How about we just call it the harper Service of Canada™?

Why not since: well researched advice by public servants who make recommendations on what’s best for the public are constantly overridden by harper’s political bag boys; public service resources are used forpolitical partisan endeavours; communications to the public are controlledby harper; communications to the public are not intended to inform the public of reality but rather are micro-managed by harper to avoid embarrassing him  and his own; non-partisan appointments are becoming obsolete;  and, public servants are forced to attend partisan functions for harper’s drones who are friendless...

The master strategist isn’t just redefining Canadian identity, he’s redefining our rights and the accountability of our public service – something created as a non-partisan body to serve us without political interference.

But we’ll leave the word “Canada” in there since Canadians are the ones footing the bill for the harper Service.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say public servants are harper servants...yet.  It’ll take a little while – but no as long as one might expect – for the pressure from the harper appointees and those they squeeze near the top to filter down to the bulk of public servants who still believe in their mandates of serving the public honestly and in a non-partisan fashion.

But as harper takes over more control through bullying and ignoring legislation of what is supposed to be an independent body as our service, the very concept of independence will disappear from documents, speeches, communications, internal meetings until public servants forget they were once public servants and go about their jobs believing and never questioning that they are political servants.

And the public?  Who will be looking out for us?

No one.

Last week, the Citizen reported DND will spend more than $600 million on preparing the Nortel site to be its main location in Ottawa...on top of the $208 million the government spent to purchase the Carling Avenue campus... the documents show DND officials were worried last year about how the renovation costs would be perceived. “Media, parliamentarians and Canadians will be focused on the cost to taxpayers for the acquisition of the Campus and the subsequent retro-fit costs,” noted a DND strategy document.

Such concerns were solved when Deputy Minister Robert Fonberg stepped in. Fonberg’s assistant wrote that the deputy minister was concerned about telling the public about the cost. According to an email, Fonberg asked, “Why are we using the $623m(illion) fit up cost? It is without context and will be a lightning rod!”  The cost was removed from public documents about the Nortel purchase.

Minimizing risk to the Conservative government about issues that might raise questions has become a hallmark of federal communications strategies, say critics.

"...a very dangerous precedent"

Yes, making things disappear because we don't want people finding shit out is pretty dangerous.  We should know that.

 

Eventually, people make a party out of embracing ignorance and destroying information.  Children begin to view any kind of information - except that approved by The Party - as corrupting.  Damn academics, statisticians, scientists!  Pretentious types, elitists, the whole lot, bunch of latte drinking commies...

Ignorant people are easier to control.  Lack of resources to research policy lets The Party make up their own pseudo-facts and figures.

The federal bill introduced last month would halt registration of long guns and permanently delete more than seven million files on gun ownership. It would override provisions of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and the Privacy Act to allow for destruction of the records.

The Association of Canadian Archivists recently wrote to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, arguing that destroying records for "political expediency" and ignoring existing legislation "sets a very dangerous precedent for future legislation and record-keeping practices."

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." 
                                                                                                                                                - Orwell

Love the new Conservative accountability ads

Oh wait...those are news headlines.  From today.

Opposition parties: Scandals could topple Conservatives

Kenney faces new accusation of partisanship  

Jason Kenney’s performance shows some ministers aren’t created equal 

  Conservatives’ in-and-out scheme: applying smell test to facts

Stephen Harper finds his Dingwall

A government for all Conservatives

Access-to-information woes grow ever more absurd 

Kenney fends off demands for resignation over fundraising letter

Justin Trudeau takes Jason Kenney to task for alleged abuse of ministerial office    


Looks like the Liberals and NDP agree that  the so-called in-and-out election spending scandal and other missteps (should be) the springboard to Election Day 2011.

Nice to see unity on that from opposition.  The CONs can say all they want that Canadians don't care about those issues, but they would like us to forget that they beat the Martin Liberals pretty much on the accountability issue alone.  And pompously promised they'd be different.

Oh, they're different, all right:
During the Chrétien government years, I reported extensively on malfeasance by the Liberals. To do the math on the Harper government is to conclude that, while it has no sponsorship scandal on its books, it’s already surpassed its predecessor on a range of other abuse-of-power indices. (Lawrence Martin)

And for those people who really don't care that the harper team has beaten even the eternal ADSCAM (!!!!!), the CONs provide headlines today about other things, those things dealing with budgets, finance, and the economy, those things harper says are really what Canadians care about:


Critics slam feds’poverty plan 

Commons committee keeps MPs' legal fees under wraps  

Federal spending rising in areas where Tories vowed to tighten belts: budget watchdog.

The feds are spending billions without looking at the bill

If you gots nothin’ ta hide, why ya worried?

Right, wingnuts?

Or how about: If’n ya didn’t do nuthin’, what’d ya sweatin’ over?

Or how about Steve’s and Johnnie’s own words:
“We promised to stand up for accountability and to change the way government works,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  “Canadians elected this government to deliver on that commitment and today the Federal Accountability Act has received Royal Assent.  From this day on, accountability in government is the law and we can all be proud of that fact.”

John Baird: “The Federal Accountability Act is a significant and substantive step by Canada’s New Government to help restore Canadians’ trust in government and the democratic process.”

Sure, but that was when Canadians were lead to believe that legislation applied to all Canadians.  Stevie has informed us that such is not reality.

That might explain why Baird thumbed his nose at his and his master’s promise of transparency and accountability by refusing the legitimate demand of the Information, Privacy and Ethics committee for the electronic correspondence of a political aide who – can anyone make this shit up? -  blocked the release of an Access to Information request. 

Mr. Baird defended the decision, saying cabinet ministers, and not their staff, are responsible to Parliament (and that) parliamentary and constitution convention dictates that the political communications related to decisions and actions of cabinet ministers are never disclosed.



What a fucking  troll.

Let’s look at that statement in the context of this issue.  The political staffer Sébastien Togneri “unreleased” documents requested by a Globe and Mail reporter when Mr. Paradis headed the Public Works department.

Togneri apparently wrote a series of e-mails relating to this.  Since Paradis as Minister is responsible to Parliament, any e-mails Togneri sent to him as Minister should be available for scrutiny.

As for e-mails to public servants within the department, Stevie and Johnnie passed through that nifty accountability act in December, 2006 giving us clear direction on that.

The accounting officer system was put into place in Canada after considerable debate about whether the traditional model of ministerial and public service accountability was satisfactory.  The adoption of the accounting officer system could clarify accountability and improve the dialogue between Parliament and the professional public service by specifying that deputy ministers are indeed accountable for a few select areas, such as ensuring that an effective system of internal control is in place and signing the accounts of their organization.  It may make deputy ministers devote more attention to their management responsibilities, and may provide deputy ministers with an incentive to say no to inappropriate political interference in departmental administration.  It could do this by making them aware that their actions could potentially be the subject of parliamentary inquiry.

And public servants are accountable to their supervisors, so through the deputy minister, are responsible to Parliament as well.

So any e-mails Togneri sent to public servants within the department should be available to the committee as well.

Basic common sense tells us as well that parliamentary staff are responsible to their superior, and ultimately, the elected member they work for.  Because of that, their e-mails sent in course of their job are no longer their own property, but belong to the transaction or issue which is managed by the elected member.  The staffer doesn’t own the e-mails.  So, Baird can dance around all he wants trying to please his portly master, but if he keeps to that line, it isn’t Togneri who is in contempt by refusing, it is Paradis.

By Baird’s account, Togneri is not really responsible for whatever action was taken.  He was simply the post man, and the post man doesn’t own the mail he delivers nor can he grant that mail some vague diplomatic-type immunity.

So Baird, Harper, quit trying to interfere with the legitimate demand of the legitimate Information, Privacy and Ethics committee.  Because -  ‘Such interference would be unprecedented and abusive!’ 

(But hardly unprecedented coming from the Hamper party of Canada)

She was probably doing research

The central allegation Snowdy presented is that Gillani, an accused fraudster, claimed to Snowdy that three offshore companies in Belize B a tax haven B had been "reserved" to hold cash for Guergis and Jaffer. Snowdy said he also told the Tory lawyer that Gillani boasted that he had cellphone pictures of Jaffer and Guergis partying with high-class escorts when cocaine was being snorted.

You know, as Minister for Status of Women...examining how prostitution in Canada affects women...

This is a little harder to explain, though:

At a meeting in the Spice Trader restaurant on Queen St. W. in July 2009, Snowdy said Gillani showed him a series of companies, and claimed that Jaffer and "his wife" had three companies reserved for them, all in Belize. Further, Gillani claimed Guergis had "a contact in Belize that set everything up."

Snowdy checked and with a simple review of government press releases saw that Guergis had visited Belize in July 2008. Guergis was Secretary of Trade for Foreign Affairs and International Trade at the time.

If she indeed was meeting a contact to set up an offshore account for shady deals, and doing so while acting in her capacity as Secretary of Trade, then she used her position for personal gain and to engage in something that does not appear entirely legal.

So far, these are allegations which Guergis denies, but her credibility has taken a big hit. 

Howard Rubel, hired to represent Guergis, said early Wednesday afternoon that even after speaking with RCMP investigators two days ago, he and his client are in the dark about what he said were unspecified allegations about her conduct.

"The prime minister's office is not providing any information," Rubel said. "She is ready to respond and co-operate but it's important that she not respond until she knows what the allegations are."
 
But Soudas suggested Rubel had been misinformed. "The Conservative party lawyer last Friday -- the day that Ms. Guergis resigned -- spoke with Ms. Guergis and informed her of the allegations the Prime Minister's Office referred to (the) ethics commissioner and the RCMP," Soudas said.

And in case anyone is saying the lawyer put words in Guergis’ mouth:

Earlier on Wednesday, Guergis spoke out against a CTV report which said the third-party allegations against her are related to blackmail and drug use.

The former junior Conservative cabinet minister said she was shocked by the story. "This is completely ridiculous and an example of rumours gone amok," Guergis wrote in an email to The Canadian Press Wednesday.

It is important to note as well that Jaffer was still an MP and Chair of the Conservative caucus at the time Guergis may have visited her contact in Belize.  In fact, he accompanied her on that trip.

That means that two MPs Harper handpicked for high profile positions may have been busy abusing their posts and breaking laws while being paid more than the average MP, all on taxpayers dollars.

This goes beyond the affront of abusing public funds and an inflated sense of privilege.  As private investigator Snowdy (and self-proclaimed “committed member” of the Conservative party) claims, such actions by Jaffer and Guergis makes them great targets for blackmail.  As members of Parliament who Stevo entrusted with special portfolios, the squeeze would not only affect the couple personally, but would put Canadians at risk should a blackmailer decide to push them to further abuse their positions.

Again, the story here is not the sex and drugs, as entertaining as they are, but that Harper had not only failed to identify Jaffer and Guergis as highly unfit for office, he even gave them elevated positions in his caucus and kept defending Guergis up until Thursday night when the threat of compromising photos reached him.

And we know how Steve feels about the power of the perfect photo.

Exceedingly bad judgement on his part, and near inability to admit to a mistake all enforcing his massive efforts at covering up the slightest whisper of wrongdoing rather than being open and addressing it in the interests of Canada and Canadians.

So, Bliss, if that’s the case, why don’t you just write for a reality TV show?

Note: as provided by commentator Morning - Bliss isn't a journalist but a well respected historian who has been critical of Harper in the past. That said, he should know better...

I have here referred to him as a journalist, but this post is actually based on an opinion piece Bliss wrote.

Michael Bliss, published in the Globe and Mail (too bad Stevo didn’t look to partisan media hacks for this latest round of Senate appointments, eh, Mikey?) Tells us that we Canadians have very short attention spans, should just stay the hell out of politics, do buy work studying Olympic figure skating so we aren’t ridiculously giving a damn about our democracy, and well, none of it matters anyway because we’ll all forget about this whole prorogation thing anyway and sit around talking about real important shit like who place where in the Olympics.

Bliss could stand to do a bit of studying of his own on prorogation, it’s purpose, and what it takes to maintain a healthy democracy: 

It's hard to see why there is so much fuss about the Harper government's prorogation of Parliament. The House of Commons, which is not very well respected by either ordinary or informed Canadians when it is sitting, will now sit for three weeks less than it would have otherwise.

Standard fodder from the CON script of “what’s the big deal?”

Bliss deliberately avoids even going through the motions of fairly presenting his argument.  The big deal has been explained dozens of times in the media these past few weeks.  It has been written on protest signs, spoken of by politicians, analyzed and explained by political experts.

Proroguing Parliament to avoid being accountable to the electorate is a big deal, Michael.  Avoiding debate and accountability as you try to ram through changes to our systems without allowing debate by elected representatives (representing us, the electorate, the ones the government is supposed to work for) is a big deal.

That Harper’s lapdogs go around the country bragging about how much easier it is to get things done without opposition or the threat of a non-confidence vote is a very big deal, Michael.  Tow thirds of Canadians, as of the last election want to have their say through those they elected, want the government to have to get approval of the majority before making certain changes.  And according to recent polls, that number of Canadians is consistently and solidly on the rise.

Some useful government bills are going to have to be reintroduced.

Thank you for saying that, Michael.  Yes certain Bills will have to be re-introduced, at great expense.  Please remind us of that when Harper goes on and on about how those very Bills have been held back by an unelected, Liberal Senate, will you?  Just remind us of who really slowed their progess - not only slowed it, but stopped it dead.

The Afghan hearings, into events of several years ago, will be delayed for a few more weeks.

Yeah, what’s the big deal if a few more brown people are tortured, meanwhile, if a few more critical records are white washed, if a few more witnesses are threatened and harassed in a bid to silence them?

 And that's about it.

Not quite.  Jobs are still being lost, programs are not receiving funding - costing more jobs and killing some damn good programs - issues such as the problems at Chalk River and the listerisosis crisis are not being addressed...

One would think from the heated rhetoric of opposition politicians, the strange gaggle of academics who signed the long, sanctimonious letter against prorogation, and the fulminations of some editorialists and pundits, that our democracy is somehow imperilled by the government's resort, twice, to one of the most common of all parliamentary practices.

“Strange gaggle...”  Is that like the chattering classes, Michael?  Oh, wait.  Academics.  I get it.  If the chattering classes in question are also academics, does that make them a strange gaggle?

I love concise, clear writing by journalist.  Love it.

“Sanctimonious...”  Give me a sec as I wipe up the coffee I just spewed all over my keyboard.

OK.

The most common of all parliamentary practices.  A little over the top on that one, aren’t you Mikey, beside being acutely dishonest.  Listen up, ok?  I will only repeat what has been said DOZENS of times by experts, lately: Prorogation is not uncommon.  It is why and how Harper did it that is, and it is also why and how he did it that imperils democracy.  You contemptible hack.

(...) the opposition parties are trying to keep the pot boiling, largely by playing on public ignorance of the workings of government.

Well, actually, if you, a journalist, would actually, you know, read what other reporters - real ones - are reporting, it isn’t nearly so much the opposition who are drawing attention to this abuse of power by the Harper government, but the strange gaggle of academics, the chattering classes, the average Canadians who got their asses out on the National day of protest organized not by the opposition, but by other average Canadians.  The attention is being drawn by experts in political affairs who recognize the dangers of such a practice applied as it has been by Harper.

People obsessed with the ins and outs of how to prorogue Parliament would do better making book on Olympic figure skating.

Really?  Why is that, Michael?  Because if people who are interested in their own fate, in the future of their country, in shaping the democracy of their country (you know, people acting responsibly by being informed and actually doing their part as good citizens) look at the shiny object rather than at the fact they are being discounted, trivialized, ignored, insulted, trod upon, they will offer no resistence to a government that seeks to impose its narrow ideology upon them despite their will?

Is that why, Michael?

That one statement of yours is the most insulting to Canadians, the most appalling coming from a journalist whose role should be to make people think, to inform them, to have them become engaged in their own government.

The appointed Senate of Canada is obviously a standing, outrageous disgrace to democracy and ought not to be tolerated by a free people. It's surely to Stephen Harper's credit, both short and long term, that he keeps trying to change the Senate. One of his reasons for resorting to prorogation and falling back on making his own partisan appointments appears to be to try to stop the egregious abuse of their power by certain Liberal senators.

Of course, no CON partisan hack column is complete without mentioning the evils of a Liberal, appointed Senate.  Then of course to go on and justify the angelic, saintly, god-driven purpose of an appointed, Conservative Senate.

Sort of like the battle of the angels in heaven, right, Michael?  The bad ones are cast out by the good ones?  Well, hell, god had to appoint good angels to drive out the bad ones.  And if they stick around for all eternity afterward, doing angelly things, what the hell?  Might need them for other wet work later on, right?

And besides, the Liberals did it first, so it’s cool.

A few days after prorogation ends on March 3, Canadians will mostly have forgotten all the words written and spoken about it. They'll be rehashing the Olympics instead.

Uh-huh.  Right.  Isn’t it that very arrogant, ignorant, insulting argument that drove so many Canadians to protest prorogation?  That keeps them chattering away?  That’s causing them to stage flash rallies?  That’s causing Harper’s crash in the polls?

Seriously, if you think we Canadians, the very ones who read the news and allow you to have a venue for your nonsense are so shallow, so easily distracted, why don’t you write for a reality show?

Instead, the dancers just kept on, encouraged by their media and academic acolytes, not noticing that the music had stopped and the audience had gone home.

Correction, Michael.  As much as you would like it to, the music hasn’t stopped, and the audience is still paying attention.  I know, because we are making the music, and we are very, very much engaged in it.

I don’t know what Canada you have been living in these past few years.  Maybe that alternate universe Harper spoke of last week when he said Canada is better off now than it was four years ago.

But in this Canada, Canadians do see Harper’s latest abuse of prorogation as a big deal.  In this Canada, they know that the Olympics, which should be an inspiring event of many countries coming together peacefully to celebrate the excellence of their athletes is being used exactly for what you try to use it for - a distraction from the corrupt and undemocratic practices of a government which doesn’t give a damn about the will of the people and which views democracy as an inconvenience.

You write to us, Michael, try to convince us of your great  insight and wisdom.  But as you tell us we are stupid not to hear your words, you add that we are just generally stupid overall, and that we should just mind our own business - which of course does not involve being good, responsible citizens contributing to their own government - and go play with an expensive toy so that the ones accountable to us don’t have to be impeded by that very accountability.

You can keep your Canada, Michael.  I, and many, many other like me will continue fighting for ours.

Proroguing access to information

Though little known to ordinary Canadians, the information commissioner is considered an essential player in ensuring accountable, transparent democracy.

You would think that a government that made transparency and accountability the focus of their election in ‘06 would make sure we have a good commissioner in place.

Not so.

The federal office charged with prying the lid off government secrecy has been without a permanent leader since June and is unlikely to get one for several more months.  Critics argue the failure to swiftly replace this key watchdog is part of a pattern by Stephen Harper’s government of cloaking information from the public.

Understanding the role of the Commissioner explains why Steve would really rather not have one.  They kind of get in the way, like having a sitting Parliament does.  Two birds with one stone for Harper, here.  The appointment of the information commissioner has to be approved by the House and Senate, but since Stevo prorogued Parliament, this can't happen until March.  Then of course, there will simply be too much to do.

The lack of a permanent leader is “particularly troubling because of all the officers of Parliament, it is the access to information commissioner that has been most concerned about the performance of government vis a vis accountability and compliance with the law,” said Liberal MP Paul Szabo, former chairman of the Commons committee on access to information, privacy and ethics.

On Saturday, all across Canada, Canadians held rallies to protest prorogation and the general undermining of democracy this government is engineering.  This is yet another instance of Harper’s systematic attack on democracy. 

Col. Michel Drapeau, a lawyer with expertise in access to information, said he found the federal government’s delay in naming a permanent commissioner “disturbing.”  The government, he said, has not only hesitated to name a permanent information watchdog, but has also not replaced other key commissioners, such as the chair of the military police complaints commission. It only recently named an interim RCMP complaints commissioner.

“They all, in their own way, serve to enhance democracy and permit checks and balances within our system of government,” Drapeau said.

Several of us have been saying that for years.  The public service needs to be protected from Harper’s attacks.  Keen, Measner, Tinsley...getting rid of accountability and destroying democracy by slashing one public servant at a time.

The Post committing to eroding accountability

In the Financial Post, Dan Kelly writes about one of the “hidden burdens” of the business community.

Next week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) will launch the first ever Red Tape Awareness Week, with the support of the Financial Post.  The goal is to raise the awareness of this largely hidden problem for Canadian businesses, the millions of Canadians such businesses employ and the contribution they make to the economy.

Bull-shit.

First of all, Dan Kelly  is senior vice-president of legislative affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which lobbies the federal, provincial, and municipal governments on behalf of its members.  So Kelly is using the Post for free, biassed promo and to gather stats which we can see will falsely represent the role “red tape,” or checks and measures plays in regulating what businesses can and should do, since Kelly’s request for info is solely for negative examples.

Examples can be powerful in making the case for action to political leaders.

Right.  So Kelly encourages business owners, civil servants, and the public to send their horror stories to the Post so that CFIB can release their biassed report and influence politicians into making businesses do away with that whole, troublesome accountability thing.  And here's the type of dishonesty we can expect from the report:

In 2005, CFIB released a landmark report on the subject of regulation and paper burden in Canada. The report, Rated "R": Prosperity Restricted by Red Tape revealed the cost of regulation to Canada's business community at more than $30-billion a year.

So what?  Meaningless number meant to shock us without telling us anything about how those funds are used.  Can anyone seriously argue in favour of complete de-regulation or claim that there is no benefit to the public to have some regulation?

In addition to trying to pave the way to reduce accountability for businesses, Kelly's failure at subtlety flags another part of the agenda:

Behind every government form is a civil servant whose job it is to request it, receive it and do something with it. While completing the paperwork is no picnic for business owners, I'm guessing it isn't much fun for government employees either.

“Do something with it...”  As though such procedures are so ridiculously unnecessary that they can be tossed into the realm of those things so inconsequential that they do not even have a name or definition.  That “something” is making sure the project or contract requested does not violate numerous laws set in place to protect the public, be it financial, for health and safety, fairness, transparency...

Nice little effort at trying to hypocritically say this is partially for the benefit of those poor, overworked public servants as well.  Sure, when the study is used to justify cutting public service jobs, I’m sure public servants who are suddenly jobless will be very grateful they no longer have to do such tedious shit as making sure businesses are accountable.