Harper Government and the National Interest

As anyone who has read anything that I have posted here, there and everywhere, you know that I am greatly disturbed by the Harper government. Even the concept that the Government of Canada should be misnamed the Harper government is an indication of the egoism that this government has assumed. Since taking office, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (King Stephen) has proclaimed that he was given a mandate. He has extrapolated the plurality of the vote that he received to be an indication that the entire population of Canada has given him free reign to do anything that he pleases.

Other than the apologists for the party, there is not a great deal of support for Bill C-10 (Omnibus Crime Bill or The Safe Streets and Communities Act). In spite of opinion and reports from numerous jurisdictions that indicate this will be a complete disaster, the government has seen fit to force the bill through the House of Commons with no amendments even considered (not even by their own party). In the Canadian Bar Association's (CBA) "Submission on Bill C-10 Safe Streets and Communities Act" they say,

The CBA Section is of the view that bundling several critical and entirely distinct criminal justice initiatives into one omnibus Bill is inappropriate, and not in the spirit of Canada’s democratic process.

As was pointed out in "10 Reasons to Oppose Bill C-10" issued by the CBA on November 17, 2011,

Bill C-10 is titled The Safe Streets and Communities Act — an ironic name, considering that Canada already has some of the safest streets and communities in the world and a declining crime rate. This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse. It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.

The opinion goes on to list and justify 10 valid reasons why the legislation is just short of idiocy. A number of provinces have also voiced their protest concerning incarcerating people that will ultimately be made victims of this bill. Not only have they voiced their protest, they have said outright that they will not build additional prisons for what will ultimately be a major increase in imprisoned individuals. Texas and California are two states that have attempted just part of what King Stephen is attempting. They met with such abject failure that they backed up and rethought what they were doing. Apparently, Canada (or at least Canada as represented by our current government) is too stupid to learn from others' mistakes.

Canada has insisted on following the rest of the world into the fiasco of cutting spending at a time when many economists insist that the opposite should be the course to take in order to create some form of economic recovery. With so many governments making this same mistake over and over and not learning anything over the course of three years, perhaps we can say that being sheep or lemmings is the correct course to take. I am not going to apologize for the government spending us into a deficit if it were properly directed at the economy. Unfortunately, they, like the US have spent far too little on getting the economy moving. I will grant that Canada is not in the dire straights that the US finds itself but the claims that King Stephen is making about our economy are inflated just a bit. Our quality of life is declining and our middle class is disappearing and that cannot be indicative of a healthy economy nor healthy federal fiscal policy. Slashing social oriented budgets and cutting off funding for groups who monitor our quality of health through measuring water and air quality are not solutions to anything. What this government is doing is setting up for a massive restructuring that will be necessary when they are inevitably turfed for creating a shambles of our society. Since they have been in power, they squandered an inherited surplus for which they have nothing to show.  Being forced further into deficit by the economy is not their fault but rather than insisting on cutting, cutting, cutting they should have spent more and solidified not only the economy but also our crumbling infrastructure. As it is, they are going to leave the next government with major problems attempting to clean up the resultant mess of this 'mandate'-driven oligarchy headed by King Stephen.

It is obvious that the Harper government is being driven the same way that too many corporations are being driven. They are looking for quick, short-sighted solutions to real as well as perceived problems. That is bad policy for corporations but destructive policy for government. The government is charged with looking after the long-term health of the country. If they are operating with the concept that they are akin to a business and must increase their profit or productivity every quarter rather than looking to the long-term health of their jurisdiction, they are jeopardizing the country's future.. The tar sands and how to get that oil to market is the current issue that tracks along those lines.  The Harper government seems intent on adhering to the notion that Canadians are nothing more than hewers of wood and drawers of water (which, in this case happens to be oil).  If this government does not understand that the jobs, profits and benefits to society are drawn from the fabrication of raw resources, I believe that it is time for them to go back to school.  King Stephen tells us that building a pipeline to our border so that we can transport the raw material for someone else to fabricate is the be all and end all.  It would seem to me that building a refinery would add at least as many construction jobs as building a pipeline.  There would also likely be considerably more after-construction jobs with that scenario.  It would also allow for the building of an internal pipeline for the pipeline enthusiasts.  That pipeline could transport finished product to Eastern Canada which now relies on imported oil.  Other than blinkered thinking, there is no reason why tar sands oil should not replace those imports.  Is building a processing facility close to the source such an onerous burden that we must rely on others to process it?

The Dogwood Initiative (a British Columbia non-profit dedicated to bringing decision-making back to residents) has issued a couple of blogs dealing with this issue.  They have addressed 5 Reasons Shipping Oil To Asia Is Not In The National Interest.  They are very cogent and to the point reasons why we should not behave in the manner of Bill C-10.  In fact, one of the reasons is "What's the Hurry".  After all, one of Canada’s top investors, the 85-year-old Stephen Jarislowsky, has said: “Long term, I think oil in the ground is a good asset.”  A follow-up to that blog addresses How Increasing Oil Exports Would Hurt Manufacturing Sector.  One of the arguments is that increased exports of oil would make the dollar worth more.  That would obviously hurt any company involved with export.  Should an oil spill occur either on land or in the straits which the tankers would use could devastate valuable ecosystems.

All in all, from the policies that have come out of the Harper government, it would seem that they are intent on abrogating their responsibility to the Canadian people.  They are very interested in helping the business lobby get their short-term goals met.  They are also intent on pushing their agenda from the Canadian Alliance days in spite of the fact that much of their policy position then was outdated and is even more outdated now.  The National Interest is definitely secondary in the positions that they have adopted and I fear that they are attempting to drive Canada away from the liberal society which has existed up to this point.  If a Republican candidate is elected President of the United States in this year's election, I fear for North America for the next 3 years with two such right of centre governments in power.

Kyoto withdrawal: There must be a political price to be paid | Green Party of Canada

Kyoto withdrawal: There must be a political price to be paid | Green Party of Canada

Whether you agree with the Green Party platform or not, I believe that Ms. May is absolutely correct in her assessment of the government and their behaviour. It is increasingly disturbing that the government seems to have no care for the future of the planet. I am all for the economy but not at the cost of long term survival of the planet. As a nation, we should be encouraging growth in our green sector. Invest in research in photo-voltaic technology, invest in research to make wind turbines quieter and most importantly, invest in industry that is willing to advance our position as a progressive nation. The Harper government seems intent on embarrassing us on the international stage and have succeeded at that task admirably. Next they are going to embarrass us by not being open to true discussions concerning our native people and well be content to leave them living as third world occupants until the UN takes them to task. I am not certain what the point of this blog is but I do hope that Harper and his followers start making some bona fide decisions rather than just carrying on with delivering what is obviously their preconceived vision of what Canada should look like when they are done with us.

Oh, one thing that I do want to point out is the phrase 'Harper government'. With any government of the past, I would have used 'Government of Canada'. King Stephen has made it a point that he wants his name associated with the current government and that is likely the one thing that I can agree with him on. He and his cronies are not acting as the Government of Canada but more like the Bullies on the Hill. They do not have a majority of the vote regardless how you count votes (or potential votes) but they have closed their ears to anything the majority of the people represented by other parties have to say. They are espousing positions that do not represent the view of the Canadian people up to this point and I do not believe that the majority of Canadians feel as they do in their right sliding of the country. Harper government is very apropos and until such time as they start acting like the Government of Canada, I will certainly not taint them with that nomenclature.

Canada hopeful about climate treaty but others wary | CTV News

Canada hopeful about climate treaty but others wary | CTV News

Isn't it a sad thing when governments can take pride in some face saving in the midst of a crisis. While the industrialized world thinks that there is room for another four years of dithering, a couple of nations may sink under the rising ocean levels. When that happens, it will be "Oh, we had no idea it was that desperate!" I wonder if Tuvalu is going to seek redress from the United Nations over losing their entire country. I wonder how much faster the negotiations would have gone had some of the big countries faced losing enormous stretches of land.

At any rate, to everyone except perhaps the governments of the world and some idiots like the International Climate Science Coalition, there is a more immediate need for action. We know in Canada that the 'Harper government' has no time for building a green society and perhaps even developing green industry to supply the rest of the world. The government is apparently blinded by their self-imposed imperative that the tar sands be developed and we keep oil on stream for as long as possible. Weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels would not sit well with King Stephen's home turf of Alberta and his buddies in big business and industry. Because of that we will fudge along thinking that binding agreements are too onerous for us to bear rather than forgetting about 'binding' in terms of legal and get busy binding our nation to progress in getting our carbon footprint reduced and being a leader again in not only showing how to do it but providing the technology to make it happen faster.

I try very hard to be optimistic in all things to do with my life but it is difficult to remain optimistic when we are led by moronic governments who refuse to face reality and deal with it head on. Here is to Europe and their efforts; they are at least trying. North America is a complete embarrassment though.

Thoughts on Omnibus Crime Bill C-10

I am writing as a concerned citizen who had grown use to living in a much warmer country than it feels now.  Our government is behaving like a bunch of children who get to say "I told you so".  They insist on behaving with omnipotent authority with no concern for what our society actually wants them to do.  When they won the mandate to govern, I do not believe that gave them the mandate to issue into law within 100 days everything their little hearts desire.  Previous to now, I do not believe that it has ever been assumed that you get to ram everything you want down the throat of Parliament just because "you can".

The latest is their lumping of nine bills into one omnibus crime bill that is going to cost us a lot of money in the long run and will likely have our prisons run by private enterprise.  The massive penal colonies that have sprung up here and there in the United States have been proven less than effective.  The owners, having run out of options in the south are lobbying in the Northern State to build an empire here.  There can be no mistake about the fact that costs will soar and the governments will have no interest in funding the required prisons.  Ultimately and amazingly enough, private enterprise will be there to do it more cheaply than the government could ever hope to do it so we will sell all of the prisons to corporations to run for a profit.  Now that is all pure speculation but it does somehow sound familiar, does it not?  The Canadian Bar Association has said that the bill "would move Canada along a road that has failed in other countries, at great expense".  The Bar is more concerned with justice and rehabilitation it seems than with penalizing; somewhat like I think most Canadians that I know feel.

Prime Minister Harper claims that Canadians support tough on crime laws.  Well, he is referring to the 40% who voted for him I would suppose because I have not seen any independent polls to indicate that.  Mr. McGuinty has told Mr. Harper that Ontario has no intent to budget more money for prisoners that the Federal government wants to create.  Quebec has also refused to pay for a strategy that has been tried, and failed.

Indications of the hopelessness of the Omnibus Crime Bill have been proven failures in many of the United States.  Conservative Texans are warning us not to follow a failed fill-the-prisons approach to justice.  If the Texans, who house the highest proportion of its citizens in prisons are advising against it, we really should be paying attention.

Part of the bill has to do with mandatory sentencing provisions.  It has been proven over the world that mandatory sentences backfire.  The end result is that they take precious resources from crime prevention programs and rehabilitation, and turn minor offenders into hardened criminals.  Prosecuting and sentencing the increased number of mandatory issues that should not result in prison time will clog the justice system and fill prisons.  This will force the provinces, who pay for most of our justice system, to raise taxes, increase debt, or cut spending on essential programs like health and education.  That sounds like a pretty classic lose-lose situation.

It is well known that there is over-representation of definable segments of our population that occupy prisons.  The crime bill will make the inequality that those segments represent even worse.  It's not tough on crime, it’s tough on Canadians suffering from mental illness, addictions, and poverty.  It targets youth for harsher punishments when it is a given in every other civilized area of the world that you rehabilitate and encourage youth if you want positive results.  It will also put more Aboriginal people in prison.  Whatever the reason is that these people are in prison, there are tasks to tackle to bring that representation of their population in prisons down.  Sending them to prison will just be the start of a vicious cycle of recidivism.

We need to make Canada safer, not meaner.  Our crime rate has been dropping and it doesn't seem the time to fix what ain't broke by taking our justice and penal system back decades.  If we are to continue to reduce crime, we should focus on what's already working - prevention and rehabilitation.  There are sufficient numbers of studies that indicate prevalence toward criminal activity.  I am certain that if Mr. Harper chose to, he could commission one for himself.  If we address the major causes of crime, it would make sense that the crime rate would drop even further.  Reducing inequality and supporting people who need help would go a long way toward bringing the existing prison population down.  Mr. Harper's bill would ultimately cut the resources that are attempting to move toward that goal.  It does not take a rocket scientist to guess that we may see increased crime because of that.

2011 European Economic Crisis

I read this in the Los Angeles Times of Friday, Sep. 23, 2011:
"Commerzbank CEO Martin Blessing told Frankfurt business journalists that euro zone leaders had bought time by setting up the EFSF rescue fund but had failed so far to find a path out of the crisis.

"I believe we have reached a crossroads,'' Blessing said. If Europe wanted to save the single currency, it must move toward a fiscal union. "A monetary union without a fiscal union, this construct has failed,'' he said."


That got me to thinking and wondering and pondering.  Not much came of it but I thought that I would jot down a couple of thoughts anyway.


I remember when the countries of what is now the European Union were going through hell attempting to come to terms with what they were attempting to establish.  Once they arrived at some consensus, there was then the difficulties involved in having the terms of the agreement passed through their respective governing systems.  While the benefits of a monetary union are readily apparent and up to now have proven their worth, as Mr. Blessing pointed out, the shortfall of not having a central fiscal policy makes the monetary union very difficult to control and monitor.


If cracking the nut of a monetary union was difficult, my mind is frankly staggering around attempting to believe that a fiscal union could be achieved.  Even in countries as vast as Canada and the United States, there are very contentious times when regions and interest groups perceive they are being slighted by the fiscal policy that the national governments assume.  At least within a national sphere, there is the overriding consideration of the nation to drive policy.  I am certain that the contentions that exist in North America would pale beside the enormous task of attempting to rationalize a fiscal policy among 17 different nations each with their own national interests to consider.


It is obvious that it is in the best interest of the countries belong to the European Union and more specifically to the eur.  The logistics of attempting to have anything passed by the respective national legislative bodies is mind numbing.  I could visualize it taking longer than a decade to pass one budget through the euro zone and obviously by then, the world would have moved on another nine years.  Regardless of the fact that it seems like a non-starter, the way that economies are evolving in Europe, it seems like that is one of the two options.  The other option is to obviously disband the euro zone entirely.  

Interesting times

I've been wasting time this morning going around the net, checking tweets, news and being baffled generally.

The Middle East continues to astound.  I think that I need to do more reading on the whole area.  I find it hard to believe that all of this zeal has not been on the back burner for a long time and has just bubbled to the surface this year.  Is this yet another case where the entire news reporting system has been hijacked by government?  If so, I believe that it is time for the 'west' to stand up to their governments and do away with things like "Homeland Security" and all of the other 'need to know' basis organizations.  Transparency in all aspects of society would seem to be the best policy.  You only get hurt by lies.  We learn that as children.  Apparently, those in high office (be it the government, the military or large corporations) still have to finish maturing to understand that fact.

Mexico is another puzzle.  Such a wonderful people that have been reduced to peons by successive occupiers.  And now, they apparently are being kept in that role by their own oligarchists.  Yet more individuals who have to finish maturing so that they can properly tackle the forces of crime that so pervade too many lives in that wonderful country.

And then there is the USA!  The founding fathers thought they had it right when they made the government unworkable without cooperation.  Unfortunately, they did not foresee a system that could get so out of control that the populace would elect representatives with a mind set that is little better than middle school level.

On Nycole Turmel NDP Caucus Leader

I'm certain that Ms Turmel has the necessary managerial skills to handle running of the caucus. It helps that she has the backing of the entire caucus as well. If Jack comes back at all, I'm sure that he will not have regained all of his inordinate past strength. The result of that will likely manifest itself by keeping up whatever pressure this puts on the party. They seem united in their policies. They just to have find another person in caucus to speak for the leader if he is not 'there'. So, that would not leave Ms Turmel as spokespers­on too long imo. It certainly does not negate her current position though and I think that she will manage the caucus quite nicely during the leader's absence.