I don't make any bones about it - I do not trust the current CPoC government in Ottawa. Every sign I have seen suggests to me that they are playing a very dishonest game of trying to implement their agenda through the back door whenever possible.
It seems like every second day, some evil little turd lands in the news to further reinforce my impressions of this government. Today, the veil of secrecy in the Department of Defense is that much denser than it was a few short months ago. From a government that has repeatedly - and clumsily - attempted to deceive Canadians about its intentions already, this is another clue to the disjoin between their "public face" and reality.
You may argue that "others do that all the time", and I won't necessarily disagree. I will point out that few governments I can think of have become so blatantly secretive as quickly Harper's has. It is very hard to find anything to trust in a government that has been caught out in so many deceptions so quickly. When the knee-jerk response is to seal the communications even tighter, the citizens of Canada are obliged to start asking "Just what else are you trying to hide.
When government ministers won't answer questions about government policy and intent, and then they turn around and implement precisely the policy they tried not to admit to (as has been done with the billion dollars spending cuts, and redefinition of Status of Women's objectives), this smacks of a dishonesty both in terms of policy and intent.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
More On The "Spending Cuts"
As the details come out, there's more nastiness to the $1 billion in spending cuts that the Conservatives announced recently.
Tonight, it comes out that these cuts are targetted at women's advocacy and lobbying groups. (After all, the Conservatives seem to be so enamored with their blinding brilliance that it is inconceivable to them that they might get something wrong...)
This is vitally important to understand. By far, the Conservative cuts have most affected those groups who lobby and agitate for equality. Not just for women, but also minority populations as well.
Of course, as is typical of this government, the minister is avoiding answering for her actions (no doubt, having been well muzzled by Harper, who wants this to take a low profile).
I think this quote summarizes things quite nicely:
As I said before, this is nothing more than the CPoC implementing their unstated social conservative agenda by the back door. Canadians should be outraged.
Tonight, it comes out that these cuts are targetted at women's advocacy and lobbying groups. (After all, the Conservatives seem to be so enamored with their blinding brilliance that it is inconceivable to them that they might get something wrong...)
The drastic change to the mandate and operation of Status of Women Canada also drops the word "equality" when listing the agency's goals.
Previous objectives such as helping women's organizations participate in the public policy process and increasing the public's understanding of women's equality issues have been eliminated from government literature.
This is vitally important to understand. By far, the Conservative cuts have most affected those groups who lobby and agitate for equality. Not just for women, but also minority populations as well.
But they were told this week by Status of Women Minister Bev Oda that they would no longer be able to receive funding for projects that involved advocacy work, lobbying of the government or general research, as part of new terms and conditions for grants.
Oda was not available for comment Wednesday. But last week she made reference to the changes in the Commons.
"The new terms and conditions are consistent with our commitment to accountability and value for money," Oda said. "Canadian women know the value of a dollar. They know what good use of hard-earned money means."
Of course, as is typical of this government, the minister is avoiding answering for her actions (no doubt, having been well muzzled by Harper, who wants this to take a low profile).
I think this quote summarizes things quite nicely:
"When you look at this Conservative government's policy it's like, 'Be good girls, be quiet.' It's shocking really," said Monica Lysack of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.
As I said before, this is nothing more than the CPoC implementing their unstated social conservative agenda by the back door. Canadians should be outraged.
TheoCon Reprise
Back here, I raised my ongoing concerns that the CPoC is being driven by religious conservative interests, and pointed to the appointment of Darrel Reid to what amounts to a political advisory position in the government as an example.
In this morning's Globe and Mail, we learn that the Federal CPoC is considering writing something very similar to Ted Morton's Bill 208.
Coming out of Toews, that's a pretty good clue what's going on at the cabinet table these days - even when you consider Harper's zippered communications style. It also gives us some insight into just why Harper has decided to delay his "free vote" to the end of the session - it gives him a chance to write his version of Morton's bill 208 quietly, and the public uproar to "die down" - so he can introduce this piece of legislation "quietly".
This is substantially the same list of talking points that I debunked in earlier postings on the matter.
Intriguingly, such legislation would theoretically elevate freedom of religion above other rights outlined in the charter. Since the Charter does not impose any hierarchy of precedence, one tends to assume that all rights are of equal importance. So, that probably means that the CPoC would have to impose the legislation with the notwithstanding clause in order to avoid Charter challenge in the courts. (Please note, the CPoC just axed the very program that would fund part of the legal expenses - which probably means that the government would find itself being sued civilly to recover expenses in such a case)
[Update 19:00]
Tonight, we learn that Harper is denying that the "Defense of Religions Act" is something that his government is considering. Being the cynical sort that I am, I'm going to make a wild guess that this legislation will be introduced as a 'back bench' bill - it will merely get the mysterious support of Harper's cabinet.
[/Update]
In this morning's Globe and Mail, we learn that the Federal CPoC is considering writing something very similar to Ted Morton's Bill 208.
While refusing to discuss specifics, Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government's intentions yesterday in an interview.
“The nature of the concerns that are being raised with me are relating to freedom of religion and freedom to practice religion [and] freedom of expression,” he said.
“The Prime Minister has indicated that he is bringing the matter forward — the issue of same-sex marriage — on a free vote. And there may be certain options open to the government as to what the response should be in either event, whether that opening is successful or not successful.”
Coming out of Toews, that's a pretty good clue what's going on at the cabinet table these days - even when you consider Harper's zippered communications style. It also gives us some insight into just why Harper has decided to delay his "free vote" to the end of the session - it gives him a chance to write his version of Morton's bill 208 quietly, and the public uproar to "die down" - so he can introduce this piece of legislation "quietly".
Sources say the government is considering measures to protect individuals who oppose homosexual marriages or even relationships from human rights' complaints.
The measures would seek to ensure, for example, that churches cannot be forced to rent their halls for same-sex marriage receptions, or that a justice of the peace cannot be compelled to marry a same-sex couple in violation of his or her religious beliefs.
Justice officials have also been told to search for ways to protect the rights of individuals to criticize homosexual activity because it contravenes religious teachings, or to refuse to do business with organizations whose purposes he or she disagrees with, without being brought before a human-rights tribunal.
The working title for the vehicle that could enshrine these measures is the Defence of Religions Act.
This is substantially the same list of talking points that I debunked in earlier postings on the matter.
Intriguingly, such legislation would theoretically elevate freedom of religion above other rights outlined in the charter. Since the Charter does not impose any hierarchy of precedence, one tends to assume that all rights are of equal importance. So, that probably means that the CPoC would have to impose the legislation with the notwithstanding clause in order to avoid Charter challenge in the courts. (Please note, the CPoC just axed the very program that would fund part of the legal expenses - which probably means that the government would find itself being sued civilly to recover expenses in such a case)
[Update 19:00]
Tonight, we learn that Harper is denying that the "Defense of Religions Act" is something that his government is considering. Being the cynical sort that I am, I'm going to make a wild guess that this legislation will be introduced as a 'back bench' bill - it will merely get the mysterious support of Harper's cabinet.
[/Update]
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The Opposition Starts To Awaken
After a summer of disturbing silences, the Liberal and NDP opposition parties have finally awoke to the idea that they need to hold the CPoC government's feet firmly in the fires of their own policies.
Out of the gate, we find the Liberals actually making some very pointy observations about the CPoC on several issues - most notably the appointment of Darrel Reid as Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment:
Picking up on something that I have been hammering at in this space, the Liberals are finally starting to call the Harper government on their hypocrisy:
Interestingly, Ms. Ambrose chose not to respond to the charges against her chief of staff, and instead did a classic Conservative response of whining about flaws in the former Liberal Governments environment policy. How utterly unsurprising. The deflection tactic is something that the CPoC is notorious for using - it's sort of like talking about the price of tea in China, and someone asks "what is the temperature of spit on a rock?". Coming from a sitting government, it's pretty sad.
The NDP chose to pick up on the short sightedness of the CPoC government's arbitrary spending cuts last week:
It's about time that our opposition parties stopped acting shell-shocked, and started slapping this government around.
Out of the gate, we find the Liberals actually making some very pointy observations about the CPoC on several issues - most notably the appointment of Darrel Reid as Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment:
“The rights of minorities in Canada are fundamental to our common citizenship. Yet the Prime Minister has named Darrel Reid as a key political operator in his administration,” said Liberal Leader Bill Graham. “Mr. Reid, a former Conservative candidate, said and I quote, ‘it's about high time that Muslims show the world that theirs is a religion of peace rather than a religion based on threat, intimidation and terrorism.’
“Mr. Reid has also compared MPs who voted to protect Canadian citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian against gay crimes as being similar to Adolph Hitler and his bunch.
“These comments do not stop with gays and lesbians. Mr. Reid has also criticized Quebec society, and by saying ‘The rest of Canada, it seems to me, seems to be following Quebec’s example when it comes to marriage, sex habits and so on.’ These comments are hardly reassuring,” Mr. Graham said.
The Liberal Leader slammed Mr. Reid’s appointment as an “affront to our democracy”.
Quebec MP Pablo Rodriguez pointed out that Mr. Reid’s appointment as Chief of Staff to Environment Minister Rona Ambrose must have been based on his ideology, as is completely unqualified to deal with environmental issues.
Picking up on something that I have been hammering at in this space, the Liberals are finally starting to call the Harper government on their hypocrisy:
PEI MP Wayne Easter pointed out that despite the fact that the Conservatives ran on a platform that promised these types of patronage appointments would not occur, they have gone ahead and feverishly stacked political appointments with political friends.
“After promising Canadians they would be squeaky clean, this government has been anything but. Why does PEI have no representation at the federal cabinet table, but provincial Conservative operatives are free to belly up to the patronage trough?” he asked.
Interestingly, Ms. Ambrose chose not to respond to the charges against her chief of staff, and instead did a classic Conservative response of whining about flaws in the former Liberal Governments environment policy. How utterly unsurprising. The deflection tactic is something that the CPoC is notorious for using - it's sort of like talking about the price of tea in China, and someone asks "what is the temperature of spit on a rock?". Coming from a sitting government, it's pretty sad.
The NDP chose to pick up on the short sightedness of the CPoC government's arbitrary spending cuts last week:
“Everyone but the Tories knows volunteers are core to our communities and our country. The non-profit and voluntary sector makes an enormous contribution to Canada’s economy and job market -- 6.8 percent of the nation’s GDP, more than the mining, oil and gas sector combined!” said Martin.
“Only Conservatives in their right ideological minds would do this. Canadians value the importance of the non-profit and voluntary sector in providing social, cultural, and recreational benefits.”
The Canada Volunteerism Initiative, serving 161,000 non-profit agencies, was axed as part of $200 million in the $1 billion Conservative cuts.
The highly respected Muttart Foundation from the Prime Minister’s home province of Alberta says the cuts hurt the vulnerable and create social deficits that will cost more than $1 billion to repair.
It's about time that our opposition parties stopped acting shell-shocked, and started slapping this government around.
Guest Editorial
In regards to the developments in the Conservative nomination war over Calgary West, one of my regular readers sent me a rather enjoyable tirade:
On the evening news last night was an item concerning the "review" of the procedures followed to re-elect Anders. Apparently the matter was in court yesterday with the Federal CPC's delaying the review. Their lawyer was Gerry Chipeur, a far right Con and someone I have come to heartily dislike. Apparently the Federal Party feels that if the review was held right now then certain "matters" would have to be disclosed which the feds would rather not disclose. So the matter has been put off until 20 October.
Sounds to me that the CPC is not interested in democracy which is much like the Klein P.C's. Also, there is a considerable degree of arrogancewhich is typical of the current batch of cons. Anders is an insufferable prig as it is, should his recent renomination be held to stand up then he will become even worse. Frankly this should be brought before all Canadian voters so they can see what sort of MP's they are electing.
The whole thing is disgusting. Its civic parallel is the Ward 10 shenanigans where the PC's tried to pull a fast one and some nice people have ended up in court, some facing criminal charges . And in this one, Klein said there was no need for a public inquiry. OK Bronconnier was no better.
No wonder the public views politicians as worse than used car salesmen.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Following Up on Softwood Comments
In the comments section back here, commenter Quixote makes the following remarks:
Generally speaking, I have little confidence that we will see a plug nickel of that money - agreement or not.
There are several aspects of this agreement, and the Canadian Federal Government's implementation that rub me completely the wrong way.
1) Essentially, we have handed over $1 billion dollars which the Americans can use any way they want - and no doubt a sizable chunk is going into the industry warchest in the states to legislate/litigate/lobby for early termination of the deal, and further tariffs as soon as the deal expires. Why are Canadians paying their adversaries?
2) $450 Million going into a slush fund under White House control. This is little more than a political donation to the current US Republicans in my view, and it is being done on the backs of Canadian industry and Canadian taxpayers.
3) While the US government's obligation to repay is tied down by a system that requires them to go through each duty cheque levied, calculating accrued interest on it and then carving out the percentage agreed to, and cutting a refund cheque for that amount. A process that the US government claims will take years. Meanwhile, Harper is in such a rush to 'implement' this godawful farce, he's paying the monies out through Canadian taxpayers. So a cheque for nearly $1 billion dollars goes south of the border before the United States has one plug nickel refunded to Canada.
In essence, given the current US Government's respect for international agreements (nearly non-existent), Canadian taxpayers are shouldering the burden (not once, but twice - first in the consequences of those tariffs, and second today by bearing the cost of this agreement directly without a scrap of assurance that the US government is in fact meeting its obligations).
Basically, the more that we learn about this agreement and its implementation, it seems to me that the whole thing is a charade that ultimately hangs Canadian interests out to dry.
(But then again, I have seen little evidence that the current US government has negotiated in good faith on much of anything).
Is negotiating a softwood lumber deal that gets Canada back five billion (instead of the six billion owed) good or bad? Well if you believed (as I do) that the Americans would never have paid us, regardless of how many court cases won or who was in the White House, then it is a good deal. If you think that we'd have gotten our money eventually, then losing one billion is a bad thing.
Generally speaking, I have little confidence that we will see a plug nickel of that money - agreement or not.
There are several aspects of this agreement, and the Canadian Federal Government's implementation that rub me completely the wrong way.
1) Essentially, we have handed over $1 billion dollars which the Americans can use any way they want - and no doubt a sizable chunk is going into the industry warchest in the states to legislate/litigate/lobby for early termination of the deal, and further tariffs as soon as the deal expires. Why are Canadians paying their adversaries?
2) $450 Million going into a slush fund under White House control. This is little more than a political donation to the current US Republicans in my view, and it is being done on the backs of Canadian industry and Canadian taxpayers.
3) While the US government's obligation to repay is tied down by a system that requires them to go through each duty cheque levied, calculating accrued interest on it and then carving out the percentage agreed to, and cutting a refund cheque for that amount. A process that the US government claims will take years. Meanwhile, Harper is in such a rush to 'implement' this godawful farce, he's paying the monies out through Canadian taxpayers. So a cheque for nearly $1 billion dollars goes south of the border before the United States has one plug nickel refunded to Canada.
In essence, given the current US Government's respect for international agreements (nearly non-existent), Canadian taxpayers are shouldering the burden (not once, but twice - first in the consequences of those tariffs, and second today by bearing the cost of this agreement directly without a scrap of assurance that the US government is in fact meeting its obligations).
Basically, the more that we learn about this agreement and its implementation, it seems to me that the whole thing is a charade that ultimately hangs Canadian interests out to dry.
(But then again, I have seen little evidence that the current US government has negotiated in good faith on much of anything).
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Harper and The Clintons
It almost sounds like a 1960's sitcom, doesn't it? But it's unfortunately serious. Over on CBC, we find Larry Zolf waxing poetic about how Harper could "use" a relationship with the Clintons.
Normally, I find Zolf pretty well reasoned and I don't disagree with him too much. However, in this case, I think he's missed the mark a little bit.
Zolf's basic reasoning is that if Harper were to "use" a relationship with the Clintons effectively on the public stage, he'd be able to distance himself somewhat from the accusation that he is being a "puppet" to King Bush II. There's a lot of huge ifs in what Zolf is postulating.
Here's one of the first places where Zolf hits a sour note with me. I get phenomenally annoyed with the "it's not my fault" stance of Harper. Not only was it Mr. Harper who railroaded an extension of this mission through the house, but he said that even if his motion was defeated, he was going to extend it by at least a year. More recently, he has started to commit more troops, and heavy armor to the mission. This is not the mission that Martin signed Canada up for, and I'm not so impressed with the "I am the decider(tm)" approach that Harper has been using.
Yes, but like his idol in Washington, Harper is an ideologue. He refuses to work meaningfully with anybody who isn't of his particular political stripe. (Does anybody else remember the fact that Bush blatantly snubbed Canada as long as we had a Liberal PM?) The CPoC, and it's Reform/Alliance incarnations during the Clinton years, have always been phenomenally hostile to Clinton. Harper's non-appearance at the recent AIDS conference in Toronto was as much a snub of Clinton as the conference itself.
It's nice to see that Bill and Hillary are admitting that Iraq is a complete FUBAR, while Aghanistan is simply FU. Whether or not any mission in Afghanistan is likely to succeed is an open question. I have my doubts, and history tends to reinforce those doubts. No foreign power has ever successfully "reshaped" Afghanistan's politics - either in the 20th century or before. It seems to me a little over optimistic to assume that we "can" win in Afghanistan.
I'm afraid that Zolf has fallen flat here. There's a lot more of Harper's behaviour and actions since being sworn in this year that make it pretty clear that he is in fact toadying to the Bush regime. Let's start with the softwood lumber "deal" that he signed us up to for a start - remember, the one with a $450 million dollar slush fund for the White House.
The Clintons are "liberal" by US political standards. Clinton himself still falls well right of the traditional ideological space of the Canadian Liberal party. I suppose that Clinton would probably be very similar to a Mulroney era Progressive Conservative on the right side of the political center, but not as far right as Harper goes.
I don't agree. Harper has been far too cozy with BushCo since day one - and don't get me started on that revolting behaviour that Mackay has shown towards Rice. Nothing about Harper's stance on anything has differentiated him from Bush significantly, in fact much of his policy and tactics seem to be lifted straight out of the Rethuglican playbook - with a little bit of Ralph Klein arrogance and secrecy rolled in for good measure.
If the only topic on which Harper was looking like a toady to Bush was Afghanistan, Zolf's theory might work - it isn't, and as a consequence, Zolf's idea is doomed to fail.
Normally, I find Zolf pretty well reasoned and I don't disagree with him too much. However, in this case, I think he's missed the mark a little bit.
Zolf's basic reasoning is that if Harper were to "use" a relationship with the Clintons effectively on the public stage, he'd be able to distance himself somewhat from the accusation that he is being a "puppet" to King Bush II. There's a lot of huge ifs in what Zolf is postulating.
Linking Harper to Bush has been a staple of the NDP and the left of the Liberal party since the Harper mission in Afghanistan started. Harper's defence of his war in Afghanistan is that he's not a prisoner of Bush but is simply carrying on a mission started by the Liberals. And he's right.
Here's one of the first places where Zolf hits a sour note with me. I get phenomenally annoyed with the "it's not my fault" stance of Harper. Not only was it Mr. Harper who railroaded an extension of this mission through the house, but he said that even if his motion was defeated, he was going to extend it by at least a year. More recently, he has started to commit more troops, and heavy armor to the mission. This is not the mission that Martin signed Canada up for, and I'm not so impressed with the "I am the decider(tm)" approach that Harper has been using.
In the United States the Clintons are a powerful team. Bill Clinton is probably the most popular president in Canadian eyes since Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. Clinton was the hit of the recent Toronto AIDS conference.
Yes, but like his idol in Washington, Harper is an ideologue. He refuses to work meaningfully with anybody who isn't of his particular political stripe. (Does anybody else remember the fact that Bush blatantly snubbed Canada as long as we had a Liberal PM?) The CPoC, and it's Reform/Alliance incarnations during the Clinton years, have always been phenomenally hostile to Clinton. Harper's non-appearance at the recent AIDS conference in Toronto was as much a snub of Clinton as the conference itself.
The Clintons' arguments on Afghanistan reinforce Harper's view that the Afghan mission is the right and correct one. The Clintons are really saying there's a difference between the war in Iraq, which is a total quagmire, and the war in Afghanistan, which is not only necessary but can end in success.
It's nice to see that Bill and Hillary are admitting that Iraq is a complete FUBAR, while Aghanistan is simply FU. Whether or not any mission in Afghanistan is likely to succeed is an open question. I have my doubts, and history tends to reinforce those doubts. No foreign power has ever successfully "reshaped" Afghanistan's politics - either in the 20th century or before. It seems to me a little over optimistic to assume that we "can" win in Afghanistan.
The Clintons' arguments on Afghanistan are identical to Harper's. Harper can use the Clintons' support for a more robust American presence in Afghanistan to provide him with further claim to being his own man and not a Bush puppet.
I'm afraid that Zolf has fallen flat here. There's a lot more of Harper's behaviour and actions since being sworn in this year that make it pretty clear that he is in fact toadying to the Bush regime. Let's start with the softwood lumber "deal" that he signed us up to for a start - remember, the one with a $450 million dollar slush fund for the White House.
The Clintons are liberals. Harper is a radical conservative.
The Clintons are "liberal" by US political standards. Clinton himself still falls well right of the traditional ideological space of the Canadian Liberal party. I suppose that Clinton would probably be very similar to a Mulroney era Progressive Conservative on the right side of the political center, but not as far right as Harper goes.
That Clinton nod would help to nix the silly argument that Harper is really only a tool of George W. Bush.
I don't agree. Harper has been far too cozy with BushCo since day one - and don't get me started on that revolting behaviour that Mackay has shown towards Rice. Nothing about Harper's stance on anything has differentiated him from Bush significantly, in fact much of his policy and tactics seem to be lifted straight out of the Rethuglican playbook - with a little bit of Ralph Klein arrogance and secrecy rolled in for good measure.
If the only topic on which Harper was looking like a toady to Bush was Afghanistan, Zolf's theory might work - it isn't, and as a consequence, Zolf's idea is doomed to fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)