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.

Ignatieff’s Liberals only believe in transparency when it suits them. Ditto the NDP

Transparency is a cornerstone of democracy. Without transparency, democracies merely devolve into the equivalent of totalitarian states where those in power can do anything they want, and employing whatever false pretenses they wish to “justify” their unilateral actions.

Without the ability to reveal the truth about otherwise false pretenses, citizens become merely the instruments by which others attain absolute power.

So why do the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff only care about transparency when it suits their purposes, as we are witnessing in the events of the last two weeks? This makes them virtually no different that the Harper Conservatives.

Invoking principles like transparency, as the Liberals are doing on the matter of seeking access to the information contained in the blacked out documents concerning Afghan detainees, is not a principle if it is selectively administered and selectively championed, as the Liberals are doing. Instead it is merely an artifice, an excuse, a means of self advancement and political opportunism of the most cynical and exploitative kind.

Why are the Liberals not demanding the information contained in the blacked out documents that the Harper government offered up as their only “proof” of tax leakage with the same level of vigour and sanctimonious zeal as they are displaying on the Afghan detainee file? Why? The ONLY conclusion is that the Liberal Party’s interest in transparency is reserved for those situations that benefit THEM, and the need for transparency is not a universal principle of the Liberal party and designed to benefit CANADIANS.

I want nothing to do with a party or a political leader who applies such a fundamental principle like transparency in a completely arbitrary, ad hoc and self serving manner. Ignatieff needs to correct this gross disparity being displayed by his parties actions, Failure to do so, will only mean that the potential solution afforded by a Liberal Party in office, will only be as bad ( maybe worse?) as the one they hope to replace, namely the Harper Conservatives, when it comes to achieving any degree of real transparency for Canadians from those who govern us and those who ostensibly represent us.

My own Member of Parliament,. Carolyn Bennett, affords another good example of the Liberal party’s true inner beliefs when it comes to transparency, when she openly opposed in February of this year, the idea of Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, making his findings available to the public at large (true transparency) as opposed to what she was advocating, just to MPs (faux transparency and political opportunism).

For the time being I think the Liberal Party needs to climb down from its high horse, as it only SELECTIVELY CHAMPIONS the cause of transparency. Better would be if the Liberal Party under Ignatieff were to begin to apply the concept of transparency on a consistent and universal basis.

Every time I see one of Ujjal Dosangh. Bob Rae, Micahel Ignatieff, Daniel Leblanc or some other Liberal pontificate about the need for transparency on this Aghan detainee issue and mount their high horse of moral rectitude and sanctimonious indignation, I am reminded of how hypocritical they are being by completely letting down ALL CANADIAN TAXPAYERS by not revealing the patent falsehoods of Harper allegation that income trusts cause tax leakage, which was the very central premise on which his income trust tax policy was based. A policy that has seen the wholesale foreign takeover of Canadian businesses, which left unaddressed will lead to the loss of $7.5 billion in annual tax revenue.

Enough with the sham democracies that rule this country, be they Liberal or Conservative, They are all shams of one form or another, as they attempt to mislead Canadians at large on bahalf of the narrow vested interests that pull both party’s strings.

It is clear from the Liberal’s total disinterest in the truth (ie patent lies) about tax leakage who they are really working for. And its certainly not the 33 million Canadian taxpayers and citizens of this country. That much is abundantly transparent from their total disinterest in revealing that patent falsehood that is being disguised by Harper’s 18 pages of blacked out tax leakage documents. Torture is more the Liberal’s cup of tea than restoring the $35 billion in retirement savings that Canadians lost on the basis of a complete lie.

Meanwhile, if we only have the political opportunism of the Liberals to rely on concerning the matter of transparency, does it not occur to the Liberals that a trend can not be established from a single data point, and that trends require at least two data points to have any meaning? Even Ujjal Dosangh expressed concerns that some Canadians will fall victim to the Conservative’s argument that most Canadians don’t care whether one Afghan tortures another Afghan. This may well be true for many of the mindless people who vote for Harper, so the appeal needs to be made on the higher level of transparency. To do that, require other example beyond merely the Afghan detainee issue. No better example of that exists than Harper’s use of blacked out documents in the case his tax leakage lie. When will the Liberal ever understand that they have to appeal to the vast masses, of they ever hope to succeed in forming the next government, as indicated by the results of the following Angus Reid survey:

- Four out of five Canadians say the federal government should publicly
release the data and methodology it used to estimate the amount of tax
loss caused by income trusts.

- Only one out of 20 Canadians feel that Finance Minister Flaherty's
proposed income trust legislation will strengthen Canada's social security system
for seniors and pensioners.

- Nearly nine out of 10 Canadians say it is difficult to provide for
themselves with sufficient income when they retire, given today's low
interest rate environment.

- Only one in five Canadians believe Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's
proposal for changing the tax rate on income trusts would level the
playing field.

- The resounding majority of Canadians say Finance Minister Flaherty's
proposed tax legislation is unfair to Canadians who hold income trusts
in their RRSPs.

- Finance Minister Flaherty calls his proposed legislation "tax
fairness," but two-thirds of Canadians disagree.

- Only one out of 20 Canadians feel that Finance Minister Flaherty's
proposed legislation will strengthen Canada's social security system
for seniors and pensioners.

- A majority of Canadians say it was wrong for Prime Minister Stephen
Harper to break his election promise not to introduce new taxes on
income trusts.

The Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors (www.caiti.info)
commissioned a poll to test Canadian's level of support for this new tax and
the foundations on which it is based. From March 13 to March 15, 2007, Angus
Reid Strategies conducted a survey of 1138 randomly selected and
representative adult Canadians. The margin of error for the survey was +/-
2.9%, 19 times out of 20.