In a La Presse column Monday, Alain Dubuc argued the Harper government’s stance on abortion funding is just another example of a “profound” shift to the right in Canadian society. “It’s not just that the government is very far to the right,” Mr. Dubuc wrote. “That, we already knew. What is more significant is that the support for its conservative ideas is much bigger than we could have imagined.”

Mr. Dubuc observed that when Mr. Harper panders to his “Reform base,” he doesn’t necessarily rise or drop in opinion polls, nor do his action solicit any significant amount of “popular indignation” from citizens. He went on to argue that the “wave” of conservatism that has swept across Canada since the election of the Harper government “has been strong enough to transform the political debate” and “shift the Canadian consensus” away from a traditionally more liberal approach to abortion and other controversial issues.

We all know that Stephen Harper et al are evangelicals. What we rarely see is Harper letting his religious self to appear in the public. An earlier article in the Vancouver Sun has dissected this side of Harper and why he keeps his evangelical faith under the carpet.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is damned if he does talk about his evangelical beliefs and damned if he doesn’t. If he continues to avoid answering questions about his religious convictions, political observers say he appears secretive, like he’s hiding something. But, at the same time, most Canadians do not share the moral convictions of his evangelical denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

The Alliance Church, to which Harper has belonged for decades, believes Jesus Christ will return to Earth in an apocalypse, won’t ordain women, strongly opposes abortion and divorce, condemns homosexuality as the most base of sins and believes those who aren’t born-again are “lost.”

They believe:

The denomination also stresses that Jesus Christ’s return to Earth is imminent, says the evangelical specialist, who was raised in the Alliance Church.

Alliance Church doctrine, like those of other evangelical denominations, strongly oppose homosexual relationships, describing them as the “basest form of sinful conduct.”

The Alliance Church is also tough on divorce and holds that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry.

The denomination’s leaders, in addition, oppose abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy.

To me, the most distasteful aspect of this belief is that they force others to become them. Otherwise, if you go practice whatever you believe in private and not meddling with others’ life, every belief is equal and should be respected.

The Canadian church’s website features a list of sample prayers “for the lost,” so members can pray for sinful non-Christians they hope Jesus Christ will save from “eternal damnation.”

Related posts

• Photos – ADS signed (1)
• Transcript – Hu Jintao meets Harper (0)
• Hu Jintao receives maple syrup from Harper (5)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)
• A tale of two dictators (1)

According to the Globe and Mail:

“We have five weeks or whatever until the G8 starts. Shut the fuck up – on this issue,” Ms. Ruth said.

Ms. Ruth issued her salty warning on Monday, at a Parliament Hill gathering to discuss the declining place of women’s rights in Canada’s foreign policy. When the aid groups criticized the Harper government’s decision not to fund abortion as part of its initiative to reduce the deaths of mothers and young children, Ms. Ruth counselled self-censorship.

Her comments – reported by the Toronto Star – were a suggestion of strategy, not a threat. She was arguing that if the activists let the abortion issue alone, there is a better chance the maternal-health plan will include programs for family planning and contraception.

The Globe says “Nancy Ruth is a Conservative senator and pro-choice feminist.”

Bob Rae has some colourful words in the House today:

“Senator Ruth gave perhaps the pithiest, sharpest description one can imagine of Conservative political policy that we’ve all heard for a long time,” Toronto Liberal MP Bob Rae said. “… If you have a disagreement with the government, just shut the F up.”

Foreign aid groups and womens’ groups are definitely not the only NGOs that got their federal funding cut — or threatened to cut if they choose to take an opposite stance from the government. Immigrant service providers in BC such as SUCCESS and MOSAIC have also been far less vocal over the last few years. The two organizations used to be strong advocates for immigrants’ and refugees’ rights. I can still vividly remember how the late SUCCESS CEO Lilian To went numerous times to Ottawa and Canadian to the embassy in China to learn about how unfairly Chinese family reunion applications were processed and to advocate for a a better and fairer system. Lilian was also vocal on a lot of immigrant-related controversies and she was a regular on government’s consultation meetings on immigration issues. And could we hear voices half that fearless of Lilian nowadays? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Actually, not only NGOs are being tamed. Journalists — including the Press Gallery which is presumably to be most critical of Harper’s media strategies — are bent to their knees after years of PMO intimidation. We were shocked to see how timid Press Gallery members was responding to strict orders of PMO communications people during Harper’s visit to China in Dec 2009. Rather than speaking up against unreasonable control of free reporting for journalists on the tour, reporters of national media outlets chose to follow orders without uttering a word of complaint. In an earlier article appeared on The Globe which talked about Harper’s appearance on Youtube, the writer admitted that reporters may sometimes refrain from asking Harper pointed questions for fear of “bad relation” with the PMO.

Well, what a country Canada has become.

Related posts

• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• LOL: Tories table non-abortion abortion legislation (2)
• Canada does invest in research eh… (0)
• This is what I fear…. (10)
• Censorship, Canadian (conservative) style (6)

Tories table non-abortion abortion legislation

Globe and Mail – Let me make sure I have this right; Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge is chair of the House pro-life caucus. Despite this fact, he really, really doesn’t want to reopen the abortion debate in Canada. Please believe him – he doesn’t want to discuss abortion in any way. Not sure what they discuss at their pro-life caucus meetings but no matter.

While abortion is something Bruinooge has no interest in discussing, he does think there is a big problem in Canada of women being coerced into having abortions against their will.

This of course has nothing to do with abortion per se but rather women being threatened to have abortions against their will something we can all agree is wrong. It is equally wrong for women to have their tonsils out against their will but that private members bill will have to wait for another day.

To fight this massive problem, Mr. Bruinooge has introduced a private members bill. Now the PMO obviously doesn’t support this bill – never. He’s a rogue agent here.

Back to Bruinooge’s bill. What form does he think this “coercion” takes?

Well he’s clear what it doesn’t include: “He is not talking about counseling services for abortion or cases in which parents, for instance, may withhold financial support from daughters who have abortions.”

So what would it include? Well presumably physical threats would be covered, right? If someone threatens physical harm to a women if she doesn’t have an abortion, that would be covered under this bill?

That makes the bill worthwhile, I would think? Except under the Criminal Code, it is already an offense to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person so if a woman is being physically threatened today, the person making the threat is already breaking the law.

But what if the coercion isn’t physical and instead takes the form of financial coercion? Well, that would likely be something called extortion or blackmail – also already criminal offenses in Canada.

So to summarize, the chair of the pro-life caucus doesn’t want to talk about abortion but does think there’s a menace of women being coerced into having abortions against their will. This is both a questionable assertion (that there are many women being coerced into having abortions – I’m not saying it isn’t an issue, it just strikes me as one of those solutions seeking a problem) and one that is almost certainly already covered under the criminal code.

In other words, this is all about politics.

Update The text of the bill that has nothing to do with abortion is up. Coercion is defined as:

“coercion”, in respect of an abortion, means conduct that, directly or indirectly, causes a female person to consent to an abortion that she would otherwise have refused. A person coerces an abortion if he or she knows of or suspects the pregnancy of a female person and engages, or conspires with another to engage in, conduct that is intentionally and purposely aimed at directing the female person who has not chosen to have an abortion to have an abortion, including but not limited to the following conduct:

(a) committing, attempting to commit, or threatening to commit physical harm to the female person, the child or another person;

(b) committing, attempting to commit or threatening to commit any act prohibited by any provincial or federal law;

(c) denying or removing, or making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct; and

(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity;

but does not include speech that is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A quick summary of the four categories:

(a) physical threats – already illegal.

(b) breaking laws – already illegal (yes, a circular argument is an argument that is circular).

(c) financial threats – in most cases, illegal.

(d) “pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity” – I have no idea what this means. Applying “pressure” through “argumentative” words strikes me as something that a couple discussing an unplanned pregnancy might engage in just about every day of the year and it would have to cross a pretty serious line before it should be illegal, I would have thought.

Related posts

• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)
• Canada does invest in research eh… (0)
• This is what I fear…. (10)
• Censorship, Canadian (conservative) style (6)

March 23, 2010

Canada Announces Four New Major Research Partnerships in Key Areas of Interest to Canadians

OTTAWA, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – March 23, 2010) – Canada will have a leading voice in developing an innovative response to the opportunities and challenges posed by religious diversity. A new multidisciplinary research project at the University of Ottawa will examine how religion affects our legal, political and social environment and will propose strategies to enhance equality and public policy.

This project is one of four Major Collaborative Research Initiatives announced today by Royal Galipeau, Member of Parliament for Ottawa-Orleans, on behalf of the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology). These four projects, supported with approximately $10 million in funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), will bring some 140 Canadian and international researchers and experts together to build knowledge on social, cultural and economic issues of importance to Canadians. Each initiative will receive close to $2.5 million over seven years.

“Our government is investing in research and innovation to create jobs, strengthen the economy and improve Canadians’ quality of life,” said Mr. Galipeau. “These grants are fostering collaborative research that will move our research agenda forward.”

“These grants highlight the excellence of our country’s talented researchers and recognize the importance of fostering international collaboration to keep Canada at the forefront of research, development and innovation in the 21st century,” said Dr. Chad Gaffield, President of SSHRC.

Major Collaborative Research Initiative grants support leading-edge, multidisciplinary research projects led by scholars at Canadian institutions, with the participation of top international scholars. This collaborative approach enables research excellence, helping the best minds examine and find solutions to global issues.

SSHRC is the federal agency that promotes and supports university-based research and training in the humanities and social sciences. Through its programs and policies, SSHRC enables the highest levels of research excellence in Canada and facilitates knowledge-sharing and collaboration across research disciplines, universities and all sectors of society.

Still don’t get it? Well, turn your attention to distinguishing the meaning between “weather” and “climate” and why the “climate” side got muzzled and the “weather” got trumpeted. Here’s another press release from the gov today:

March 23, 2010

Environment Canada Celebrates World Meteorological Day

OTTAWA, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – March 23, 2010) – The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment, has released the following statement in celebration of World Meteorological Day:

“As Minister of the Environment, I am pleased to celebrate World Meteorological Day along with World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and its partners, including Environment Canada. This year’s WMO theme of ’60 years of service for your safety and well-being’ reminds us of how important reliable, accurate weather information is in helping Canadians and our international partners better anticipate and prepare for future weather conditions.

“Weather has shaped our history, our economy, and our very character as Canadians. Whether you’re planning emergency response, pouring concrete to build new infrastructure, navigating a ship through icy waters, planning an outdoor festival, or just deciding how to dress your children for recess today, there is hardly any aspect of Canada’s industry or society that is not in some way affected by weather. Environment Canada responds to that need by providing forecasts and hourly updates of current conditions from coast to coast to coast, through our media partners, our automated telephone service, through Weatheradio, or through the 1,000,000 users who access weather information on our web site every day.

“After over a century of operations, Environment Canada’s Meteorological Service of Canada is home to some of the best weather forecasting and climate experts in the world. And indeed, the world looks to Canada to lead the way with advanced research and state-of-the-art forecasting equipment that are models for our fellow meteorological partners around the globe.

Here’re some reasons why conservatives don’t like to talk about climate change.

Related posts

• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)
• LOL: Tories table non-abortion abortion legislation (2)
• This is what I fear…. (10)
• Censorship, Canadian (conservative) style (6)

Conservatives accused of ‘willfully ignoring’ contraception research

Globe and Mail

Jack Layton accused Stephen Harper today of adopting a “no-condoms-for-Africa strategy” for the government’s signature initiative at this summer’s G8 summit.

The NDP Leader said it was “incredible” that “the Foreign Minister is going around saying that contraception does not save lives.”

He added: “How can a program aimed at reducing maternal mortality not allow for any contraception as part of the program?”

Mr. Layton was raising concerns about comments made by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon yesterday that birth control will not be part of the “signature” G8 initiative on maternal health.

Mr. Cannon told a Commons committee the government’s plan is aimed at saving lives of mothers in poor countries and contraception doesn’t fit with that. But neither Mr. Cannon nor the Prime Minister, who were both in Question Period, responded.

Rather, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda fielded the questions, sticking closely to her script.

“This initiative is about saving the lives of mothers and children,” she said. “Far too many lives are being sacrificed when we can do something about it. This is the time we should act.”

Mr. Layton was not alone in demanding answers to the contraception issue, however.

Liberal health critic Carolyn Bennett, who is also a doctor, said Mr. Cannon had confirmed what Liberals were fearing – that the government’s commitment to maternal health ends when it comes to reproductive health.

“Unbelievably, the minister suggested that birth control has nothing to do with saving lives,” Dr. Bennett said, noting that United Nations says a “lack of adequate contraceptive services is responsible for 1.5 million deaths in developing countries every year.”

She said the government is “willfully ignoring the research.”

Again, Ms. Oda answered. Staying on message, she said the government has chosen to focus the world’s attention on saving the lives of women and children. She added that her G8 colleagues support the Conservative government’s initiative.

And, probably what Preston Manning found out the change in attitude of Canadian towards conservatism (socially; economically i’m a conservative) is the worst case scenario I’d expect my Canada to be:

(Article by Manning on Globe and Mail titled “The blueing and greening of the political centre“)
Respondents were given a series of “value statements” and asked whether they agreed or disagreed with them (strongly or weakly on a scale of 1 to 7). Those receiving majority levels of public support were:

• Nothing is more important than family (89 per cent);
• Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman (67 per cent);
• Abortion is morally wrong (60 per cent);
• Learn from what worked in the past to solve problems (54 per cent);
• Better to implement small changes than all at once (54 per cent).

What is significant is that all of the above value propositions are more strongly associated with conservative values and policies than with those of liberals or social democrats. This is not to say that values and positions more strongly espoused by liberals and social democrats are not supported but, as shown below, the levels of support are for the most part significantly lower:

• Tolerance and moderation are what it’s all about to be Canadian (50 per cent);
• People holding different values/beliefs make society richer (47 per cent);
• We have a responsibility to look after those less fortunate (43 per cent);
• Government action is the best way to solve economic problems (31 per cent).

A reader said earlier that this blog is so anti-Tories that it has become partisan. Well, I’d like to say that it’s the social conservatism ideology that I’m against. I think that’s central to my personal values and I won’t endorse politicians who are socially conservative. On the other hand, this does not mean I will automatically support the opposition party(ies). That’s not a logical deduction. If the Tories are willing to drop their social conservative “values” I’d be more than happy to support them too.

Related posts

• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)
• LOL: Tories table non-abortion abortion legislation (2)
• Canada does invest in research eh… (0)
• Censorship, Canadian (conservative) style (6)

Talking about censorship… China? Small potato. This IS how western “democracy” works.

Climate-change scientists feel ‘muzzled’ by Ottawa: documents

Montreal Gazette — A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

“Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high-profile media, who often have same-day deadlines,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80%.”

The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.

In many cases, the policy also required them to get approval from supervisors of written responses to the questions submitted by journalists before any interview, said the document, obtained in an investigation into the government’s views and policies on global-warming science that was conducted by Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of environmental groups.

The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to “muzzle” them.

“Many [federal climate change] scientists are recognized experts in their field, have received media training, and have successfully carried out media interviews for many years,” said the document, leaked by an Environment Canada employee who asked not to be named.

“Our scientists are very frustrated with the new process. They feel the intent of the policy is to prevent them from speaking to media.”

The Environment Canada analysis noted that four prominent scientists, who regularly spoke for the government on climate change science issues, appeared in only 12 newspaper clippings in the first nine months of 2008, compared with 99 clippings over the same period in 2007.

“There is a widespread perception among Canadian media that our scientists have been ‘muzzled’ by the media relations policy,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of this perception, which originated with a Canwest story in February 2008, is continuing, with at least 47 articles in Canadian newspapers to date.”

The document also noted that government scientists voiced their displeasure to communications officials about the policy during meetings in June 2008. A few months later, a couple of requests for interviews with scientists in the midst of the 2008 federal election campaign were never answered, including one request that was “denied” after it was forwarded to the office of former environment minister John Baird.

Andrew Cuddy, 21, who led the investigation by Climate Action Network, said that it reveals “troubling evidence” about the government’s approach to climate-science research, funding, appointments on science panels and communications.

“We’ve catalogued a host of evidence from different areas,” said Mr. Cuddy. “They kind of all point to the government trying to undermine climate science research. [It] goes against their public statements saying that they’re committed to research and that they believe the fundamentals of climate science.”

The coalition said that one of the biggest concerns is whether the government is adequately funding climate-science research at Environment Canada and other departments after refusing to offer new subsidies for an independent research organization, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, considered to be the lead agency for global warming research in Canada’s universities.

“It’s definitely a scandal,” said Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was “muzzling scientists; they’re putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they’re reducing funding in key areas… It’s almost as though they’re making a conscious attempt to bury the truth.”

Environment Minister Jim Prentice told reporters last week that the government wasn’t trying to shut down the foundation but wanted it to report on how it spent previous grants of $110-million dating back to the year 2000.

“It’s appropriate I think at this point that we take stock of what we’ve achieved for those dollars,” Mr. Prentice said. “We’ll work together with the foundation to make sure that that happens. They’ve got the resources to do it and we’ll assess it from there.”

The foundation says it has funded nearly 200 research projects that have led to breakthroughs in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, transforming operations in the federal government and private companies. But it has described Prentice’s approach as a “nightmare scenario” since it no longer has money for new research.

In a statement e-mailed to Canwest News Service, Environment Canada said the new communications policy has allowed its scientists and experts to interact directly with the media on numerous occasions.

“The new policy merely assures that communications with the media are co-ordinated, to achieve the goals set out above — namely, quick, accurate and consistent responses across Canada,” said the statement.

It added that it responded to 254 climate change-related requests in 2008 and 428 climate change requests in 2009.

The department also said it has taken many steps to inform Canadians about the work done by government scientists, including partnerships with other departments, new content added to websites such as www.science.gc.ca and the publication of Envirozine, an Environment Canada newsletter, as well as publishing about 700 peer-reviewed articles per year.

Related posts

• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)
• LOL: Tories table non-abortion abortion legislation (2)
• Canada does invest in research eh… (0)
• This is what I fear…. (10)

The last two points are both concerned with maximizing government efficiency and exercising fiscal restraint. As we follow our roadmap to return to a balanced budget, we need to take action to ensure that government lives within its means. All Canadians have had to make sacrifices over the past year. Families everywhere have had to take a look at their own expenses and set priorities. They expect their government to do the same, and that is exactly what we are doing.

We have recently announced that the operating budgets of federal departments will be frozen at the 2010-11 levels. Based on Budget 2010 forecasts, the freeze is expected to achieve savings totaling about $1.8 billion by 2012-13. Here, we are leading by example by freezing salaries for the Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, Senators and Ministers’ offices budgets.

What’s more, we have introduced a strategic review process whereby all federal programs must demonstrate that they are effective and efficient. They must show they are focused on Canadians’ priorities and meeting the changing needs of Canadians. The 2009 round of reviews reallocated up to $287 million to Budget priorities. In 2010-11, about $33 billion will be reviewed and in all, we anticipate savings of close to $1.7 billion.

In addition, we will also conduct a comprehensive review of administrative functions and overhead costs. Our goal is to eliminate any redundant spending and find savings wherever they may exist. The review will look at external and internal service operations, business processes, and administration.

And yesterday, as part of our plan to improve efficiency and governance across federal departments and agencies, I also announced the elimination of 245 federal appointment positions across government. In streamlining these organizations, the Government is ensuring its resources are put to the best possible use for Canadians.

A balanced budget over the long term is necessary for economic growth and job creation. As opposed to previous governments, we are not going to balance the budget by cutting transfer payments for health care and education or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians.

Under the leadership of Stephen Harper, Canada is in a good position to come through the global economic recession stronger than ever. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Economist Intelligence Unit all say we are now in the best position financially of the G-8 countries. Sound financial management always helps attract foreign investment and foreign investment spurs domestic economic growth.

There are encouraging signs of a global economic recovery. Although that recovery remains fragile, Canada is well placed to emerge from the recession stronger than ever. Our plan to see Canada through tough economic times is clearly working.

Stockwell Day
President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Related posts

• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)
• LOL: Tories table non-abortion abortion legislation (2)
• Letter – Courageous New Westminister initiative.. (7)
• Letter: Redress meeting format needs reform (3)

Torstar – Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canadians aren’t really concerned about allegations that the government engaged in a cover-up over the abuse of Afghan detainees.

“I think polls have been pretty clear that that’s not on the top of the radar of most Canadians,” Harper said in an interview with CBC-TV correspondent Peter Mansbridge.

The government had been on the defensive late last year over allegations that it tried to cover up information that Afghan authorities were abusing Afghan detainees after they were handed over by Canadian soldiers. And opposition MPs say Harper decided to suspend Parliament until March to shut down a House of Commons committee probing the detainee controversy.

But Harper said Canadians are more interested in the recession battering the country. “What’s on the radar is the economy.”

So wonder why our PM always knows what we like or we don’t? Well, the answer may simply be: he’s a neocon.

According to an 2005 article in Tyee, written by Donald Gutstein, a senior lecturer in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University:

What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.

Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.

So since we are not among the ruling elite who must be flawless neocons, we are all too stupid to understand what should be good for us.

Strauss believed that allowing citizens to govern themselves will lead, inevitably, to terror and tyranny, as the Weimar Republic succumbed to the Nazis in the 1930s. A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough. It must resort to deception — Strauss’s “noble lie” — to protect citizens from themselves. The elite must hide the truth from the public by writing in code.

So when Errol Mendes, professor of constitutional law of the University of Ottawa, writes in the Toronto Star today that:

The highest duty of a Prime Minister of Parliament is to uphold the Constitution of Canada, which includes the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and the duties owed to the Queen’s representative in Canada

and feels disappointed that the PM fails to do so by proroguing the parliament twice in less than a year, here may be why, according to Gutstein:

They [the neocons] claim the Charter is the result of a conspiracy foisted on the Canadian people by “special interests.” These nasty people are feminists, gays and lesbians, the poor, prisoners and refugee-rights groups who are advancing their own interests through the courts at the expense of the general public.

Well, Harper’s supporters may argue that they are different from the “evil” CCP because Canadians are allowed to criticize the Tories in whatever harsh ways and won’t be prosecuted as would be under the CCP, please be reminded that I’m not again comparing the two SYSTEMS (and though we are still formally living in a democracy, who knows what will happen next if our democracy continues to be eroded?). Instead, I’m trying to point out that totalitarian minds think alike. Prof Mendez promptly points out:

Some Canadians may not pay much attention to archaic constitutional terms such as prorogation of Parliament or even to the fate of Afghan detainees transferred to torture. Other Canadians will care greatly about both these issues. But all Canadians must care about a minority government that undermines the fundamental democratic institutions of this country while also manipulating quasi-judicial tribunals and intimidating the public service from speaking truth to power. This abuse of executive power is tilting toward totalitarian government and away from the foundations of democracy and the rule of law on which this country was founded.

Related posts

• Photos – ADS signed (1)
• Transcript – Hu Jintao meets Harper (0)
• Hu Jintao receives maple syrup from Harper (5)
• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)

I’m very, very angry. Last year when the opposition threatened to bringing down the Tories with a coalition — which is completely legal and constitutional in Canada — Harper could still remotely, barely able to justify to ask GG for a prorogue. But this year… it’s absolutely unjustifiable… it really is an abuse of power. It’s clear that he is proroguing to avoid scrutiny on the Afghan detainee issues. And it’s clear that he wants to keep his rep clean before the world during the Olympics. But the media — to my dismay — aren’t beating up harsh enough criticism. The public will definitely be not informed enough to know what our country is going thru. The timing is tricky too… announcing such a “boring” news on the eve of New Year’s Eve? It’s obvious what is going thru in PMO’s mind.

So what do we have now?

First of all, the cabinet has always been a one-man (or two-men, including Jason Kenney) playground since Harper took office. Even heavyweight ministers such as Stockwell Day looks small in front of a few young staff of the PMO (as we witnessed during the China trip). The media has been castrated by the PMO after 4 years of heavy-handed treatment by the PMO. Some media have been tamed so much that they’ve become the Tory mouthpiece. And now, the parliament cannot act out its function too. Harper is ruling without checks from the public, the media, and the parliament and its elected MPs.

Do Canadians know the country is slipping into a no-check, no accountability dictatorship?

Parliament suspended until March 3

CP – The federal Conservatives have suspended Parliament until after the Winter Olympics, a move that gives Prime Minister Stephen Harper a tighter grip on the country’s political agenda.

The Tories said Wednesday they need to make a clean break and reboot Parliament now that the economy is no longer in crisis. They’re even considering making prorogation an annual event, so they can start each year anew with a throne speech that serves as an overview of what they plan to do in the coming year.

But the opposition says the shut-down is just a ploy to avoid questions about the handling of Afghan detainees and climate change.

“The specific reason here is that Stephen Harper doesn’t feel like coming back to town and answering questions about his government,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said in an interview.

“Even though Canadians elected a majority of MPs to hold him to account, he prefers to stay away.”

Instead of resuming work as scheduled on Jan. 25, Parliament will start afresh on March 3 with a speech from the throne, followed by a new budget the next day, said Dimitri Soudas, spokesman for Harper.

The prime minister did not make the announcement in person, nor did he meet face-to-face with the Governor General to ask for a formal prorogation. Rather, Harper made that request over the telephone, Soudas said.

“Now is the time to also engage with constituents, stakeholders and businesses in order to listen to Canadians, identify priorities and to set the next stage of our agenda,” Soudas said in justifying the suspension.

“Minority governments have a different horizon than majority governments, and also those change quickly. So this is time to recalibrate, consult and deliver the next stage of our plan.”

The suspension of parliamentary activity means Conservative cabinet ministers won’t face daily questions from their political opponents.

It also means all committees will be disbanded, scuttling the hearings into the controversial handling of Afghan detainees, for example.

It means the Conservatives will have time to fill five Senate vacancies with their own allies, robbing the Liberals of a majority in the upper house.

And it means the Conservatives will have more control over the timing of an election call, by making votes on the budget and the throne speech a confidence issue.

But Soudas said private members’ bills in the works – including a Conservative backbencher’s bill to kill the long-gun registry – would survive the suspension of Parliament. Government bills will also be re-introduced, although in their original form and not with the amendments proposed in the previous session.

While the opposition will no doubt try to make hay out of the suspension, new polling suggests the public will shrug it off.

Almost half of Canadians in the survey – conducted before Wednesday’s announcement – said they don’t care whether the government prorogues Parliament until after the Olympics. Another 15 per cent said they would actually be happy about it.

“Right now, it doesn’t carry nearly the same risk it carried a year ago. There’s a high level of indifference,” said pollster Doug Anderson.

The Canadian Press-Harris Decima survey of just over 1,000 people, taken Dec. 17-20, asked Canadians how they felt about prorogation now compared with a year ago.

At least one constitutional analyst called Harper’s inclination to prorogue an “abuse” of power.

“What’s going on here is, it’s a way of avoiding Parliament – the only institution elected by all Canadians,” said political scientist Nelson Wiseman from the University of Toronto.

Harper has orchestrated three prorogations since he took office, subverting the democratic process, Wiseman said.

“It’s alarming for parliamentary democracy,” he said in a phone interview.

In 2008, Harper used prorogation at the height of the global financial crisis, to avoid handing over power to a coalition of opposition parties. Public opinion is split over whether it was the right or wrong thing to do.

The opposition parties argue that the shutting down of Parliament for several extra weeks has nothing to do with the economy, as the Tories claim. Rather, they say the Tories are running away from their problems and are trying to sidestep accountability.

The governing Conservatives are clearly feeling heat from hearings into whether Canada knowingly sent Afghan detainees into situations where they would be tortured, the Liberals say.

“They’re trying to smother the issue. They’re trying to deprive it of oxygen. But it will not go away,” said Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale.

Layton points out that the government needs to report to the United Nations on its climate change intentions by the end of January, under the new deal negotiated in Copenhagen earlier this month.

With no House of Commons in session, he said, Harper can’t be held accountable for his stand.

Related posts

• Photos – ADS signed (1)
• Transcript – Hu Jintao meets Harper (0)
• Hu Jintao receives maple syrup from Harper (5)
• Record 150,000 Hong Kongers join June 4th vigil (4)
• Canada’s big right turn? (8)

Doesn’t Stephen Harper get it? “If we do not get a majority, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois will combine and they will form a government … If we do not win a majority, this country will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists,” Stephen Harper said in Sudbury, where Progressive Conservative Stephen Butcher was bumped as the last Tory candidate in favour of an evangelical Reformer after running as a Conservative in 2004. The snubbed Stephen Butcher ran as a Progressive Canadian in 2006.

But “socialists and separatists”? There is more to fear from the neocon continentalists who got us into this mess in the first place. The last time Harper tried this failed gambit he had to beg the GG to prorogue parliament to save his party and his leadership. He cares not for the country.

Rather a coalition compromise than ideological intolerance; rather parliamentary democracy than a dictatorship of one.

Brian Marlatt
White Rock, BC

Related posts

• Photos – ADS signed (1)
• Transcript – Hu Jintao meets Harper (0)
• Hu Jintao receives maple syrup from Harper (5)
• Canada’s big right turn? (8)
• Salute to Nancy Ruth (1)