Stephen Harper - He's Not Here For You

But of course I state the obvious here, don't I? Nonetheless, for those who like regular and ongoing illustrations of the fact that the Prime Minister and his acolytes are in the thrall of 'special interests,' one need look no further than a report in today's Toronto Star.

Currently, non-financial businesses are sitting on over $600 billion in cash reserves, thanks to a very favourable tax regime from the Harperites and similarly obeisant and compliant provincial governments. At the same time, however, these 'masters of the universe,' reluctant to spend their largess on research and development, new equipment purchases, or just about anything else, have gotten new incentive to hoard and count their cash:

The Conservative government says the National Research Council is now “open for business” and will refocus on large-scale projects “directed by and for” Canadian industry — a change some scientists call a mistake.

Part of the mandate of the NRC is to work with and help support industry, but what is new here is the fact that it appears this will now essentially be its exclusive mandate, dictated by the 'needs' of industry.

While one understands that it is difficult for the current government regime, looking as it does with grave suspicion upon critical and nuanced thinking, to comprehend, the words of Nobel laureate John Polanyi, who says that steering the NRC away from basic research is misguided, need to be heard:

“One should structure things so (scientists) have the freedom and responsibility to provide ideas to industry, not just receive commands,” ...

Queen’s University professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, John Smol, explains it this way:

“I look at science as a pyramid. At the bottom you have all this basic fundamental research and at the top you have the applied. But you can’t have the applied without the basic,” he said.

Smol goes so far as to see something quite sinister in the Harper decision to make the NRC the handmaiden of the corporate agenda:

Smol, a lakes ecosystem expert, believes the decision to recast the NRC is part of a Conservative pattern of cutting funding for basic science in favour of applied research that will generate a profit.

“What you find in environmental research are things that will cost industry money,” he says. In a recent study, Smol showed that lakes near Alberta’s oil sands are filled with contaminants.

One assumes that with its new orders, the National Research Council will not anytime soon be conducting such embarrassing studies that could hamper the ever-stronger march of corporate dominance.

Another victory for the Harperites. Another loss for the non-corporate citizens of Canada.

Kellie Leitch Speaks Again In Her 'Master's Voice'

Like the good yeo(wo)man she is, Ms Leitch never deviates from the Harper regime script as she 'answers' Evan Solomon's questions about the Temporary Foreign Worker's Program. One only hopes that her collar is not pulled too tightly; given Canada's doctor shortage, it would be sad to lose a trained practitioner who will, one hopes, be returning to the medical field after the next election.

Hmm... I wonder if Ms Leitch and the ever-faithful Pierre Poilievre get together on occasion to share some kibble and compare talking points?

The Silver Lining

Now that the weather has markedly and rather consistently improved over the past week in my part of Ontario, yard work beckons, so for now I offer this perceptive nugget from a Star reader, who sees some benefit to the Harper regime's estrangement from the United Nations:

Canada not up for UN Security Council seat, May 2

I'm relieved that Canada is not seeking a UN Security Council seat since, if we got it, the Harper government would only use it to lobby for international sanctions against Justin Trudeau.

Steve Morris, Toronto

What Is Democracy?

The other day I wrote a post on the decline of democracy under the Harper regime. Included was reference to Bob Hepburn's recent piece on the same subject. Although I am not quite as cynical as the letter-writer, Star reader Al Dunn of Kingston, in responding to Hepburn, expresses the view that democracy is, in fact only a mirage. See what you think. Here is his letter from today's edition:

Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, Column, May 2

David Herle is supposedly deep in thought about our fading democracy, looking for answers to fix the status quo. He feels installing a new government will not create meaningful change. Duh! Look at the failed promise and dashed worldwide hopes of Barack Obama's election. The “old boys” would not allow him any success; it might initiate a series of challenges to their rigged game. The failed democracy in Canada is but a small part of a global phenomenon. Democracy is a mirage, a fiction the “1 per cent club” allows to continue. No, Mr. Herle, searching within the smoke and mirrors political game will yield no useful answers — people already know this, even if they don't fully comprehend why, and that is why they feel that elections don't matter. And they don't. Big money, lobby groups, etc. run the game. Any new developments on repatriating any of those billions in tax havens so recently made public? No. Politicians are there to please the plutocrats, not the serfs.

The Harper Government's Legacy of Death

Checking my blog archive, I found that I have written a total of 22 posts on asbestos. Here is number 23.

Two years ago, Canada was the sole nation to oppose adding chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous products under the Rotterdam Convention. Such a listing would not have banned the export of the deadly substance, but would have required proper labelling and explicit instructions as to its safe handling. Such labelling would have enabled

developing countries — where asbestos and most hazardous substances are shipped nowadays — to be informed of the dangers. They thus have the right to refuse the product or, at least, have a better chance of protecting their population from harm.

At the time, the Harperites hypocritically insisted that it was a safe substance (even though, of course, it is listed in Canada as a hazardous substance) if handled properly, but then prevented the possibility of safe handling by preventing its inclusion under Annex 111 of the Rotterdam Convention.

The government's rationale for its immoral act was both chilling and mercenary:

"This government will not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted," Harper said.

As reported in today's Star, this week the Rotterdam Convention will meet in Geneva, and this time, when the vote is called to place chysotile asbestos on the convention’s list of hazardous substances, Canada will not oppose it.

Has the Harper government experienced an epiphany? Hardly. Since the Parti Quebecois cancelled a $58 million loan to Canada’s last asbestos mine, the Jeffrey Mine, it will not reopen, effectively ending Canada's export of death and disease. It is noteworthy, however, that the Harper regime will be graceless and petty to the end. Instead of voting to add chrysotile to the list of hazardous materials, it will remain silent.

Not that it really will make any difference one way or the other. Unlike two years ago, when Canada was single-handedly responsible for the substance's exclusion from Annex 111, this year Russia, the world’s biggest asbestos exporter, and Zimbabwe, attending for the first time and eager to reopen its asbestos mines and resume asbestos exports, will play the spoiler roles in preventing its proper labelling.

So Canada must bear the exclusive responsibility for the ongoing suffering, disease and death that is chrysotile's legacy. While I'm sure Harper and his many disciples will not lose any sleep over this ugly and immoral truth, those of us with any semblance of humanity just might.

A Glimmer Of Principle

Laurie Hawn, Alberta

Brent Rathgeber, Alberta

Kevin Sorenson, Alberta

Mike Allen, New Brunswick

Joe Daniel, Ontario

Larry Miller, Ontario

Stephen Woodworth, Ontario

What do all of the above M.P.s have in common? In addition to being members of the federal Conservative caucus, each, it seems, has some surprising integrity. Each has refused to participate in the Harper plan to use taxpayer-funded mailouts to attack Justin Trudeau.

In that, they have earned my respect, which, in itself, I suppose, is a pretty sad commentary on the Conservative Party of Canada. After all, they are only doing what is morally, ethically, and fiscally right in refusing to participate in another Harper-led scheme of character assassination.

I can only hope others will join in this 'palace revolt.'

Are Canadians Experiencing Buyers' Remorse?

Many of us who blog, tweet, or post political views on Facebook cannot, I suspect, avoid the periodic and unsettling notion that we are simply 'preaching to the converted' instead of reaching a larger audience with our perspectives and commentaries. Yet we persevere, both as a catharsis for our own outrage over social and political injustices, especially (at least for me) those induced by the Harper cabal, and in the hope that our words may influence those who don't necessarily feel as we do. But it is always just a hope.

That is why I take such delight when I read things in the mainstream media that suggest our discontent is shared by a constituency much wider than our blogosphere, thereby offering reasons for renewed optimism that changes in Ottawa are indeed quite possible. Such is the case today in reading The Star's Chantal Hebert. Entitled Stephen Harper’s legacy in government may be nastiness, her column suggests that those who made possible the Harper majority are now feeling buyers' remorse:

The latest voting intentions sounding — done by Harris/Decima for The Canadian Press earlier this week — shows the Conservatives in second place, seven points behind the Liberals and more than 10 points down from their 2011 level.

While acknowledging that the results stem in part from Justin Trudeau's recent assumption of the Liberal Party leadership, Hebert suggests they are also a natural consequence of the politics of negativity that Harper and his functionaries have continued to embrace so rabidly, despite their majority:

With a consistency that would have been exemplary if only it had been exerted on the policy front, the majority Conservatives have treated Parliament and the country to [ongoing contempt].

At times it has seemed as if, having fought so hard to conquer a majority, they felt compelled to act like an occupying army rather than a government accountable to all.

Hebert makes the point that Canadians are used to their politics being rough, reminding us of some of the antics and abuses of power that characterized the Chretien reign. She does observe, however, that his government's saving grace was

a series of signature policies for which support extended outside the core Liberal base. A return to balanced budgets, the Clarity Act and a refusal to follow the Americans’ lead on Iraq are three examples.

By contrast, all Harper has left is his die-hard 'true believers', the rest totally alienated from his antics:

He promised to fix the democratic deficit that plagued Parliament. Instead Harper’s contribution to that deficit already surpasses that of his predecessors.

The Conservatives were going to end the culture of entitlement that pervaded previous governments. Instead, some of Harper’s senators and ministers have embraced that culture in relative impunity.

The prime minister also vouched to restore accountability to government. Instead, he has presided over increasingly opaque budgets and a Kafkaesque regime of communication designed to obscure rather than inform. The auditor general himself has trouble following the money through the federal system these days.

Despite my retirement, the English teacher within lives on. Upon reading Hebert's observations, my mind went to a scene in Shakespeare's Macbeth, when, near the end of his unjust and cruel rule, Macbeth is facing invasion from the English, who are helping Scottish patriots overthrow the tyrant. Someone asks about Macbeth's status:

13 Some say he's mad; others that lesser hate him

14 Do call it valiant fury; but, for certain,

15 He cannot buckle his distemper'd cause

16 Within the belt of rule.

ANGUS

Now does he feel

17 His secret murders sticking on his hands;

18 Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach;

19 Those he commands move only in command,

20 Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title

21 Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe

22 Upon a dwarfish thief.

(Act 5, Scene 2)

I, and many others live in the hope that the dwarfish thief currently reigning in Ottawa is soon to experience a 'wardrobe malfunction' and lose his Prime Minister's robes. Hebert's article gives me renewed hope for that outcome.