to their “base” at the expense of the least well-off.

Harper’s absence of national leadership on such crucial issues as health care, aboriginal issues and climate change.

The government’s misguided “tough on crime” laws that do nothing to enhance public safety.

The Conservatives’ divisive approach on national security and the dangerous measures in its “anti-terror” bill, C-51.

There’s much more, and thanks to Harper’s decision to call a vote so early, lots of time to debate it. The real issue is what’s the best alternative to this badly flawed government.

Here in Ontario, a key battleground, Premier Kathleen Wynne is wasting no time in reminding people of the contempt with which Harper is treating the province:

Voters should turf Prime Minister Stephen Harper for showing Ontario “blatant disrespect,” Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne urged Sunday in one of her strongest attacks yet on the federal Conservatives.

Wynne accused the Harper administration of naked partisanship over refusals to smooth a path for her Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and for not doing more to help develop the rich Ring of Fire mineral deposit in northwestern Ontario.

She zeroed in on the pension plan, noting Harper’s government allows the Canada Revenue Agency to provide services to provincial pension plans in Quebec and Saskatchewan.

“For him to then turn around and say, ‘Yeah, well, we have agreement with other provinces through the CRA and we’re not going to do that for you’ … it’s blatant disrespect for the people of Ontario,” Wynne said. “That has to stop.”

There is much to consider in this election, and the fact that Thomas Mulcair is now leading in the polls is one indicator this will be a hotly-contested and vigorously-fought battle. But what is true today may not be true later in the campaign. Observes Tim Harper:

The test for the NDP this time is whether Mulcair has staying power — and the betting here is that he does — but the Conservative calculation is clearly that increased scrutiny will expose a leader of a party viewed with skepticism on the economy in uncertain economic times.

Finally, here is some good advice from Harper's main cheerleader, The Globe and Mail, about the campaign:

Be a part of it. Make sure to vote. Turnout in federal elections is inexcusably low in Canada: Almost four out of 10 people don’t bother. While the leaders are doing their jobs, make sure to do yours. You can’t control the weather, but you can choose your government.

The Choice Is Ours

And don't forget that the first leaders' debate is August 6. Hosted by Paul Wells,

it will be recorded in City’s Toronto studio and air live, commercial-free and with closed captioning, on City, OMNI.1, OMNI.2, and CPAC. It will also stream live at Macleans.ca, Citytv.com, CityNews.ca, OMNItv.ca, CPAC.ca, Facebook, YouTube, and on Rogers Radio stations at 680News.com, 570news.com, 660News.com, 1310News.com, News1130.com and News957.com.

Perhaps not as accessible as the consortium debates would have been, this will nonetheless be Canadians' first opportunity to see the federal combatants in the same arena. Whether it will be fairly moderated by Wells is another question entirely. Having read his book, The Longer I'm Prime Minister, I couldn't escape the impression that Wells has a rather deep admiration for Harper.

But I guess things could be worse. At least John Ibbitson won't be hosting it.

Lest We forget

Buy all accounts it will be a long and dirty campaign. Time to awaken Canada in any way we can.



H/t The Toronto Star

If Canadians Have Any Self-Respect

.... this will outrage them.

It turns out Stephen Harper is not going to interact with anyone during the election campaign that wasn’t cleared in advance by his staffers. Even “public” rallies with hundreds or thousands of people will be made up entirely people who are pre-screened.

Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke said Friday that only invited guests will be allowed at each and every event over the expected 11-week campaign.

“You need to have been invited and if you don’t have a ticket you’re not getting in,” Teneycke said.

Like the cowards he and his master are, Teneycke broke the news late Friday afternoon before a summer long weekend, so statistically you’re not reading this.

Share. Inform. Engage.

It sounds like it will be a long campaign. Each of us has a role to play.

Putting A Stake Through The Heart Of Harper's Lies

As a youngster, there were few things I enjoyed more than vampire films starring Christopher Lee, in my view the best cinematic vampire there ever was. Usually, at the end, either a stake through the heart or exposure to the rays of the sun ended his evil hold on people. It was a satisfying form of exorcism.

In this impending (or is it never ending?) election campaign, the only thing that will release Canadians from the foul grip of the Harper regime's lies, deceptions, attacks and secrecy is the metaphorical light that only facts and truth can provide.

And there are so many untruths and that we need to be armed against, including the one about how a low-tax regime spurs the economy and proves Harper's economic 'mastery'. Star reader Russell Pangborn of Keswick, Ontario begs to differ:

Re: Budget watchdog predicts $1B deficit, July 23

The Conservatives told us their plan to reduce taxes was good for the country. Reminds me of the disastrous low-fat diet craze. While we were obsessing about lowering the quantity of fat in a serving, we overlooked the corresponding sugar increase that was introduced to make the food palatable.

Instead of improving our health, the low-fat mania actually ended up increasing our weight and our chance of getting health-unfriendly diseases like diabetes and heart problems. The new message, just starting to get through to the public, is that some fat is actually good for us.

There have been negative repercussions related to our acceptance of the promise of prosperity with the reduction of taxes. The truth is that we are in a recession. Health care, affordable higher education, proper infrastructure all sound like reasonable endeavors funded by taxes.

Attacking the amount of fat we eat and the amount of taxes we pay has not worked. I don’t want a huge tax increase, but I do want to stop hearing that “all taxes are bad” ad campaign that is thrown out to discredit some political parties.

My overall health improved when I stopped buying only low-fat products. Let’s hope that our country’s general health also will improve when we stop following the “lower taxes are always better” refrain.

Excerpts from a missive written by David C. Searle of Toronto offer some pungent reminders of Harper's failures on the economic front:

Stephen Harper’s attack on Justin Trudeau’s “budgets balance themselves” may soon ignite an implosion of fortunes for the “omnipotent Conservative Grand Poobah,” who impetuously ditched the wise and prudent Red Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s sound $3 billion contingency fund, steering Canada back into deficit with “a barrage of tax cuts,” well aware that oil commodity storm clouds were gathering.

The highly reputable Flaherty warned against the billions that income splitting for 15 per cent of households loyal to the Harper base would cost and actually had a conscience to resolutely stand against it.

The unveiled Harper legacy is one forsaking of our military personnel with rusted, trouble-plagued submarines, obsolete air and ground assets, a born-again-like sense of purpose at the last minute for veteran’s affairs that many deem as nothing but a charade, our aged suffering from deteriorating health care infrustructure, sewage and water repair backlogs in Toronto and Montreal are direly highlighting the need for federal help, meanwhile investments are disproportionately going to Conservative ridings in less trouble-prone areas.

We can thank Finance Critics Liberal Scott Brison and NDP Nathan Cullen for requesting a Parliamentary Budget Office Update exposes Harper’s fallacy of a balanced budget in 2015 and we should be awakened by this forecast from the PBO that warns, “Doubling Tax-Free Savings Accounts and indexing them to inflation could harm Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplements for the poorest of the poor the majority of which are women, yes our mothers.”

We shouldn’t buy into Harper’s fear-mongering-hysterics about terrorism, as he is merely deflecting our attention from the reality of a crumbling currency and economy.

Continuing with economic matters, J. Richard Wright of Niagara-on-the-Lake assesses Mr. Harper as a "smug corporate pawn':

Stephen Harper has never met a free trade deal he didn’t like and seems ready to sign anything placed in front of him as he turns Canada from a benevolent and caring country into a corporate fiefdom. But, in doing so, he is playing a dangerous game.

Many of the agreements have little protections for Canadian rights but he doesn’t seem to care. For the almighty dollar, he is happy to give away out country and our resources to business interests despite the damage Canada may suffer. Of course, after the damage is done, the foreign investors will just move on, leaving us with the mess.

For instance, since many of these free trade agreements have investor protection clauses in them, he has exposed every Canadian citizen, through their tax contributions, to legal action if a foreign investor doesn’t realize a return on its investment because we won’t allow them to destroy or pollute our land.

Even now there is a $250 million lawsuit against the Canadian government by Lone Pine Resources Inc. (registered in Delaware), because the province of Quebec has banned fracking for natural gas in its province. Lone Pine wants to frack under the St. Lawrence River where it says there are massive deposits of natural gas.

Farmers and others near fracking operations in Pennsylvania regularly show that their drinking water can be lit on fire. So, imagine the St. Lawrence River on fire.

Experts say that even if the suit doesn’t succeed, it creates a libel chill for governments, discouraging them from passing environmental laws for health and safety for fear it will upset foreign investors. In addition, Harper’s latest free trade agreement with the European Union is expected to generate even more lawsuits against our government.

Also, Harper is saying he will sue the provinces if they pass laws, environmental or otherwise, that interfere with a foreign investor’s profits and leads to an action against the federal government. Is there no end to this smug, corporate pawn’s lunacy?

Those who fought Dracula's evil reign were armed with garlic, crucifixes and stakes. Going into the October election, the best things we can arm ourselves with are facts, facts and more facts.

A Reminder Of What We Were And What We Can Be Again

H/t The ChronicleHerald

Honouring A Dead Woman's Wishes

By the newspaper's account, Catherine Finn was a lively, passionate and engaged woman. I think I would have liked her, as would many others.

Catherine died on July 9 of this year; it is her obituary, written by her sons but, they say, very much representative of her values, beliefs and opinions, that is getting such wide attention:

Catherine was born with a sharp wit and steely backbone that can only come from growing up as a woman in the Irish Catholic tradition of the middle 20th Century. She was a voracious reader, a lover of life, and a fearless defender of the world of ideas. She loved family, fine wine and good food, in that order, preferably shared over a candle-lit table with good music and excellent company.

In lieu of donations, Catherine would want you to do everything you can to drive Stephen Harper from office, right out of the country, and into the deep blue sea if possible. Also, she would like you to fix the CBC.

According to her family, Catherine was a Canadian fully engaged in life, and had a particular interest in politics:

“I never had a phone call where she didn’t rail about Stephen Harper,” said Patrick [her son]. “That boldness of the statement was her. We were trying to channel her.”

Although she wasn’t a member of any political party, Finn was “somewhat vehemently opposed to Stephen Harper,” according to Jonathan. “It was that way from his rise to political stardom until the day she died.”

Too bad she couldn't have stuck around til after the October election when, one hopes, many people can finally check the defeat of Harper and his regime off their bucket lists.

The Signs Are Everywhere - Part 2

You can access part one here.

Logical fallacies

The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because of the many lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human fingerprints are being observed in heat escaping out to space, in the structure of the atmosphere and even in the changing seasons. Another denialist technique used to counter the weight of evidence is the logical fallacy.

The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past. This myth commits the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. It's like finding a dead body with a knife sticking out of its back, and arguing that the person must have died of natural causes because humans have died of natural causes in the past. The premise does not lead to the conclusion.

The Signs Are Everywhere

It is only the ideologically blind who refuse to see the signs. Whether we live on the West Coast, Central Canada, or the East Coast, we are being affected by climate change, More protracted droughts. More wildfires. More oppressive heatwaves. Or unseasonably cool conditions.

Of protracted winters I will not even speak.

So what is to be done about the obdurate climate-change denier? Other than ignoring them, we can confront them with the facts they so willfully dismiss. We do that by first recognizing their sleazy and unscientific tactics. Here is how we do it:

One of the deniers' favorite strategies is to invoke fake experts.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found independently in a number of studies, including surveys of Earth scientists, analysis of public statements about climate change and analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers. How might one cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus? One technique is the use of fake experts.

We see this in online petitions such as the Global Warming Petition Project, which features more than 31,000 scientists claiming humans aren't disrupting our climate. How can there be 97% consensus when 31,000 scientists disagree? It turns out 99.9% of the petition's signatories aren't climate scientists. They include computer scientists, mechanical engineers and medical scientists but few climate scientists. The Global Warming Petition Project is fake experts in bulk.

More to come.

It May Be Dry Out West, But It's Raining Pork In Alberta

Desperate times require desperate measures, and there is definitely a whiff of desperation coming from the Conservative camp these days. With the majority of polls showing their fortunes in decline, it would seem that Pierre Poilievre's giddy and fatuous Christmas in July bribe stunt was but the opening salvo in preventing voters from falling into apostasy.

Targeting those whose vote can be easily bought may pick up some extra support going into the October election, but the Harper regime still knows that its base is its real strength, and one not to be taken lightly lest some choose not to vote, a real possibility given that their man has proven to have betrayed almost all the principles upon which he had campaigned when first vying for power: Senate reform, transparency, accountability, etc. etc.

Take the regime's efforts during its latest western foray.

In Calgary, Defence Minister Jason Kenney announced that the federal government would be funding Calgary’s light rail transit expansion to the tune of $1.53 billion. Yes … that’s billion.

Kenney, MP for Calgary Southeast, made sure to point out that the money was “the single largest federal infrastructure investment” in the history of Calgary.

Disavowing any connection with the impending election, Kenney described the timing as 'coincidental.'

But Kent Hehr the Liberal candidate in Calgary Centre who according to some polls is running well ahead of Conservative MP Joan Crockatt, said the notion that the timing is a coincidence is “absurd” given how long Calgary has been asking for federal support for public transit.

But wait! There's more! With citizen tax revenue at their disposal, money is no object:

The Conservatives were also showering money on local community groups. According to The Calgary Herald, qualifying associations had only a month to apply for a funding program that was part of a $46-million Western Diversification initiative.

And even though the money — such as the $45,000 given to the Lake Bonavista Community Association in Calgary for upgrading its suburban facility — won’t arrive until next year, Conservative MPs are busy making the announcements this summer.

Lest those who live west of Alberta feel they were not worthy of the Tory touch, there was this moral support to the beleaguered and brave fighters of forest fires:


Infonews reported the following with this headline: Man in blue suit thanks firefighters

For a second straight day, firefighting efforts at the Westside Road fire were the backdrop for political photo ops.

Today, several federal politicians stood around waiting, occasionally wiping dirt from their clothing while sweaty, ash-covered, exhausted-looking firefighters surrounded them for the tightly controlled photo opportunity. Helicopters carrying empty buckets buzzed overhead and a steady stream of wildfire fighting aircraft circled prior to the event.

Provinces fund their own firefighting. It’s not a federal responsibility.

After more than an hour wait, the press conference was over after less than five minutes. The Prime Minister would not take questions about why he was there, how much time the photo opportunity took from firefighters or what resources were used in the photo effort.

A federal election is less than three months away.

And it was with withering derision that the satirical site THE LAPINE treated the Harper entourage:

The selected firefighters were so tired and annoyed that they just silently watched Harper as he waved his arms around like a conductor and tried to get them to sing along with him in a rousing chorus of O Canada.

None of the group sang or even hummed along.

And none of them accepted the “Canada’s Better With Harper” t-shirts that the PM’s bodyguards were handing out.

Said one fatigued smoke jumper with an honesty that rarely finds its way into print:

“Shit man, we’d all been out there for 12 hours or so and suddenly we’re hauled out, lined up in a parking lot, left standing for an hour, and then expected to sing O Canada so Harper can get a picture?” front-line firefighter Ted McKinley told local radio station AM 1150.

“That’s complete bullshit. Harper just wanted a picture as quickly as he could get one…he still smelled like garlic from whatever he had for lunch,” said the 37-year-old father of two.

Yet the man in the blue suit proved indefatigable in his lyrical leanings:

Immediately following receiving the silent treatment from the firefighters, Harper over-compensated for the snub by waving wildly for the cameras and singing ‘The Maple Leaf Forever’ as he boarded a helicopter with Premier Clark to return to Kelowna for a scheduled beach-side fundraiser event.

Contemptuous mockery. That is all Harper and his gang deserve until they meet their day of reckoning in October.

The Sunday Scrum

Harper's moratorium on Senate appointments (the program's start). The likelihood of a federal deficit (10 minute mark). The increased universal child-care benefit (13 minute mark). A possible NDP-Liberal coalition (15 minute mark). Maclean's Magazine's Martin Patriquin and The Chronicle Herald's Dan Leger discuss these issues on yesterday's Sunday Scrum. You can access each topic at the respective time marks indicated above in parentheses.

More On Pharmacare

The other day I wrote about an article in the Globe that called into question support for the notion of a national pharmacare program that would see drugs paid for by the government as a fitting and necessary complement to our universal healthcare. I examined the methodology and bias involved in the author's claims that people are not really keen on such a program.

In my view, what 'the people' want is rarely a consideration in public policy-making, unless there are crass political gains to be made. It is one of the reasons I like to read letters to the editor, which offer a more direct insight into people's views on issues. I am therefore reproducing three letters from today's Star on the topic of national drug coverage, two of which support the notions for economic, social and reasons:

Pharmacare to fill the gap, Editorial July 19

The demand for a national plan covering prescription drug costs in Canada has now turned into a flood – with our citizens’ backing for the pharmacare concept rising to over 90 per cent.

Studies published in leading journals indicate that medications save lives by keeping people healthy and that Canada would be saving around $9 billion annually by instituting a national pharmacare plan covering prescription drugs costs – and resorting to logical initiatives such as bulk-buying of drugs.

Despite the weight of evidence, and the push provided by provinces such as Ontario, bold federal leadership in this area has been lacking thus far. We are the only country globally that does not cover the cost of prescription medicine despite Canada’s well established and very successful universal health care system.

It is hoped that the upcoming federal elections will spur heated debates about the need for pharmacare to cover the cost of prescription medicine for Canadians, leading to healthy outcomes for patients and taxpayers alike.

It is time for our federal government to get started – as the key to success in this key health-care area is staring in Canada’s face. Stephen Harper would do well to heed Mark Twain’s sage advice: “The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”

Rudy Fernandes, Mississauga

Surely this study could have picked a better example than Lipitor at “more than $811 a year.” Generic forms of Lipitor and other statin drugs have been available for several years at about $125 for a year’s supply.

If this misrepresentation is the best example that the Pharmacare2020 study can find, what are we to make of the rest of its conclusions? If in fact there are further bulk discounts available, it would be best accomplished through provincial cooperation in the buying process, not by introducing another wasteful level of bureaucracy at the federal level.

This is just another veiled attempt to shake more dollars out of the federal government for something that is the responsibility of the provinces – the delivery of health care services.

Don Mustill, Markham

Thanks for drawing attention to yet another well researched study, Pharmacare 2020, that demonstrates that a national pharmacare plan covering drug costs for all Canadians is not only sorely needed but is economically feasible. All that remains is political will.

Perhaps if we all asked candidates who come knocking on our doors in the coming federal election what their party will do for the millions of Canadians who do not have their prescriptions dispensed for financial reasons, the message might get through.

Bill Wensley, Cobourg

Harper Under Seige

Once more, editorial cartoonist Graeme MacKay scores a solid bullseye.



As does Corrigan over at The Star:



And let's not forget Star readers:

Since the post-2008 Great Recession, Stephen Harper’s primary focus on energy (oil/gas) economic action strategies have painted our economic flexibilities into a corner. Now we find our transnational economic drivers near exhausted.

Interest rates are now .05 per cent. We are on the precipice of falling financially/economically into quicksand recessionary territory.

In hindsight, consider what if we had developed multi-faceted strategies for dynamic, clean-energy manufacturing 21st century technologies in critical mass in construction, science, industry and commerce? Would we be so constrained now with lowest possible oil/gas commodity prices? Would our “loonie” be so vulnerable? Would our frivolousness with tax dollars tied to ineffective foreign policies be so committed to 20th century industrial, free market strategic imbecilities?

Harper’s single-minded chess tactics with much of what he mismanages is fast becoming an economically unmanoeuvreable position now on a precarious global stage. And now with Iran’s economic sanctions lifting as result of the deal with the Western powers, there’s no promise of recovery ever being tied to those “triple-digit” commodity prices that Canada’s oil producers followed our PM so recklessly on.

Brian McLaughlin, Saint John, NB

I’ll have to agree with Mr. Goodale’s take on Harper’s economic record. What’s Mr. Harper’s experience in economics, again? None in the private sector that I could find. I think Canadians know who is really in over their head.

Geoffrey Allen, Markham

And one more reminder from MacKay of Mr. Harper's fiscal ineptitude:

A Tale To Frighten Children (And Uninformed Canadians)

Well, the Globe and Mail is up to its usual agenda of promoting the neocon vision. Not content to let Canadians ruminate on ideas unimpeded by thinly-disguised corporate ideology and scaremongering, it is attempting to sow doubt about a plan that would potentially benefit all Canadians, national pharmacare, whose time has surely come.

For a small primer on the concept, you could check out a post I wrote about two years ago, or conduct a Google search, which will yield some compelling links, including this one:

Canada is the only industrialized country with universal health insurance that does not offer universal prescription drug coverage, and statistics show one in 10 Canadians cannot afford to pay for their medications.

From an economic viewpoint, there is a compelling case to be made for pharmacare. Consider this report, entitled Pharmacare 2020 — The Future of Drug Coverage in Canada, an analysis of which conducted by The Star yielded these conclusions:

Not only would a national pharmacare program ensure that all Canadians have access to drugs they need, it would save billions of dollars. Authored by six health policy experts, the study was published by the Pharmaceutical Policy Research Collaboration at the University of British Columbia.

Pharmacare is the answer. Potential savings from bulk-buying through a single system are substantial. The study’s authors cited the example of Lipitor. A year’s supply of this brand name cholesterol-lowering drug costs at least $811 in Canada, according to the report. In New Zealand, where a public authority negotiates prices for the entire country, it’s $15. “In terms of drug prices, Canada’s multi-payer system is among the most expensive in the world,” they conclude.

Because the arguments in favour of a universal drug plan are compelling, and because it is enjoying a certain momentum, the reactionary right is now starting a smear campaign to undermine enthusiasm, one based on manipulative polling, lies, and half-truths.

Entitled The risks that come with a national pharmacare program, the author of this Globe article, Yanick Labrie (more about him shortly), refers to a recent Angus Reid poll which

found that 91 per cent of Canadians support “the concept of a national ‘pharmacare’ in Canada, that would provide universal access to prescription drugs ...” But they may not be ready to pick up the tab. The survey also found that 70 per cent are against increasing the GST to 6 per cent – from the current 5 per cent – to pay for the program. If you’re not willing to pay for something you want, that may be a sign you don’t really want it that badly.

What Labrie omits here is also the finding that the majority would prefer that it be paid through an increase in corporate taxes, a not unreasonable preference, in my view.

Next, the writer warns of what we might be giving up if we embrace pharmacare:

Canadians should be wary of replacing our mixed system with something like what exists in the U.K. or New Zealand. Socializing a larger part of drug spending through a single-payer pharmacare plan would give more power to government and its bureaucrats to make decisions on behalf of the insured. Policies that restrict access to new medicines would be applied across the board and would penalize all Canadians in the same way.

The implication that this would be tantamount to allowing a 'death-panel' bureaucrat to determine your fate is clearly there. What Labrie doesn't mention is that the decisions on adding new drugs to provincial drug formularies are already made for costly drugs, most of which are not covered by private plans anyway. The case of the cystic fibrosis drug Kalydeco is instructional in this regard. The final decision in that case saw Ontario deciding to fund it.

The above also demonstrates a strategy commonly used by the right: absolutism. There is nothing in any concept of pharmacare that I have ever read that would preclude any of us from still carrying private insurance. Yet read the following assertion by Labrie:

According to a recent online survey conducted by Abacus Data for the Canadian Pharmacists Association, 80 per cent of respondents support the idea of a national prescription-drug program. But only 31 per cent favour replacing our current mixed public-private systems, managed by the provinces, with a national, government-run pharmacare monopoly.

Monopoly? Who said anything about a monopoly? As well, take a look at the Abacus online survey he refers to.

A patently manipulative push poll commissioned by pharmacists, consider the biases built into the following questions:

While many Canadians want enhanced access to medications, many Canadians are also concerned about the cost of a national pharmacare program, losing their private drug plans, and the ability of governments to administrate drug plans effectively.

Which approach to pharmacare comes closest to your view?

The result?

Overall, a plurality of Canadians believed that pharmacare should only cover those Canadians who are not currently covered through some other existing government or private plan.

Here's another:

To what extent are you concerned about the following issues related to a national pharmacare program?

Replacing your current private prescription drug plan with a public plan that would have fewer choices

Increased cost to governments if patients use more prescription drugs than they do now

The ability of governments to administer the plan efficiently and effectively

The result?

Although Canadians were supportive of the proposed national pharmacare plan, most said they would be concerned if a national pharmacare program replaced their current plan with a public plan that had fewer options, if it increased costs to governments because patients use more prescription drugs than they do now, and of the ability of governments to administer the plan efficiently and effectively.

I could go on, but I would encourage you to visit the poll results to see more of the questions asked that guarantee the results the pharmacists sought.

I promised at the start that I would say more about the author of this article, Yanick Labrie, who is described as an economist at the Montreal Economic Institute. A visit to the website will tell you all you need to know about its ideological and economic leanings, as will as a list of present and former executive members, which includes former Harper favourite Maxime Bernier and right-wing commentator and analyst Tasha Kheiriddin. The vice president is currently Jasmin Guénette, former director of public affairs who came back after spending two years at the Institute for Humane Studies in Virginia, an organization that can most charitably be described as an American libertarian outfit.

By all means, let us have a national debate about pharmacare. But let it be an honest one that leaves aside the demagoguery and distortions that currently abound on this issue.

The Harper Regime In One Easy-To-Understand Graphic!

H/t Boycott The Harper Conservatives

For those of you who are more text-oriented or want a comprehensive recounting of the depredations of the Harper years, I encourage you to check out and bookmark Rural's Harper History Series over at Democracy Under Fire.

Rural has taken on the unenviable and herculean but noble task of compiling the myriad abuses of and acts of contempt against democracy during King Stephen's reign; it is a lot to take in and can be depressing at times to see what we have lost, but if read in measured amounts is a very useful reminder of why it is paramount that we toss out this band of renegades in October.

I encourage you to visit his series regularly as we head into the election, and share with those who you think might benefit.

Harper's Fingerprints Are All Over This One

It is surely a mark of the times in which we live that a climate of fear, suspicion and mistrust permeates the ranks of those who work for the federal government. Stories abound of the muzzling of scientists, the termination of employees, the closing of research facilities. Having just completed Mark Bourrie's Kill The Messenger, an excoriating analysis of the Harper regime's vindictive and paranoid nature, there is no doubt in my mind that those stories are true, leading to the inevitable conclusion that freedom of expression is one of far too many democratic rights that have suffered tremendously under this government.

The recent termination of a Parks Canada employee, a smoking gun if there ever was one, offers ample illustration. Dr. John Wilmshurst, the science and resource conservation manager for Jasper National Park, was fired on June 11.

Mystery surrounds his termination, as no one will speak out, but the likely answer is found in something that happened last year.

In a 2014 story produced by the Canadian Press and picked up by the CBC, Huffington Post, McLean’s, and other major news outlets, Wilmshurst described research he and his colleagues were doing on the melting Athabasca Glacier. He predicted that the ice could be gone in his children’s lifetime, a statement supported by recently-published research out of the University of British Columbia.

“The information that we’re getting is pretty clear that climate is warming,” he told the camera. “[Climate change] is definitely something that’s happening and it’s happening because of our activities.”

You can see the 'error' Wilmshurst made here. He drew the clear and irrefutable connection between climate change and human activity, something that is anathema in Harperland, something that is deemed seditious in our imperiled democracy. Had he followed the expected protocol of applying for permission to speak to the media, a laboursome process that more often than not results in refusal, Wilmshurst pointed observations would not have seen the light of day. Here are a few cases that illustrate the roadblocks government scientists face:

In 2010, Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore was not allowed to talk about research into a flood in northern Canada 13,000 years ago without getting pre-approval from political staff in the office of then-Natural Resources minister Christian Paradis. Postmedia News said requests were only approved after reporters' deadlines had already passed.

In 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristina Miller was blocked from speaking to the media about her research suggesting viral infections may be linked to higher salmon mortality.

Environment Canada's media office granted no interviews after a team published a paper in 2011 concluding that a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures may be unavoidable by 2100.

Postmedia science reporter Margaret Munro requested data from radiation monitors run by Health Canada following the earthquake and nuclear plant problems in Japan. Munro said Health Canada would not approve an interview with one of its experts responsible for the detectors.

Unquestioning 'loyalty' to the regime is the only thing that matters, no matter how competent and respected individuals may be. The messages taped on Wilmshurst's former office door convey the sense of a man deeply respected and sorely missed:

“Best manager I’ve had in 33 years,” one note read.

“A source of inspiration,” said another. “Still our Chief.”

“Forever our leader.”

Such sentiments account for nothing in Harper's poisoned kingdom, and for that reason, Canada needs a powerful purgative; if we don't administer the necessary tough medicine in October, I fear all will be lost for the country that I have known and loved my entire life.

Harper Edges Closer To His Goal

That goal would be the destruction of the CBC, an ideological (i.e., publicly-funded) and political (Terry Milewski's fearless journalism) thorn in Dear Leader's side.

A Senate committee that spent 18 months studying the CBC and its place in the media landscape is recommending the public broadcaster explore alternative funding models, shake up its governance structure, be more transparent in its operations and air more amateur sports and high-quality arts.

A closer examination reveals that it is, in fact, a blueprint for eradicating the public broadcaster:

The senators, who travelled to England to study the BBC’s funding models and programming strategy, suggested a so-called “external superfund” be created by setting aside a portion of the CBC’s funding to pay for Canadian content “such as Canadian history and nature documentaries and high-quality comedy and drama, which could then be broadcast on CBC/Radio-Canada.”

The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting watchdog group called that proposal part of “a thinly disguised cut to CBC’s parliamentary grant that could never be implemented without a major contraction of the services that our national public broadcaster offers to Canadians every day.”

But it doesn't stop there. Another Trojan horse lurks in the report:

The Senate’s communications committee is also calling on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. to find new ways to fund its operations in order to limit the amount of funding it receives from the federal government.

The committee rejected the idea of stable, multi-year funding for the Crown corporation, saying funding is based on “the fiscal demands of the federal government.”

Senators raised the possibility of using the PBS funding model — where viewers donate money or pay for sponsorships of programs — or charging a license fee to every home in the country with a television, which is how the BBC receives some of its funds.

“Even though it’s more subtle, this is proposing to cut CBC’s budget,” said Ian Morrison of the advocacy group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

To further erode public confidence in the broadcaster, the report seeks to sow dissension:

There were also testy exchanges between senators and CBC president Hubert Lacroix during his two appearances before the committee, and threats the committee would use its parliamentary powers to force the CBC to hand over the salaries of Mansbridge and others.

And lest we forget,

The Senate report also refers to scandals involving former radio host Jian Ghomeshi and business correspondent Amanda Lang in calling for stricter policies to prevent problems rather than having to react when they become public.

Senator Art Eggleton, whose recommendations were not included in the report, calls the report a missed opportunity,

blaming Conservative senators for spending “too much time denouncing the CBC and not enough on a way forward.”

Sen. Art Eggleton rejected some of the recommendations and says the government should increase funding to the CBC by almost one-fifth.

Eggleton said the government should spend about $40 per capita on the CBC, above the $33 per capita the report notes the broadcaster received in 2011, which would be half of what other industrialized nations spend on their public broadcaster.

He also said the funding should be adjusted to inflation and help the CBC eliminate commercial advertising.

The CBC itself weighed in, expressing its disappointment with the report:

"Frankly, we were hoping for more," said spokeswoman Alexandra Fortier, manager of media relations and issues management.

"CBC/Radio-Canada provided senators with detailed information on audience patterns, broadcasting trends, budgets, and strategies for addressing the challenges of the future," Fortier said. "It explained what it does to maximize the efficiency of its operations, and its accountability to Canadians."

"This report fails to propose constructive suggestions to address any of the real challenges facing the broadcasting system," said Fortier, who until a few months ago worked as the director of communications to Conservative minister Jason Kenney.

I suspect many Canadians will share the public broadcaster's disappointment.

Anon Poses Some Questions

I received the following as a comment in my previous post, but decided to feature it here, as I suspect the writer would like readers to offer their answers to the questions posed:

I have two questions and an observation:

I do not understand the statement that the Child Tax Benefit, benefits the rich more than the rest of us. For example, in families with a three old child, do the families not receive the same amount regardless of their income bracket? Is it because the benefit is tax free and there is no claw back?

I would like to understand why it is that when a private citizen has a mortgage taken out or the purchase of goods is made using their stolen identity, the police do nothing and say it is a private or a financial matter between the citizen and the bank or credit company.

Ashley Madison has its client accounts stolen and Anonymous threatens to reveal the names if they do not cease to operate. The police begin an immediate investigation. Is it because of the threatened demise of the legal corporate entity or do the clients have more political power or sway over the police?

Please "Square the Corners" for me.

Those are good questions, Anon, but I think I can answer the first one. A story in today's Star reveals that the child benefit payments are taxable and will, in fact, be clawed back from many of the recipients:

The benefit is taxable on the lower income earner in every household. Canadians who received the payments can expect to see some of it taxed next April unless their income is so low that they don’t pay income taxes.

Of course, that begs the question of why the cheques are being sent out to everyone who has applied, no matter their income level. The answer, I fear, is too obvious - to get the most political bang for the buck three months from the election. Says David Macdonald, senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

“You get a cheque and it’s tangible. You have no idea what you’re going to pay back at the end of the year”.

At the end of the year - well after the election.

I invite readers to weigh in here.

Is Secrecy The New Canadian Norm?

The Harper regime is notorious for its virtual embargo on information. Muzzling of scientists, heavily-redacted Freedom of Information documents, regular obstruction of Parliamentary officers have become the norm. In light of these profoundly anti-democratic traits, one has to ask whether the paranoid control that obsesses the regime has filtered down to other levels of government and institutions?

'Privacy rights' have become the default position of far too many. The Harper regime uses it regularly whenever it wishes to avoid answering uncomfortable questions. One of the latest examples of this deplorable tactic is to be found in the case of Bashir Makhtal,

a 46-year-old who lived and worked in Toronto, [who] has been languishing in an Ethiopian jail in Addis Ababa since he was convicted of terrorism in 2009. He has always denied the charges.

Makhtal was arrested on the border of Kenya and Somalia in 2006 after fleeing Mogadishu and the fall of the Islamic Courts Union.

Initially refusing a deal for a prison-transfer back to Canada because he claimed he was innocent, last year he accepted it, but the federal government has done nothing to faciliate that transfer, says his cousin.

The Canadian government response to these allegations?

François Lasalle, a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, told the Star that “to protect the privacy of the individual concerned, further details on this case cannot be released.”

Similarly, Zarah Malik, a spokesperson for Public Safety Canada, told the Star that “the Privacy Act prevents federal government officials from discussing the specifics of an offender’s case.”

Other institutions inspired by this 'sterling' example include the RCMP, which now is refusing to divulge the identities of car accident victims and other such tragedies, even homicides.

Says lawyer David Fraser,

"Not disclosing the information very likely makes their jobs easier, and not having to ask the next of kin or the family to disclose whether they can disclose this information, it's one less thing that they have to do," he said.

"It's always easier — we see this across government — to just point to the privacy legislation as a reason to not do something … to not provide information to the media."

This cone of silence is given critical scrutiny by The Toronto Star:

Until this year the RCMP released the names of victims with their consent or the permission of their surviving relatives. Now it says it must comply with Privacy Act, regardless of the wishes of bereaved families.

“I wanted people to know my sons,” said Mary Anne MacIntyre of Judique, a small Cape Breton Community where 19-year-old Morgan MacIntyre and his 17-year-old brother Jordan were killed in a car crash two years ago. “Being Victim A or Victim B is just, to me, feels so cold.”

So even with the family's permission, the RCMP is obdurately hiding behind the privacy justification.

The federal behaviour is now infecting local police forces as well. This past February, two men were shot and killed by an armed security guard in a Toronto McDonald's restaurant. And that is about all we are ever likely to know, since it was announced this week that the guard will not be charged.

“Investigators consulted Senior Crown Attorneys and provided an overview of the circumstances surrounding the deaths,” police said in a statement issued Wednesday. “It was determined that there would be no reasonable prospect of conviction, therefore no criminal charges would be laid.”

Here is what columnist Edward Keenan had to say:

Two men were shot and killed, in public, in February. Police know who did it, but they will not tell us. They say no charges should be laid in the case, but they will not tell us why, or give us the information they uncovered in their investigation. Police have security-camera video of the incident, but they will not show it to us.

Two people are dead, and the Toronto Police Service’s response, after four months of investigation, boils down to: Nothing to see here. Trust us. Move along.

This is police state stuff.

Make no mistake about it; there are many unanswered question that call into question the administration of justice here:

Was it a clear-cut case of self-defence? I could imagine a hundred scenarios in which that’s possible, but we don’t know.

Why was this security guard armed in a restaurant? We don’t know. What kind of work was he doing nearby? We don’t know. Was his life in danger? Was he being robbed? Was he defending other people?

We don’t know.

People who live in dictatorships are used to being kept in the dark. They have very low expectations. We still live in a democracy, albeit one under steady attack by repressive forces from within. As Canadians approach the October election, one of the many questions they will have to ask themselves is whether or not they are comfortable being treated as children excluded from the conversations at the 'adult table'. If they are not, they would be wise to choose a government that sets a tone of transparency, not obfuscation, for its citizens.

Harperland As Seen By Editorial Cartoonists

H/t ipolitics