What The Senate Ruling Says About Harper

The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on the Senate Reform questions that Harper put to them last year came out today.  The ruling itself is not terribly surprising, but what is more interesting is Harper's reaction.

Harper said he had no option left after the high court concluded that no major change can be made to the much-maligned Senate without a constitutional amendment supported by most or all the provinces. 

That's a politically risky and potentially divisive route that Harper has no intention of taking. 

"We know that there is no consensus among the provinces on reform, no consensus on abolition and no desire of anyone to reopen the Constitution and have a bunch of constitutional negotiations," a defeated-sounding Harper told a business audience at an event in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont.

So, Harper isn't a big enough leader to even attempt to bring the provinces together and try to guide them to a consensus on this matter?

There is only one kind of person who will not attempt to foster consensus among their peers at a moment like this:  an authoritarian bully who is afraid to face any kind of dissent.

Harper has never brought all of the premiers together for a conference since coming to power in 2006.  He doesn't think he has to ... and more to the point, he obviously doesn't have it in him to even consider the prospect of having to negotiate with the provinces to move things forward.

I don't think the provinces are going to agree with Harper on Senate Reform anyhow for one simple reason - what Harper wants to do to the Senate would create a situation that is even worse for Canada than the current mess.

Even more horrifying to Harper's authoritarian sensibilities is the idea that he might have to negotiate with Quebec - a province which he has snubbed at every turn since 2006 and whose voters have shown exactly zero inclination to even grant him the time of day.

The Future Of The CPC

Andrew Coyne made an excellent point in his column about the Manning Networking Conference that the Manning Centre is hosting in Ottawa:

So this is what a Conservative convention looks like.  After that bizarre lockdown in Calgary last fall - reporters harassed and penned in at every turn, the prime minister's defiantly empty speech, the air heavy with self-congratulation and paranoia - the annual Manning Networking conference exudes an altogether different spirit:  thoughtful, open, introspective and conservative.
...
The party that met in Calgary was not so much the Conservative party as the Harper party.  It was run by and for Harper loyalist - think Pierre Poilievre - people who are happy to do whatever the leader wants done, say whatever the leader wants said, even if that means abandoning every core conviction the party has ever held.  In its place is Harperism, less an ideology than a set of behaviours:  the nastiness, the ruthlessness, the almost universal gracelessness, of which the decision to exclude opposition parties from the mission to Ukraine was only the latest example.

If you are looking at this and wondering if I've lost my marbles - I usually don't agree with much of anything that Coyne says.  Philosophically speaking, he and I live in different worlds.  However, he is very correct in saying that the CPC has very much become "The Harper Party".  This has been emerging since 2006, and since 2011 it has become much more pronounced.

Who is not here?  No one from the Prime Minister's Office, it appears, nor any member of the party hierarchy, nor any member of cabinet, other than those invited to speak.  The speaker's list, by contrast, features Jason Kenney, the Employment Minister; Brad Wall, the premier of Saskatchewan; Jim Prentice, the form Industry and Environment Minister; Michael Chong, the backbench MP and author of the Reform Act. 

It would be hard to categorize them as a group, except that they are all from outside the circle of Harperite hyper-partisans.  And they have not been shy about expressing their discontent with the party's direction, albeit in the coded indirect language that politicians employ when they do not want to be accused of disloyalty.

I've said for some time that Harper is a totalitarian, with healthy dashes of authoritarian and fascism thrown in good measure.

Mr. Prentice, for example, admonished Conservatives to "take back the environmental debate," saying "we cannot be in the business of providing our rivals with the opportunity to portray us as being out of touch" with environmental concerns. 

Sounds eminently reasonable, and in fact Mr. Prentice is one of the more reasonable members of the CPC.   That said while Mr. Coyne's article suggests a more reasonable wing of the party is meeting in Ottawa this weekend, there's a little more to it.

As PressProgress points out, the far right groups are very much in evidence too.  "WeNeedALaw.ca", Campaign Life (the people behind LifeSite News), Focus on the Family and The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada are all represented at this get-together.  There is no secret that Jason Kenney is closely affiliated with the "pro-life" social conservative wing of things (and was no doubt a key player in connecting these groups with the Manning Centre and its organizing committee for this conference).

Do not be fooled, once Harper's iron-fisted grip on the party weakens, I fully expect the coalition of fiscal and social conservatives that he has welded together by sheer force of will to once again start openly pushing for their particular agendas much more vocally.

Just because Harper has not been willing to open the Abortion debate, or touch gay marriage since 2006, does not mean that others are satisfied with that stance.  The far right desperately wants to push a social agenda forward that is just as insane as the Tea Party wing of the GOP is currently trying to sneak in.  I fully expect the upcoming prostitution law from MacKay will turn out to be a piece of "red meat" to the social conservative base.  It won't criminalize prostitution per se, but by criminalizing the consumption of paid sex, it will reinstate exactly the same conditions that made things dangerous under the laws the Supreme Court just struck down.

The post-Harper CPC may not be as authoritarian as Harper has been, but I would not be optimistic about it returning to the much more moderate roots of the PC party under more adult parliamentarians such as Joe Clark either.

Alberta Bills 45 and 46

Others have spoke very eloquently about the problems with Bills 45 and 46.

What I want to bring to readers' attention is how the Redford Government is abusing not just legislative procedure, but democracy itself.

It is not unusual for this government to limit debate on bills.  What is unusual is to introduce a motion limiting debate prior to tabling the bill itself.  No MLA should ever have voted in favour of limiting debate on a bill without first having had the chance to vet it.  Yet, that is precisely what has happened here.  In the Hansard from Tuesday, November 26 Afternoon session:

Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number ofnotices to provide to the House today. First, I would like to giveoral notice of intention to introduce Bill 45, the Public SectorServices Continuation Act, which will be sponsored by myself.I would also like to give oral notice of intention to introduceBill 46, the Public Service Salary Restraint Act, and Bill 42, theSecurities Amendment Act, 2013, which are sponsored by thehon. Provincial Treasurer and Minister of Finance.Mr. Speaker, I also would want to provide oral notice ofintention of introduce two motions. The first motion would be:Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 77(2) Bill 45,Public Sector Services Continuation Act, may be advanced twoor more stages in one day and that if Bill 45 has not yet beenintroduced, then immediately following the passage of thismotion the Assembly shall revert to Introduction of Bills for theintroduction of Bill 45, Public Sector Services ContinuationAct.The second motion that I'd like to give notice of is:Be it resolved thatA. On Thursday, November 28, 2013, the Assemblycontinue sitting beyond its normal adjournment hourof 4:30 p.m. for consideration of Bill 45, PublicSector Services Continuation Act, and any relatedmotions; andB. Upon Government House Leader advising theAssembly no later than the time of adjournment onThursday, November 28, 2013, the Assemblyreconvene on Friday, November 29, 2013, at 10 a.m.for a special sitting, and the only business to beconsidered by the Assembly that day shall be Bill 45,Public Sector Services Continuation Act, and anyrelated motions.

If something about this smells a little strange, it is the pre-emptive issuance of motions to limit debate on these bills when there is no legislative crisis at hand.  When there is a crisis at hand, I can appreciate the need to be expedient.

So, the government is moving to push this legislation through with only the bare minimum of process.  With the excessive majority that the PCs have in the legislature, this is almost unnecessary window dressing.

The second item in the Hansard of interest comes from Thursday Afternoon's session:

Ms Notley: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. ...3:10The other action which occurred, frankly, just occurred, Mr.Speaker, in that it is now as far as I can tell 3:10, and I have notyet received a copy of either Bill 45 or Bill 46, yet I am advisedthat the media have received a briefing on this bill as of 2:45,which also amounts to a breach of the privilege of the members ofthis Assembly.

Note that the media was briefed on this
What's the big rush?  They only have to whip the votes to get this legislation through.

The short answer is that the government doesn't want us to look at the legislation too closely, nor do they want any amendments or scrutiny before it becomes law.

These two bills are arguably the most blatant attack on collective bargaining, and labour rights in general that we have seen in decades.  At best, parts of the legislative could be considered punitive - punishing all public sector unions for the wildcat strike that prison guards pulled earlier this year.  At worst, it demonstrates a government that is unwilling to negotiate in good faith, and legislation which is also arguably unconstitutional as well.

It is the willingness to subvert the core principles of our parliamentary democracy that is most concerning.  Whether Redford is taking a page from Harper's playbook, or Harper has modelled his approach to governing on the worst excesses we have seen in Alberta is irrelevant.  In both cases, we are seeing the processes of democracy being made a mockery, and laws being passed which grossly overreach the authority of the government.

Harper's "anti-bullying" law resurrects Toews' "spy on everyone" internet surveillance law which violates all sorts of principles of our constitution, and arguably the Redford government has passed a number of authoritarian laws which fundamentally overreach as well.

These are not conservatives in any reasonable understanding of the term - they are authoritarians.

More on Baird and Iran

People, even the media who watch such things, seem mystified by the Harper Government(tm) stance on Iran.

It's no big surprise, really.  When I took this blog out from under wraps in May, I wrote a lengthy essay describing the "Modern Fascism" that Harper has been cultivating.  On foreign affairs, I wrote the following:

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.

With Iran, The Harper Government has done something which only makes sense in the context of Harper trying to isolate Canada on the world stage.  Like his position on Sri Lanka, Harper takes an absolutist "all-or-nothing" approach to the issues, and then withdraws any support for compromise - thus removing Canada's voice entirely from the discourse.

In the context of Canada's role on the world stage, he is taking a stance which is the polar opposite of where Canada typically plays well.  Where Canada has historically been the voice of compromise and reason, Harper's voice on the world stage is one of bluster and hostility.  We all know that Canada hasn't got the economic or military muscle to back up this belligerent stance that Harper is taking, so for the world, Harper's voice on the stage is easily ignored.

Here in Canada, we cannot ignore it.  At first, I assumed that Harper's approach to foreign affairs was merely a result of his lack of awareness.  That was in 2006.  Since then, I have become convinced that not only is it deliberate, but that it is part of a larger strategy on Harper's part to dismantle everything that he loathes about Canada's history.  If it serves to isolate Canada on the world stage in the process, so much the better for his propaganda campaigns.

It will take years to clean up the mess this nasty little man is making.

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.

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.

Kenney Admits It

The HarperCon$ don't like Parliament.

"As a minister, I often get more done when the House is not in session," he said as thousands of Canadians were preparing to mount protests across the country against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to suspend Parliament until March 3.

"That's not to say Parliament is unimportant," Kenney told reporters after making an immigration announcement. "But from a ministerial point of view, I think any minister in any government will tell you that's probably generally the case."

Coming as I do from Alberta, I've heard this same kind of idiotic nonsense spewed from our provincial politicians for a long time. Under Ralph Klein, a process of steadily eroding the amount of time that the Alberta Legislature sits began, and an increasing sense of 'right to govern' took root among Alberta's conservatives. This same attitude has been at the top of the ReformaTories since day one - although this is one of the rare times where so senior a member of Harper's apparatus has come out and admitted that he finds parliamentary accountability to be problematic for the way that they want to govern.

The price paid in Alberta over the Klein years has been horrifying. Of all of Canada's provinces, we have consistently the lowest voter turnouts - the last provincial election some 20% of eligible voters decided over 80% of the seats in the legislature. This is an exception dangerous path to see emerging on the federal scene - and one that only benefits Harper - whose narrow form of partisan politics plays primarily on venality, ignorance and apathy.

Frankly, as a voter, I don't give a damn if it is "easier" for a minister to do their job when Parliament isn't sitting. Parliament exists to keep that same minister accountable to the public and on the public record.

For the first time in about two years, I see Jack Layton is finally starting to do his job:

Layton, who is advocating new parliamentary rules to curb the prime minister's power to suspend sittings, said on Friday: "Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are playing old politics – where partisan games matter more than the work of elected representatives.

"Canadians want and deserve better: a new politics that says there is a better way forward, an end to secrecy and arrogance and the beginning of openness and accountability," Layton added.

Not that I trust Mr. Layton that far, but I trust him considerably more than the thin-skinned autocrats that Stephen Harper has surrounded himself with who seem bound and determined to do everything in their power to render Parliament meaningless.