Sins Of The Harper Government: Ministerial Incompetence, Secrecy, and Contempt For Democracy

For anyone who needs a quick primer over the damage being done to Canada and its citizens by the Harper regime, I recommend the following:

In the F-35 fiasco, truth is the first casualty, a stinging indictment not only of the government lies surrounding the true projected costs of the F-35 fighter jets, but also of the incompetence of the teflon Defense Minister, Peter McKay.

Freedom of expression is more than an international issue, in which Star Public Editor Kathy English laments the sad state of our Freedom of Information Act as obstructed by Mr. Hartper et al.

How Harper exploits Canadians’ ignorance of parliamentary democracy, in which Frances Russell explores the debasement of democracy under Harper, and cites other Parliamentary jurisdictions with models that would throttle the near-dictatorial powers the Prime Minister currently wields.

If knowledge is power, it is time we all begin arming ourselves with the facts.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Tim Hudak?

I guess the short answer is to ignore the prating lad. Failing such a massive challenge to self-discipline and restraint, I suppose the other best answer is to hold his pronouncements up to public scrutiny, a goal I have modestly tried to achieve in this blog.

Such scrutiny invariably gives rise to ridicule; the risible nature of most of Tim's recycled pronouncements, many of which are mere carry-overs from the inaptly named Common Sense Revolution of his failed mentor, Mike Harris, invite such a response.

As usual, Toronto Star readers are happy to share their own observations, their letters-to-the-editor mirroring, I suspect, widely-held assessments of the young leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party. To whet your appetite to read the full array of their reflections, here are a few of them:

There are no demonstrations at Queen’s Park demanding that the LCBO be privatized. The demands are coming from businesses that want to make profits.

Hudak says that “competition” is needed and it’s time to end the monopoly. Why would we take a monopoly that serves the public interest and change it to one that serves the private few?

Remember when the Tories introduced “competition” into the electricity sector? Rates have now tripled. Has “competition” lowered gasoline rates, car insurance rates or credit card interest rates?

To use Tory terms, the LCBO benefits from “economies of scale” that have resulted in “increased efficiencies.” The LCBO is extremely well run and well organized. Its profits serve all the people in Ontario.

Hudak is just a schill who wants to transfer that public wealth to the private few.

Paul Kahnert, Markham

There is an error in the following letter, which infers that The Beer Store is a government operation. It is, in fact, a private consortium:

So it’s official. Politicians are out of ideas. Is the tired (and tried) chestnut of privatizing the LCBO and Beer Store really the best Tim Hudak has to offer us? I guess “a chicken in every pot” didn’t test well.

Never mind the LCBO and Beer Store provide quality employment for 10,000 Ontarians and are reliable cash cows for the government, helping fund education, healthcare and social programs. Got to keep the stumping simple and treat the electorate as simple-minded.

David Kinahan, Toronto

With the government looking for ways to decrease its (our) huge debt, only a fool would suggest privatizing the LCBO cash-cow that brings in a billion a year.

The beer stores are in a different category, as they are owned by foreign breweries. They should be privatized as soon as possible and corner stores should be allowed to sell beer.

As for Tim Hudak, first he says: “let’s let the private sector into the alcohol business, let’s have some more competition.” Then he says there would be no reduction in the price of alcoholic beverages.

No wonder Hudak lost the election. He’s a dumkopf.

William Bedford, Toronto

Let me transpose what Mr. Hudak is really saying here. He can’t create any meaningful jobs so what he’s proposing is a liquor store on every corner — in the U.S. there’d also be a gun store.

So he wants you to know that when you really need to lash out at your family, because you just can’t find work, there will be a source of mind-numbing alcohol close by for your comfort. Because we all know alcohol is just like comfort food in a crisis.

Bon appetite.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

A Law And Order Government That Loves Guns - Part 2

The post I wrote yesterday elicited a rather spirited and passionate response from one of its readers. Since I promised a reply to Anonymous after reading the links he provided, I thought I would base today's contribution on his observations.

First, one of the points Anon made (I will reproduce his entire commentary in a moment) turned out to be largely correct. He asserted that the Harper government would not loosen the gun laws based on the committee recommendations. As reported in The Globe, in a link provided by Anon, the Prime Minister, in a rare move that bespeaks common sense over partisan priorities, has firmly stated that prohibited weapons such as the Ak-47 assault weapon will not be reclassified as 'restricted,' something that would have made them much more readily available.

What follows is the exchange Anon and I had over my original post:

Do you even understand what any of the above terminology actually means?

Do you not realize that these recommendations were made in March? How long do you think that the Toronto Star has been sitting on this non-story? Any particular reason that they maybe chose today to print this?

To which I responded:

I believe I understand both the terminology and the implications of the Harper thrust to appeal almost exclusively to its constituency, Anon.

As to why The Star chose to print the story today, I would think the answer is obvious: to show the absolute hypocrisy of a government that claims to be hard on crime while at the same time making it easier to acquire and maintain the weapons that would facilitate crime.

I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Anon replied:

Not even close. The government is probably finished with firearms. The only recommendations that might be examined is the merging ATT's with licenses, if only because it won't cost the government much. There's the merger of the POL and PAL, which you don't mention. Beyond that...

It's unlikely that the government would choose to reclassify prohibited weapons as restricted. At best, the government could remove the OiC prohibitions on named weapons like the AK-47, or more likely it's semi-auto only equivalent. The tories aren't stupid enough to change automatics as an class from prohibited to restricted. At best, the civilian variant of the AK, semi-auto only could be taken off the prohibited-by-name list. Consider: http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/3426/CZ-858-2-Canadian-Model-762-x-39-19-Barrel.aspx. It's not an AK, it's a CZ-858. It LOOKS a bit like an AK. It's in the same caliber as the AK. It has roughly equivalent capabilites as a semi-auto only AK. That firearm is non-restricted. This is a Saiga semi-automatic rifle: http://www.jgsales.com/saiga-7.62x39-ak47-style-semi-automatic-rifle.-imported-and-converted-by-cai.-new.-p-7043.html. Same caliber as the CZ-858. Basically the same capabilities as the CZ-858. It's prohibited because it's an AK "variant." What kind of sense does this make, and what does it do for Canadians?

You obviously don't know what an authorization to transport is. An authorization to transport is a piece of paper issued by a provincial CFO which allows the owner of a restricted firearm to transport their trigger-locked, unloaded and encased firearm to a shooting range, and home again, by the shortest possible route, making no stops in between. Presently, an authorization to transport must be obtained separately to being licensed. It's a needless duplication of paperwork, and does nothing to enhance public safety. I don't see how that would stop the police one iota from laying criminal charges upon an offending individual whether or not the ATT was separate.

Fourth, allowing police forces to sell firearms to the public. The sales of siezed firearms used to be a significant contributor to police budgets. Since C-68, the police have had to make do without that income, further increasing the strain on municipal and provincial budgets, with no effect on public safety. Finally, making firearms licenses last 10 years does not in fact strip the RCMP of its ability to stop licenses, "the form must be verified by another person."

That's an outright lie. This is the actual form that an individual must fill out to renew their firearms license: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/979-eng.pdf. (THIS WAS A LINK I WAS UNABLE TO CONNECT TO) Note that there is no section for verrification by a third party, except a person's spouse, or former spouse. They are only expected to declare that they are aware of the applicant's application for renewal not verrify its authenticity.

As to why the Star chose to publish such an obviously loaded article today, it's clearly to spread irrational fear and provoke knee-jerk reactions among those who share your political bias. And, you fell for it. Why wouldn't the Star publish this in say, June, or August? They did it quite deliberately.

The Star's piece has had the opposite of its intended effect, as several members of the so-called gun-lobby wouldn't actually know about the recommendations if the Star had just kept quiet. In fact, I have personally witnessed several people announce that they'll be making donations to the CPC in direct response to the committee's recommendations, even if the government does nothing.

When is your side ever going to learn that in order to win this particular fight, it must either become educated about firearms, and how they are regulated in Canada, OR, it must learn to keep quiet when it comes to guns, because ignorance, and blatant pandering are just going to keep fueling your enemy's coffers?

While I appreciate the passion and the research that Anon put into his response, his interpretation of the data differs from my own in some fundamental ways. For example, I see even the possibility of a reclassification of the weapons he describes a cause for grave concern, since those weapons serve only one primary purpose, in my mind (an assertion that Anon would likely disagree with).

As well, the sale of seized weaponry may make economic sense, as Anon points out, but from my perspective, anything that facilitates the circulation of guns comes at too high a potential cost to society.

Also, I heartily disagree with his contention that 'my side' unless we have done copious research 'must learn to keep quiet when it comes to guns ... because ignorance, and blatant pandering are just going to keep fueling your enemy's coffers.' Nor do I fault The Star for printing the story. In a democratic and pluralistic society, debate is the one of our key rights and responsibilities. Indeed, what may strike one person as asinine may strike another as perceptive and informed. Hopefully, some new knowledge might ultimately be achieved through the clash of viewpoints.

Left unaddressed in Anon's commentary is a disturbing fact that, according to The Globe article to which he directed me, may be soon rectified. Despite pleas from law enforcement and victims of gun crime for representation, the firearms committee is dominated by sport shooting enthusiasts and those opposed to gun control. Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae suggested that the committee

needed wider representation, including from police chiefs, those fighting domestic violence and groups dealing with suicide prevention, Mr. Harper all but agreed.

Had The Star not run the story, I am dubious as to whether Stephen Harper would have been so receptive to the suggestion.

A testy exchange between Anon and me? Yes. But the fact that we have a fundamental and deep philosophical disagreement neither disturbs nor upsets me, one of the reasons being that unlike so much right-wing commentary that relies on bluster, bullying and empty rhetoric (and I am sure Anon would accuse his ideological opponents of the same shortcomings), Anon made a sincere attempt to support his point of view with documentation. Even though I was unable to get all of the links to function properly, I do appreciate the effort that he made.

It is to state the obvious that we live in extremely polarized times, times when the strategy of many is to simply shout down their opponents. I think the information provided by Anon in our exchange amply demonstrates the possibility of something more productive.

A Law and Order Government That Loves Guns

Anyone still harbouring doubts about whose interests the Harper regime is governing on behalf of would be well-advised to read this story in today's Star. Entitled RCMP concerned as Conservatives consider loosening firearms restrictions, it reveals the latest legislative considerations of a government that claims to be tough on crime, but sees little reason to reduce the opportunity to commit crime.

Co-chaired by Steve Torino of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee met with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and other senior government officials in Ottawa in late March, after the bill to kill the long-gun registry had cleared the Commons and was on the verge of Senate approval.

The committee, comprised almost exclusively of lads who love their guns, has made a series of recommendation to the Harper regime. Amongst the gems are the following:

- getting rid of the “prohibited” category of firearms

- reclassifying weapons such as certain handguns and assault weapons (for example, the AK-47, shown in the picture at the top of this post) as “restricted” only

- removing the requirement on gun owners to get an “authorization to transport” firearms

- making seized firearms — which by law must now be destroyed — legally available for public sale or trade

- making [f]irearms licences ... valid for at least 10 years “or longer,”, a move strongly opposed by the RCMP, since it would impede their “ability to monitor, on a timely basis, any changes to an individual’s mental health status”

The entire breadth of the committee's recommendations can be read here, but surely even the brief overview I have included in this post should be sufficient to lead right-thinking people to realize that whoever the Harper regime is governing on behalf of, it surely isn't the majority of Canadians.

A Clarification From Young Tim

Tim Hudak, the boy who would be premier, has issued a policy clarification:

Hudak said the thrust of his proposal to put alcoholic beverages in corner stores, supermarkets or private specialty stores is to make it easier for Ontario consumers to buy a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine.

Should the master recycler of tired ideas ever attain his ambition of leading the province, I suspect that the ready availability of alcohol, and the temporary solace it provides, will be much appreciated by Ontarians.

Harper's Debasement Of Canadian Foreign Policy

That Canada once enjoyed a sterling reputation in the international arena is something beyond dispute. That its standing has fallen precipitately under the misguided direction of the Harper regime is a truth that I suspect only the most rabidly ideological would disagree with.

Perhaps the most egregious departure from norms that most would consider reasonable is found in its Mid-East policy, which can be summed up in four words: unqualified support for Israel. Despite its disproportionate response to aggression from Hamas, Israel, it seems, can do no wrong in the eyes of our political 'leaders.'

In his Star column today, Tim Harper writes that Canada is doing no favour to the Jewish state by aiding and abetting its reprehensible behaviour. Well worth the read.

Just A Fleeting Thought About Young Tim

I have a busy morning ahead, so just a brief post for now. That serial recycler of tired policy, young Tim Hudak, continues to maintain his naive faith in the virtues of the private sector as a panacea for all that ails us, yesterday calling for the end of the LCBO's monopoly on alcohol sales.

Trumpeting the virtues of privatization, along with the possible sale in whole or in part of the monopoly that injects about $1.6 billion per annum into provincial coffers, the never-ready-for-prime-time-politics leader of the Progressive Conservatives might be advised to supplement his populist rhetoric with a little research. As published in today's Star, Canadian jurisdictions that have privatized sales have seen an increase in prices and a reduction in selection.

Perhaps none of that, however, will matter to those who support the errant but evangelical vision of young Tim.