308 Independent MPs -Canada Needs More Than Just Electoral Reform

Much has been written about the need for electoral reform in Canada. I first started hearing about it during the Chretien years when the Liberal Party won successive majority governments while achieving less than 50% of the popular vote. But the notion has really come to a head with The Conservative Party of Canada having won it's recent majority government with slightly less than 38% of the popular vote. 

The skillful use of Smoke and Mirrors:

First Past the Post

Stephen Harper and the CPC were able to use skillful campaigning, a tightly controlled message aimed at a targeted number of "swing-ridings" in vote rich Ontario as well as ethically questionable tactics borrowed from the well financed Republican Party in the States to manipulate our "First Past the Post" electoral system into it's first majority government. And the CPC are using their majority of seats like a blunt force object to hammer away at Canada and it's socially and democratically responsible system of governance. All of which has left the 62% (+/-) of us who did not ask for this majority, wringing our hands and feeling quite helpless in the face of the Harper Juggernaut. We look to tomorrow and see a Canada that is considerably less kind and gentle while appearing to be much poorer (both financially as well as morally) and increasingly careless and callous with our environment. 

So as a result, many Canadians are now organizing and advocating for a fairer electoral system, one that is less likely to be manipulated by overenthusiastic, pimple-faced, morally bankrupt, backroom, political zealots.... and their object of worship. A system in which each vote counts and our Parliament is more reflective of the will of the majority of people rather than the will of the well connected and the bamboozled minority.  This is referred to as "Proportional Representation"  and such high-profile politicians as Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May are adding their voices to the growing number of advocates. "Fair Vote Canada" has been one of the most vocal and well organized groups promoting Proportional Representation. 

The Complications of Proportional Representation:

The Honorable
Stephane Dion

Now there have been a number of "Proportional Representation" Models devised by people much wiser than myself. On the surface of it, one would think that this would not be such a complicated task. But alas, this is not the case. Fair Vote Canada advocates for three such systems: List Systems, Mixed Member Proportional Systems and Single Transferable Vote.  The Honorable Stephane Dion has devised a fourth system referred to as "P3". With out going into great detail (readers can check out the links for themselves) it seems that each system requires such things as multiple lists of candidates from competing parties, prioritizing and ranking of candidates and complicated "formulas"  (for the mathematically challenged among us like myself) . Mr. Dion proposes having more than one MP, perhaps as many as five in each riding. Needless to say, compared to our relatively "easy" First-Past-The-Post system, these alternatives can seem rather confusing and complicated. 

Despite the apparent complication of these Proportional systems, several countries in the world, such s Brazil, Australia, Israel and Russia already employ such systems. Their effectiveness however, is open to conjecture. Canada has dabbled with introducing these systems at the the Provincial level (British Columbia and Ontario) but they have been met with reluctance from the electorate. 

One possible benefit of these systems is the elimination of majority governments (again, whether or not this is seen as a benefit is a matter of opinion). This possibility would certainly eliminate heavy-handed governments such as the CPC in the future.  But as we saw when Harper had a minority Government, he simply stacked the Senate with Conservative Cronies, there-by ensuring his "will would be done" anyway. 

Is Electoral Reform Alone the Answer?

Canadian MPs  Influenced More By the Party Whip
Than By their Constituents.

It would seem then, that what ails our democracy here in Canada the most, is not so much our electoral system but the rabid partisanship of our political parties. It is becoming increasingly apparent that genuine political debate is becoming a thing of the past and that rhetoric and character assassination have become the order of the day. And it would seem that, as displayed by the number of "whipped" votes that occur in Parliament, MPs are no longer free to vote their conscience and that back-benchers, as seen in the C-38 fiasco, have been reduced to nothing but cheerleaders. The best interests of parties seems to be more important in Ottawa now than the best interest of the country. This may have been the case to a certain extent for quite some time, but this rabid partisanship seems to have been personified by the CPC. 

What I therefore suggest; and I realize that in this current political climate, it is a "pie in the sky" scenario, is that for the sake of democracy and the sake of the country, political parties be eliminated. We could then keep our rather simplistic "First Past The Post" system but each of the 308 ridings in Canada would elect a 100% independent Member of Parliament, each one free to vote his or her's conscience and/or according to the will of the people in their respective ridings. 

A Partyless Democracy:

Eliminating
Hyper-Partisan Rhetoric

There are no major democratic countries in the world that operate with out political parties and some observers might suggest that a country that functions with out political parties might be more open to degenerating into a totalitarian state or one that is influenced more by other external forces rather than the will of the people. I would argue however that this would be less likely to happen in a country with a strong democratic tradition and an engaged electorate. 

But democracies can and do operate on smaller scales without parties, including right here in Canada. In most Canadian municipalities, party affiliation is largely non-existent (unless you happen to live in Toronto where the current mayor is known to go fishing with the Prime Minister). In cities such as my home town of Hamilton Ontario, Councillors and the Mayor are elected on their individual merits rather than on party affiliations. While there might be "voting blocks" in Council from time to time, they usually arise as a result of individual issues and have nothing what so ever to do with party affiliations or allegiances. 

In the Canadian Territories of Nunavut and the North-West Territory, these governments, unlike the governments of the 10 Provinces, function completely with out political parties. The Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected in each of the ridings and they in turn, chose first the Speaker of the House, then the Premier and then the  Cabinet Ministers. The remaining MLAs are then seen as the "opposition".  

So while there are no large scale examples of a "Partyless Democracy" there is no reason why it couldn't work in a country the size of Canada. It is acknowledged that it would certainly take several years to "wean" current politicians off of their respective party allegiances and that unofficial "voting blocks" could be formed in the House. But as with politics at the municipal level, they would most likely arise on a situation by situation basis rather than on an ongoing, permanent  basis. 

How it Might Work:

Whether The Prime Minister and Cabinet are selected in the same manner as in the Territorial models, by the individual members of the House, or the Prime Minister is elected on the same ballot as the MPs in each riding as with the municipal model, depends on how much direct say  the electorate wishes to have in the selection process. If the PM were selected by the House, he/she would constantly be subject to the confidence of the House as with minority governments today.If Parliament selects the Prime Minister and he or she fails to maintain the confidence of the House, they could be replaced by Parliament with out having to consult with the Governor General or going to the Polls. A single four or five year Parliamentary cycle then, could see more than one Prime Minister. As such,the Prime Minister and Cabinet are wholly accountable to Parliament rather than the opposite such as we have today and their continuation in their elected capacities would depend entirely on their performance. 

I would also suggest that selection of Cabinet Ministers and the Speaker would be best left up to the Members of the House as it would be far too complicated and unwieldy a task for each to be chosen by the electorate. And I would suggest that, rather than being chosen by the Prime Minister, having the Cabinet Ministers chosen by the House would be more efficient and would make each Minister more accountable to his peers. It would keep the Cabinet more balanced and eliminate the  possibility of the PM selecting his own cronies. 

Elizabeth May

Another added bonus of a "Partyless" system would be that single hard working MPs would have an equal opportunity of becoming Prime Minister. For example, one of the hardest working Parliamentarians in the House today is Elizabeth May. But because she is not the leader of one of the three main party's, it is virtually impossible for her to become Prime Minister under our current system of Government unless she jumps ship and joins a "winning team". In a Parliament with out parties, Ms. May would have as good an opportunity to become Prime Minister as any other skilled MP.

Oh, and since the Senate was formed primarily as a "House of Sober Second Thought" to offset possible partisanship attached to any legislation passed by the Lower House, There would no longer be any need for the Red Chamber. Party Partisanship would be eliminated and each and every MP would then be equally important and have a voice in the House. And each would ultimately be accountable to their constituents rather than to the party or to the "Non Elected" muscle of the PMO. 

Democratic Reform will not be just Handed to us:

We cannot count on our current politicians to willingly give up the system we have now. It is up to Canadian citizens to demand this kind of change. We must be the ones to pressure our elected officials to give up the "Old Boy's Clubs" that currently inhabits Parliament Hill. But if the pressure is hard enough and sustained enough at the constituency level and enough candidates choose to run as Independents, Canada may yet come to see the birth of a democracy that could well  be the envy of the world. 

308 Independent MPs, Each one equal,
Each one Accountable

Could Harper be the World's Worst Economist?

Jim Flaherty
"I Spend, therefore I am"

First of all, lets get something out of the way. Jim Flaherty might be the Finance Minister, But Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls the shots. This is not a scenario peculiar to Flaherty. It is the same with every other cabinet portfolio in the government. The Ministers might be the front men, but the policies are the Prime Minister's. This is how Harper does business. Those who work with him know this. Those who challenge him are no longer with the government. 

Harper Fancies Himself an Economist:

Harper fancies himself an economist. He has a degree in economics from the University of Calgary.- A word here about the Calgary School of Economics. The name is meant to be a take-off of the Chicago School of Economics who's most famous and influential participant was Milton Friedman, the God Father of Disaster Capitalism and the guy who helped Augusto Pinochet rebuild Chile's economy after his brutal Coup d'etat in 1973. Both the Chicago and Calgary schools can be called "schools of Neoliberal thought"  (economic Liberalism as opposed to social Liberalism) in that they believe in economic Liberalization and deregulation, free trade and completely open markets.  In addition, these schools are vehemently anti-union in that they feel:

(1)"People are "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic". Being egoistic, people are motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they make decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there are no opportunities to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they will become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labor is either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believe that men of higher rank are motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members". 

So as a result, "Neoliberal adherents are also completely anti-social safety-net as well, believing that these programs are "demotivators" to the work force who should be spurred on by the "fear of hunger" or the possibility of "great reward".


Harper the Man and Harper the Economist:

So this gives us a glimpse into Harper's values as an economist. They are cold, pragmatic and ruthless, which, for the most part, is a reflection of the man himself.  It should be noted however, that Mr. H was never, ever a "practicing" economist. He went straight from post secondary studies into the waiting arms of the Reform Party, a group of social-hooligans who's modus operandi seemed to suit young Stephen's economic and political theories. And that is the key word here: "theories".

Harper's knowledge of Economics is purely theoretical. With the exception of his years as Prime Minister, he has no real-world experience in the field. With this in mind, lets take a brief look at Harper's track record as an economist.

- In 2006, Stephen Harper became the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada. He inherited from Paul Martin, his predecessor,  a $16 billion government surplus. By the time of the Great Financial Melt-Down of 2008, that surplus was completely squandered. This is in part, due to  decreasing the Governments revenue stream that was generated by the GST from 7% to 5% at a cost of $19 billion from 2007 to 2009 alone. 

- In 2008, the great recession enveloped the world. Even though Canada was in a better position to weather the storm than our neighbours to the south, largely as a result of banking and economic regulations implemented by previous governments, it was an election year so Harper needed to be seen to be doing something about it. He was failing miserably on the environmental front so the recession provided him with the opportunity to play on his perceived strengths - the economy and "fear" - and to divert the national consciousness away from the environment which was, and remains, nothing but a nuisance to him anyway. So what did dear old Stephen do? He emulated the U.S. strategy which was largely unnecessary in Canada. In direct contravention of his Neoliberal roots, Harper got all Keynesian and spent truck loads of money the country didn't have. In a matter of three short years, Harper, the great economist, spent us from a $16 billion surplus to a $53 billion deficit. 

- Even while he was being Keynesian in his spending, Harper continued to be Neoliberal in other ways, as though he couldn't make up his mind how best to handle the nations purse strings. He decided to make good on campaign promises he had made to big business by reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 16.5% which is even lower than the US which is the self-proclaimed world capital of capitalism. This has greatly reduced yet another revenue stream  and cost Canada $22 billion in income since 2006. 

- So now that Harper has unnecessarily spent like a drunken sailor, accumulating the largest debt in Canadian history while slashing major sources of revenue, Harper's Neoliberal strategy is to make the poorest people in the country pay for his spending habits. He is doing this by slashing social programs,  laying off thousands of federal employees, changing qualification criteria for Employment Insurance, making people on EI accept lower paying jobs farther from home, upping the age for old age security from 65 to 67 (despite information from various real economists that this was a completely unnecessary move) and making immigrant workers work for 15% less than their Canadian counterparts. 

Stephen Lectures the World:

OK STEVE! Stop begging you're embarrassing yourself
You can sit at the BIG KIDS table this one time
But only if you promise to keep your trap SHUT!

Harper, especially of late, is prone to lecturing the leaders of the G20 and the European Union about how to handle their respective economies, saying they should emulate Canada (and of course, Stephen himself) He sites fiscal restraint and deregulation as the way to beat the global crisis. However, he fails to mention that economic regulations from previous governments are a major reason for Canada fairing better than many countries and that, rather than being fiscally responsible, he has spent Canada into a record breaking debt. I wonder then, at what point the other world leaders are going tell Stephen to "take a long walk off  a short pier"? It's no wonder he had to beg to be allowed to "observe" the Trans Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership talks recently. I wouldn't be surprised if Barack Obama told Stephen he could come along for the ride on the condition he kept his mouth shut!

(1) From the Wikipedia article on Classical Liberalism

MacKay Has Become a Political Liability

"Et-Tu MacKay"?

When the Reform/Alliance party and Progressive Conservatives decided to cohabitate in 2003, Peter MacKay had only just been crowned Lord of the PCs. He had won that leadership race by promising David Orchard, another PC leadership hopeful that he would never, ever, ever, ever, in a million years negotiate amalgamation with Stephen Harper and the dreaded Western radicals. Based on this promise, Orchard threw his weight behind MacKay and the added numbers pushed  him to victory. The problem is, MacKay lied. 

The after-glow from his victory had barely faded when MacKay entered into negotiations with Harper and the stage was thusly set for the weak and withering PCs to be cannibalized by the predatory Reformites. MacKay, declining to vie for the captaincy of the new team, paved the way for Steve the Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist to become the Once and Future King. But Savvy Steve realized from the get-go that even though his Reformites were the alpha-dogs in the New Conservative Party, MacKay carried some weight in that he still represented the minority PCs - those unfortunate individuals who suffered under the delusion that Harper was an equal opportunity employer. The Reverend Steve needed the old PCs to continue to be deluded until such time that he could collar and neuter them. To that end, he gave MacKay positions of power and influence first in his shadow cabinet and later in his actual cabinet when the Reform-Conservative conglomerate won it's first minority government in 2006. 

Belinda Stronach

Given the Machiavellian way in which MacKay betrayed his old party, Harper - himself an adherent of The Prince- probably felt it best to keep one so capable of treachery content and close at hand- likely remembering the old adage about keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. To Harper, anyone not in his inner circle was an enemy. But Harper should have noticed something was amiss as far back as 2004 when MacKay was dating the lovely automobile heiress and co-Conservative, Belinda Stronach. Stronach had figured out pretty early in the game that there was only room for one voice in the New Conservative Party and that was Harper's. She subsequently crossed the floor into the open arms of Paul Martin's Liberal party and into an instant cabinet position. MacKay's reaction was, to say the least, embarrassing. 

A Boy and His Neighbor's Dog

Upon hearing of his girlfriend's defection to the Liberals, MacKay reportedly flew in to a frenzied rage. Then, like a jilted school-boy, he returned to his home riding to mope. Heart rendering, staged pictures surfaced of a long-faced, broken hearted MacKay being consoled by his ever faithful dog. Problem is, MacKay doesn't own a dog. Back in Parliament, when MacKay was asked about the pooch by opposition members, he pointed to Stronach's empty seat and said: "you already have her". MacKay never owned up to, nor apologized for the derogatorily childish remark. His behaviour was nothing less than an embarrassment to the new Reform-a-Con party. 

MacKay believes he is treating "Condi"
to a unique Canadian dining experience. But
unbeknownst to Peter, there are over 600
Timmies outlets in the States

When the Reformites finally won an election in 2006, albeit with a minority, MacKay was dubbed "Minister of Foreign Affairs", a position of reasonable responsibility in the Harper Government. To say that MacKay was, for the most part, ineffectual in this position, is an understatement. His major accomplishment while in Foreign Affairs was to treat U.S Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice to Coffee at a Nova Scotia Tim Horton's. But the relative comfort the two seemed to have in each other's company led many rumor-mongers to suggest that MacKay and Rice had a "thing" for each other. Given his track record with women, the story might not be too far from the truth. 

In 2007, MacKay was shuffled to the Ministry of Defense, a position which better suited his "manly" image. MacKay liked to dress up in camouflaged out-fits, hang out with soldiers and take helicopter rides, even if it was just to go fishing. 

In 2010, MacKay attempted to renegotiate the free lease for Camp Mirage, Canada's "secret" military base in The United Arab Emirates. The folks in the UAE were more than willing to let Canadian troops continue to use the base free of charge as they had done since 2001. But in return, they wanted their national airlines to have increased access to Canadian airspace. To MacKay, this seemed like not such a bad deal. But it was promptly nixed by Harper who apparently has a thing about doing business with Arabs ( though he apparently has no qualms about doing business with various other totalitarian states. Maybe it's just that he can relate to them better). But Harper subsequently pulled some outlandish numbers out of his magic hat saying that a deal with the Emirates airlines would cost Canadians tens of thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars. He never accounted for those bizarre figures.

But with MacKay's bomb-shell of a deal effectively nuked by Harper, he returned to Ottawa in a particularly petulant mood. In yet another embarrassing display of immaturity unbecoming a Minister of State, MacKay was seen wearing a "Fly Emirates" baseball cap, an obvious "screw you" message to his boss.

"So Peter, does this thing come with engines"?

So MacKay set to work on what had become a government priority, namely upgrading the Canadian Armed Forces into a modern fighting force (as opposed to it's more traditional Peace Keeping role). To this end, MacKay set about procuring more and more up to date military technology and machinery for every arm of the Canadian Forces. The sum total of all of these procurements, from trucks to ships to stealth fighters was to cost Canadian tax payers billions upon billions of dollars. And in every instance, MacKay has either screwed up, misrepresented or outright lied about the true cost of each of his "deals". The most notable was his underestimating the cost of Canada's new Stealth Fighters by $10 billion. And not only did he lie about this snafu, he concealed his foul up, even as the country was heading into an election in May of 2011. During the campaign, the Harperites continued to push the original estimate of $14 billion for the cost of the 65 war-birds, even though they knew the estimate was off by almost half. 

But this was not the first time MacKay had lied or conspired to withhold the truth....aside from his betrayal of the PCs that is. In 2007, it had come to light that Canadian Forces were handing over captured Afghan detainees to local authorities, knowing they would likely be tortured. Harper of course, ranted in Parliament and damned anyone who questioned our men and women in uniform as being un Canadian and of siding with the Taliban. Of course, the more information that was revealed, the more likely it became that Harper and MacKay were both complicit in the torture of detainees because they knew it was happening and did nothing about it. So it is now possible that the International Court of Justice may seek charges against MacKay and Harper as war criminals, much as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are considered as war criminals by many in the international community. 

And as it seems that every day that goes by reveals yet another botched military procurement, lets not forget MacKay's  "St. Jean Baptiste Day" speech at the French Embassy in Ottawa where he proudly proclaimed that the French and English had fought side by side against the Americans in 1812. Not only was this un-true, but the fact was, England was at war with France in 1812 and if anything, the French supported the American war effort. So it seems that not only is MacKay not very good at buying things, he is not too up on his Canadian History, especially on facts that are commonly known to most grade seven students in this country. 

Ms. Afshin-Jam MacKay, a vocal critic of the 
Governments position on Omar Khadr

Oh, and MacKay's woman trouble seems to have continued as well. He fell for and subsequently married Nazanin Afshin-Jam, a former Iranian Beauty Queen and model earlier this year. Recently, the outspoken wife of the Defense Minister publically stated, contrary to the Government of Harper's position, that Omar Khadr, the Canadian Citizen being detained in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, should be repatriated immediately. One wonders how the petulant MacKay will reconcile that public relations faux-pas with his Boss. Perhaps he has a "Free Omar" ball cap he can wear to the next caucus meeting. 

When one looks at MacKay's track record of failures, miscues, misdeeds, cover-ups and out-right lies since becoming a Minister of the State, not to mention his immature, juvenile behaviour, it is now well past the time for Harper to cut his losses with this national embarrassment. The Prime Minister had no difficulties showing Bev Oda the door earlier this summer for making the party look bad and costing tax payers thousands of dollars. By comparison, MacKay is costing Canada billions in un-accounted for dollars and is continually making the Government look ridiculous both at home and on the world stage. What ever political advantage Harper had in Keeping MacKay around is now lost as even die-hard Red Tories and old school PCs would not be upset to see the screen door hit him in the back-side as he's ushered from cabinet. Regardless of old loyalties (something of which MacKay knows nothing), when a long standing member of the party is seen to be doing it more harm than good, it's time for those loyalties to be put aside and ties to be severed.  MacKay the Machiavellian would have no trouble with this. Neither should Harper.

"Throw in cigarette lighters and AM/FM radios
 and I'll take 65 of these babies".

Is the Dutch Disease Theory Really a Wedge Issue?

Alberta Oil Refinery

This past Spring, newly-minted NDP leader Thomas Mulcair introduced the notion of "Dutch Disease" in relation to the Canadian economy. Simply put, he meant that the booming oil economy in Alberta is inflating the Canadian dollar which in turn, is negatively impacting the manufacturing sector in the rest of the country, particularly Ontario which, once upon a time, was the economic engine of the country. 


Almost on cue, the western-centric Reform/Conservatives,sensing an attack on their economic and political base, lashed out at Mulcair saying his comments were not only faulty, but divisive (talk about the pot calling the kettle black). They even released their first attack add aimed at the NDP leader, claiming his theories were "risky" and that he is promoting "dangerous economic experiments". 


In June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  released a report that in essence, lent credence to Mulcair's assertion, saying that the Government needs to do more to promote the "non-resource" sector of the economy in order to maintain a higher employment rate and a more even distribution of wealth across the country. 

Gotta build us a FIREWALL around Alberta

Since then, there has been nary a word from the Reformists about "dangerous economic experiments" but they have certainly kept up their stinging mantra about Mulcair's comments being divisive and "anti-west". As with their misleading  commentary about the legitimacy of coalition governments, usual CPC operating procedure is to repeat the same erroneous statement over and over again until it becomes believable - believable at least, to the uninformed and the CPC's Reformist base. 


But were Mulcair's comments divisive? Were they an attack on the west? It was certainly easy for many Canadians to jump on that band wagon, claiming that the "Bearded Wonder" was no better than Harper in his use of the politics of division, pitting Alberta against Eastern Canada which in itself, is a festering rivalry reminiscent of the Hadfields and the McCoys. The Reformists of course, were only too happy to fan those flames. But why is applying the Dutch Disease theory to Canada divisive? 


No where in Mulcair's comments was he using an accusatory tone with regard to Alberta and why should he? Is it Alberta's fault that someone discovered oil in their back yard? Is it Alberta's fault that this find is causing their economy to boom? Of course not. Nor is it their fault that their good fortune, just happens to be having a negative impact on the manufacturing sector. It's a side effect of the oil boom, but certainly not one that was foreseen or was intentional. And I can find no where in Mulcair's theories where it says that Alberta should stop being prosperous. No, his is merely a statement of possible fact in relation to a theory that may actually have some merit. It has no blame what so ever attached to it.

In simple terms, this situation is not unlike two neighbours living side by side. For years, one has been cultivating and nurturing an Oak tree in his back yard. Finally, after much patience, the Oak matures into a beautiful shade tree, one that would certainly add to the value of the owners property. The problem is, the branches spread out over the property line and deposits leaves and other debris in the other neighbour's yard. It is certainly not the tree owner's fault that his Oak is creating a problem for the guy next door. But it is a problem none the less. Will hurling insults over the fence line at each other solve the issue? Certainly not. So how do good neighbours collaborate to resolve the issue in a way that's acceptable to both property owners? 


It is not a bad thing then, that Mr. Mulcair had the courage to raise this Dutch Disease issue. It was a simple statement of the facts as he see's them, with no actual blame attached to them. So how then, does Western and Eastern Canada work together as good neighbours to resolve this potential problem in a way that is mutually beneficial?   Certainly not by being defensive and assigning guilt, but through understanding and negotiation. The way Canadians usually solve their problems. 

C-38 has Awoken a Sleeping Giant

After his devastating attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was reported to have said:  "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."


After years of appearing to be the "Teflon-Don" during which no transgression seemed to stick to him no matter how heinous, Stephen Harper seems to have finally found the limit to what Canadians will collectively accept from their politicians. Engaging in nasty smear campaigns didn't do it. Proroguing Parliament not once but twice to avoid accountability didn't do it. Complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees didn't do it. Thumbing his nose at our democratic process didn't do it. Stacking the Senate with partisan stooges after promising to reform the Red Chamber didn't do it. The atrocities of the G20 in Toronto didn't do it. Corrupt party insiders, illegal and unethical behaviour by his ministers nor the "In and Out" affair could do it, Contempt of Parliament didn't do it. The muzzling and firing of Government whistle-blowers and scientists didn't do it. Rampant election fraud which is currently seeing investigation into questionable CPC campaign activities in 200 of 308 ridings didn't do it. Lying to the country about the real cost of the F-35 didn't do it. But the craming through of the massively undemocratic and environmentally disasterous  425 page Omnibus Budget Bill, simply known as C-38, seems to have found the electorate's boiling point. He has attacked our country. Stephen Harper has realized his Pearl Harbour and he has awoken a Sleeping Giant  - the Canadian People.


Why it has taken Canadians so long to stir from their cozy hibernation is open to conjecture. Some might point to our stoic nature brought on by generations of living in a harsh Northern Climate. Or perhaps the "stiff upper lip" of our English colonial heritage. Others might make the claim that ever since the Mulroney years and subsequent Sponsorship scandal of the Chretien Government, Canadians have become jaded about our politicians and have come to accept unethical and hyper-partisan behaviour as business as usual on Parliament Hill.  More than likely however, our awakening has been a gradual process, brought on by a number of factors rather than a sudden jolt. 


Like Yamamoto, Harper is a skilled tactician. He uses stealth and duplicity much as the venerable Japanese Admiral might have in order to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting enemy before they knew what had hit them. But in Harper's case, the enemy is the Canada he hates so much that he has promised we won't know it by the time he's done changing it. He has mastered the arts of bafflegab and doublespeak, referring to the disastrous C-38 as the "Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act" for example. A primary tactic is for Harper and his minions to tell the same un-truth so often that it becomes an accepted truth (such as the Conservative myth that coalition governments are undemocratic). And it works every time. But first among his many dastardly ploys is the use of "wedge politics". Divide and conquer as it were. He has pitted east against west, French against English, young against old, men against women, urban against rural, created the illusion of an elitist artistic class and painted them as the enemy of the working class, painted a healthy and organized working class as the enemy of a prosperous  nation and painted anyone who disagrees with his policies as enemies of democracy  when in reality, Harper is the real enemy of Canada and our democratic heritage. 

But Mr. Harper has gotten cocky with the absolute power his majority government has given him and with the iron-fisted control he exerts over his perpetually "whipped" caucus. With the creation of the behemoth Omnibus budget bill, he has strayed from the wedge-politics that have proven so successful for him in the past. It is so vast and so far reaching as to literally piss-off almost every segment of Canadian society. The result is that otherwise disparate factions are unified in their enmity of the tyrannical Harper. Socialists, Students, immigrants, Aboriginals, Anglophones and Francophones, Seniors, Women's rights activists, the poor the disaffected, tree-hugging environmentalists and trade unionists are joining hands with Doctors, Lawyers, scientists, pilots, grass-roots conservatives,Veterans, Red Tories and former Conservative cabinet ministers in an unprecedented alliance  to speak out and to protest not only the most destructive and undemocratic piece of legislation ever forced upon an unsuspecting nation ("I never voted for this" one ex-conservative Canadian was heard to say) but the most destructive and undemocratic Government in our History.  


And while it took the "Sleeping Giant" almost four years to punish it's enemy after the Pearl Harbour disaster, we have slightly less than that before the next election,  at which time, Harper and his minions will pay for their attack on our country. He will feel the wrath of the Canadian people for we are filled with a terrible resolve.

Harper's Chopping Block

Harper's Chopping Block (An Unofficial List of Orgs & Agencies the Harper Gov't Has 

Gutted, "Defunded" and Otherwise Destroyed)

By Lynette Casserole Bondarchuk on Wednesday, March 11, 2011

Harper's Chopping Block

An unofficial list of organizations and government agencies that the Harper government has gutted, "defunded" and otherwise destroyed

by Judith Szabo and Pearl Eliadis (from X-Ray Magazine http://xraymagazine.ca/18/4/)

Organizations and watchdogs whose staff have been fired, forced out, publicly maligned, or who have resigned in protest:

• Canada Firearms Program (Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak, fired)

• Canadian Wheat Board (Adrian Measner, fired)

• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (Linda Keen, fired)

• Foreign Affairs (Richard Colvin, silenced by prorogation)

• Military Police Complaints Commission (Peter Tinsley, forced out)

• Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces (Yves Coté, resigned)

• Parliamentary Budget Officer (Kevin Page, publicly maligned) 

• RCMP Police Complaints Commission (Paul Kennedy, fired)

• Rights & Democracy  (Rémy Beauregard, died of heart attack)

• Statistics Canada (Munir Sheikh, resigned in protest)

• Veterans Ombudsman (Col. Pat Stogran, forced out)

• Victims of Crime, Ombudsman (Steve Sullivan, forced out)

Community organizations, NGOs and research bodies reported to have been cut or "defunded" [1]:

• Aboriginal Healing Foundation (addition)

• Action travail des femmes

• Afghan Association of Ontario, Canada Toronto

• Alberta Network of Immigrant Women

• Alternatives (Quebec)

• Association féminine d’éducation et d’action sociale (AFEAS)

• Bloor Information and Life Skills Centre[2]

• Brampton Neighbourhood Services (Ontario) [3]

• Canadian Arab Federation

• Canadian Child Care Federation

• Canadian Council for International Cooperation

• Canadian Council on Learning

• Canadian Council on Social Development

• Canadian Heritage Centre for Research and Information on Canada

• Canadian International Development Agency, Office of Democratic Governance[4]

• Canadian Labour Business Centre

• Canada Policy Research Networks

• Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women

• Canada School of Public Service

• Canadian Teachers' Federation International porgram

• Canadian Volunteerism Initiative

• Centre de documentation sur l’éducation des adultes et la condition feminine

• Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA.)

• Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples (Toronto

• Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada

• Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Specialink

• Climate Action Network

• Community Access Program, internet access for communities at libraries, post offices, community centers

• Community Action Resource Centre (CARC)

• Conseil d’intervention pour l’accès des femmes au travail  (CIAFT)

• Court Challenges Program (except language rights cases and legacy cases)

• Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood Centre Toronto: (Funding cut by CIC in December 2010).

• Democracy Council[5]

• Department of Foreign Affairs, Democracy Unit[6]

• Elspeth Heyworth Centre for Women Toronto: (Funding cut by CIC in December 2010).

• Environment: Youth International Internship Program

• Eritrean Canadian Community Centre of Metropolitan Toronto (Funding cut by CIC in December 2010)

• Feminists for Just and Equitable Public Policy (FemJEPP) in Nova Scotia

• First Nations Child and Family Caring Society

• First Nations and Inuit Tobacco Control Program

• Forum of Federations

• Global Environmental Monitoring System

• HRD Adult Learning and Literacy programs

• HRD Youth Employment Programs

• Hamilton’s Settlement and Integration Services Organization  (Ontario) [7]

• Immigrant settlement programs

• Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services (Peel)[8]

• International Planned Parenthood Federation

• Kairos[9]

• Law Reform Commission of Canada

• Mada Al-Carmel Arab Centre

• Marie Stopes International, a maternal health agency (has received only  a promise of "conditional funding IF it avoids any and all connection with abortion).

• MATCH International

• National association of Women and the Law (NAWL)

• Native Women’s Association of Canada

• New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity

• Northwood Neighbourhood Services (Toronto: (Funding cut by CIC in December 2010).

• Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH)

• Ontario Association of Transitional Housing (OAITH)

• Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care

• Pride Toronto

• Réseau des Tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec

• Riverdale Women’s Centre in Toronto

• Sierra Club of BC

• Sisters in Spirit

• Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

• South Asian Women’s Centre[10]

• Status of Women (mandate also changed to exclude "gender equality and political justice" and to ban all advocacy, policy research and lobbying)

• Tropicana Community Services

• Womanspace Resource Centre (Lethbridge, Alberta)

• Women’s Innovative Justice Initiative – Nova Scotia

• Workplace Equity/Employment Equity Program

• York-Weston Community Services Centre Toronto

Compiled by Judith Szabo and Pearl Eliadis for “Voices”, a coalition of organizations and individuals “united in defence of democracy, free speech and transparency in Canada”.

NOTES

[1]  “Defunding”  is the term used by Jason Kenney. In many instances, it is about turning down grant applications rather than cutting off funding midstream, but for organizations who rely on renewed program funding to support their work, and have done so for many years, it amounts to the same thing.

[2] Citizenship and Immigration Canada Cut or significantly reduced their principal funding - approximately $471,000. Source: Globe and Mail.

[3] Cut in the last few years by federal government because of alleged mismanagement: Sourcehttp://www.canadianimmigrant.ca/learn/newsitems/article/7935

[4] The Office of Democratic Governance, which channelled much of Canada’s democracy funding, has been disbanded by CIDA.

[5] A forum for discussion and collaboration among Canadian democracy promotion agencies. It has reportedly disappeared despite stated earlier commitments and interest from both government and NGOs to see it continue and even expand.

[6] Folded into the Francophonie and Commonwealth division.

[7] Cut in the last few years by federal government because of alleged mismanagement: Sourcehttp://www.canadianimmigrant.ca/learn/newsitems/article/7935

[8] Cut in the last few years by federal government because of alleged mismanagement: Sourcehttp://www.canadianimmigrant.ca/learn/newsitems/article/7935

[9] Including Anglican Church of Canada, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Mennonite Central Committee, Presbyterian Church in Canada, United Church of Canada, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canadian Religious Conference, and the Primate's World Relief and Development Fund.

[10] The Centre has lost $571,000---all of its federal funding---which represents nearly 70 per cent of its overall budget. Source: Globe and Mail.

ALSO SEE THE FOLLOWING WEBSITES:

Voices-Voix Coalition: http://www.voices-voix.ca or on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Voices-Voix/160152067366348?sk=wall

UnSeat Harper: http://www.unseatHarper.ca

PHOTO/IMAGE CREDIT: 

http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2011/03/25/stephen-harpers-hit-list