Category Archives: democracy and good government

The Harper Kremlin

conservative party, democracy and good government,

It’s hard to believe how much I used to agree with Stephen Harper when he was in opposition. Don’t get me wrong–I almost never saw things the same way as he did on matters of policy. But on process and Parliament, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper was absolutely right to call for more transparency and accountability, and, specifically, for the Prime Minister to respect Parliamentarians and refrain from centralizing power and stifling dissent. When the Opposition Leader became PM part of me thought, “oh well, at least we’ll see some positive action with regards to governance.” If you ever want to accuse me of being naive, there’s your proof.

Since being elected, Harper has made protester-choking Jean Chrétien look like the king of listening and consensus-building. After awhile, however, all of the evidence becomes overwhelming, and we forget old scandals as new ones take their place. In today’s Globe, Lawrence Martin reminds us of this damning chronology, saying that “in just 20 months, [Harper] has become master of everything he’s touched. To search the annals for another Canadian PM who accumulated so much cold-blooded authority in such a short time is to come up empty.”

  • One of the first things Harper did was to eliminate the position of Deputy Prime Minister, kicking off the “storyline…of imperious control.”
  • The Conservatives created a 200 page manual instructing committee chairs on how to disrupt and sabotage the mechanics of our democracy, including storming out of meetings if necessary (which, in time, they did).
  • Last August, the government ordered the RCMP to remove journalists from the Charlottetown hotel lobby where caucus was meeting so that they couldn’t ask nettlesome questions.
  • Unlike past governments, the Harper government does not reveal the dates of cabinet meetings in advance, making it next to impossible for the media to know to show up and ask questions afterwards and further ensuring that MPs will not be allowed to speak. Martin adds that “our diplomats are in the same boat. The extent of their gagging is also said to be unprecedented.”
  • If journalists want to ask the government a question, they must do so from a pre-approved list. “Journalists got an early sense of what was coming when Mr. Harper tried to ban them from covering ceremonies for soldiers killed in Afghanistan.”

Looking over my past posts, I’m also reminded of when Harper said that questioning the government’s foreign policy amounts to having a “passion for the Taliban,” when he tried to hide a pay raise for senior officials, when he hypocritically appointed committee chairs instead of allowing them to be elected by parliament, when his government bought positive news headlines, etc.

Then, Martin explains, last week saw a rush of evidence to further substantiate our concerns about Harper’s leadership:

  • Last week, only two cabinet ministers were allowed to speak to the media about the throne speech. All 123 of his remaining MPs were silenced, unable to represent those who elected them.
  • Last week, we found out about plans to spend two million of our dollars on “robust physical and information security measures.” That’s code for a government-controlled media briefing centre where Harper would be able to more easily curtail the press’ pesky freedom. (These plans were abandoned and denied as soon as they were discovered.)
  • Last week, accusations and evidence emerged that the Conservative party has been using a partisan party database to track government constituency work. There are a number of problems with that, the primary one being that it’s illegal.
  • Last week, the duly elected executive in Bill Casey’s riding was told that even if Conservative members want him to be their candidate again, Harper will not allow it.

Then, today we learn that the elected riding president has been removed in accordance with Harper’s wishes. There’s also a report in today’s paper that under this government compliance with the Access to Information Act has “both slowed down and decreased,” a fact which “goes against the Harper government’s promise to bring additional openness and transparency to Ottawa in the 2006 election campaign.” This extreme centralization of power and interference with the media’s ability to do its job is perhaps more reminiscent of Putin’s Russia than any other “democracy.” Martin concludes with these words:

The march of democracy in this country is intriguing. Mr. Chrétien took a protester by the throat. This PM, who came out of the populist Reform Party movement, has practically the entire government by the throat.

It is fascinating, if not chilling to see his shrewd acts unfold. There are many who think his strategy, a sort of reverse glasnost, is succeeding. There are others who think that building his version of the Kremlin in Ottawa is not what the people had mind.

TVO Battle Blog: Losing Faith

democracy and good government

Crossposted to tvo.org. Today’s question: “How would you interpret John Tory’s announcement of a free vote on the religious schools question?” (400 word limit)

I’ll need a few days to know for sure, but at the moment I can’t help but feel it represents the death of my hope that this campaign would rise above the useless partisan wedge-issue fear-fest it’s been.

Is John Tory’s position on religious school funding divisive? Yes. Should he have raised it in the first place? I don’t know. I disagree with almost every position the man’s taken over the last few months, but at least he’s not so politically cynical as the Liberals and NDP that he would spend a whole campaign pretending to “oppose the funding of religious schools” when really what they mean is “unless they’re Catholic schools, because they’re not as scary as those Muslims over there.” Or, at least, that’s what I keep hearing whenever they talk about it. (The Green position, that we should merge the Catholic board into the public board and create one publicly funded school system, is explained here.)

Regardless, the reality is that the Liberals have kept this issue on the agenda to the exclusion of all others because that’s what’s best for their party–what’s best for the province be damned. Didn’t someone say something about spending $40,000,000,000 on nuclear power? Should we maybe talk about that before we create deadly radioactive waste that will be around for a million years? Should we maybe talk about the tritium that will seep into our children’s drinking water?

Didn’t someone say something about a climate crisis? Should we maybe talk about what we’ll do when the farms that produce our food can no longer grow as much (or anything) due to shifting weather patterns?

Didn’t someone say something about a referendum? Should we maybe talk about this once-in-a-lifetime chance to make democracy better? Should we maybe talk about how MMP tends to create more positive, issues-based election campaigns?

Now that Tory’s made this announcement, I fear that instead of allowing us to move on he’s simply thrown more wood on the fire, ensuring that we’ll never get around to the list of issues that matter more. For example, today’s blog question was going to be about the doctor shortage. Sorry folks, we’re not going to deal with that problem in this election. Please take a magazine and wait. The doctor will see you in four more years. Maybe.

TVO Battle Blog: Leaders’ Debate

democracy and good government, green party

Crossposted to tvo.org. Today’s question: “Should more party leaders have been included in the Leaders’ Debate?” (400 word limit)

Yes. Frank de Jong and the Green Party of Ontario have earned their place at the table. Of course, it’s predictable and at least a bit self-serving for me to say that, so let’s take a look at the facts and arguments.

First, it’s important to understand that, contrary to the claims of our opponents, there are no rules for deciding who gets to be in the debate. None. The decision is made behind closed doors by a group of unelected and accountable broadcast executives using whatever criteria they chose. That’s not right; there should be an open and transparent process with clear criteria.

Second, there’s precedent. Provincial Green leaders have been included in other televised debates, including Adriane Carr in BC and, most recently, Sharon Labchuk in PEI.

Third, Greens are polling at an all-time high, within striking distance of the NDP. Thomas Walkom writes in The Toronto Star that “if I had to pick a winner for the week, it would be Frank de Jong’s Greens,” and Ian Urquhart says that The Greens have hit a nerve. In other words, we’re a serious, credible voice that many people are considering voting for. They deserve to hear what we have to say.

Fourth, as columnist John Lorinc points out, excluding the Green party means excluding whole issues and new ideas. It means, for example, that the majority of Ontarians who support the creation of one publicly funded school system will not hear from a single party leader who shares their views during tonight’s debate.

Finally–and, for me, most importantly–the overwhelming majority (close to 80%) of voters believe that the Greens should be included in the debates. We live in a democracy, so surely that counts for something. (Check out these responses to CBC posing the question.) And you have to ask yourself, if that many people want to hear where we stand, what right do the broadcasters have to deny them? And to the party leaders who oppose our inclusion: what are you afraid of?

I’d encourage you to read Frank de Jong’s excellent op-ed piece in today’s Toronto Sun outlining the reasons he should have been included. And if you’d like to hear what Frank has to say on the issues, check out gpo.ca during tonight’s debate. He’ll be responding to questions live, because he believes that you have a right to know where the Green party stands.

The Long And The Short Of It

democracy and good government, ontario referendum on mmp,

Yesterday saw another intellectually dishonest attack against MMP (following Claire Hoy’s earlier misguided missive), this time published in the Globe and Mail. My letter to the editor in response to Christopher Holcroft’s column, which was not published, reads as follows:

In attempting to argue against the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) recommendation arrived at by our peers in the Citizens’ Assembly, Christopher Holcroft provides no evidence to back-up his four main arguments. In fact, all existing evidence points to the contrary. Countries that currently use MMP such as Germany and New Zealand have seen increased accessibility and engagement (there are more representatives to answer public concerns), fairer election results (40% of the vote means 40% of the seats), more responsive government (making every vote count encourages all parties to compete for all votes in all ridings), and more voter choice (Ontarians would vote once for a candidate, and once for a party).

I can agree with Holcroft on one point, however. He writes that, “Ontarians [must] learn as much as possible about a proposal that would mark a historic change in the way we govern ourselves.” The 103 randomly selected members of the Citizens’ Assembly spent eight months doing just that. And after learning almost everything there is to know about all of the advantages and shortcomings of both our current system and the proposed alternative, they voted 92% in favour of recommending MMP as being the best voting system for Ontario.

Instead, today’s paper contains one letter in opposition to Mr. Holcroft’s column from Janek Jagiellowicz in Wellesley, Ontario, which reads, in its entirety:

A long-time Liberal activist is against electoral reform in Ontario? Hmm. That’s all the proof I need: I’m voting for electoral reform.

Brevity counts, my friends.