Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Gerald Kaplan discusses how the privileges of power have contributed to the utterly callous response to the Lac-Mégantic rail explosion by Stephen Harper and Ed Burkhardt:

For me, of all Burkhardt’s outrageous statements nothing surpasses his public accusation that the train’s engineer, Tom Harding, was responsible for the disaster, suspending him without pay. Among the victims of the train derailment, Tom Harding must now be included.

In truth, of course, Burkhardt had no more clue than you or I or Lord Acton how the derailment happened and who might be responsible. Indeed, his own company policies have very pointedly been questioned. Yet he simply invented the culprit, because I suppose that’s what rich and powerful people are able to do.
...
Prime Minister Harper is the other powerhouse who showed last week that he knows he can get away with just about anything. First, he named Pierre Poilievre as his new Minister of State for Democratic Reform, an oxymoron by any standard. Globe columnist Lawrence Martin describes Poilievre as “one of [Harper’s] most belligerent, thuggish, MPs”. Next to the Prime Minister himself, with his obsession about “enemies”, no member of this government has demonstrated contempt for the spirit of democracy more than Mr. Poilievre. As Lawrence Martin wrote, this was one of Mr. Harper’s well-known “in-your-face moves.”

Second, Mr. Harper appointed to the sensitive post of Canadian ambassador to Jordan (with responsibility to Iraq) one Bruno Saccomani, who until that moment was his bodyguard, or, more formally, the RCMP man who headed his security team.

It is surely not too much to expect a Canadian ambassador to know something about the complex world of diplomacy and all that entails. And if you’re being assigned to be our country’s chief representative in two turbulent countries in a dangerously volatile region, shouldn’t you have a soupcon of background in the area? Or is that just me?

- Meanwhile, Miles Corak points out the disturbingly tight relationship between family background and economic outcomes in the U.S. And while Canada serves for now as a contrast, it's well worth noting that the Harper Cons are doing their best to push us down the same path of walled-off wealth for a few and a precarious living for the rest.

- Paul Krugman highlights the dishonesty and anti-worker bias behind the Great Pension Scare. Which, needless to say, is presented a propos of nothing.

[Update: Let's add Doug J's take:

The war against public pensions reminds me of the Iraq War. Even if one accepts that there is/was a big pre-existing problem in either case, the constant stream of lies is troubling.]

- Also, the Cons make clear what happens to honest civil servants who allow truth to undermine their deliberately false talking points. 

- The Ottawa Citizen recognizes and laments the shameful exploitation of hungry First Nations Canadians for experimentation. Bernard Valcourt isn't so big on shame, and considers the matter closed by an apology for other monstrous attacks on First Nations culture.

- Finally, Susan Delacourt comments on why the Cons' departmental enemies lists may go far beyond politics as usual - particularly if information intended for government use only is being illegally loaded into CIMS for partisan purposes.

Parliament in Review: May 3, 2012

Thursday, May 3 saw yet another debate over the Cons' use of time allocation - this time respecting the omnibus budget bill which features so many radical changes that demand serious discussion. And not surprisingly, the opposition parties raised plenty of entirely valid concerns, while the Cons obfuscated and ran out the clock.

The Big Issue

The Cons' talking-point-dispenser for the day was Ted Menzies. And Menzies highlighted the absurdity of the Cons' constant deflection tactics by answering the simple question of what path the bill would follow with the answer that he didn't bear any responsibility for the choice.

Meanwhile, Nathan Cullen properly reminded the Cons of their disgust toward omnibus legislation back when they were on the opposite side of the House. Denis Blanchette questioned how stifling debate would do anything to help economic growth. Andre Bellavance pointed out the fact that the bill is loaded with poison pills that should properly be removed, while Philip Toone noted the importance of allowing the MPs with expertise on each of the issues to properly scrutinize the legislation. Mike Sullivan noted that it would be difficult to thoroughly read - let alone debate - the 425-page monstrosity in the time allocated for discussion. And Brian Masse noted that the OECD's best practices include three months' notice before the new fiscal year begins - not a belated six-week sprint to ram through budget legislation and scores of unrelated measures through a single bill before anybody outside the government can fully assess the consequences.

Once debate started on the bill itself, Linda Duncan pointed out that some of the Cons' environmental gutting might breach international commitments not to downgrade environmental laws, while Kirsty Duncan wondered whether the Cons would report on greenhouse gas emissions at all after eliminating both the leading national research body and any responsibility under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Dennis Bevington made several noteworthy contributions, contrasting the wealthy MPs who would benefit disproportionately from the Cons' inequality-boosting policies against the vast majority of his constituents who stand to lose out from attacks on social programs, questioning how the Cons can take credit for adding park space while cutting the staff available to maintain Canada's national parks, and speaking to the frustration of the Northwest Territories who were denied a request to exercise greater power over their own budget. Randall Garrison highlighted the absurdity of the omnibus bill by noting that the most controversial provisions which take up upwards of a third of the legislation didn't even rate a mention in Eve Adams' speech. Ted Hsu wondered whether the Cons were capable of recognizing that tax slashing can't solve social concerns like a lack of access to eduction - with Wai Young offering an emphatic "no" in response. Irwin Cotler noted that the Cons aren't even willing to countenance non-controversial amendments to other legislation, making it a virtual certainty that serious problems with a complex omnibus bill will be ignored. Duncan highlighted the fact that Canada's environmental performance under the Cons has been among the worst in the world even before the latest round of cuts and legislative attacks. Romeo Saganash asked what the Cons meant by a willingness to "consult" with First Nations, with Kerry-Lynne Findlay limiting that involvement to tolerating "input" on "development programs". And Elizabeth May delved into some of the details of the bill which don't match the Cons' rhetoric.

Meanwhile, Brian Jean introduced a rather interesting strategy on behalf of his oil industry sponsors, trying to play oil magnates against one another by claiming that his party's real concern about environmental funding is that some might come from oil producers based elsewhere. But Malcolm Allen met that conspiracy theory with due mockery, pointing out that the corporations pointed to by Jean are in fact major tar-sands investors.

Out of Order

Ralph Goodale questioned whether the Cons had used their politically-controlled CIMS database for government purposes. Pierre Poilievre's response that the question was out of order might have had some merit - if he hadn't then made clear exactly how committed he is to recognizing the proper role of government and opposition by turning around and trying to ask Goodale a question about Frank Valeriote's campaign.

In Brief

Marc Garneau introduced a bill to establish a federal Commissioner for Children and Young Persons. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe commemorated World Press Freedom Day, while Andrew Cash wondered whether such a thing still applies in Canada given the Cons' decision to make cronyism an essential part of the job description of the CBC's board chair. Jack Harris questioned the Cons about their failure to provide mental health support for members of the Canadian Forces. Stephane Dion and Yvon Godin asked the Cons to clarify some thoroughly conflicting answers to the NDP's bill on bilingual officers of Parliament. Hoang Mai suggested that the Cons crack down on actual tax fraud, rather than using the CRA for a witch hunt against environmental groups. Francis Scarpaleggia's question about food inspection was met with Pierre Lemieux's answer that Canadians "should be able to trust labels" - which is certainly true as an ideal standard, but couldn't be much further from reflecting the Cons' reality. Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Laurin Liu, Christine Moore, Anne-Marie Day and Mylene Freeman all spoke in favour of Alexandre Boulerice's bill to extend parental benefits into the federal sector. And in adjournment questions Dan Harris asked about a national transit plan, while Jonathan Genest-Jourdain questioned attempted funding cuts to First Nations education.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- In the latest on Robocon, John Ivison rightly notes that the scandal figures to give many Canadians a long-overdue first look at the Cons' computerized voter information. Meanwhile, Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher note that the Cons' spending in last year's election campaign is coming under scrutiny - and at least one newly-elected MP is running into serious trouble while others wonder whether they'll keep their jobs. Kady notes that at least one party ignored Elections Canada's admonition to use lists of updated polls for internal purposes only. Gloria Galloway is only one of many to point out the stunning double standard as the Cons demand the release of Lib calling information while obstinately refusing to provide anything of the sort themselves. Dr. Dawg documents the Cons' distraction tactics, while Alison shreds a few of the more laughable excuses.

- Meanwhile, Lawrence Martin earns a bullet point of his own for pairing a chronicle of Stephen Harper's seething hatred for Elections Canada with this contrast between Harper's one-time words and his government's actions:

Mr. Harper’s words have a rather peculiar ring today. Elections Canada bureaucrats went after Mr. Bryan, he said in his letter, “to establish the precedent of government control of the Internet. … The implications are very ominous, very scary.” And yet, his own government recently tried to introduce Internet surveillance legislation, only to be thwarted by a public backlash.

“Iron-fisted bully tactics have no place in a free and democratic society,” Mr. Harper wrote, in reference to Mr. Kingsley. “Information is power. The less control the government has over the flow of information, the less control it can exert over its citizens. … We cannot allow the government to dictate what information we can and cannot publish.”

Ironically, on information flows, the Harper government is widely viewed as one of Canada’s most restrictive. Just last week, the journal Nature accused the government of muzzling the science community.

The battles against gag laws by Mr. Harper, who recently lifted the law on the broadcasting of election results, cost the Citizens Coalition more than $1-million in legal fees. In respect to the “in and out” scheme, the RCMP raided Conservative offices in 2008, and the party sued Elections Canada. Ultimately, the party pleaded guilty to overspending during the 2006 campaign.

In his 2001 letter, Mr. Harper accused Elections Canada of being “out of control.” The question today, as the robo-call scandal continues, is whether it’s his own party members who are out of control.

- But far be it from the Cons to let a good scandal go to waste - as they've finally conceded defeat on Conadscam while the media is focused elsewhere.

- Finally, as the federal budget approaches, Jim Flaherty wants to make sure that any budget slashing doesn't affect free toys for rich people. And the Cons are pouring millions of dollars into trying to attack public servants in the name of cost efficiency.