A Breaking Story About Tony Clement

Here is the link to a breaking story, accompanied by an official memo, detailing Industry Minister Tony Clement's efforts to delay Senate passage of Bill C-393, the bill that would allow the cheap export of life-saving drugs to Africa.

Will the Harper Government Sacrifice Lives to Score a Political Advantage?

The answer to this question, as I have feared since election speculation started, is likely to be yes. A story in today's Star talks about the bills the Harper Government wants to pass into law before dissolution comes, and they include two crime bills and one that will better compensate injured soldiers.

Unfortunately, getting the Senate's final approval on Bill C-393, the NDP bill that passed in Parliament recently amending Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, is of little interest to Harper and his Conservative-dominated Senate. C-393 would make it much easier for generic drug manufacturers to send to Africa life-saving drugs to treat aids, tuberculosis, and malaria, potentially saving millions of lives. etc.

There is little doubt in my mind that the Harper team, which to my knowledge has never felt constrained by moral considerations, sees real campaign advantages in enacting crime and compensation bills, their supporters tending to believe in the need for more incarceration and better support for the troops. Very likely as well, Team Harper will blame the 'parisan games' of the 'coalition responsible for this unnecessary election' for the drug bill not having time to complete its way through the Senate.

The untold numbers of Africans who die as a result of this bill's obstruction will be the victims of the Harper regime's immoral but hardly surprising decision to put their political fortunes above all else.

So yes, to answer the question that pundits have been asking, the integrity of the Government will be an issue in this election.

What Do Peter Mansbridge and Ed McMahon Have in Common?

In my younger days, I was quite a devotee of late-night television, my allegiance owed almost exclusively to The Tonight Show starring, as they used to say, Johnny Carson. The nightly ritual was the same. Ed McMahon would introduce the star, and Johnny would come out to perform his droll monologue, periodically assisted by the always-reliable Ed. For example, Johnny might make a declaration such as, “Boy, it was really hot in downtown Burbank today,” and Ed, the perfect second banana, would ask, “How hot was it? at which point Johnny would say, “It was so hot that....(followed by a punchline that usually elicited sufficient laughter to ensure that the routine would survive in one form or another for as long as Johnny wanted.)

Because of its importance in spotlighting the star, being a second banana in show business has a long and respected history. Being a journalist and behaving like a second banana does not.

Watching The National last night, I couldn't help but remember that relationship between Ed and Johnny. Peter Mansbridge's brief interview last night on The National with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was, to say the least, disappointing, given that his questions were reminiscent of a second banana whose job it is to make the star shine.

Take, for example, the first softball question Mansbridge lobbed to Flaherty:

You've said all along that you didn't want an election. You reached out to the NDP, met with them, and today there was stuff in the budget for the NDP. Did you miscalculate what would be enough for the NDP?

This gentle query offered Flaherty the predictable opportunity to appear statesmanlike and beyond political games by saying he didn't know what it would take to satisfy the NDP (of course implying how unreasonable the party was being) and then talking about how it is the Finance Minister's responsibility to “look at the big picture,” consult widely and look out for “the best interests of the people.” He went on to talk about other things in the budget intended to meet some of the Liberal demands, but concluded that none of the measures seemed "good enough for the opposition parties" (at least he didn't say 'opposition coalition' this time).

Peter then threw another dainty slo-pitch, this one even more leading, by asking:

If it does end up in an election ... does that cause damage to the recovery program?

He could very easily have asked a much less biased question by inquiring how an election now might affect the economy.

Mansbridge's final question came when he asked Flaherty that if he didn't want an election, "Why didn't you try putting through an amendment?” Notice how he didn't make a much more hard-hitting query such as why Flaherty didn't ensure Bloc Quebecois support by including in the budget $2 billion for the harmonization of federal and provincial tax that Quebec undertook in 1992, a precondition for support already previously articulated by Giles Duceppe, an agreement, by the way, that most are saying is essentially already a done deal. In other words, Mansbridge allowed to stand the fiction that the Harper Government has done everything it could to avoid an unnecessary election, a fiction that will doubtless form a large part of the government's election narrative.

As frightened of offending the Harper regime as the CBC may be, I expect much much better from our national broadcaster.

To watch the entire 3:48 minute interview between Mansbridge and Flaherty, click here.

A Harper-Orchestrated Attempt To “Change The Channel”

Watching last night's edition of CBC's Power and Politics, as I frequently do, offered yet another opportunity for insight into the Harper mind, a mind that many would describe as dark, manipulative, and contemptuous of everyone outside of 'the Conservative philosophical tent' (which, when you think about it, must be a small abode indeed, given its very restricted range of thought and vision.)

The predictable discussion occurred throughout the first half-hour of the show, as Liberal Scott Brison, Conservative Tom Lukiwski and the NDP's Yvon Godin discussed the contempt of Parliament verdict by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As was to be expected, Tory Lukiwski spun the partisan and already frequently-repeated line that the contempt finding was simply partisan politics and a sham. This is, of course, the Conservative narrative, one we will hear incessantly if an election is called. However, the really interesting development came in the next half hour.

In that segment, Solomon was interviewing Conservative James Rajotte, Liberal Ralph Goodale, and the NDP's Thomas Mulcair about the pending federal budget and how the contempt finding might affect the vote on it. Suddenly, looking at his Blackberry, Evan Solomon broke in with the news that there had been a leak about the Conservative budget, and he then went on to articulate the details of the leak: forgiveness of student loans for medical personnel willing to work in isolated areas, money for research and development, etc. At that point I believe Mr. Solomon thought that the CBC had scored a coup. I told my wife that there are no leaks in the Tory 'ship of state' (please forgive the tired metaphor), and that this revelation was clearly designed for another purpose.

My 'spider sense' tingling, I switched over to CTV's Power Play with Don Martin where, lo and behold, he was announcing the same leaks, when previously he had been talking about the contempt finding. Back on CBC, Solomon was trying to get Mulcair and Goodale to evaluate the specific details leaked and wisely they demurred, suggesting to the host that he was simply being used by the Tory apparatus for spin purposes. Solomon did look decidedly disappointed a few minutes later when he announced on-air that the leaks had been sent to several news agencies.

This transparent attempt to 'change the channel' away from discussion of the contempt of Parliament finding, I think, gives us an idea of how the Harper regime will conduct their campaign, should an election be called. Today may well see the beginning of the process culminating in a non-confidence motion on the budget so that the Government will fall on that issue, thereby circumventing a formal vote in Parliament on the contempt findings, which would allow the Conservatives to continue during the campaign with the narrative that the Committee’s finding of contempt is, once more, only a partisan sham, proven by the fact that the opposition voted down a responsible budget that would have benefited all Canadians.

It is clear to me that yesterday's above-described events offer potent proof that the Harper Government's contempt is hardly limited to Parliament. It suggests a mentality that cynically views most people as easily manipulated, easily distracted, and easily convinced to overlook all of the egregious violations of democracy they are guilty of.

God help us if they are right.

Harper's Uncanny Ability to Maintain his Political Fortunes

In reading Lawrence Martin's Harperland, I was struck by how many times Prime Minister Harper and his operatives have had their political skins saved, not just by their own Machiavellian machinations, but by external events.

Take, for example, Harper's first unnecessary prorogation of Parliament in order to avoid a confidence vote that would have surely toppled his government. Having badly miscalculated the political opposition to ending public subsidies for all parties, a measure he included in Finance Minister Jim Flarherty's 2008 economic update, he faced the prospect of a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, with a promise of support for at least 18 months from the Bloc Quebecois, to form a new government after a confidence vote in the House. According to Martin, Harper was ready to concede defeat having made a rare but huge tactical error. But fate intervened to save him.

Although not part of the coalition, the Bloc Quebecois leader, Giles Duceppe, was invited by Dion and Layton to take part in a public signing to demonstrate their ability to work together and thus form a replacement government without an election, something quite constitutionally legitimate. However, the inclusion of Duceppe gave Harper the opening he needed, whereby he went on a campaign to denounce this unholy alliance with 'separatists' as an attempt to 'highjack democracy.'

Harper was successful in his propaganda blitz and the rest, as they say, is history. His visit to Governor General Michelle Jean secured him the intended result: a prorogation of Parliament, during which the idea of a coalition lost its momentum, largely due to the public outrage against it that Harper had fuelled.

Similarly, in 2010, to avoid a showdown in Parliament over his refusal to turn over Afghan detainee documents that many believe would have shown that his Goverment had known that those Afghans turned over to the authorities by the Canadian military faced torture, he once more prorogued Parliament, this time on the pretext of 'recalibrating' his Government's agenda. Initially, this backfired on the Prime Minister, as Canadians expressed their outrage through protests, Facebook petitions, etc. But then two things happened: the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and the opening of the Winter Olympics in B.C. The ensuing public diversion of attention allowed the Harper regime to dodge another bullet.

There are numerous other examples in the book, but what does all of this suggest? That Harper is capable of using any opportunity for political benefit, which leads me to predict the following:

Given that he has already used the terrible recent tragedy in Japan to suggest now is not the time for an election, there is little doubt in my mind that he will use Canada's entry into the Libyan conflict to do two things. He will again suggest that a time of war, as he has called it, is not the time for political games by the opposition parties in trying to engineer an election; experienced and stable leadership in paramount in these perilous times. Also, he will take the opportunity to talk about how this sudden incursion into Libya demonstrates the need for up-to-the-date military aircraft, and so his Government's decision to spend untold billions on the 65 F-35 jets is yet another example of his wise and prescient leadership.

Once more, external events will likely save this Prime Minister's hide.

Heather Mallick's Friday Column

The Star's Heather Mallick (a one-time writer for the Globe and Mail before that paper purged itself of most of its progressive writers) had a good column in Friday's edition that draws a sharp distinction between the recently more aggressive Liberal ads critical of Harper's autocratic practices and the Conservatie attack ads, which appeal to our baser natures. Well worth reading.

If You Can't Take The Heat, Timmy ..... Parts 2 & 3

In my post yesterday, I commented on the predictable outrage being expressed by the Hudak camp over the Family Coalition ad depicting the young head of the Ontario Conservatives as the dupe of monied interests. I opined that there was a deep hypocrisy in Conservative campaign chairman Mark Spiro's complaint that the ad is not accurate, and invited him to examine some of the defamatory attack ads run by his federal counterparts. Many thanks to the sixthestate website for pointing out that Mr. Spiro worked in the Harper war room in 2006 and 2008, a fact that only increases the depth of his hypocrisy in complaining to the Television Bureau of Canada about the ad.

Happily, Messrs. Hudak and Spiro have two new ads that will probably result in further twisting and knotting of their underwear. Enjoy: