On Omnibus Bills and Budgets

For the last several years, the Harper Government has been pushing through the bulk of its legislative agenda as part of the legislation associated with what we would traditionally call a "Budget Implementation Bill".  (I would note that Harper doesn't call them "budgets" any more, preferring the more jingoistic moniker "Economic Action Plan" as part of his government's propaganda campaigns.

By definition, an omnibus bill is one that affects multiple pieces of legislation when fully enacted.  Most budget bills are a form of omnibus bill because they end up not only authorizing the overall expenditure of money by the government, but also make a myriad of adjustments to various laws related to the budget.  For example, the 2007 budget implementation legislation changed multiple acts - the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, Tax Back Guarantee Act, and others.  This is fairly typical.  In the case of budget implementation bills, they usually do affect multiple pieces of legislation and it makes sense to deal with them as part of a larger whole rather than bombarding parliament with a ton of smaller bills which deal with the individual changes to each act.

In 2009, the Harper Government introduced the term "Economic Action Plan" as a subtitle for their budget that year.  This is something of a turning point in Harper's approach to the entire process of parliamentary budgets and how they are communicated to Canadians.  The moniker of "Economic Action Plan" was used to label the projects associated with the economic downturn that had begun in 2008.

Since then, even though the spending related to economic stimulus is long since expired, Harper has continued to use the "Economic Action Plan" moniker as part of the ongoing propaganda campaign that he has been running to prop up his government.

The 2012 Budget Implementation legislation ( Bill C-38 ) took the concept of "omnibus" legislation to a new level, containing far more than legislation required to implement a budget, and instead making massive changes to implement more of Harper's policy agenda.

In particular, it gutted the existing body of legislation related to managing Canada's environment and implemented an entirely new regime:

Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which establishes a new federal environmental assessment regime. Assessments are conducted in relation to projects, designated by regulations or by the Minister of the Environment, to determine whether they are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that fall within the legislative authority of Parliament, or that are directly linked or necessarily incidental to a federal authority’s exercise of a power or performance of a duty or function that is required for the carrying out of the project.

Other writers have commented at length on the flaws and problems with this legislation.  I will only add that I am appalled by the degree to which the legislation moves decision making powers into the political sphere by enabling the "Governor in Council" to make key decisions, without accountability to either Parliament or process.  Traditionally, the ability of the government to make decisions via the "Governor in Council" mechanism has been limited to making decisions related to the essential expenditure of funds at times when Parliament is not sitting.  (e.g. to respond to an emergency of some kind)

Division 2 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to allow the Governor in Council to make the decision about the issuance of certificates for major pipelines.

This is part of a change of direction that places a great deal of power in the hands of the Cabinet, and in particular the Privy Council ultimately.

Harper has spent millions of dollars on his propaganda campaign to convince us that the "economic action plan" is a "good thing".

In 2005-06, Ottawa spent $41.3 million on advertising, a number the government has roughly doubled in every year since Stephen Harper took office in January 2006.

The Conservatives — who rode to power in part due to the Liberal sponsorship scandal and government advertising corruption — spent more than half a billion dollars, $548.6 million, on advertising through their first six years in office.

In 2010-11, Ottawa’s ad budget was $83.3 million, including almost $23 million on the Economic Action Plan. That was well down from 2009-10, when $136.3-million in total advertising included $53.2 million on the action plan.

Think about it.  While the government needs to communicate with the public, a steady doubling of expenditure is hardly a prudent use of taxpayer dollars, especially from a party which continues to insist that it is "a sound financial manager" for Canadians.

These are not supposed to be political ads. They feature no Conservative politicians. Still, they hardly feel like public-service spots. They aim to set a mood, rather than convey practical information. And get ready for more of the same on other key Tory themes. Under fire from the Opposition NDP for planning to gradually raise the eligibility age for Old Age Security to 67 from 65, starting in 2023, the government has budgeted $8 million for OAS ads. With Harper’s image as an economic leader tied so closely to streamlining approval of natural-resource projects, his government has $5 million earmarked for ads to promote that thrust. “The problem with this kind of advertising,” says Queen’s University politics professor Jonathan Rose, “is that it serves no public policy purpose.” 

Clearly, this is no longer about informing the public.  It is part of a planned propaganda campaign designed to keep Harper in power.

There are really two things going on in parallel here.

The first is the use of omnibus legislation in Parliament to overwhelm the legislative process and ensure that policy based on ideology is not adequately discussed in the House of Commons.  Everything that is said in the House is recorded in the Hansard and there is a clear written record of what every member has said.  When the legislation is so massive that it cannot be effectively analyzed, much less debated in the time limited fashion that Harper has brought in by invoking time limits on debate for his larger bills, it makes it far easier to ram through legislation which would otherwise be stopped by the howls of public protest even if the governing party has a majority.  (as happened with Vic Toews' "spy on everybody" act a year or so ago, which was allowed to quietly die on the backburner after citizens raised a fuss over it)  Along with other tactics such as the "manual on how to disrupt parliament" from 2006, we need to recognize that Harper is attacking the very underpinnings of our democratic institutions.

The second part of things is a propaganda campaign the likes of which Canadians have never experienced before.  Harper has reached into the toolkit used by just about every authoritarian or totalitarian regime in the last hundred years or so and pulled out the classic propaganda tools.  He is spending millions of taxpayer dollars not to inform Canadians of what the government is doing, but rather to misinform and misdirect us.  Although the EAP ads may not be overtly partisan, there is a myriad of subtle ways that it is.  The choice of colours for example, closely reflects the governing party's logo colours, carefully chosen wording, and the use of phrases like "The Harper Government" on press releases from Government Agencies are all means of reinforcing the association between these ads, government programs and the political party led by Harper.

In short, Canadian taxpayers are paying for Conservative party advertising.  These aren't campaign ads per se, but rather part of the ongoing "always in campaign mode" approach to governing that Harper adopted from the Bush II era Republicans.

We should bear in mind that Harper is unique in Canadian history.  Never before have we had a person in the PMO who is so strongly authoritarian in his approach to governance.  It is more important now than ever before to carefully evaluate everything that we see from this government and its allies and ensure that we corroborate from multiple sources.

Canary In The Corruption Part II

The scandal surrounding Mike Duffy continues to produce more revelations.  Today's we learn that the Senate committee's "official" version of Mike Duffy's audit has been sanitized:

A confidential report obtained by CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife shows the original version of Duffy’s audit found that the senator broke the Senate’s “very clear” and “unambiguous” residency rules. 

The report found that Duffy stayed in his Prince Edward Island cottage mostly during the summer months. He had listed it as his primary residence, which allowed him to claim an annual housing allowance given to senators who live more than 100 kilometres from Ottawa. 

Duffy’s air travel pattern also showed he lived in Ottawa and he had registered his address in the capital “for several official purposes,” according to the original report. 

The report also reveals that Duffy’s lawyers sought to have him exempted from the forensic audit.

Additionally, Harper-appointed Senator Pamela Wallin has chosen to sit as an independent in the Senate for the time being while her own expense claims are audited.  While Wallin's situation is different from Duffy's, it still looks as though she spent an enormous amount of time and money travelling.  This may or may not be necessary travel, I don't know - I will wait for the auditor's report before deciding whether Wallin has abused her privileges.

What I think we need to pay more attention to is the PMO and its denizens' actions in this whole mess.

On Friday, Harper’s former deputy chief of staff Keith Beardsley said Wright made a major mistake that will likely continue to dog the Conservative government for some time to come. 

As well, Eddie Goldenberg, former chief of staff to then-Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien, said Wright was “dead wrong” to cut Duffy a $90,000 cheque.

The Harper government was in full damage-control mode Friday, a day after Sen. Mike Duffy resigned from the Conservative caucus following new allegations he was claiming Senate expenses while campaigning for the Conservative party during the 2011 federal election. 

The prime minister, however, continues to stand by Wright, whose decision to give a $90,000 cheque to Duffy to cover improper Senate expense claims, is under review by the ethics commissioner.

I don't think I need to express further outrage at Duffy's hypocrisy.  Frankly it's out there for everybody to see, and Canadians should be outraged.   Not just with Duffy, but with the people at the top.  Even if the actions of Nigel Wright are deemed to be "ethically acceptable" by Parliament's Ethics Commissioner, they remain actions clearly designed to sweep the whole issue under the carpet.

Canadians should be asking themselves why the PMO is suddenly involving itself in paying off a Senator's debts?  Under Harper, the PMO has become something of a politburo - spending enormous amounts of money "managing the message", from centralizing government communications to actively spying on the utterances of MPs, both government and opposition.  The amount of power and control being exercised from this office since Harper came to power is truly disturbing.  That the members of his "personal office" believe that they are able to intervene directly in such a matter speaks to a sense of not just entitlement but invulnerability from scrutiny.  

Duffy Is The Canary In The Corruption Coal Mine

The story swirling around Mike Duffy changes faster than the Tory spin machine can keep up with.  A few days ago, Duffy had allegedly repaid the $90K in ineligible expenses.  Then yesterday it comes out that he hadn't actually repaid them himself, but rather someone in the PMO had handed Duffy a cheque for $90K.

But, let's dial back a ways to the beginning of this story, shall we?

Back in February, auditors were asked to investigate the residency claims of several senators, including Mike Duffy.

At that time, Duffy stated:

“As a Prince Edward Islander, born and bred, I am proud to represent my province and its interests in the Senate of Canada,” Duffy said in the statement.

“I represent taxpayers with care, and Canadians know I would never do anything to betray the public trust. I have a home in Prince Edward Island as required by law. I will have no further comment until this review is complete.”

Amusingly, a few days later, we learn that neighbors near Duffy's alleged "primary residence" on PEI hadn't seen him there very often at all.  Which, of course, raises questions as to whether or not Duffy is even eligible to sit as a Senator for PEI at all.

In march, Duffy promised to pay the expenses back.  In itself, that seems to be the honourable and appropriate thing to do.

During April, Duffy claimed he was going to do nothing until the results of the audit were in only to turn around a day later and claim that he had already paid the amount outstanding back.  The Conservative politburo in the PMO has lost control of this story - it has spun so far out of control that they cannot bury it.  The most recent twist of a "gift" of $90K to Duffy from a high level PMO staffer just smells wrong.  Not necessarily strictly wrong, but morally and ethically suspect.  To claim that Harper didn't know about it seems less than believable, especially given Harper's known track record as a micromanager.  Paying the money back smacks of a cover-up (which it is), and the longer this goes on, the worse it looks for both Duffy and the credibility of the Harper government.

One might be tempted to look upon this as simply an individual Senator overreaching their privileges.  That is certainly easy enough to do, after all Duffy is but a singular senator, and one who comes from a background of considerable privilege both in his personal life and as a reporter on Parliament Hill before he became a Senator.

Then we have the revelation that he was claiming significant expenses on his Senate expense account whilst campaigning during the 2011 election campaign.

Social media and newspaper reports offer a glimpse of how Duffy's busy campaign schedule overlapped with the Senate business he reported to auditors:

— On April 5, Duffy spoke to the Kootenay-Columbia Conservative association in British Columbia. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 8, candidate Sandy Lee tweeted that she was meeting Duffy in Norman Wells, N.W.T. Lee's campaign paid Duffy $209.01 in expenses. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 21, Duffy was reportedly campaigning with candidate Scott Armstrong in Nova Scotia. Armstrong's campaign paid Duffy $409.91 in expenses.

— On April 28, Duffy appeared to have a busy day in the Toronto area, campaigning with candidates Maureen Harquail, Wladyslaw Lizon and Gin Siow. Lizon's campaign paid Duffy $169.45, as did Siow. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 29, former cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon tweeted a picture of Duffy at an event outside of Ottawa that same day. The Deloitte audit listed Duffy as being in Ottawa on Senate business and claiming a per diem.

If Duffy collected daily Senate expenses while on the Conservative campaign trail, taxpayer may have paid twice: Conservative candidates who paid for Duffy's hotel stays would have received federal rebate money for those expenses.

Duffy's campaign events did not end there. On at least five other occasions documented in media reports, Duffy campaigned with Conservative candidates. He did not tell Deloitte about his campaign calendar, forcing Deloitte to list his activities as "undocumented."

In essence, taxpayers were paying for Duffy to travel around Canada campaigning for the Conservative party.

The first thing that comes to mind is that ALL Senators expense claims during the election campaign need to be reviewed.  If it is in fact a "normal practice" for Senators to claim travel expenses while on the campaign trail, that needs to stop.  Now.  An election campaign is not in any meaningful sense of the word "Senate Business".

However, this is but one thread in a much larger tapestry of Conservative dirty tricks during the 2011 election campaign.  Consider, for example the infamous Robocalls Scandal where Conservative telephone calls to constituency residents were used to direct voters to non-existent voting stations.  As if that were not enough, we also have Peter Penashue's resignation as a result of irregularities in campaign spending.  While there is no excusing Duffy's actions, he is in some ways the proverbial "canary in the coal mine".  He has been just naive enough that he has been caught out in a web of lies, deceit while his hand was firmly in the cookie jar.

Politics is a dirty sport at the best of times, and few if any politicians can claim to be entirely clean.  However, under Harper, things have sunk to levels far below those which Mulroney's government sank to in the late 1980s.  This is blatant corruption and pork-barrel politics at its worst.  While the events around the Airbus Affair certainly did not pass the smell test, they had a degree of ambiguity to them.  What we are seeing today is much more blatant in the degree and extent of the corruption and abuse of Canada's system of governance.

At the rate that he is going, Harper's legacy to Canadians will at its best be the redemption of Brian Mulroney.

On The Labrador By-Election Results

It comes as little surprise to me that Penashue was unable to regain his seat in Labrador.  Frankly, the biggest surprise was the number of votes that he was able to garner.  In my opinion, someone who stepped down for cheating on the last campaign should gather exactly zero votes.

Of course, the Conservative Spin Machine is immediately trying to turn a defeat into propaganda:

What is surprising is the collapse of the Liberal support during this by-election.  When this by-election was called the Liberals had a 43-point lead in the polls.  Since electing Justin Trudeau as leader and having him personally campaign there, they have dropped 20 points in Labrador.  That’s a significant drop in only a few weeks.  Labradorians were able to see firsthand how Justin Trudeau is in over his head. 

Objectively, this claim is utter nonsense.  Frankly, this is typical of the Karl Rove-inspired politics that Harper has been importing into Canada.  It boils down to taking anything that happens and trying to spin it into an attack on your adversaries.  The attempt to use it as an attack on Justin Trudeau smacks more of desperation to me.

 A closer look at the numbers over the last couple of elections is much more instructive:

[hide]Canadian federal election, 2008
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±pp	Expenditures
	Liberal	Todd Russell	5,426	70.28	+19.75	$26,887
	New Democratic	Phyllis Artiss	1,378	17.85	+8.77	$5,886
	Conservative	Lacey Lewis	615	7.97	-31.70	$15,728
	Green	Nyssa Christine McLeod	302	3.91	+3.19
Total valid votes/Expense limit			7,721	99.15	$81,667
Total rejected ballots			66	0.85	+0.40
Turnout			7,787	38.60	-19.8
Eligible voters			20,175	–	–
	Liberal hold		Swing	+5.49

[hide] v   t   e Canadian federal election, 2011: Labrador
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±pp
	Conservative	Peter Penashue	4,256	39.81	+31.84
	Liberal	Todd Russell	4,177	39.07	-31.21
	New Democratic	Jacob Larkin	2,120	19.83	+1.98
	Green	George C.R. Barrett	139	1.30	-2.61
Total valid votes			10,692	100.00
Total rejected ballots			52	0.48	-0.37
Turnout			10,744	53.44	+14.84
Eligible voters			20,104
	Conservative gain from Liberal		Swing		+31.5%

[hide] v   t   e Canadian federal by-election, May 13, 2013: Labrador
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±pp
	Liberal	Yvonne Jones	5,814	48.21	+9.14%
	Conservative	Peter Penashue	3,922	32.52	-7.29%
	New Democratic	Harry Borlase	2,273	18.85	-0.98%
	Libertarian	Norman Andrews	50	0.41	-
Total valid votes/Expense limit			12,059	100.00
Total rejected ballots
Turnout			12,059	59.55	+6.11%
Eligible voters			20,251
Called on the resignation of Peter Penashue, March 14, 2013
	Liberal gain from Conservative		Swing		+9.14%

What we really see in these numbers is a collapse in the voter turnout in 2008, with it dropping to 38.6%, followed by a gradual recovery to 59.55% turnout in yesterday's byelection.

Penashue barely won in the 2011 election, winning on a margin of less than 100 ballots.  Hardly a ringing endorsement of support for Penashue in the first place.

Yvonne Jones took the riding in the by-election with a 5,814 votes - slightly more than the 5,426 votes Todd Russell won with in 2008.  In comparison, Penashue took the riding in 2011 with 4,256 votes and went down to defeat with 3,922 votes last night.

Practically speaking, this sounds to me more like a greater level of voter engagement took place, and a lot of people who sat on their thumbs in either 2008 or 2011 came out and voted.

Given that this by-election was already underway when Justin Trudeau became the Liberal leader, and the lavish promises made on Penashue's behalf by the Conservatives during the latter half of the campaign, it seems to me that the Conservatives are reaching pretty far to try and spin this as some kind of voter comment on Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader.

In fact, since this is the first time that the Harper Conservatives have lost a seat on a by-election, I would say that it seems to me much more of a condemnation of the Conservative party which keeps on playing by its own arbitrary rulebook.

After A Period of Silence ...

I took this blog offline after the 2011 election for a lot of reasons.  However, after the last few weeks of happenings on Canada’s political stage, I have decided that I must speak out.  I am angry, I am upset, and above all I fear that our current government is dragging Canada down a political path that will be disastrous for us all.

Let me start out by asserting that the Harper Government is rapidly evolving into a form of fascist government.  I know that I am using strong language here, but it is necessary in my opinion to pull people from their lethargy.  Some will no doubt dismiss this as simply violating Godwin's Law.  However, I ask that you bear with me, for the legacy of the Harper Government's actions since coming to power in 2006 are becoming inescapable.

Borrowing from Wikipedia’s article on early 20th Century Fascism:

Fascism (pron.: /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that nations and races deemed superior should attain living space by displacing ones deemed weak or inferior.

More and more, we see the Harper Government taking an increasingly authoritarian approach to things.  This is not just happening at the Federal level, but there is considerable evidence of it happening at the provincial and even civic levels of our politics where agencies which are philosophically allied with Harper’s Conservative Party are acting to provoke and implement programs of their own.

Authoritarianism

What do I mean by authoritarian?  Consider the following:

1. Harper has been very hostile to the idea of Climate Change for years.
2. Since coming to power in 2006, Harper has withdrawn Canada from the Kyoto agreement. ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-formally-abandons-kyoto-protocol-on-climate-change/article4180809/ )
3. Without any discussion of the matter in the House of Commons, Harper pulled Canada out of a global treaty on desertification.  http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/29/un-calls-harper-governments-decision-to-pull-out-of-anti-drought-treaty-regrettable/
4. More distressing, Harper has gone out of his way to constrain what Canadian scientists are allowed to say in public.  http://www.canada.com/technology/Critics+instructions+Environment+Canada+scientists+Montreal+conference/6500175/story.html  This latter model is particularly worrisome when we consider that “media minders” only pop up in reference to states like North Korea ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/health/north-korea-science-diplomacy ) and the former Soviet Union.
5. Under Harper, the National Research Council of Canada has been directed to focus on “commercially applicable” science.  In itself, this is an interesting move as it demonstrates an unusual level of political involvement in the NRC’s activities - more so than in the previous 30 years.  It is significant because it signals that Harper’s government is willing to impose upon the decision making processes related to science directly rather than using a more appropriate arms-length model.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/07/technology-nrc-business.html  
6. In the 2013 budget, Harper has asserted more direct control over the CBC and other crown corporations.  Traditionally, Crown Corporations are allowed to operate more or less autonomously.  Harper taking a more direct role in it is unusual, but in the case of the CBC may serve an important aspect of Harper’s agenda.  ( http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2013/04/30/budget-bill-gives-harper-cabinet-new-powers-over-cbc/34566 )

It is my opinion that all of the above strongly suggest a degree of authoritarianism in the Harper Government that Canada has never seen or experienced before.  When combined with a “get tough on crime” agenda based on US Republican policies of the early 2000s, it is difficult not to perceive an overbearing desire to restrict and limit things within a very narrow political focus.  

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/06/f-bill-c10-objections.html

There were similar bills in the 2006 and 2009 parliaments, but they failed to pass before Parliament was dissolved.

Cult of Personality

Harper’s authoritarian streak also surfaces in the attempts by the Conservative party to develop something of a “cult of personality” around Harper.  Ever since coming to power, announcements of government actions are labelled in the form “The Harper Government announces ...”  ( http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/30/harper-government-harperization_n_1121897.html )  

Building on that, we find other examples of Harper trying to build a cult of personality around himself, at least within his party.  ( http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9c6b53f6-f0a2-4eca-93bb-559023144731 , http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=d4695b5d-736d-4dc4-aff5-171532aec089 )  Somewhat sarcastically, one might wonder just how you build a cult of personality around something which clearly Harper doesn’t possess.  However, that is not my point at all.  It is the creation of that cult of personality by Harper and his allies that we need to pay attention to, as it is another key aspect of Harper’s authoritarian streak.  It also enables members of his caucus to fly below the public radar when it comes to the creation of legislation.  Consider, for example, how much crime legislation is coming from Harper’s back benches.  ( http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/08/tories-back-private-members-crime-bills_n_3240603.html )  Not only does this legislation play into the radical “tough-on-crime” nonsense that the US has finally started to figure out doesn’t actually work, but it is coming in through legislative lines that are not as closely monitored as the front bench of the governing party’s cabinet.  

I think that I have established fairly clearly that Harper himself is a strong authoritarian, and in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Wikipedia article on the subject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism ).

Ultranationalism

Harper diverges somewhat from the “classical” notion of a fascist when it comes to the notion of ultranationalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Ultranationalism ).  However, that is more of a consequence of Canada’s history and nature than anything else.  Canada is an exceptionally diverse nation with a young history.  It would be extremely difficult to foment the kind of ultranationalism that existed in parts of Europe in the 1930s here.  However, it would be foolish to imagine that Harper has not moved to foster a kind of nationalism in Canada that is quite different from what we have experienced to date.

Consider the Harper Government’s changes to immigration policy which have placed a great deal of authority over immigration directly in the minister’s hands, which guarantees that the entire process is politicized from the start, but also enables Harper to politicize the discussion around immigration in a unique way.  ( http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hassan-arif/harper-immigration_b_894373.html , http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/04/20/dont_vote_conservative_immigration_lawyers_warn_newcomers.html )  The Harper approach has led to a degree of propagandization of the discourse on immigration that strongly echoes the xenophobia seen in the USA with respect to “illegal aliens”.  This plays strongly to an approach of building a sense of national “exceptionalism” that excludes those who do not arrive here “through the front door”.  In doing so, it serves as part of Harper’s move to make Canada’s discourse more nationalist in nature.

Another plank of this has been Harper’s constant pounding of the military drum.  Whether that is cheesy photo-ops of himself in Afghanistan or the playing up of the War of 1812 ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/06/14/pol-war-of-1812-bicentennial-federal-events.html ) Were this but a singular event, one might be willing to write it off as simply different priorities.  However, it is not.  On CBC Radio 1 in Calgary on May 9, 2012, listeners were treated to a breathless interview with one of the few surviving veterans of the Dambusters bombing mission in WWII. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise )  Normally, such interviews are reserved for the November 11 Remembrance Day ceremonies, and unless someone happens to have died recently are not typically in the news.  Coming on the heels of Harper’s legislating more direct political control over the CBC, one might well imagine that we will see more and more of this in the coming months. 

Arguably, from a policy perspective, Harper is not promoting ultranationalism, but rather something closer to Civic Nationalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Civic_nationalism )  However, that merely means that he is forging a new style of fascism based on the realities of Canada at this time.

Foreign Policy

Harper’s foreign policy approach is interesting in terms of how it plays into the nationalism discussion.  

First of all, the “Israel can do no wrong” policy is highly disturbing as it allies Canada irrevocably with a country that is rapidly becoming a pariah on the world stage itself.  ( http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2013/05/11/baird_and_canadas_mideast_policy.html , http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/02/13/Zip_Bairds_Lips/ ).  In doing so, it serves to further isolate Canada on the world stage.  Similarly, Harper’s hostile approach to participation in the UN is also isolating Canada ( http://www.timescolonist.com/cmlink/gmg/canadian-press/news/canada-won-t-trade-foreign-policy-for-un-security-council-seat-baird-1.143649/ ).  What Baird calls “prinicpled policy” is really just bafflegab for a rigid, dogmatic approach to foreign affairs.  Harper started early with a rigid, inflexible approach to foreign affairs in 2006, ( http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ae0a032b-7a10-484a-a839-440680e52617 ) and it has continued.  His recent trade negotiations with China have reflected this, by failing entirely to protect Canada’s economic interests, and in some respects exposes us to even greater risks than certain aspects of NAFTA do.  ( http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/01/john-ivison-opponents-turning-up-hysteria-over-trade-deal-with-china/ , http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/31/china-deals-would-leave-canada-a-resource-colony-opponents/?__lsa=429a-4e39 , http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/canada-china-fippa-agreement-unconstitutional-treaty-law-expert-says )

I see this as playing into a zero-sum game on Harper’s part which is designed to isolate Canada on the world stage in such a manner as to ensure that there is a great deal of public criticism of Canada outside of our borders.  Naturally, he would play on this in such a manner as to play up the idea that Canada is being marginalized on the world stage and use that to build up a form an nationalism not unlike what happened in Germany in the post-WWI years as a result of the isolation and restrictions that the Treaty of Versailles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles ) created.

Hostility to Liberal Democracy

Harper has a long track record that speaks to a level of hostility to liberal democracy as it is practiced in Canada that needs to be brought forward.

First, and foremost, we cannot ignore the infamous “Dirty Tricks Manual” that his party created in 2006-2007 which instructed Harper’s caucus on how to undermine and disrupt committees and parliamentary legislative activity in the House of Commons so that matters could not be meaningfully debated.  ( http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/05/18/obstruction_handbook_leaked.html )

Then we must also consider Harper’s repeated use of Proroguing Parliament for political purposes.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada ).  In 2008, Harper violated his own “fixed election dates” law by triggering an election a mere 2 years into his term.  ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/09/08/democracy-watch008.html )  This is important because it rendered moot a law that was at the cornerstone of Harper’s claimed agenda to improve Canada’s electoral system, but it also represents in stark terms the contempt which Harper holds for laws which would bind his actions - even if he wrote them.

Then, during the 2011 election, it became clear that dirty tricks were being played to divert voters to polling stations which did not exist, or otherwise make it sufficiently frustrating to vote that they would not bother doing so.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Canadian_federal_election_voter_suppression_scandal )  To date, only one set of criminal charges has been brought forward on this, but given that the Harper Government has moved to restrict Elections Canada’s ability to investigate these matters, this comes as little surprise.  

That the voter suppression tactics were most often aimed at voters known to be unlikely to support the Harper Conservatives, it seems quite reasonable to add this scandal to the list of items that demonstrate an active desire on the part of the Harper Conservatives to undermine Parliamentary Democracy in Canada to such an extent that its very validity may come into question.

Economics

Harper is a study in contradictions when it comes to economic theory.  In principle, he claims to be a “laissez faire” free market fundamentalist.  Yet, his actions speak otherwise.

In many respects, he seems to be fostering a new kind of economic oligarchy in Canada that is atypical of fascism’s historical forms.  Economically, others have pointed this out quite clearly.  (  http://nor-re.blogspot.ca/2012/12/democracy-or-oligarchy.html ) 

How precisely Harper’s fascism and an economic oligarchy will coexist is an interesting puzzle.  But it is one which I suspect will become more clearly understood over time.  I think that the current emphasis on suppressing science that calls into question such economic activities as Alberta’s Oil Sands is an indication of it, and one that should trouble Canadians as it strongly suggests that our politicians are being driven by powers behind the scenes.   ( http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yan-roberts/omnibus-harper-oil_b_2474752.html ) 

Conclusion

No matter how I look at the situation unfolding in Canada, the parallels between the Harper Government and the historical notion of Fascism seem inescapable.  The consequences for Canada will be enormous, and we must recognize that once Harper (or his allies) are no longer running things, it will take years to correct the damage being done.

Dear Steve ... It's Not HarperLand

This business of a "personal" gift to the royal couple from PMSH is offensive on a dozen different levels.

First of all is that Harper is doing it 'in his capacity as Prime Minister':

Taxpayers will pay for the Harpers' personal gift since it is given "in his function as prime minister," she said.

WTF? If he's doing it "in his function as Prime Minister", shouldn't he be presenting the gift on behalf of Canadians, rather than as a "personal" gift. (If it's "personal", then it should damned well not be paid for by Canadian tax dollars - it should come out of his own money, dammit!)

I cannot believe that this man has the arrogance to act as if he is the "supreme leader" (or whatever other title despots like to adopt these days - I'm not sure what's in fashion among such people any more), and use Canada's resources and image to try and aggrandize himself.

The second thing that I find deeply offensive about this is the way that Harper is trying to build some kind revolting cult of personality around himself. It's another piece of his repeated attacks on democracy in Canada in an effort to ensure his own grip on power.

On May 2, get out and vote against this overweaning egomaniac before he turns Canada into something that would horrify all of us.

No, Craig ... Western Separatism Is More Fiction Than Fact

I was wondering where Craig Chandler had gotten to - especially in the run up to the current election - a time that usually draws him out to comment on something.

Well ... apparently he's been nursing his inner western separatist back to health after the 'flare-and-fizzle' of David Crutcher's Western Business and Taxpayers Association in 2008.

“Western Canada will not tolerate a purposeful slap in the face if the government they chose is rejected by Canada’s Central Canadian parties. The threat of the West organizing to separate is real and reared it’s head in a serious way last time the coalition threat occurred. Unlike Quebec, the West can afford to leave and even pay its share of the debt on the way out” stated Craig B. Chandler, Executive Director of the PGIB.

What people like Chandler don't seem to understand is that the idea of separation from Canada has been tossed about from time to time for decades. I first encountered it in the late 1970s when the Western Canada Concept party came into being. It didn't exactly go anywhere then, and in the thirty years since, entities like the WCC have flared up and died out repeatedly - usually led by a bunch of loudmouths who have no real idea what they're on about and gaining absolutely no real traction with the public as whole.

Why? Unlike Quebec, where separatism has its roots in the cultural history of the province and is deeply influenced by the colonial wars between England and France, the concept in western Canada is rooted solely in political and economic arguments with little or no grounding in our cultural identity as Canadians.

Simply put, most Western Canadians are quite happy to be Canadian first. We know that economic and political upsets happen from time to time - and we've likely as not lived through a few of them. The idea of separatism is a fantasy that gets played with occasionally, but really doesn't have any traction with people's sentiments.

Mr. Chandler seems to take great offense at the idea of a coalition being formed in our parliament and then governing. Sadly, his sense of offense is rooted in his blindness to the subtleties and workings of the Westminster Parliament system that we use in Canada.

Far too many people these days assume that we are voting "for the party leader" that we want as Prime Minister. In fact, we are electing our local representative to Parliament. It is up to the members of parliament to form a workable government that has "the confidence of the house". That may or may not be led by the party with the most seats, and if a couple of parties band together to form a government that is in fact perfectly legitimate - in spite of the lies that Harper has told the public about coalitions. (Perhaps, Mr. Chandler would like to muse a little bit on Harper's past dalliances with the concept of coalition as well)

Rather than fuming about Western Separatism as an alternative, Mr. Chandler would be better off focusing his energies on trying to understand why it is that voter turnout has been declining for so long. Why, for example, did 22% of the electorate decide 80% of the seats in the last Alberta provincial election? Why did over half the voters just stay home that day? (Of course, an engaged electorate generally doesn't bode well for today's conservatives, who know damn good and well that most people would object violently to their policies - if they bothered to look)