It's about the democracy, stupid

It’s interesting that the issue of prorogation seems to have become the tipping point. where Canadians have awakened to just how easily Canada’s so called democracy can be manipulated.

For me, that awakening took place on the afternoon of November 1, 2006 when after making but one phone call as a private citizen I learned that Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canada’s Finance Minister had just been plastered all over the news media in the previous 18 hour period making their claim that “circumstances had changed”, and because of that that, were now reneging on their promise to never raid seniors nest eggs by taxing income trusts made in the 2006 election, nine months previously. The argument they employed to justify this outright betrayal of the voters’ trust was the argument that income trusts cause tax leakage.

My one phone call on the following day revealed for me that their claim of tax leakage was false. Definitively false, since the study by HLB Decision Economics that I learned about in this one phone call (and subsequently received by rush courier that afternoon), entitled: “The tax revenue implications of income trusts” and that had been conducted collaboratively with the Department of Finance, proved there was NO TAX LEAKAGE. The only way for a person to conclude that there was any tax leakage was to falsely construe the numbers, by excluding large amounts of taxes received by the government from the analysis, for which there would be NO JUSTIFICATION in doing so. That’s what Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and Mark Carney decided to do:

Falsify the numbers by employing the mantra of the Rasputin of the CONservative government, Tom Flanagan, which is “It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to sound plausible”.

Such a strategy is at the very foundations of the erosion of Canada’s democracy that we are witnessing with Stephen Harper. Sounding plausible is the weak underbelly of democracy in Canada, for the simple fact that sounding plausible is all that it takes for the pronouncements of the Harper government to be dutifully taken down by reporters and transcribed into articles that immediately hit the airwaves, with virtually NO FACT CHECKING WHATSOEVER, and into the homes of minds of Canadians across the county. Time was you could trust the press, That time is long since over

This is exactly what happened with the income trust issue and the most telling comment of admission that applied to all journalists in this country was the one afforded by Carol Goar of the Toronto Star who said:

“I didn't explore the possibility that [Flaherty] was lying. Perhaps I should have.”

That incident prompted me to write many articles about this major weak link in Canada’s democracy, namely the media, on my blog in pieces like “It shouldn’t be the role of journalists to knowingly propagate lies.”

How could something as verifiable and fact-based as tax leakage be allowed to be fostered in the press by one and all, when I, as a private citizen, was able to make a single phone call and establish its bone fides as a BLATANT LIE. I didn’t just blindly accept the conclusion of the study by HLB Decision Economics, but rather I conducted my due diligence in establishing its veracity by tracking down the lead author, Dennis Bruce and challenging him on his findings, Only upon being satisfied about the reports rigorous and understanding first hand where the error lay, did I go out and start making a stink, which is the most important prerogative that is granted to a citizen in a democracy, along with being able to know (i.e. have access to) the truth. Without access to the truth, there can be no accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy

George Orwell taught us in his book “1984”, that the true test of a democracy is whether 2 plus 2 is allowed to equal 4, and no other number, regardless of how “plausible” sounding or how oft repeated that other number might be.

In Canada the year was 2006. We were told income trusts cause tax leakage. It sounded plausible. The press consumed it in the Pablum form that it was spoon fed to them in. The press then regurgitated this nonsense in newspapers, television shows and radio stations across the land. The number 3 was to become the new number 4, wherein 2 plus 2 was now going to be 3, and not 4. If 2 plus 2 were allowed to be viewed as 4, then there was no tax leakage, and hence there would be no basis whatsoever for Stephen Harper to renege on his promise to those gullible seniors across this country who believed him and this new number would allow Harper to abandon them and his promise with relative ease and impunity AND would allow him to do the commercial bidding of the following shareholder saboteurs who were knowingly using the Stephen Harper government goons to do what was in their personal best interests, knowing it was not in their shareholders best interests. As such, both they and Harper were acting in direct contravention of their fiduciary duties. Harper’s to Canadian taxpayers. Them to their shareholders. The press, with the exception of Diane Francis of the Financial Post, played the essential role of making the falsehood of tax leakage sound plausible, for fear the truth would ever be known. BNN, the Globe and Mail, the National Post the Toronto Star etc., they were all in this game fostering the lie about tax leakage They even wrote editorials about for god’s sake, to promulgate Harper’s lie. Little did any of these people know how they were toying with the very foundations of Canada’s democracy, assuming it would have made a wit of difference if they had, since the press continues to hide the blatant falsehood about tax leakage under heavy lock and key, knowing full well that it is false. For example, what had Carol Goar done since her epiphay above? Nothing, just let sleeping dogs lie. No need to correct past errors and oversights.

We also have these people to thank:

“High-profile directors and CEOs, meanwhile, had approached Mr. Flaherty personally to express their concerns: Many felt they were being pressed into trusts because of their duty to maximize shareholder value, despite their misgivings about the structure. Paul Desmarais Jr., the well-connected chairman of Power Corp. of Canada, even railed against trusts in a conversation with Prime Minister Stephen Harper during a trip to Mexico,

Meanwhile just where the hell have the Liberals and the NDP and the Bloc been in exposing Harper’s blatant lie about tax leakage? Harper is without effective opposition in the House. When Michael Ignatieff talks about wanting to make Canada more of a knowledge society is he talking about a knowledge society in which 2 plus 2 equals 4, or the one from 1984 in which 2 plus 2 equals 3, or 5 or whatever?, on those occasions that suit Paul Desmerais Jr and the other nameless saboteur High-profile directors and CEOs mentioned above? I need to know, as it will affect how I vote, assuming the future Canada still permits voting, since any meaningful access to the truth about tax leakage has been blocked from being revealed to the broad public by their very own PAID ELECTED members of Parliament, so voting may be the next thing to go?

Message to Ignatieff/Layton/Duceppe?Canadian media at large: It's about the democracy, stupid!

Where’ Harper’s proof of tax leakage, since in the words of a true Canadian: “Prove the case or drop the tax” (Diane Francis)”

To which I would add “”Prove your utility, or drop the charade about democracy or being “opposition” parties”

Canada needs FDR. Canadians need a New Deal

Canada needs FDR.

Not that FDR, but rather Fundamental Democratic Reform.

But like FDR brought to Americans, Canadians need a New Deal, a new deal for democracy

However, don't expect the politicians to be that agent of change. We have to be that agent of change. This Facebook Group, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament is an important first step, but only a first step.

The ability of the Prime Minister to prorogue Canada's Parliament on whim, when it is to his sole advantage, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the severe erosion of democracy in Canada. Just having a new occupant in the PM's office will change little, if anything. We need a permanent change and a change in the system across the board. We need to adopt the "best practices" of democracy from around the world and enshrine them into Canada's nascent and easily abused democracy to make it work for all, and not just a few.

We need someone with the conviction, vision and courage of a Tommy Douglas to rally against the entrenched special interests that have grabbed a hold of this country and put these special interests at arms length and restore Canada's democracy for those whom it ostensibly represents, the people of Canada and the interests of all Canadians, and not simply CEO X who has PM Y in his pocket, such that Canada continues to be run by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) from one election to the next, such that the only thing that changes is the current occupant of 24 Sussex and the colour of the drapes in the master bedroom.

We aren't simply interested in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but finding a ship of state that is less prone to talking on water in the first place. Canada's ship of state needs to be redesigned and refitted through the process of Fundamental Democratic Reform.

Ignatieff completely misses the point....and the opportunity.

In reading Michael Ignatieff’s Op Ed of today (below) on the matter of Harper’s prorogation of Parliament, I can only conclude that Michael Ignatieff has completely missed the point. Michael Ignatieff is simply calling for Harper to respect the rules of the road, but does nothing to suggest that the rules of the road have been so fundamentally eroded by successive governments that they are in serious need of a major rewrite.

Now why would anyone expect a future aspiring occupant of the Prime Minister’s office to be calling for a fundamental rewrite of Canadians democracy, when such a fundamental rewrite would constrain that aspiring occupant’s ultimate power?

As things exist today, one gets the impression that Ignatieff is as happy with the constraints placed on the Prime Minister’s office, as few and far between as they may be, as is Harper himself. If not, then why did Ignatieff open his Op Ed with the line: "Messy. Inconvenient. Frustrating. Democracy is all those things. But as Churchill said, it is better than the alternatives.”?

Doesn’t sound like someone willing to make democracy work better for the people, for fear that it might makes things too “Messy. Inconvenient. Frustrating” than it already is for aspiring future Prime Ministers like himself. Pity that prospect of things being more "messy", in exchange for things being more democratic. Sounds more like some one with a disdain for democracy, than an abiding interest in enhancing it.

This is why the much needed fundamental democratic reforms that this country desperately needs can’t be placed in the control of Politicians, as they have a clear conflict of interest. Thanks for making that obvious for us, Mr. Ignatieff in the narrow manner in which you have treated this matter. You had your chance to correctly gauge the public’s opinion on this matter and prescribe far reaching solutions, instead you are only calling for a robust enforcement of the status quo. WRONG.



Text of Michael Ignatieff opinion piece
Michael Ignatieff
Published On Tue Jan 05 2010

The first duty of leaders in a democratic society like ours is to respect the institutions that put constraints on their power.

Messy. Inconvenient. Frustrating. Democracy is all those things. But as Churchill said, it is better than the alternatives.

A minority Parliament can be messy but it can work if the Prime Minister wants it too.

Last week the Harper government announced the shutting down of Parliament. The fact that this was done in the media "black hole," just hours before New Year's Eve, says a good deal about Mr. Harper's motivations. It's also a richly ironic statement about a government that was elected on the key plank of increasing transparency and accountability - but that's another, equally sad, story.

Every newspaper in Canada - including this one - reported that the key factor in Mr. Harper's decision was the barrage of criticism and tough questions his government has faced in Parliament over its handling - and apparent cover up - of the Afghan detainee torture issue. Questions about the government's truthfulness and its care of Canada's reputation overseas. Questions that go to the very heart of the government's respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Even more troubling, this shutting down of Parliament is not a rash or impetuous act. It is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr. Harper's government. Whenever Stephen Harper gets into political trouble, his first impulse is to steamroll over democratic institutions that get in his way. Look at the record:

Just over a year ago, he prorogued Parliament just weeks after an election - in order to rescue himself from an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis of his own making.

He has lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees - for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.

He fired Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, for blowing the whistle on the repairs needed at Chalk River to ensure the reactor's safety.

He starved Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the necessary resources to do his job because he was critical of the poor management of our public finances under this Conservative government.

He let go the heads of both the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission. Both were competent individuals, doing their job with distinction. But both had a serious flaw in Stephen Harper's eye: they were critical of the government.

He cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, despite their lauded work and broad public support, because, according to one of his ministers, they held dissenting views from the government on foreign policy.

This approach to government - intimidating all who stand in its way - can have severe and corrosive consequences. Look at our nation's capital today: a cowed and demoralized public service and a constantly bullied national press gallery, both trying to serve a disenchanted public.

The Government's behaviour speaks to a deep cynicism. Mr. Harper is gambling that the public doesn't care how it is governed. In fact, in many ways it furthers his political interest to fuel public distrust about politics and depress even further voter turnouts in elections, since this strengthens the electoral impact of his "base."

Last week's shutting down of Parliament was a key moment. A turning point? Too dramatic. In any case, too early to tell. More important, it was one of those moments of supreme clarity. The audacity. The epic scale of the cynicism. The arrogance of a regime that thinks it can get away with just about anything.

What's to be done about it? Well, the sooner the House comes back, the better. But between now and then, we have to share our concerns with Canadians. Mr. Harper may not want to face the public, but we will get out there and meet Canadians in universities, in town hall meetings and other public events from coast to coast to coast. We will seek their views and exchange ideas. We will go on doing our job of holding the government to account on the Afghan detainee issue, but also on their failure to act on climate change, on the growing youth employment crisis and retirement security for older Canadians.

Shutting down Parliament has raised speculation about a spring election. Certainly, there is no need for an early election. Three in less than six years is enough for the next while. In case anyone missed it, I got that message loud and clear from Canadians last fall. And that message was not only addressed to me.

As I hear them, Canadians are saying: get back to work in Ottawa, make this Parliament work and do the job we elected you to do. We are listening. It is time that Stephen Harper did too.

Here's 27,000 Canadians unwilling to cede power to the Harper thugs

Are you one of them? Join today by simply clicking here.

27,000 Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament represents over 10 times the membership of Harper's old Canadian Citizens Coalition thingy nether-organization. If he thought that gave him a voice and a platform, how can he dismiss this group?

Oh, I forgot he is Stephen Harper and we are not. More hypocrisy-in-the-making from the Harpercrite himself.

Oh yeah, Harper is clever all right. Bank robber clever.

I am tired of constantly reading in the media about how "clever" Harper is.

Yeah, "clever" in much the same way that I suppose robbing a bank could be considered "clever"? Or how virtually all in the media thought Harper’s raiding of seniors’ nest eggs was “clever”.

For those in the media who are without a Thesaurus, might I suggest that a more apt descriptor of our little Stephen Harper friend would perhaps be any one of:

"sneaky, underhanded, conniving, cowardly, dishonest, fraudulent, base, contemptible, deceitful, devious, disingenuous, double-dealing, duplicitous, furtive, guileful, malicious, mean, nasty, recreant, shifty, slippery, sly, sneaking, snide, stealthy, surreptitious, tricky, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, self-serving".

Meanwhile, events like Harper’s attempted Cadman bribery would fall under the single descriptor of “criminal”, whereas his income trust tax and his hoax known as tax leakage would fall under the single descriptor of “fraudulent”.

It is through the use of terms like "clever" that the media is responsible for playing an active role in debasing Canada’s system of democracy and lowering the public's standards of acceptable behaviour on the part of our elected representatives, through such subliminal means, as the press attempts (and often succeeds) in transforming the intolerable into the tolerable, through the not so clever use of terms like clever, but rather through the malicious misuse of terms like clever, when words like duplicitous, criminal and fraudulent are called for.

How do you think Harper became PM, without the avid support of many in the press, and their constant misuse of the English language on his behalf?

1- 800-GOV-GENERAL

Hello you have reached the Governor General's residence and our automated key pad response feature.

Press one on your keypad if you would like to the Governor General to participate in some quaint indigenous people's practice, like eating seal meat. Press two if you are calling from the PMO willing to donate $555 million in additional Canadian taxpayer money to Haiti. Press three if you are calling from the PMO seeking yet another prorogation of Parliament.

For all other inquiries please hold.


The GG should have told Harper to come see her face-to-face

January 4th, 2010
by Harris MacLeod
The Hill Times

It’s my first day back on the job after a long holiday nap and I’m feeling a little blue that Parliament won’t return until March, which still matters to me, although apparently it doesn’t to 46 per cent of Canadians. Due to my resilient innocence I am surprised that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, and the Tory government’s stated reasons for doing so (that it needs to consult Canadians on the second phase of its “Economic Action Plan,” and to put the focus on the Olympics) are frankly insultingly lazy excuses. But the fact is in our system the PM can reset the House whenever he wants and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

Technically it’s the Governor General, infamous seal heart-eater extraordinaire Michaëlle Jean, who makes the final call, but unlike when Prime Minister Stephen Harper did this last year she really couldn’t have said no. BUT she could have made him come ask in person.

I didn’t come up with this on my own, an expert on the monarchy and a keen observer of Canadian politics made the point to me over the break. Last year, amidst the humbling coalition revolt that almost cost Mr. Harper his government, he had to trudge over to Rideau Hall in the snow, spend two hours making his case to Ms. Jean, and then after he got what he wanted he had to go out and face the cameras and explain himself. This time all he had to do was pick up the phone.

While I won’t defend the Canadian public’s sad indifference to what happens in Ottawa, the fact is if he had to deliver the aforementioned justifications for shutting down Parliament himself instead of sending Dimitri Soudas to do it, people would be more aware of what was happening. And they might even have taken a few moments to think about whether it sounded right that their elected representatives would be getting a paid vacation until the spring.

Nothing like a good dose of defeatism to usher in the new year.

Today we have Dan Leger writing a column that begins with the line: “DON’T LIKE Stephen Harper? Too bad for you. Like him or not, 2010 is the year he’s likely to cement his hold on power with a majority government.”

Nothing like a good dose of journalistic fatalism and defeatism to usher in the new year, as we are all being told by Dan Leger that we are to dutifully capitulate to Harper like a bunch of mindless drones, whether we like Harper or not, now that Canada is but a shadow of its former democratic self.

What utter drivel and nonsense that I categorically dismiss for the brain-washing propaganda that it is.

Brain washing and propaganda is what Canadian journalists do best. Just look at the number they did on Harper’s behalf on the utter lie called tax leakage, that every journalist in the land (except Diane Francis( was to gutless to expose as the patent lie that it is.

Also, nothing like a good dose of journalistic fatalism and defeatism to usher in fascism. My wife’s great grandfather on the other hand was the owner and publisher of a major daily paper in Berlin in the 30’s and 40’s as well as being the head of an industry organization of a very large number of regional newspapers throughout Germany. He was a major force of opposition to Hitler during this period. His name was Baron J.K. Zweck Von Zweckenburg, They wrote books about him after the war. One was entitled The Press in Chains that devoted an entire chapter to his dogged opposition of Herr Hitler.

I don’t suppose they will be writing any books about Dan Leger any time soon. Nobody buys books about sycophants in the media. They just appoint them to the Senate like Mike Duffy.


2010: the year of the Harper majority
By Dan Leger
January 4, 2010
Halifax Chronicle Herald


DON’T LIKE Stephen Harper? Too bad for you. Like him or not, 2010 is the year he’s likely to cement his hold on power with a majority government.

Does it even matter whether Harper is loved, loathed or feared? Probably not, blah, blah, blah, Dan Leger brainwashing exercise in thought control continued here.

Parliament works better when it’s closed

It is a mistake for Canadians to think that Parliament works better when it’s open. Sadly, it actually works better when it’s closed.

You see, when Parliament is closed it is prevented from passing legislation, as it has done in the past, that is passed on complete falsehoods. Take the income trust tax for example. This is a policy that caused Canadians to lose $35 billion of their life savings on the policy pretense that income trusts cause tax leakage. The FACT is that income trusts DO NOT CAUSE tax leakage. Income trusts are no more responsible for causing tax leakage, than every pension fund in the country is responsible for causing tax leakage, or that RRSPs cause tax leakage or that Jim Flaherty’s law firm causes tax leakage. Those are the facts of the situation. So why were income trusts singled-out for this 31.5% tax, and only publicly traded income trusts targeted for this tax? For the simple fact that the users of capital in this country (i.e. corporations and their CEOs) did not want to live by the rules of the income trust model which was favoured by the providers of capital in this country (namely average Canadians citizens saving and investing for retirement).

So the capital users went crying to the politicians in Ottawa, who are ostensibly the representatives of the people, and concocted a bespoke tax policy that allowed these Corporate CEOs to carry on with their abusive corporate practices and screw the average Canadian saving for retirement and employ the services of the elected politicians to tax investment options away from the average Canadian based on premises that were and are completely false.

This is the irrefutable REALITY of how Parliament works when it is in session. It passes laws that are regressive to the vast majority of Canadians based on completely false premises, in order to appease and kowtow to a very small and select powerful group of people in this country. How contemptible is that?

As such, Parliament works better when it’s closed. Parliamentarians themselves, through their very actions of the past are the ones who have proven that to be the case. Parliamentarians like Jack Layton of the NDP. What hard proof did he and his party have that income trusts cause tax leakage? None whatsoever. Did he even ask for proof? No. For Jack Layton to assume that income trust cause tax leakage, would also mean that Jack Layton would be equally willing to assume that RRSPs themselves cause tax leakage. Would that mean that Jack Layton would support a 31.5% tax on all RRSPs? I doubt it, and yet such a policy of taxing RRSPs at 31.5% makes as much sense as taxing income trusts at 31.5%.

That’s the problem with Canada’s Parliament. It is completely lacking in any degree of intellectual of factual rigour in how it conducts its affairs. Instead Canada’s Parliament operates on assumptions. Assumptions that are often begun by paid lobbyists who spend their entire lives lobbying MPs for legislation that favours their own self interests. Blind assumptions like the one made by the NDP party and virtually every MP In Parliament that income trusts cause tax leakage. That is simply not the case, as income trusts DO NOT cause tax leakage. Instead Parliament operates on assumptions. And you know what they say about people who assume. People who assume, make asses of u and me.

Much like the politicians in the US Congress made the blind assumption that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction as their false assumption on which to base their disastrous invasion of Iraq, so too Canadians politicians in Parliament made the blind assumption that income trusts cause tax leakage as their false assumption on which to base their disastrous taxation of income trusts, that has led to the lose of an essential investment choice for the 75% of Canadians without pensions ( at a time when Canadians are more concerned about their retirements than ever) the loss of $35 billion of Canadians retirement savings, the wholesale foreign takeover of over $100 billion in policy related takeovers, causing the massive loss of REAL tax revenue to all Canadian taxpayers that will ultimately reach $7.5 billion PER ANNUM in lost tax revenue.

If this is the quality of the decision making that goes on when Parliament is in session, it is impossible to argue that Parliament works better when it’s closed. Closing Parliament is much like taking away the keys from some drunk driver before he gets into his car and takes the life of some innocent pedestrian or fellow motorist, which is analogous to what Jack Layton and the NDP did when they voted for the income trust tax along with every one of the sycophant Conservative MPs in Parliament. That House of ill repute. Please keep this institution closed until such time as it demonstrated it has sobered up to the point where legislation no longer gets passed that is based on complete falsehoods. The way to demonstrate its new sober attitude to governing the country, would be to demand that Jim Flaherty expose the falsehoods about tax leakage that are hidden by his 18 pages of blacked out documents. The 18 pages of blacked out documents that Jack Layton and the NDP party along with every sycophant Conservative MP thought was proof of tax leakage, but which instead was proof of their utter incompetence and contempt for democracy.

CAITI was among the first to decry Harper's attack on democracy

Click on image to enlarge.

It has become very fashionable of late for many in the media to speak out against Stephen Harper's undermining of Canadian democracy. These journalist/reporter/media types are laughably late to this story, by about FOUR years. Evidently these people in the media need to have the picture painted for them in Technicolour before they realize what's been going on with the degradation of Canada's democracy from the very moment that Harper first entered office as PM.

Four years is a bit late to be catching on to this story don't you think? CAITI ran a series of ads in the Hill Times in the first three months of 2007 when CAITI first came into existence that were all about Harper's attack on Canada's democracy. One of these CAITI ads is pictured above entitled "Stephen Harper's insidious attack on democracy" that ran in February 2007, and this ad copy cites seven separate incidents that occurred to that point which indicated Harper's insidious attack on Canada's democracy. That was almost three years ago! Where was the press then on this story, back then? For those of us who were paying attention, it comes as no surprise that three years later we have the very same Stephen Harper proroguing Parliament for the second time in less that a year, in order to avoid being accountable for the possible torture of Afghan detainees and as the means to evade accountability to the Canadian people.

But what did anyone expect from a Prime Minister who completely evaded accountability for causing $35 billion in losses to Canadians hard earned savings from his income trust policy that was based on his argument that income trusts cause tax leakage. A concept whose "proof" took the form of 18 pages of blacked out documents? The Canadian media was Harper's greatest ally and enabler in evading accountability on that massive fraud of a tax policy. What else did people really need to know about Harper's complete disregard for being held to account, than that seminal experience? Or any of the other six separate incidents cited in the CAITI ad of February 2007? The writing was on the wall. Too bad, it took the rest of the country and virtually all of the media another THREE YEARS to awaken to what was obvious to anyone with half a brain, and the ability to connect the dots, back then.

Meanwhile the Canadian news media is only now picking up on that theme, almost THREE YEARS later. Where have these people been, such that they are only now awakening to this obvious assault on Canada's democracy by Stephen Harper? This is what you get when the media in Canada is so narrowly held by a small number of commercial interests whose agenda is often at opposition with that of Canadians at large and who are more than happy to obscure the truth on something so demonstrably false as tax leakage. Tax leakage, as reported in the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the National Post, the Calgary Herald et al, is reported upon as if it were the truth, when in fact it is a blatant and demonstrable lie.

Which makes you wonder, who is more responsible for the degradation of democracy in Canada? Stephen Harper or the Canadian media? Stephen Harper or the editors of the Globe and Mail? Stephen Harper or the Editorial Board of the Toronto Star?

I treat them all with the same level of disdain, as collectively they are responsible for the degradation of Canada's democracy. Stephen Harper along with the sycophant Canadian media. Pox on all of them.

Why Stephen Harper is a Clear and Present Danger to Canadian Democracy

By W.T. Stanbury, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia,
January 1, 2010

Introduction

Stephen Harper is well on his way to becoming a transformative Prime Minister— in a way that is a clear and present danger to Canadian democracy.

By telephone, Harper obtained the approval of the Governor General to prorogue Parliament on December 30,2009 until March 3,2010 (see Globe and Mail, Dec. 30,2009). This move has been called “ a shocking insult to democracy” by former Liberal minister Ralph Goodale; “a political scam” by NDP MP Libby Davies; and “a travesty, but…devilishly clever” by columnist John Ibbitson. A Globe and Mail editorial (Dec.31,2009) called it an “underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament” while columnist Andrew Coyne (www.macleans.ca,Dec.31,2009) said the prorogation was “not illegal” but it was “an abuse of process, an insult to Parliament, [and] another step on Parliament’s long slide into irrelevancy.” Columnist Susan Riley said that the move was “shocking, but hardly surprising…an expression [of the PM’s ] contempt not just for Parliament, but for government” (Ottawa Citizen,Dec.31,2009). On the other hand, a National Post editorial (Dec.31,2009) said the move was “far from being undemocratic” [as the PM was] “seeking to eliminate an artificial log-jam in the Senate” where the Liberals have a majority and have been holding up legislation passed by the Commons.

I argue that this latest prorogation is part and parcel of a distinct and cumulative pattern of behaviour by Prime Minister Harper intended to transform Canadian democracy itself. He has been undermining a number of long- standing customs, conventions and practices that are central in holding the Government accountable to Parliament and ultimately to electors.

The specific actions I outline below have each been the subject of much negative comment. But the big picture has remained obscure. The danger lies in the combination of actions. And all of this has been done since February 2006 during two minority governments.

Transformative Actions

• Harper prevented the near certain defeat of his Government when on Dec.4,2008 he persuaded the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until January 26,2009 to prevent his succession by a coalition. Harper defended his action by making false claims that the coalition would have been an undemocratic coup.

Facing certain defeat, Harper escaped by persuading the Governor General to suspend Parliament and by convincing a surprising number of civics-challenged citizens that he alone could rule. On balance, Michaëlle Jean was right. By any measure beyond a propaganda triumph, Harper was wrong.(James Travers, Toronto Star,Dec.15,2009).
Brian Topp, an NDP insider, at the end of a detailed description on how the ill-fared coalition came about, drew this conclusion:. “It was .. entirely inappropriate, democratically illegitimate and improper in 2008 for Mr. Harper to direct an appointed official, the Governor-General, to instruct the majority in the House of Commons on when it can sit or what business it can conduct, so that the Prime Minister could avoid a confidence vote. The friends of the Governor-General’s conduct will reply, fairly in the circumstances, that she must do as she is told by the prime minister.
The prime minister holds his office because he commands the support of the House of Commons. Harold Wilson, the former prime minister of Britain, had a great deal of experience in minority Parliaments. In his book The Governance of Britain, he wrote: “The prime minister and his cabinet are accountable to Parliament. They have no fixed term of office, such as that of an American president, who is secure for four years though perhaps legislatively impotent for part of that time. They survive as a government just as long – not a day longer – as they can count of the support of a majority of Parliament, however small that majority may be.” (Globe and Mail,Dec.4,2009).

This view is echoed by virtually every scholar who has written on the subject.

Columnist Frances Russell described Harper’s actions as follows: “Faced with defeat on a non-confidence vote, Harper and some of his ministers not only deliberately rubbed raw every one of Canada's deepest and most divisive linguistic and regional nerves, they threatened the office of the governor general and precipitated a prorogation precedent that turns Canada, in the words of one commentator, into "a banana republic with snowflakes."( Winnipeg Free Press, May 20,2009).

• The Harper Government has made unprecedented use of attack ads (spending about $2 million in 2007 and 2008 and another $3 million in 2009) to attempt to destroy two consecutive Leaders of the Liberal Party Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

Frances Russell(Winnipeg Free Press, May 20,2009) described the ads attacking Michael Ignatieff as follows: “The French language ads portray Ignatieff as anti-Quebec, claiming he speaks Parisian French because he is contemptuous of Quebec francophones and their accent; he believes, like former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, that Quebec must be kept in check, and he ridicules Quebecers as no more than North Americans who happen to speak French. As Toronto Star/Montreal La Presse columnist and CBC commentator Chantal Hebert writes, it is "unprecedented" for a sitting prime minister to approve French language ads that depict a fellow federalist leader as hostile to Quebec.” The English-language ads focused on the theme that Ignatieff is "not in it for Canada, just visiting,” apparently because he has spent most of his professional life in the UK and US. Russell concluded that “Harper's apparent fixation with personal attack ads outside elections is more evidence of his disregard for democratic norms and limits..”

• Harper has greatly expanded the government propaganda machine controlled by PMO, and he has coordinated it with the between election communications efforts of the Conservative Party
See Stanbury, The Hill Times, Nov. 23,2009


• Harper has continues the shift toward what Prof. Donald Savoie calls “court government.”

Harper has practiced extreme centralization of both decision-making and message control. Some observers that this is the result of four factors: the new CPC is a merger of disparate elements; the CPC suffers from a severe case of “opposition mentality,” not having held office since 1984-1993; as leader of a minority Government Harper faces great uncertainty and the best way to cope with it is to centralize; Harper has to muzzle his more “primitive” MPs whose views could “frighten the horses” when the polls show that a majority of Canadians distrust the PM.

Harper has treated his ministers—with a very few exceptions—as less important than did Jean Chrétien who is said to have used his ministers as a focus group, while brutally reminding them he was in charge. Harper has appointed to the Senate person who continue to act as party strategists and senior campaign operatives.

Harper effectively forced out Kevin Lynch as Clerk of the Privy Council in favor of a man he believes will be more responsive to the Government’s desire to politicize almost everything. Harper has limited the traditional role of senior officials as policy advisors. He has relied more on political staffers in the PMO, and on more politically attuned officials in the PCO. In some cases, major policy changes have been announced with almost no analytical work to support them.

• Harper has used the Conservative Party to sue a government agency with respect to an investigation of the Party.
The Conservative Party sued Elections Canada over being denied financial rebates for the alleged "in-and-out" transactions. The lawsuit is unprecedented. No political party, much less a governing one, has ever sued a government agency. No other party could even afford such a move.

• For short-term partisan advantage, Harper has made important legal and fiscal concessions to the provinces.
He has given up federal powers, responsibilities and revenues to the provinces He ha lavished federal money on Quebec in the (false) name of fiscal rebalancing and increased its equalization payments. Purely on his own, he got Parliament to recognize the Quebecois as a distinct nation. It will be nearly impossible for Ottawa to regain powers that have been given to the provinces. And the increased flow of funds to Quebec and other provinces will be a new higher base from which demands for more will be launched.

• Harper has “defunded” the federal government by hard-to-reverse tax cuts and nearly hidden tax expenditures.

• Corporate income taxes have been cut across the board regressively and so have personal taxes and GST. By 2012, the cuts are estimated to cost the federal government $40 billion per year. New programs now will require greatly increased levels of taxation, a most difficult task for any new government.

According to fiscal expert Jack Mintz,"The real cost [of the Tax-Free Savings Account –a new tax expenditure--announced in the 2008 Budget] will be down the road, when many seniors will have untaxed investment income sheltered in the TFSA.Of course, someone else will be in power by then, and Flaherty's new account will make life a lot tougher for tax-and-spend governments in the future."( Canadian Business Magazine, March 26,2008).

• The Harper Government has repeatedly denied the principle of ministerial responsibility which is a fundamental attribute of Canada’s Westminster model of government.

Columnist William Johnson has argued that, “Since they took office in February 2006, Stephen Harper and his ministers have evaded answering for the treatment of detainees turned over by Canadian forces to Afghan authorities….[Now] the crux of the matter [is] ministerial responsibility, and a culture of don't ask, don't tell running from the fields of Afghanistan to the Prime Minister's Office…. At issue is the credibility of the government and its responsibility to answer to Parliament and so to the people of Canada.” (Ottawa Citizen,Dec.15,2009)

• Despite claims of greater transparency, the Harper Government has exacerbated the culture of secrecy in Ottawa.

“The Conservatives won the 2006 election in part by promising transparency. Since then, Ottawa has become only more opaque as the result of the resolute Conservative effort to mute public watchdogs, pass the buck to civil servants and continue concentrating power among appointed partisans in the Prime Minister's Office.” .(James Travers,Toronto Star,Dec.15,2009).The two Harper Governments have kept more secrets, used various tools to defeat applications under the Access to Information Act, and engaged in cover-ups (the one re Afghan detainees being the most obvious—see Stanbury,The Hill Times,Nov.30,2009).

The government has subverted Canadian democracy by its constant misinformation, by its withholding and censuring of documents, by making non-credible claims that it cannot release documents for reasons of national security. (William Johnson,Ottawa Citizen,Dec.15,2009)

The maintenance of the largest possible amount of secrecy—in the face of a large number of requests under the Access to Information Act—is a game played energetically by the government of the day, and by public servants. An extensive list of the techniques used by the Harper Government can be found in The Hill Times, June 15,2009,pp.24-25.

• The Harper Government has made claims of what amounts to executive privilege re information requested by Commons committee re Afghan detainees.

. By balking at Parliament's demand for information, Harper is assuming powers of executive privilege normally associated with U.S. presidents, not Canadian prime ministers.(John Mraz, National Post, Dec. 15,2009).
Conclusion: As head of two minority governments, Prime Minister Harper has made a series of moves that have undermined Canadian democracy. Harper has shown in stark relief major flaws in the structure of the Canada’s version of the Westminster model of government. Should he win a majority, it is reasonable to believe that Harper will go much further down the road toward an elected dictatorship.

Harper isn't the problem. He is merely the symptom

A large part of me relishes that fact that Stephen Harper is abusing his Office of Prime Minister at every single opportunity that he can, to the point where it has become almost impossible to ignore. I relish in this, for the simple fact that misery loves company. Those of us who were massively abused by Stephen Harper back in October 2006 when he broke his “solemn” income trust promise of the 2006 election, and did so by conjuring up the completely false and bogus tax leakage argument, find comfort in knowing that a larger number of Canadians are now being abused at the hands of Stephen Harper and his endless audacity.

Even people like Andrew Coyne of Macleans who applauded Harper’s income trust tax, without having even lifted a finger to establish whether Harper’s tax leakage argument was fact or fiction, are now decrying Harper’s second kick at the prorogation can. Somehow Andrew Coyne was able to justify Harper’s first prorogation, but is having a difficult time justifying this second prorogation. Countless others in the media, who have been Harper’s most steadfast poodles of the past, are doing likewise in decrying Harper’s latest act of audacity. These latter day keepers of Canada’s democracy are nothing but late comers, in recognizing the abuses of Stephen Harper that have been going on since he first entered office. It gives me great joy to see them squirm with discomfort over the latest move by the very person they have all been instrumental in enabling.

However Harper isn’t the real problem here. He is merely the symptom. To assume that Harper is the problem would be as delusional a misdiagnosis as positing that Michael Ignatieff is somehow, the de facto “solution”. He is not, and nor is any other person who might occupy that office of Prime Minister, unless of course, that person is willing to institute major changes to how Canada operates as a country, by shifting absolute power away from the Prime Minister and reinvesting it into the other institutions of Canada’s democracy, like Parliament itself and their various checks and balances, like those afforded by entities such as the Auditor General, and regulators like the Nuclear Safety Commissioner for example, or other nascent concepts to provide checks and balances, like the Parliamentary Budget Officer for example.

Canada doesn’t need a new Prime Minister to resolve the problems brought upon by Stephen Harper as much as Canada needs to renegotiate its contract with whomever it is who is privileged to occupy that office. That privilege has been abused by many occupants of the past, with Stephen Harper being the most abusive, for the simple fact that he is the most audacious. Audacious in his willingness to interpret the incredibly loose rules of the game, in a way that favour him the most, and at every turn of the screw.

No democratic system of government should have rules that are so loosely defined and so loosely enforced as to permit Stephen Harper, or Michael Ignatieff or any other future occupant of the office of Prime Minister, to effectively circumvent the will of the people and do their own bidding.

Bottom line: This endless erosion of democracy has to stop and be reversed in a material way. This country is in desperate need of fundamental democratic reform. Not so much in the way in which Members of Parliament are elected (eg first past the post versus proportionate representation) but in the way in which they are allowed to exercise that power, when in office. Any country in which its citizens can lose $35 billion of their life savings, based on a government lie about something as infinitely provable or disprovable as tax leakage, is as far removed from a democracy as living in somewhere like Russia or China or some totalitarian state can get. Unfortunately, that’s not the way that Canada’s supposed defenders of democracy, namely the press, seem to see it? Would that have anything (or perhaps everything?) to do with the fact that Canada’s press are (i) financially illiterate, (ii) commercially conflicted, or (iii) both?

My answer in most cases would be (iii). Answer (iii) would apply to people like John Stackhouse, Eric Reguly, Dereck DeCloet and Andy Willis of the Globe and Mail. But with a degree in Economics from the London School of Economics, the better answer for Andrew Coyne would be (ii) commercially conflicted, as obviously people like Andrew Coyne could give a hoot about things like tax leakage or democracy in Canada, except when it directly affects them, and their precious sensibilities. Like I said at the outset, a large part of me relishes watching people like Andrew Coyne of Macleans or Jim Travers of the Toronto Star, squirm with discomfort at the latest move of the dictator they were instrumental in enabling in the first place. Stephen Harper. The man who was given a megaphone from press organizations like Macleans, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail with which to lie to all Canadians, about something so patently false as tax leakage.

This country needs fundamental democratic reform, which would have the added benefit of making journalists completely redundant. Journalists would now find themselves useless, but for a different ( and better) reason. Instead of just being useless of their own volition by failing to hold politicians to account on incredibly easy things like tax leakage, these journalists would now be rendered useless, by virtue of the fact that a true democracy would never let such an unproven concept find its way into the House of Commons to be voted on in the first place. Thereby eliminating any real need for journalists, since they never do any fact gathering of their own, but merely regurgitate the news that is fed to them.

My extensive first hand experiences of the past three years have taught me that no person is deserving of one’s faith. Not the politicians (eg Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, or any Liberal for that matter either, and certainly not the brain dead NDP), no bureaucrat (e.g. Mark Carney. Kevin Lynch, etc), no oversight body (the Senate, the Auditor General), no industry association (eg. CAIF, CARP ), no think-tank (eg. Fraser Institute, CD Howe), no lobby group (CCCE, IDA), no union (CAW, CPW), and certainly not the press (too many and too egregious to mention by name, except to say the Diane Francis is the only journalist who demonstrated integrity and professionalism in covering this topic). The only thing that is deserving of one’s faith is to establish new institutions of democracy and enhance the existing institutions of democracy with a system of checks and balances that makes them impervious to the self interests that rule Canada today. Namely commercial interests at home and abroad.

Do you honestly think that electing PM Candidate A versus PM Candidate B, will do anything to change that corrupt dynamic, apart from at the margin? Where do you think these Candidate for PM got the money to fund their leaderships bids from in the first place. If not the deep pocketed commercial interests that plucked them from obscurity in the first place? Placing the same campaign finance reforms on leadership bids, that presently exist on general elections, would be a good place to start the process of fundamental democratic reform in this country. Do I hear any candidate for office, calling for such changes? Stephen Harper? Michael Ignatieff?

Without fundamental democratic reform, we are merely treating the symptoms and not the disease, as we cycle through one Prime Minister after the next, each intent on wresting more power from and less accountability to, the people they ostensibly work for.

Canadian democracy is broken. Who is going to fix it?

Subtitle: My best advice for Michael Ignatieff

Canadian democracy has been on a steady decline long before this recent incident involving Stephen Harper’s refusal to release the truth to Canadians about the possible torture of Afghan detainees. This is but the latest example of Canadian politicians using the power of their office to deny Canadians their basic democratic rights as voting citizens.

The real question is who is going to fix it?

All we have witnessed in the past, in situations similar to this, are politicians who position themselves to exploit these circumstances for their own political advantage, rather than correct them, only to constrain their power in office?

This is exactly what happened in the 2006 election in the aftermath of the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal. Seeking an opportunity to exploit, rather than correct, Stephen Harper wrapped himself in a holier than thou robe, and proclaimed that if elected he would usher in a whole new era of government accountability and transparency. It worked. Harper rode that wave of self righteousness right into office.. He even went so far as to pass legislation known as the Accountability Act, which was only meant to placate the voting public with the false aura of a new regime of greater accountability, but has provided nothing of the sort at the point where the tire actually hits the road.

What “Accountability Act” would allow a government to constantly hide behind blacked out documents, be it in the case of income trusts and “proof” of alleged tax leakage or knowing the truth about the conditions that were faced by Afghan detainees? Whose idea of accountability is that? Government accountability under the Harper government is at its lowest level ever, as witnessed by a multitude of things, too numerous to mention. Meanwhile Harper has rendered the civil servants more emasculated than ever, each fearing that they will become the next Linda Keen or Richard Colvin if they dare do their job properly and as called upon.

So the real question is who is going to fix it?

My greatest concern is that the opposing political parties will exploit the circumstances and the fall out of this Afghan detainee matter, as the means for their own political ascension and then do nothing thereafter to usher in the fundamental reforms that are required to restore democracy to Canada and its citizens.

What assurances are there that a Liberal government under Michael Ignatieff believes in democracy any more than Stephen Harper himself? I have no such evidence, do you? Rather than relying on wishful thinking, let’s call a spade a spade. For example, Michael Ignatieff was not elected as leader of the Liberal Party, but rather was anointed. The President of the Liberal Party, Alf Apps, was not elected as the President of the Liberal Party, but was acclaimed the President of the Party, after the other candidates on the ballot were strong-armed into dropping out in favour of Ignatieff’s “guy”. Does this sound like a party that has a fundamental belief in the underpinnings of a true democratic process, or a party that will happily bend those rules, as suits the purposes of the moment?

Therefore, it would be wrong for Canadians to blithely assume that the election of a Liberal party would lead to an outcome concerning democracy, that is any better than which exists under Stephen Harper today. I am no Pollyanna, are you?

What we need as Canadians is fundamental reform concerning the re-establishment and enforcement of the institution of democracies in this country. Things like the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Officer with the powers and resources to match the Government Accounting Office in the US. The obligatory calling of public hearings and public consultation whenever new tax measures are being considered that place citizens on an equal footing with paid lobbyists. The full release of public documents in real time to citizens who request them, except in the most extreme cases of true National Emergency, where such invocations of National Security could be challenged by citizens in court under a process similar to the Court Challenges program. I do not profess to know all the measures that would need to be undertaken in this country to restore Canada to the democracy that many think that it is, but that it clearly is not. But I do know that such fundamental reform is urgently needed will not occur through a process as simple and unreliable as voting a new party into office. That is as unlikely an outcome as winning the lottery.

If political parties want to exploit the electorate’s concern of the day about the need for a democracy with real teeth and real checks and balances on the abuse of power and privilege, then they are going to have to do something a lot more convincing than simply saying “I am not Stephen Harper”, and thinking they can assume power through the process of default. Nor will it be acceptable to simply promise to usher in a new era of accountability, as Harper did in the after-math of the Sponsorship Scandal. We’ve seen that movie before and it had a very bad ending. Promises amount to nothing.

We need fundamental democratic reform in this country and the re-establishment of the institutions of democracy. If politicians in this country want my vote and the vote of millions upon millions of like minded Canadians across this country, then they are going to have to come up with something better than what we have seen to date and show some real back bone and conviction. The prize will no longer go to politicians that proclaims the greatest outrage, but rather to the one who firmly commits to fundamental democratic reform on terms previously defined and in a fully binding fashion.

As for Michael Ignatieff, this upcoming Liberal gathering in Montreal in the new year, of what Ignatieff calls the “best and brightest minds in the country’ (whatever that means?), provides the perfect forum for hashing out precisely what needs to be done in order to re-establish true democracy in Canada. Everything else is secondary in importance to that. The best advice I can give the Liberals. is to wipe the slate clean on the planned agenda for that gathering, and focus on the single most important issue of the day, namely democracy.

Ignatieff should tell Canadians that he wants to be the leader of a true democracy, rather than merely the Prime Minister of Canada, like those before him, by campaigning on a binding set of democratic reforms, decided upon through major public input.