Harper's Parody of Democracy

Yesterday, I wrote a post expressing cynicism about Heritage Minister James Moore's tough talk concerning Enbridge, expressing the view that it was just more political posturing on the part of Harper Inc. since the company has come under much media scrutiny due to its record of oil spills.

Reading another story today about the time limits and restrictions placed on the NEB hearings into the pipeline, and the fact that it will be the Harper regime that makes the final determination about the pipeline, made me think back to my teaching days.

I always regarded school committee with disdain, and rarely sat on them, since they were generally gatherings characterized by a lot of talk and a paucity of action. On a few occasions I broke my embargo, each time coming away from the experience realizing I had thrown away many hours of my life for nought.

The very last time I sat on one (and I forget what it was for), the end result was that the principal entirely ignored our recommendations, imposing the decisions that he had hoped we would recommend.

Why even go through a charade of democratic participation when the end result is preordained, and the role of the committee is only to lend the air of legitimacy to the autocrat?

That is precisely what I believe is going to happen with the NEB hearings - after all of the applicants are heard, and thousands of hours of testimony are given, no matter the recommendation, the pipeline will go ahead. The best indicator of the future is found, of course, in this little nugget:

The government [has] formalized new rules that for the first time give the Harper cabinet the final word on whether the pipeline should go ahead, even if the arms-length NEB-led panel concludes the project is environmentally unsound.

Were the hearings anything but an empty public-relations exercise, would such a stipulation exist?

Another Corporate Bully

A medical device manufacturer named Vante, while defending its employees' rights to hold and express their own opinions, has fired its chief financial officer and treasurer for expressing his opinion of Chick-fil-A:

Another of Donald Trump's Depredations

While watching this video, which accompanies a story on Salon.com about 'the Donald's' depredations in Scotland, I couldn't help but think of a well-known biblical rhetorical question.

Harper's Political Posturing

Given the recent spate of 'bad luck' experienced by Enbridge over its propensity for oil spills, the Harper regime knows it is facing an uphill battle to convince Canadians that the company can guarantee the environmental integrity of the lands over which its pipelines run. In his column today, Tim Harper points out that because the government is running out of opponents to vilify, it is trying a new tact through its mouthpiece, senior minister for B.C./Heritage Minister James Moore:

“This project will not survive public scrutiny unless Enbridge takes far more seriously (its) obligations to engage with the public and to answer those very legitimate questions about the way in which they have operated their business in the very recent past,” Moore said.

Wow! A Harper minion talking tough to business! That surely will solve all the problems, especially when the company repackages its empty and worthless assurances in a new communications' campaign.

And Moore's 'outspokenness' should certainly dispel any impression that Harper Inc. is simply a tool of big business interests.

UPDATE: The emptiness of Moore's rhetoric is attested to, I think, by this announcement today by the federal government.

The West Virginia Police

There to Protect and Serve (the coal industry):

H/t EcoWatch

Upper Class Twit of the Year?

I have long given up trying to fathom the 'mind' of America. The behaviour of its political leaders, both Democratic and Republican, and the following such behaviour inspires, leaves me particularly perplexed.

However, Mitt Romney's recent foray abroad to display his foreign policy bona fides has at least provided me with an opportunity to wax nostalgic about the Monty Python comedy troupe, especially this classic:

All kidding aside, the fact that Romney is considered a serious candidate, as Thomas Walkom points out today in The Star, should be cause for world-wide alarm.

Democracy Watch's Indictment of Harper Government Hypocrisy

The following concise indictment of Harper corruption and hypocrisy says a great deal, doesn't it?

PM's ex-aide charged with fraud, July 28

The federal Conservatives responded to the influence-peddling charges that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former adviser Bruce Carson is facing by with this statement: “Any individual who doesn’t respect our laws must face their full force, as well as the consequences that come with them.”

This is a deeply hypocritical statement from the Conservatives whose leader has done nothing to penalize dozens of Conservative cabinet ministers and MPs who violated federal good government rules by handing out government cheques labelled with the Conservative Party logo.

For instance, he has done nothing to penalize cabinet ministers Christian Paradis (who violated the federal ethics law), Tony Clement (who violated federal spending rules in the G8-G20 fiasco), Jim Flaherty and Peter MacKay (who violated federal budget rules by hiding the actual cost of the fighter jets and who also violated rules by using a military helicopter for a personal purpose), and Bev Oda (who violated rules governing expenses, and also misled Parliament).

In some cases, these ministers and others have faced no consequences for violating key rules also because a watchdog agency like the Auditor General or Ethics Commissioner has no power to penalize them, or has failed to enforce the law effectively and properly and no one is allowed to challenge their improper enforcement in court.

Because nothing can be done to force a Prime Minister to penalize Cabinet ministers and politicians who violate rules, the watchdog agencies must be required to conduct random audits and to investigate all complaints and situations in which there is evidence of a violation, and must be given the power to, and required to, penalize violators, and everyone must be allowed to challenge any watchdog in court who fails to enforce rules properly.

As well, the huge loopholes must be closed in key good government laws because these loopholes currently make it legal in many cases for people involved in politics to be dishonest, unethical, secretive and wasteful.

For example, loopholes in the federal lobbying law, and weak enforcement, have meant that no one has been prosecuted for failing to register as a lobbyist since the law was enacted in 1988, and dozens of lobbyists have been let off the hook.

Recently, a House of Commons Committee has recommended some changes to close some of the loopholes in that law, and to strengthen enforcement, but not enough changes to stop secret, unethical lobbying of the federal government.

Tyler Sommers, Democracy Watch, Ottawa