Apathetic Canadians have allowed their government to trample freedoms -- but opposition is mounting

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have shown an instinct for control at the expense of democratic values, writes Lawrence Scanlan.

Photograph by: Chris Wattie, Reuters, Citizen Special

There's been a sea change, a darkening of the political climate in this country. The first instinct is to discount such troubling thoughts. So perhaps the view of someone born elsewhere, but long on our shores, is more to be trusted.

Ursula Franklin -- the celebrated physicist, pacifist, author and Companion of the Order of Canada -- recently spoke to CBC Radio's The Current. She had survived a Nazi death camp and come to Canada hoping for better. Now 88, Franklin is "profoundly worried about the absence and erosion of democracy in Canada."

Democracy, I heard her say on the radio, is a slow and messy process. When Frank-lin sees cabinet ministers holding press conferences to discuss legislation not yet debated in the House of Commons, she sees that process being skirted. And when she hears the prime minister saying he does not "trust" the Opposition, she sees contempt for democracy itself. "Who wants to live in a country," Franklin asked, "where those who don't think like you are deemed untrustworthy?"

A German reporter here to cover the G20 summit likened Toronto's walls to the Berlin Wall and Checkpoint Charlie. I was just in Berlin and the checkpoint these days comprises a few sandbags and two "soldiers" in Second World War American uniforms posing for tourists' cameras. Walls fall in one place, rise up in another. But surely not here?

The annual gathering of the Writers' Union of Canada took place in Ottawa in June, with many former chairs on hand to offer memories of their time in office. Susan Crean remembered encountering a young, blue-eyed politico at a constitutional conference in Calgary in 1992. When the man learned that she had co-authored a certain book about American domination of Canadian and Quebec politicians, the man responded: "You should not have been allowed to write that book."

The man: Stephen Harper. Crean never forgot his words, but especially the word allowed. The room full of writers in Ottawa issued a gasp.

Crean later elaborated on the encounter. "Harper spoke to me first and asked if I had written 'that book.' I asked which one, and he mentioned Two Nations, which I wrote with Quebec activist/sociologist and well known independentiste Marcel Rioux. ... Harper was clearly still angry about having had to read it at university. In his view, I took it, the book was treasonous. I was so shaken by his words, and his open hostility, that I immediately left the dining room."

No PM should be held strictly accountable for every utterance before taking office. But this exchange suggests an instinct to control and suppress, and that is precisely -- 18 years on -- what the Harper government is being accused of.

An on-line petition, called Voices-Voix, is now circulating. Some 1,500 individuals have signed it (including Margaret Atwood), along with more than 150 organizations -- from Amnesty International to Democracy Watch to the Quakers. The petition begins: "Since 2006 the Government of Canada has systematically undermined democratic institutions and practices, and has eroded the protection of free speech, and other fundamental human rights. It has deliberately set out to silence the voices of organizations or individuals who raise concerns about government policies or disagree with government positions. ... Organizations that disagree with the Government's positions and/or engage in advocacy have had their mandates criticized and their funding threatened, reduced or discontinued."

Case in point is KAIROS, a social justice organization that lost its funding after decades of CIDA support. Immigration minister Jason Kenney stunned KAIROS last December by calling it anti-Semitic. More finger-pointing from a government that argues, for example, that anyone not backing Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan is unpatriotic. This is discourse for licence plates, not Parliament.

The Writers' Union spoke out last fall when a B.C. author who had written a book critical of the Olympics was harassed by security officials, and when liberal American authors were detained at the Canadian border. Is there a pattern here?

The G20 summit, with its state police flavour, mass arrests and trampling of basic civil rights, made a kind of sense -- for ours is a government obsessed with order. But the summit was so excessive, so ... unCanadian. The quiet pride that once had Canadian travellers stitching our flag on their backpacks has vanished.

Ursula Franklin defines peace as the presence of justice and the absence of fear. Which is ascendant in our home and native land -- justice, or fear? Canada Day chest-beating and fireworks failed to counter other evidence that this country has morphed so radically that one has to wonder if Lester B. Pearson would, today, even recognize the place. The tar sands, our pathetic stance at the Copenhagen conference on climate change, the prison farms/super prisons debacle, ongoing asbestos mining, the shift from peacekeeper to major player in a dubious war, Afghan detainees: what's appalling, and indeed what has perhaps enabled all this, is our apathy. And there's a price to be paid for apathy.

A few months ago, Ned Franks, a retired political science professor and constitutional expert, spoke in the wake of the proroguing of Parliament (yet again). He gave compelling statistical evidence that the rapid turnover of MPs and senior ministry staff in recent years has left Parliament weak and dysfunctional. Parliament sits less now, and when things don't go the way the PM likes it, he just shuts it down. A power vacuum has been created, and the PMO is rapidly filling it.

"We should call him King Stephen the First of Canada," says Franks, "for that, in effect, is the way he is behaving."

I spent six years researching a book on philanthropy, and I became convinced tax dollars, wisely deployed, can help diminish the gap between rich and poor -- as is done in Scandinavian countries. Our government freely spends tax dollars on prisons, police and war machinery, while insisting "taxes" is a dirty word. After the G8 summit in Italy in July 2009, Harper opined, "I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes." Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson rightly called it "one of the most stunning, revealing and, frankly, ignorant statements ever made by a prime minister ... very, very scary socially and politically."

I interviewed many NGO staffers for my book, and I was struck by how carefully they feel they must tread.

Ursula Franklin likens democracy to a potluck supper in which everyone brings something, even if only a willingness to wash dishes. The Canadian government is offering a closed-door dinner, and only to those who share the ideology of the host.


Lawrence Scanlan is the author of A Year of Living Generously: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Philanthropy. It was published by Douglas & McIntyre in May.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

To the editor:

Please tell me where is the news that should supersede anything and I mean anything in Canada right now?

Our Prime Minister, with a mere 37.65 per cent of the people who voted behind him, is fully intending to give away Canadian sovereignty in favour of a few trade deals and a few dollars.

He has finally come right out and said what a lot of us have been thinking he has wanted since he became prime minister.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: “I know some people don’t like it. It is a loss of national sovereignty, but it is a simple reality.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McWAnMWoSyY)

This is our prime minister who refused to acknowledge in the election of 2008 that there was a financial problem in Canada, to one whom now, less than two years later, says we have to surrender our sovereignty to survive financially.

This is treason from a man who does not have the backing of the majority of Canadians, who has not asked Canadians for this mandate, who has not conferred with Parliament, who is simply taking the country where he wants the country to go—into the world government mode.

Did you (editors) even know this? If you did, why have you hidden it from Canadians—your readers or watchers or listeners—who rely on you for this kind of information?

I acknowledge that I do not read all your publications, and some of you may have mentioned this development, and if you have, great. But why is it still hidden news? Why have the rest of you not picked up on it and simply shouted or rather screamed this to Canadians?

Your prime minister is willing and wants to give away Canada and Canadian sovereignty.

Do you not care? I do.

Jeremy Arney
Saanichton, B.C.

This undated handout image, courtesy of the Joint Strike Fighter program site, shows the F-35 JSF.Photograph by: AFP, AFP
Defence Department computers in Ottawa have been used to vandalize information on a Wikipedia site critical of the Conservative government's decision to spend billions on a new stealth fighter. (click link above for photo)

Nine attempts have been made to alter the online encyclopedia's entry on the Joint Strike Fighter, including the removal of any information critical of the Harper government's plan to spend at least $16 billion on the new fighter aircraft.

Defence Department computers were also used to insert insults, aimed at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, into the Wikipedia Joint Strike Fighter page. Ignatieff has questioned the proposed purchase.

Quotes from news articles outlining opposition to the arms sale by University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers, a former NDP candidate, were also removed.

Wikipedia traced the alterations to three computers owned by Defence Research and Development Canada's Ottawa offices. The online site has labelled the July 20-21 alterations as vandalism.

The attempts to change the web page, made during work hours, stopped when Wikipedia administrators locked down the entry on the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF. That allowed only recognized editors to work on the page. That particular Wikipedia site is popular, with more than 78,000 page views in the first three weeks of July.

The Conservative government's decision in mid-July to spend an estimated $16 billion on the Joint Strike Fighter has sparked controversy, with opposition parties questioning whether the purchase is needed at a time when the country's deficit has ballooned to $50 billion.

A spokesman for Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) said the attempts to alter the Wikipedia page were not part of a concerted effort to stifle debate on the proposed JSF purchase but inappropriate use of government computers by, as yet, an unidentified individual or individuals.

"It sounds to me like someone was freelancing," said Martin Champoux, DRDC's manager of public affairs. "This is not behaviour we commonly condone."

He noted the government authorizes some personal use by employees on work computers but that it has to be limited and reasonable. In addition, federal employees are required by the public service code of ethics to be non-partisan.

Champoux said information technology specialists are attempting to track down those users associated with the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses used to access the Wikipedia site.

He noted that while the IP addresses of the computers are registered to DRDC Ottawa, the addresses also include other Defence Department computers.

Champoux said reminders will be sent to employees about government regulations regarding personal computer use.

The proposed purchase of the JSF, the most expensive military equipment procurement in Canadian history, is supported by Canadian air force officers. But Ignatieff, concerned that no competition was held to select the fighter plane, has vowed to review the deal if his party forms the next government.

The NDP and Bloc Quebecois have also spoken out about the planned purchase.

Canada won't be required to sign a contract committing it to purchasing the stealth fighters until 2013, according to aerospace industry representatives. That has opened the door for any future government to back away from the proposed deal if needed.

Byers, who recently wrote a Toronto Star commentary criticizing the JSF purchase, said the Harper government is particularly sensitive about any opposition towards the JSF purchase, a situation reflected by the attempts to alter the Wikipedia page.

"It indicates to me they are concerned about the fact the announcement has been contested," he said. "I think that sensitivity reflects the realization on their part that they stand on weak ground, particularly on the lack of a competitive process."

Earlier this week, Conservative senator Pamela Wallin sent letters to the National Post and the Toronto Star, complaining that in his commentary, Byers was not identified as a member of the board of the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute.

Wallin, chairwoman of the senate's defence committee, described the institute as a left-wing peace and social policy think-tank that criticizes military spending and seems to favour peacekeeping.

But Byers called Wallin's stance hypocritical, noting that in her letters to newspapers she did not reveal that she is an honorary Canadian air force colonel, as well as being on the board of directors of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, a pro-military organization closely aligned with DND.

The Harper government wants to purchase 65 JSF.

But opposition members of Parliament point out that the military just months ago received the last of the modernized CF-18 fighters which can keep flying until at least 2017 or 2020. They question why the Harper government is rushing now to spend billions on new fighters.

----------------------

This is not an official Government of Canada website. Rather, it’s a collaborative effort by a group of citizens who want our governments to open their data — in useful, structured formats — so we’re showing them how it could be done.

Ignatieff wants House committee to examine 'secretive, unaccountable decision'

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the new fighter jets are 'the best that we can provide our men and women in uniform.' (CBC)The Canadian government said Friday it plans to spend $9 billion to purchase a new generation of fighter jets, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay told a news conference in Ottawa that the jets would be purchased from Lockheed Martin, with the first one expected for delivery by 2016

The contract, one of the biggest military equipment purchases in Canadian history, is worth $9 billion, but the full cost could rise to as much $18 billion once the government signs a maintenance contract.

'When you think purely about response times, there is nothing else that can get across the country as fast as a fighter jet.'
—Mercedes Stephenson, military analyst MacKay said the government would make further announcements on additional costs at a later date.

The new jets would replace an aging fleet of CF-18s that recently underwent a $2.6-billion upgrade.

"This aircraft is the best that we can provide our men and women in uniform, and this government is committed to giving them the very best," MacKay said at a news conference.

Sole-source contract questioned
But the government is fending off criticism that it is making one of the biggest military purchases in Canadian history without a single competing bid.

The Liberals say the massive purchase of 65 jets should have been subjected to competitive bids.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is calling on the House of Commons defence committee to reconvene as soon as possible to examine what he calls the Tory government's "secretive, unaccountable decision to proceed with this contract."

The Liberals want the committee to question other potential bidders and procurement experts to determine whether a sole-sourced contract gives maximum value to the government and taxpayers.

The F-35 Lightning II fighter jets set for purchase by the federal government are made by Lockheed Martin. The Liberals, however, say the purchase should have been subjected to competitive bids. (Defence Department/Canadian Press)
"I think Canadians are amazed that the largest procurement deal in the history of the country is a single-sourced — so, it's not a competitive — deal," Ignatieff told reporters.

"We don't know whether we're getting value for money. And they're releasing it on a Friday … in the middle of July, when they think no Canadian is watching and when Parliament is not sitting."

A previous Liberal government signed a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin to develop the Joint Strike Fighter but that did not commit Canada to buy the aircraft.

"I am questioning the hypocrisy which seems to soar higher than this aircraft in now criticizing purchasing the very plane that the previous government signalled very early on that they were going to do," MacKay said.

Jets 'absolutely necessary': analyst
Military analyst Mercedes Stephenson told CBC News that the purchase is "absolutely necessary."

She added: "We have to have fighter jets. Canada is a massive country, and when you think purely about response times, there is nothing else that can get across the country as fast as a fighter jet.

"Also, when you are dealing with the Arctic, there is very little that has the kind of survivability of a fighter jet in the air under those kinds of harsh conditions."

She added that the purchase is also important for Canada to meet obligations to its international allies.

"Everybody else is updating their fighter jets, and there simply hasn't been a technology developed that can replace it at this point," Stephenson said.

But the NDP argues even if Canada needs fighter jets, it's not clear it needs these particular ones.

"The issue for the Canadian defence department is, is the F-35 what we want?" said NDP MP Malcolm Allen.

Allen said the jet was built to suit the needs of U.S. forces.

"We are basically buying these for Canadian duties," he said. "New Democrats are fully supportive of the men and women in the armed forces ... but we have to decide what it is they are going to do, and we have not done that."

Allen said that a proper analysis of Canada's defence needs has not been done in 15 years

Stephen Harper’s Assault on Democracy Author and Rabble.ca columnist Murray Dobbin details the harm Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing to the political and social fabric of Canada in a new, hard-hitting essay commissioned by the Council of Canadians titled Harper’s Hitlist: Power, Process and the Assault on Democracy.

As Dobbin explains in the opening paragraphs of the essay, “This study is intended to examine the most serious violations of democracy committed by the prime minister and his government. Some are clearly more serious than others. But taken as a whole they add up to a dangerous undermining of our democratic traditions, institutions and precedents – and politics. These violations are not accidental, they are not incidental, and they are not oversights or simply the sign of an impatient government or ‘decisive’ leadership. They are a fundamental part of Harper’s iron-fisted determination to remake Canada, whether Canadians like it or not.”

Harper’s Hitlist: Power, Process and the Assault on Democracy
Download report here 1 MB or in sections below:

•Part 1 - Stephen Harper’s Assault on Democracy
•Part 2 - Two Prorogations in Less Than a Year
•Part 3 - Thwarting Democracy
•Part 4 - Controlling Critics
•Part 5 - Manipulating and Muzzling the Media
•Part 6 - A Personal Agenda
•Part 7 - Failing to Protect Canadian Citizens
•Part 8 - Harper Attacks Rights
•Part 9 - Political Advocacy Under Fire
•Part 10 - Conclusion

POLL: Environics, on behalf of the Council of Canadians, polled people about their feelings about proportional representation in February. Here are the results:

•61% of Canadians support moving to a system of proportional representation in Parliament

•36% said they were more supportive of proportional representation as a result of Prime Minister Harper’s recent prorogations

(These results represent the findings of a telephone survey conducted among a
national random sample of 1,001 adults comprising 501 males and 500 females 18
years of age and older, living in Canada. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 3.10%, 19 times out of 20.)

MEDIA: New hard-hitting report details Prime Minister’s ‘assault on Democracy’, April 15, 2010

About the Author
Murray Dobbin has been a freelance journalist, broadcaster and author for thirty-five years. He is also a leading activist and analyst in the movement against corporate globalization. He has written extensively on various trade agreements and their impact on democracy and on neo-liberalism’s attack on social programs. He is a past executive board member of the Council of Canadians and author or Word Warriors, and online activism tool hosted on the Council’s website at www.canadians.org.

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill, and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased, and left the shop. When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning, there is a 'thank you' card, and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you' card, and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The professor is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you' card, & a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business' & 'Becoming More Successful.

Then, a Politician comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The MP is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the Fundamental difference between the Citizens of our country and the Members of our Government.