Reflections On The Post-Harper CPC

Whatever else you say about the results of the election on October 19, it was the end of Stephen Harper's career as leader of the CPC and Canada's Prime Minister.

By all measures, this election was the CPC's to lose.  They had control over the government and its messaging, they had a financial warchest rumoured to be many times the size of their competitors, and they had control over the timing.

So, what did they do wrong?  Lots.

Harper had spent his entire time as leader of the CPC consolidating his control over the party and its top ranks.  It had become the Stephen Harper Party, for better or worse.  Personal brand of the leader is often a powerful force in making a party's success.  Making the party all about the leader is never a good idea.  Leaders sooner or later lose their legitimacy, or they become tired of what they are doing and lose their "touch".  Although the CPC appeared unified behind Harper, that doesn't mean Canada was unified behind them.

The first thing that Harper did was run a campaign that was about fear and division.  He lashed out at Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, snidely calling him "Justin" at every turn, claiming that he had neither the smarts nor the experience to be the next Prime Minister.  He played the classic socialist bogeyman arguments against the NDP.  All this is pretty normal fare in Canadian politics, but somehow Harper took it to new lows - borrowing tactics from US Republican / Teaparty politics.

When attacking his peers didn't get him the traction he wanted, Harper turned on his own campaign manager, Jenni Byrne and brought in Australian Lynton Crosby.  Shortly after Crosby's name was floated, we got two gems out of Harper - "Old Stock Canadians" and the Niqab issue.  Both were distinctly vile to Canadian sentiments.  While they briefly got traction, they both backfired on Harper.  Yes, a somewhat ham-handed response by Mulcair destroyed his support in Quebec, that support didn't come Harper's way to any great extent even in Quebec.  Canadians saw this for what it was - KKK style racism, and they turned on Harper in droves.

Then, when Crosby jumped ship to save his "professional reputation" (as a purveyor of division and racism, I might add), Harper turned back to his usual stock approaches to campaigning, hoping desperately that Canadians wouldn't put together what his government was doing.

Harper ran a most un-Canadian campaign.  He threw people under his political bus.  His candidates weren't to be found campaigning on the ground in most ridings, even his cabinet ministers were nearly invisible most of the time.  That made the campaign all about him, and Canadians don't _like_ Harper.  They might have voted for him previously, but really that was because the Conservative attack machine had managed to assassinate their characters before the election - in essence, making Harper the least unpalatable option.

It didn't do the CPC any favours that in the last four years they had accrued the baggage of repeated scandal (Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Bruce Carson and others), a reputation for not answering questions in the House and a legislative agenda that more and more Canadians rightly saw as mean-spirited, if not downright malicious (Bill C-51, Bill C-24, the "Fair Elections Act").  No amount of sweater vests and kittens can overcome the shadow that casts.

So, what does the CPC need to do to rebuild?  A lot, and very little of the post-election analysis out of CPC members has even broached the realities.  MPs need to recognize that they are intelligent, thinking beings who should speak out for their constituents, not just act as party brass dictate they should.  A decade of "Harper's Trained Seal Act" has left the party with a deficit of ideas and original thought in the senior ranks.

Further, the party has to acknowledge that it has acted in an incredibly racist manner.  Yes, Jason Kenney (Minister of Curry in a Hurry) built up a lot of support within Canada's various immigrant communities, but he did so while part of an organization which gained much of its backing by playing off mistrust between groups, rather than unifying them.  The niqab issue, like the turbans in the RCMP 20 years earlier, is incredibly divisive and destructive.  It was a "throw an entire vote under the bus" moment, and the government's continued appeals even after losing the case in the courts merely cemented the overt racism of Harper's campaign.  The CPC cannot be seen to govern for all Canadians until it acknowledges that.

Further, legislation like Bill C-24 and the "Barbaric Cultural Practices" act are vile.  C-24 created a two tier citizenship.  Anyone who holds, or is eligible for, citizenship in another country is suddenly subject to further punishment, not at the discretion of the courts, but at the decision of the minister - making it a political decision.  I'm still not sure how many Canadians really understand how vile that really is.   The "Barbaric Cultural Practices" act was another part of the Conservative war machine.  It was designed specifically to attack the most visible crimes associated with the Muslim community (for acts which we already have laws against).  It was unnecessary, and again overtly racist - designed to whip up public outrage and fear, not to address a real gap or problem in our society.

If the CPC wants to come within striking distance of the keys to 24 Sussex again, they will have to acknowledge how they became the Harper Party, and what they did as that party.  Then, and only then, can they start to make the broadly inclusive coalition that is needed to ascend to power.  

What Ford and Harper Have In Common

They both have problems with telling the truth.

Yesterday, news broke that Rob Ford had been attempting to purchase the video of him smoking crack cocaine - before Gawker and the Toronto Star made the existence of the video public.  In this morning's news, we find Ford denying that he was doing that at all.

So far, in the course of this saga, every time Ford has denied something, evidence has come along to disprove his denials.  At first, he denied ever having smoked crack cocaine, and then at the end of October, the video mysteriously turns up in the hands of police.  Given the pattern to date, I'd say the odds of Ford's utterances (which appear to contradict the ITO documents) being true are fairly low.

As we've seen with the Senate Expenses Scandal, Harper has a similar approach - lie, deflect, deny until the evidence corners you.  At first, Harper was saying the everything was just fine with his errant senators, then when it became impossible to avoid, they were being "disciplined" by the Senate; and eventually the whole mess got handed to the RCMP in a clumsy attempt to bury it in a criminal investigation.  All the way along, Harper has denied all knowledge.  Meanwhile, Duffy's speeches have made it abundantly clear that the PM clearly knew what was going on in considerable detail.

In parliamentary terms, both have chosen to "deliberately mislead the house".

Do the math.

Harper ... Linking Him To Ford

In the last two weeks, we've heard a lot about - and from - Rob Ford.  He's been, to say the least, prominent in the headlines - shocking most of the time, belligerent the rest.

Of some consideration though is the dead silence coming from the PMO where Rob Ford is concerned.  Harper has been silent on the matter, and aside from allowing Peter Mackay to wander in front of a live microphone trying to link Rob Ford's antics with Justin Trudeau's stance on legalizing marijuana.

A signature aspect of Harper's government has been the "tough on crime" business.  Throw more people in jail for longer.  Less latitude for any kind of criminal behaviour.  Yet, here we have a Mayor whose ties to the CPC are no surprise who is admitting that he has committed multiple crimes while in office.  The silence from Ottawa is almost deafening.

Considering how Harper has thrown so many people under his political bus lately, one wonders just how come Rob Ford is getting the kid gloves treatment.

Oh wait ... Harper isn't going to throw someone under the bus when he perceives that there is still a partisan gain to be had.

Welcome to the hypocrisy of the far right's "tough on crime" agenda.  It's fine to be "tough on crime" until it is one of their own...then it becomes something different.

Consumer Friendly Throne Speech?

So, the Harper Government is promising a "consumer friendly" Throne Speech this week.

Among the "goodies" being discussed are "a la carte cable" and a "passenger bill of rights", all as part of a "grow the economy" strategy.  More or less, the Conservatives are going to put forward a combination of incentives to stimulate consumer spending.

I have no doubt that this is in large part intended as a political "trap" for the NDP and Liberals - put a bunch of things on the table which in principle the opposition parties cannot object to, and attempt to drag the national dialogue away from the Senate Expenses scandal.

How effectively it will be able to drag people's attention away from Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau depends entirely on the ability of those people to stay out of the headlines.  With Brazeau facing a series of court dates, and Duffy's audit requiring the RCMP to file for document production orders in the courts, it seems unlikely that the mess in the Senate is going to quietly disappear for Harper - as much as he might wish it to.

As for this sudden focus on the "consumer" (read the "middle class"), this strikes me as another attempt on the part of the government to persuade Canadians to "support the economy" by spending more.  

For example, consider the concept of "a la carte cable TV" offerings.  I've personally argued for this for years.  I have absolutely despised the fact that to get a handful of channels that have programming I might want to watch that I am obliged to take a package with hundreds of channels that I will never watch this side of creation.  (Really, when did fly fishing become a spectator sport?  or poker for that matter?)  I have always liked the notion that I can order the handful of channels that I want and not have to worry about the other 200 channels of content I couldn't care less about.  

Superficially, this type of scheme is appealing.  So, what you have to look at is how these things are going to be priced.  I'll put money that this will be the TV equivalent of "super concentrated laundry detergent" - an excuse to sell less product for a lot more money.  Will it really benefit Canadian consumers?  Only in terms of convenience, I suspect.  If, like me, you are incredibly picky about what you spend your time watching, then it might save you a couple of dollars a month over basic cable, but if you are more wide ranging in what you watch and follow, then chances are the total cost of a broad range package will equal or exceed what you are paying today for a package subscription.  

Watch for traps in these arrangements too - service charges being added to modify your subscriptions, or additional "equipment charges" for whatever device is used to manage what you are subscribed to.  Either way, the Cable TV companies are going to make off like bandits on this one.  There are a thousand ways they can charge more for less, and in doing so, save themselves significant costs on upgrading their infrastructure because they will be using less gross bandwidth.  Meanwhile, consumers will no doubt be paying more per channel than they are today.

The second thing to consider about the Conservatives sudden "focus on middle class Canadians".  This is an attempt to get us all spending more.  The last time we saw this kind of strategy being used to buoy a shaky economy (and yes, the economy in Canada is shaky these days) was in the wake of the 2000 "Dot Com Bubble" failure.  The Bush Republicans decided to focus on economic growth facilitated by consumer spending.  We all know how that turned out ... eight years later, the Great Recession started as a result of the housing bubble's collapse - and although the recession itself officially ended in 2009, the fact remains that the US economy has been shaky at best ever since.  

There are a lot of reasons for that, but at its core, it is because the middle class in the US has been gutted by the same economic mentality that has driven most manufacturing out of the country.  There is no doubt that the US has gutted its manufacturing sector starting the 1980s.  (When was the last time you picked up something that said "Made in USA" on it?)  We are seeing the same thing happening with today's IT knowledge work as well.  More and more it is being sent offshore to workers in countries like India, Pakistan and China where the labour is "cheaper".

So, when a government starts to focus on "economic growth" based on vehicles like consumer spending, you know that the core of the economic engine in the country has been hollowed out, and they are trying desperately to make their economic performance look better than it actually is.  If this government was really interested in economic growth, they would be fostering the growth of industry here so that the middle class have jobs they can depend on.  A stable middle class will spend money willingly, without being goaded to do so by government programs that create the illusion that it is safe to do so.

Watch As Our Prison Costs Go Up

Travis Baumgartner was sentenced today.  He was sentenced to the equivalent of "40 years to life" for a bloody robbery that left three dead.

Previously, the standard sentence that Baumgartner would have received was "25 to life".  That was until the Harper Government passed a law which changed the sentencing rules for multiple murders.  Once a prisoner had served 25 years of their sentence in prison, they became eligible to apply for parole.  Baumgartner will be in his late sixties before he is eligible to apply for parole.

It seems to me that this more than a little bit pointless.  All it does is ensure that Baumgartner will be incarcerated for longer - at taxpayer expense.

This is somewhat pointless in my view.  If, after 25 years, Baumgartner is no threat to society, what is to be gained by incarcerating him for another fifteen years?  Precious little.  If he is a murderer as appalling as Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo, then the parole evaluation should identify that and deny parole.

The notion of justice is complex and subtle.  It is a balance between rehabilitation and punishment.  Incarceration is, in our legal system, a legitimate form of punishment.  To make incarceration so severe that a prisoner has very little chance of being released before they are truly aged serves little real purpose.  What incentive is there for Baumgartner to put in the work to rehabilitate himself?  Precious little at this point.

Victim's rights groups bleat incessantly when an offender applies for parole - especially when that offender has been as high profile as Clifford Olson was.  They complain that even having a parole hearing is some kind of violation of the victim.  Perhaps it is, but I don't think that's really the case.  These people more often than not have confused justice with punishment.  Nothing can undo what has been done.  The world doesn't work that way.  But there is little to be gained by locking someone up indefinitely.

I'm not arguing that Baumgartner doesn't deserve a stiff sentence.  Nor am I arguing that at 25 years he should be paroled automatically.  I simply do not believe that some kind of injustice has been done because he can apply for parole at 25 years.  Even if he is paroled at 25 years, he remains under supervision for the rest of his life.  That's a pretty short leash, in my opinion.  Does that mean that Baumgartner will commit no further crimes once released?  No guarantees there, but justice isn't about guarantees.  It is about appropriately balancing punishment with rehabilitation.  People are not something that you can just "throw away".

Along with mandatory minimum sentences, this is another piece of the Conservative "tough on crime" nonsense which does nothing for society except increasing the taxpayer bill for prisons.

Ask yourself this - would you rather spend money on incarcerating criminals or would you prefer to see those funds used for public education or health care?  The United States has already tried this experiment.  It is now a country with the greatest percentage of its population either incarcerated or under "supervised release" (aka Parole or probation).  States like California have been driven to the brink of bankruptcy by these laws and the heavy handed approach to sentencing that they demand.

On Porn Blocks and Other Nonsense

Yesterday, MP Joy Smith popped up suggesting that Canada should follow the UK in creating a general block on internet pornography.

Per se, this isn't a new or interesting move.  In the greater picture of things, it appears to be far more likely that it is in fact an attempt to distract Canadians from Harper's failings which have become increasingly apparent of late.

On the other side of the coin, it is also a piece of red meat being thrown to his base.  Just as they desperately want to regulate women's sexuality, these same groups also tend to be opposed to pornography.  

Blanket blocks on pornography on the internet is like using a sieve to repair a hole in a dam.  

First, just what is the definition of the content that would be filtered out?  It's easy to imagine what material is pornography, but it's much more difficult to turn that into something that can be filtered by an automated system.

Let us assume that we have a computer system available to us which can identify nudity in images.  How do we differentiate between the nudity of a great piece of classical artwork and a playboy centerfold type of picture?  Is there in fact a difference?  What a commercial sites that sell sex toys?  Are they to be deemed "pornographic"?  

Or, come to that, how does one differentiate between a novel with a sex scene and a pornographic story?  Where does the line exist between "legitimate" art (as the anti-pornographers see it) and porn lie?  ... and is there any meaningful way to differentiate that a blocking system could identify?

Then there is always the old standby of keyword blocks.  The problem with this is that such models tend to end up cutting off access to legitimate sites simply because they have certain keywords in their site.  This is a particularly significant concern for those who publish content for the LGBT community to access.  All too often the decision makers who set such things up include a lot of keywords that are related to LGBT people simply because of the intersection of those topics with sexuality - regardless of whether the content is in fact pornographic or not.

Come to that, would this blog itself be blocked because the subjects of gender and sexuality are regularly discussed here and would show up as keywords in a walk of the site's archives?  

The argument that people like Ms. Smith make is often one rooted in the notion of protecting children.  My feeling is that protecting children is a parental responsibility.  It is up to parents to make sure that their children are consuming age-appropriate content - plain and simple.  Even if it were possible to block pornography (and I believe that to be something of a fool's errand), there is much more content on the internet which is far, far worse than pornography.  Considering that rumour has it that there are videos out there of russian roulette being played - with the inevitable consequences of it, I would be far more concerned about children seeing that than I would a few nude pictures.  

Does the state have the right to limit the content I can access on the internet?  Arguably, they do have such a right - especially where the content can be identified as being harmful to others.  Examples that come to mind include hate propaganda, child pornography and material which involves non-consensual exploitation of others in its creation.  We already have laws related to these issues, and frankly if there is a problem today it is the complexity of enforcing them.  I have no problem with law enforcement having reasonable access to the facilities which would enable them to catch the criminals who make that content, and I see little to be gained from sweeping blocks of "inappropriate" material.  

One other point, the notion of "decent" and "indecent" content changes over time.  There is content on TV today that never would have gotten the nod when I was a child, and yet few people blink at that material today.  The humour on shows like Southpark or Drawn Together is, to say the least, ribald.  Sometimes even downright crude.  Yet, the fact that nobody really gets bent out of shape by it today is a sign as to how much things have changed in a short time.  The lines of what content should be blocked will change over time as well.

As an adult, what I consume content-wise is my own business (as long as it doesn't break the law), and further it is my responsibility to filter out content that I consider inappropriate.  Installing automated blocking solutions as has been proposed seems both impractical, but also ultimately an unreasonable limitation on legitimate rights and freedoms.

As a taxpayer, I consider such blocks a waste of money.  I do not believe that the cost of such a program is going to be justified by whatever unmeasurable benefit it might produce.

[Update 26/7/13]
Go, read:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2013/07/porn-opt-ins-soft-censorship-and-buttbuttinating-personal-resp
[/Update]

Not Just Chilling ...

I've talked before about the rise of corporate feudalism.  As it emerged in the Middle Ages, Feudalism was not entirely a bad thing - it created an environment where there was a structure to protect each other from the predations of others.

Sadly, what is emerging in the world of Corporate Feudalism is less about mutual protection and sharing of resources than it is about control.  Control of wealth, control of information and because it takes people to use information, control of people.

So, when a company like Chevron moves to gain access to the e-mail accounts of activists who have been protesting the company's activities in Central America, it comes as no surprise.  Should you be scared?  Absolutely.  Consider that Chevron is a corporate entity, not an agency of the law itself.  Where (in theory) a law enforcement agency is bound to treat the information gathered in the course of an investigation with a degree of caution, Chevron is not bound by any such constraints.  Should they choose to, they can not only access this data, but release it in whatever form suits their purposes; or mine it for information patterns that can be used against individuals and entire groups.

If that isn't terrifying enough, consider that the information used can easily be used to infer where an individual is at any given moment in time.

No, this isn't just chilling - it is terrifying.  The implications are far reaching, as it places information about private individuals in the hands of those whose interest in that information is at best questionable. If you accept the notion that the rule of law stays the hand of an overreaching state (something that is becoming ever more questionable), then we must ask what stays the hand of a transnational corporation when it has access to this kind of information?

The timing of this is particularly troubling for Canadians who have recently learned that their government has been compiling lists of "enemies", and using that information in ways that are as yet unclear.  If, at the level of our ministers they are gathering "enemy lists" (how delightfully paranoid of them), one can imagine what is going on at other levels of the power structure.  The Harper Conservatives' CIMS database is known to have played a key role in the Robocalls Voter Suppression Fraud.  What is to stop them, or any other entity which accrues an enormous database of information on  people from using that information as a weapon against people?  

We have to recognize further that these kinds of rulings affect far more than citizens of the United States.  It affects citizens of countries who utilize the services of these American organizations.  It gives a corporation which is willing to impose its own notion of "the rule of law" (would this be "rule of corporate policy"?) on people who are not in any way affiliated with the corporation.  Perhaps equally evil is the prospect that if anyone who protests a corporations actions is even remotely affiliated with that corporation, they could find themselves fired for activities utterly unrelated to their work.  Consider working for a company that Chevron owns.  It may not be branded as a Chevron company, it may be operating as a wholly owned subsidiary.  An employee of that company could find themselves terminated for "acting against the interests of the company", not because they had taken actions against their direct employer, but rather because they chose to protest the actions of the company that owns their employer - a fact that they may not even have been aware of.  Consider, for a moment, in Canada, the Petro Canada brand is owned and operated by SunCor now.  That isn't apparent from the public branding of the stations, and I would suspect that a lot of employees who work at those stations are unaware of that relationship.

Freedom of speech is a legitimate right.  The question that we now have to start asking is whether we are willing to grant corporations the right to engage in surveillance - either in the present or retroactively.  In the absence of meaningful ways to stay the corporate hand's reach in today's world, I believe that we need to think very carefully before handing over information of any sort to these entities.  More importantly, there is a very real dialogue that must occur as to the extent of the rights and privileges accorded to these entities and how the structures to ensure that they do not overreach should be enacted.

Corbella Repeats CPC Talking Points On InSite

Licia Corbella's column in the Calgary Herald today attempts to blame the death of actor Cory Monteith  on Vancouver's InSite.

That Ms. Corbella would take such a stance is hardly surprising - she has long been a cheerleader for just about everything that Harper does - especially the "get tough on everyone except Con$" justice policies.  She doesn't quite blame things directly on InSite, but when you look at what she has written, it is plenty clear that this is part of an attempt to discredit InSite.

Ask any informed Vancouverite where you could pick up a bit of heroin and they’d be able to tell you. Everyone from teetotalling old ladies with blue hair to a straight-A student in elementary school — all know if you want hard, illicit drugs, just go to the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and heroin will be as easy to acquire as chewing gum.

Heck, ask virtually any informed person across the country and they’d be able to tell you that if you want to go on a seedy trip of your choosing — be it a heroin holiday or a crack cocaine carousal — just head down to East Hastings Street and you will find what you’re looking for with no risk of arrest.

Note the first thing she does is portray the drug scene in Vancouver as rampant and out of control.  She doesn't say this, but her quip about "teetotalling old ladies" makes it pretty clear.  What she fails to note is that every large city in Canada has its own seedy area where drugs are readily available.  Vancouver's Downtown East Side has merely received the bulk of the attention in the media - largely because of the high level of systemic poverty, and the social problems that have developed in that part of Vancouver.

The Calgary-born actor, who was raised in Victoria, was found dead Saturday in his room at the Fairmont Pacific Rim Hotel, which is a five-minute cab ride away from the Downtown Eastside, but worlds away in terms of ambience.

It’s unlikely that the 31-year-old would have risked bringing hard drugs across the border from his home in the United States, so it’s safe to assume he either picked some up himself or had a gofer do it for him by visiting InSite, the government-sponsored and funded safe injection site at 139 East Hastings. The next step is easy. Wait for an injection drug user to show up, ask them to score you some heroin, grab a few clean, free needles and distilled water, and you’re set.

Corbella's choice of words above is subtle.  Without saying it, she has implied that InSite has become a source for accessing drugs.  While this is a popular characterization among Conservatives, it is patently false.  InSite does not exist as a supplier of drugs, and drug dealers do not just "hang out by the doors".

Proponents of safe injection sites argue that such harm-reduction strategies save lives and that’s inarguably true. After all, if an injection drug user overdoses in the safe injection site, then a nurse is on hand to offer assistance and call an ambulance. This has happened numerous times. 

But no one ever asks how many people have died of drug overdoses who use the safe injection site as a legally safe place to procure drugs.

The eye-rolling stupidity of this statement is beyond comprehension.  Had Ms. Corbella taken the time to do the most basic of research, she would have found the following on InSite's own pages:

There has never been a fatality at InSite since opening.  In fact, research shows that since InSite opened, overdoses in the vicinity of the site have decreased by 35% -  compared to a 9% decrease in the city overall.

I don't know about you, but that seems to make it pretty clear that InSite's presence alone has served to reduce overdoses, both locally and in the greater metro area.

I told her what I’d do instead was call the Montreal police and ask them if they knew where the heroin users and dealers hung out. I didn’t have any Montreal police contacts, but called the on-duty sergeant. He didn’t know and neither did the various other police officers I was transferred to. 

In other words, show up in most North American cities and even a heroin junkie can’t necessarily find their poison. Even police don’t know where to go in their own city to find the stuff. But ask my strait-laced 82-year-old mom in Vancouver, and even she knows. 

Ms. Corbella's comparison here is ridiculous.  First, the police in any given city aren't going to give out information on illegal activity to anyone who calls them up.  They wouldn't know Ms. Corbella's voice over the phone from anyone else, nor would they be interested in facilitating whatever oddball fantasy some caller might be harbouring.  Second, it should be painfully obvious that when you travel to a different city, you probably aren't going to be well connected to the various sources for whatever your poison is.  While I might be aware that the DTES in Vancouver is a place where drugs are available, doesn't mean for a minute that I'm going to be able to find someone to sell it to me.  Drug dealers tend to be a rather wary lot, and unless you are introduced by someone they know, you aren't getting anything - you could easily be a cop.

The other thing that Ms. Corbella is overlooking is that prior to InSite's establishment in the late 1990s, Vancouver was experiencing an epidemic of drug overdoses.  That has abated since then ... and it abated long before Harper and his gang of "throw everyone in prison" thugs came anywhere near power.

InSite is well meaning. But the time has long passed for an independent investigator to really study how many people are using it as a gateway into hard drug use and a legally “risk free” way to procure an illegal substance.

InSite's research material has been lauded around the world for its clarity and objectivity.  Ms. Corbella's suggestion that they are less than objective is ludicrous.  It is nothing more than a repetition of the standard CPC line of drugs in general, and InSite in particular.

It is a sad thing indeed that the CPC and its cheerleaders seem to think that it is productive to attack people who are already down.  Perhaps they should look at the rubric of their own sloganeering and start to give people a hand up - which is precisely what facilities like InSite are designed to do.

The Attack On Science Continues

Scientists in Canada have rightly complained about the Harper Government's politicization of the communication of research results, whether that is stripping funding from the the Experimental Lakes Area or sending "minders" to accompany scientists attending conferences.

Well, the degree of politicization goes further.  It seems that when a lab found a virus in farmed salmon, they found themselves stripped of their reference lab status.

Kibenge is not alone in finding positive test results for ISAv in BC salmon.  Several other labs have reported the virus.
 

• Dr. Kristi Miller reports finding ISAv in farmed salmon on the west coast of Vancouver Island, Cohen exhibit 2053, and sockeye, Cohen Exhibit 2060
• Dr. Are Nylund reports positive ISAv test results
• Dr. Kyle Garver, Cohen Exhibit 2043, 2056
• Dr. Sonja Saksida -, BC Centre for Aquatic Health Services, reported ISA PCR positives to the CFIA in the farm Chinook salmon from Creative Salmon, Cohen Exhibit 2055.
• A 2004 draft paper coauthored by Drs. Molly and Fred Kibenge and Drs. Simon Jones and Garth Traxler (DFO) reporting 115 ISA virus positive results. These results demonstrate up to 99.7 per cent identity to an ISAv isolate from Norway. Sequence was produced. Positive samples included farmed Atlantic, wild salmon from Alaskan waters, throughout BC and Cultus Lake sockeye, Cohen Exhibit 2045, (See video – “DFO scientist suppresses positive ISA virus test results”)

Interesting, when the CFIA makes the following rather elliptical claim:

What exactly did Kibenge do wrong? Neither OIE nor CFIA will say exactly why they removed Kibenge’s OIE status, but they do make reference to non-repeatable results, which means the lab the CFIA is using isn’t getting the same results as Kibenge.
Do not seek and you shall not find
Nearly every lab that doesn’t have direct ties with either the government or salmon industry seems to be able to find at least segments of the virus. Meanwhile, every lab that has a vested interest in not finding the virus can’t seem to detect it.
It’s easy to not find this virus if you don’t want to. Here is why: If a virus is imported to a new country, it doesn’t stay the same for long. Influenza viruses like ISAv are known for their rapid mutations, which is precisely what makes them so dangerous.

If you use a PCR test that only reports an exact match as a “positive” you could easily miss the virus, since even a slight change will make it “invisible” to a probe that is looking for an exact sequence. Kibenge's lab was using a technique that was reading the sequences of the virus, rather than just using a probe that only reports an exact match of a very specific sequence. This is how Kibenge was able to pick up on viral sequences that contained slight variations of the virus, as well as fragments.

Hmmm...so you find different results than the government wants, and you suddenly find yourself stripped of credentials?  To paraphrase Shakespeare, something is rotten in Ottawa.

Think I am exaggerating?  Take a look at this e-mail from the CFIA:

This entire case is a clear example of the kind of politicization that the Harper Conservatives have been engaging in on all fronts.  They are enabling a large scale propaganda campaign to an extent which Canadians have never experienced before, and is drawn from some of the most oppressive regimes that this planet has ever seen.

If they are willing to politicize on this scale, it isn't hard to imagine that recent changes to passports in Canada represent something nefarious.

... oh yes ... Happy Canada Day

Something Foul In The Wind At Passport Canada

It came to my attention a day ago that our government is tinkering with things again...and not in a good way.

In this case, we are talking about Passport Canada - the agency which has been processing and delivering passports to Canadians for years.  (an agency which has been quite efficient in my own experience)  It seems that the government has decided to split Passport Canada in two, with front line services being merged with the Service Canada group, and moving the behind-the-scenes people under Citizenship and Immigration.

On Passport Canada's current "about us" page, we find the following:

Passport Canada is a special operating agency of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada responsible for all matters related to Canadian passports. As mandated by the Canadian Passport Order, its responsibilities include issuing, refusing to issue, revoking, withholding, recovering and providing instructions on the use of Canadian passports.

So ... the first question that comes to mind is why is this moving under the auspices of Citizenship and Immigration?

Second, why do we have a "front end" in the form of Service Canada and a "back end" service under a different ministry?

The answer to the first question seems most likely to be rooted in a power play going on at the cabinet table.    It is no secret that Jason Kenney is deemed by many to be Harper's "replacement in waiting".  He has been in the Citizenship and Immigration portfolio for quite some time now.  It seems that he has "accomplished" much of what he was mandated to do when Harper moved him into this position in 2008, and now new responsibilities are coming his way.

My worry with this change to Passport Canada is twofold.  First, I dislike the idea of decision making being decoupled from the frontline services.  It makes it much, much harder to have a coherent discussion about issues if there is a problem with a passport application.  Imagine, if you will, having to file your tax return with Service Canada, and having to deal with Service Canada if there are issues with it, but finding that you are still (ultimately) dealing with some faceless group within the CRA.  Suddenly, the decision makers are completely obscured from scrutiny and challenge.  Worse, the frontline staff are guaranteed to be utterly impotent to deal with actual issues, which further compounds the level of frustration that people will be experiencing.

The second part of my concerns with this change is in the form of recent changes that Jason Kenney has put forward in Bill C-31.  In his overhaul of the immigration act, Minister Kenney gave himself (and future ministers) extraordinary powers to overrule a reasonable due process construct.  In essence, Kenney has just made every decision that Citizenship and Immigration Canada makes subject to political interference through the Minister's offices.

While it is not unusual for the minister to have the power to overturn decisions in exceptional circumstances, the rewrite done under Bill C-31 goes much further than that, and in many respects politicizes the entire immigration process.  In doing so, he has made the immigration decision making processes subject to the political whims of the government of the day to a degree that I suspect few fully comprehend.  (My own review of the revised immigration act is still ongoing, and I expect I will find quite a bit more yet)

Given the Conservative government's willingness to politicize everything in sight, the idea of putting passports under the jurisdiction of a department which has already been yoked by this party - and a minister who is to say the least overbearing in his decision making - has the whiff of passports suddenly becoming subject to political considerations during the issuing process.

Conservatives and Electoral Reform

Ever since 2006, the Conservatives have been squabbling with Elections Canada.  What precisely the problem the HarperCons have is something of a mystery to me.  Regardless, they seem to have ongoing and serious problems with the government agency that is responsible for overseeing elections in this country.

So, after seeing Del Mastro's crocodile tears over his 2008 campaign spending issues yesterday, I decided to do a little bit of historical analysis to see what that turns up.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, there is quite a list of issues with the Conservative campaigns starting in 2006.

In 2006, the big, smelly, issue was the "In-and-Out" scandal where the Conservatives essentially engaged in a money laundering scheme to hide advertising spending.  For the most part, Harper managed to shrug this bit of crooked chicanery off.  (apparently, electoral fraud didn't register on voters in 2008)  However, it should be noted that the issue is still before the courts.

The 2008 election was triggered by Harper, no doubt with the idea that he could garner a majority on the heels of a "successful" minority that had been in place since 2006.  Harper claimed that he called the election because parliament was deadlocked - of course he conveniently ignored the fact that it was deadlocked by the very tactics that he instituted.

To be honest, I'm actually a little surprised that issues from the 2008 election are still being wrangled over - in particular Del Mastro's campaign spending.  However, if Del Mastro paid for campaign activities out of his own pocket and tried to subvert the accountability side of the elections process in doing so, that would be very much in character.

Additionally, there was a very suspicious set of events in Toronto where a number of Liberal supporters found the brake lines on their cars cut.  While this was not specifically investigated by Elections Canada, it is a rather overt form of harassment of voters which I have often thought was a clumsy attempt at voter suppression.

Then in 2011, we have seen a plethora of MPs whose election spending reports have been questioned by Elections Canada.  Interestingly, it always seems to be Conservative MPs who are getting caught out overspending or violating other rules.  I actually would have expected a bunch of these types of reports to be surfacing regarding NDP MPs from Quebec - not out of a sense of corruption, but more out of inexperience.

Moving beyond that, we have the infamous Robocalls scandal, which remains an ongoing point of contention which I believe calls into question the validity of the government as it stands today.

The real issue, when you distill it down, is that the Conservatives have a culture of "The Rules Don't Apply To Us", and they keep getting called out on it.  It wouldn't be so bad if it was relatively minor overspending infractions, but when you combine it with voter suppression, it becomes an evil that must be excised from our political system.

And The Screws Tighten Further

As the Conservatives continue on their hardline "tough on crime" nonsense agenda, the next step unrolled in an announcement from Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq revealed new rules for managing medical marijuana:

Under the new regime, the government will no longer produce or distribute medical pot and medical marijuana users will no longer be allowed to grow the product at home. Instead, the government will allow patients to buy prescribed amounts only from licensed growers under strict conditions.

In previous versions of the regulations, pharmacies were to distribute the product just like other medications, provoking the anger of pharmacists who feared being robbed.

But the final version removes the pharmacists from the loop, forcing patients to rely on mail order for their medical marijuana. 

Once again, we see the government stepping in and not just regulating something, but instead putting up obstacles which are detrimental to the good that these programs actually do.

"While the courts have said that there must be reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana for medical purposes, we believe that this must be done in a controlled fashion in order to protect public safety," Aglukkaq said in a news release.

"These changes will strengthen the safety of Canadian communities while making sure patients can access what they need to treat serious illnesses."

 Of course, they wrap it in the cloak of "community safety", when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that medical marijuana use has caused any community safety issues.  I will point out that any evidence the government may have is guaranteed to be purely anecdotal at this point, since they have ever so conveniently hamstrung the ability of Statistics Canada to gather reliable data.

There are two enormous questions that have not been addressed yet.  First is what are the criteria to become a "licensed marijuana grower"?  I'm going to put money on the rules being so strict that virtually nobody will be able to become one - not unlike what the government has done with the proposed rules around safe injection sites.

What the government has just done is push the use of marijuana to mitigate symptoms back underground.  The vast majority of users will not be willing to purchase the stuff via "mail order" models and will resort to the purchase of marijuana "off the street" simply because it is easier and more convenient - whatever the legal risks that may be associated with it.

There is nothing like a government which refuses to pay attention to available evidence and instead insists upon governing from ideology alone.

So Conservatives ... Is There A (Not-AnyMore) Secret PMO Fund or Not?

In the wake of CBC's revelation of a PMO-controlled party fund that Nigel Wright administered, Canada's CPC membership needs to start asking some tough questions of its party.

CBC News has learned that Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, had control of a secret fund in the Prime Minister’s Office when he cut the now infamous $90,000 "personal cheque" to disgraced Senator Mike Duffy.

In exclusive interviews, sources familiar with the fund tell CBC the money in it comes from Conservative Party coffers, and at times has reached almost $1 million.

Like all political party funds, more than half of all the cash in the secret PMO stash ultimately comes from taxpayers' pockets. Individual donors to political parties receive generous tax credits. Parties also receive millions from taxpayers through a per-vote subsidy, which is being phased out by 2015.

The revelation itself isn't necessarily a big surprise.  One might imagine that there are funds put aside to support the Prime Minister and other senior politicians in their efforts to forward the party's objectives during non-election times.  The concern that I think a lot of people would legitimately have is that this is not openly visible to party members, much less Canadians at large.

But, I am going to go a step or two further here.  When the story first broke, the first reaction from the Conservatives was denial.  Then, when that line of defence failed to squelch the story, the Conservatives switched to a bizarre "well yes the fund exists, but it's not hidden" line of defence.

On the question of whether the fund could have been used in the Wright-Duffy deal, Delorey said: "No funds were used for that."

Similarly, there were no denials when CBC News sent an almost identical email to Harper's communications director, Andrew MacDougall.

"I'll have to refer you to the party," MacDougall responded.

Asked whether the special fund was in any way connected to the Duffy-Wright deal, MacDougall responded: "I can give you a clear, 'no.' The funds used were Mr. Wright's personal funds."

The party's denial two days after the exchange of emails makes a number of other claims not supported by fact.

For example: "The CBC claimed party funds are hidden from Elections Canada. This is false."

In fact, Elections Canada does not oversee any political party expenditures outside an election period.

I can only imagine the Byzantine structures through which the Conservatives have moved this money in order to bury the existence of this slush fund.  The denial through obfuscation approach that the party has taken makes it clear that this fund not only exists, but it is quite reasonable to suspect that it is being used for questionable purposes.  An inconsistent story from the party with respect to this - even though CBC's journalists have published the correspondence with Party Officials on this matter - speaks to a party culture where the first response to something dishonest being discovered is to cover it up with a lie.

Were I a member of this party, I'd be screaming for a detailed audit of the party books over the last ten years.  This party has taken in millions in donations from supporters, and given a pattern of dishonesty with electoral spending, outright electoral fraud, as well as the ongoing scandals surrounding Harper-appointed senators for abusing the public purse.  It is in both the public interest and party membership's interest to have a full and complete accounting of how the party has utilized the resources placed at its disposal by its membership.  

Secret Funds???

If I were a donor to the CPC, I'd be a might bit ticked after yesterday's revelation of a hidden slush fund controlled by the PMO.

Not only is the CPC being shown increasingly as corrupt in its handling of the public purse, it appears that they can't even be honest with themselves.

I'm all in favour of regular, and detailed, financial audits of both the Senate and House of Commons.  It would appear that the CPC's memberships need to start demanding a "follow the money" audit of their party as well.

Secret funds are the tools of dictators and crooks.  People who feel that they have something to hide use tools like this, and they use them for reasons most would consider "up to no good".

Rathgeber Resigns From Con$ Caucus

Brent Rathgeber Quits Tory Caucus Over 'Lack Of Commitment To Transparency'

Hmmm...the first concrete move taken since Harper's "base" of social conservatives started to squirm significantly after the 2011 election.  

I'm not at all sure whether this represents a significant crack in the conservative base.  Rathgeber has been pretty clear that he's part of the so-con base.  (some of his comments on Bill C-279 and abortionabortion motion M-312  lead me to make this claim)

It would be nice to see a few more of Harper's backbenchers pack their bags as well.  For now, I'm going to assume that this is an isolated incident, and most of Harper's caucus remains quite cowed by the PMO and the level of control that it exercises.

For those counting, Harper's "strong stable majority" just got reduced to 7 seats.

RoboFraud Ruling

Late yesterday, the Federal Court handed down its ruling on the 2011 Robocall Voter Suppression tactics that played out in several ridings.

Electoral fraud occurred during the last federal election, a federal court judge ruled on Thursday, but there is no proof that it affected the outcomes in six ridings at issue, so the elections will not be overturned.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Federal+judge+confirms+election+fraud+2011+vote/8427519/story.html#ixzz2UDRApUl0

While I understand that the judge is ruling in essence that the degree of fraud that took place in 2011 wasn't sufficient to justify overturning the results of the election in those ridings, I have to disagree with his conclusions.

First, I think that the ruling overlooks the consequences of voter suppression tactics for Canada's democracy.

Fundamentally, it calls into question the validity of the results of the election not just in the ridings where these games were played, but across the country.  Fraud, no matter the degree, is an explicit and intentional abuse of the electoral system itself.  To prevaricate about "the degree" to which a party engaged in fraud during an election is basically giving the party in question a license to continue using those tactics.  This calls into question the validity of any future elections with that party involved.

Second, the awareness that fraud took place in the last election tells those who vote against that party that their votes will be marginalized even further.  That is a guaranteed way to encourage more voters to simply stay at home - mostly on the basis of "why bother - it's all rigged anyhow".  I cannot blame them when a years-long court battle over known electoral fraud and misdirection ends up with a ruling that is a "split down the middle".

Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley ruled that the calls “struck at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates. This form of ‘voter suppression,’ was, until the 41st General Election, largely unknown in this country.” 

The evidence points to “a concerted campaign by persons who had access to a database of voter information maintained by a political party,” Mosley writes, but says there was no allegation that any of the candidates in the six ridings were responsible for the campaign. 

“I find that electoral fraud occurred during the 41st General Election but I am not satisfied that it has been established that the fraud affected the outcomes in the subject ridings and I decline to exercise my discretion to annul the results in those districts.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Federal+judge+confirms+election+fraud+2011+vote/8427519/story.html#ixzz2UDUioi1Y

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether any of the candidates started the campaign of voter suppression or not.  The fact that the party obviously provided access to their database of voter information is enough in my opinion to call the entire thing into question.  Corruption is corruption.  I don't care if it starts with the individual candidate or some committee in the party campaign war room.  Fraud at either end is still fraud.  The guilty party should be held accountable for its actions.

More to the point, Canadians have a right to expect that their elections are free and fair.  Attempting to persuade voters of the platforms of various parties and candidates is fair ball.  Attempting to discourage or outright prevent voters from voting is NOT.

“In reaching this conclusion, I make no finding that the Conservative Party of Canada or any CPC candidates or RMG and RackNine Inc., were directly involved in any campaign to mislead voters,” he ruled. 

“I am satisfied, however, that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the CPC, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this court.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Federal+judge+confirms+election+fraud+2011+vote/8427519/story.html#ixzz2UDWKbAlF

Whether the judge realizes it or not, he has essentially given the green light to further voter fraud next election.  What he has said boils down to a rather juvenile "It doesn't matter what you do, just don't get caught".  I've heard teenagers use this kind of logic to justify some pretty destructive acts ... and then they get caught.

There should be enormous consequences for this kind of violation for all parties involved.  If the Conservatives provided access to their CIMS database for this purpose, they should be held accountable.  PERIOD.  I don't care if it was the party which did it "officially" or if some agent of the party did it "under the table" - it doesn't matter.  If the party hasn't got adequate access controls on their database, they need to fix that; if they don't have adequate controls over who gets access to that data, that's their problem too.  Ultimately, the party has fought tooth-and-nail against this, meanwhile it's been painfully clear that one of their operatives decided it would be a good idea.  The party - and its leadership - set the tone which led someone to think that electoral fraud was acceptable behaviour.  It should be held accountable.   If you can nail it down to the individuals who perpetrated this, so much the better - hold them to the fire as well.

The courts have dropped the ball on this one.

In a related note, I would point out that the recent Alberta election had the Wildrose Party abusing the robocall mechanism as part of their campaign.  At least they are being held accountable for this.  Granted, WRP hasn't been accused of electoral fraud here.