New York Times on Harper and the willful ignorance of Canadians

[Blackberries]

Harper thumbing his nose at the environment at every turn pisses me off. I don't like our resources being for sale to the highest foreign bidder. Keystone XL can &^@# off too

[BanTSN]

Willful ignorance, combined with nobody else to vote for. Even now he can retain power because the other parties appear unwilling to step up to the plate.

He is and has been an excellent politician, if nothing else, backed up by really crafty handlers and a lot of suppression of actual facts. Is what he saying true in the slightest? Who knows? The real information often gets buried.

Remember this?

Harper promises 'new era of accountability'

Incoming prime minister Stephen Harper says his government's first act upon assuming power will be to table a federal accountability bill and promises that it will be in line with recommendations of the Gomery report.

Speaking in Ottawa on Wednesday just hours after Justice John Gomery released his second and last report into the federal sponsorship scandal, Harper praised the work. He also promised that his government would do its best to implement the recommendations.

Harper said the Conservatives' proposed federal accountability act, which they first unveiled in early November, already includes changes similar to those proposed by Gomery.

Other parts of the accountability act also go further than the recommendations made by the Gomery commission, Harper said.

"There are others which we may be able to adopt perhaps before the bill is brought before Parliament," he told a news conference in Ottawa. "Other recommendations need further study."

The act's three main planks include:

• Eliminating all remaining corporate and union donations to federal political parties, and restricting individual donations to $1,000 per person.
• Banning all ministers and their political aides from becoming government lobbyists for at least five years from the date they leave their political positions.
• Giving the auditor general the power to "follow the money to the end recipients" as she or he undertakes a review of the $30 billion handed out each year in the form of federal grants, contributions and contracts.

No immediate changes to civil service, Harper says

However, Harper said his government would not move immediately to make major changes to the public service that were recommended in Gomery's second report.

Harper said they had "merit" but said his government would have enough to do elsewhere in the first few months of its transition into power.

"I don't need the complication of making major structural changes [immediately]," Harper said.

He said his government would consult very closely with the public service before making changes that would affect them.

Harper also promised to work hard to find what he called the "missing money" in the sponsorship scandal.

"Justice Gomery did an admirable job, but I don't think we're going to drop the matter when 40 to 50 million are still missing."

Prime Minister Paul Martin released a statement on Wednesday thanking Justice Gomery for his months of work.

"His insights and recommendations will be of benefit to all Canadians in the ongoing debate as to how best to ensure government activities are conducted openly, transparently and effectively," said Martin.

Allan Cutler, the man who blew the whistle on the whole affair, said he was impressed with Gomery's final report.

"I am rather pleased with it: it seems to me that he has addressed accountability very well," added the former Public Works employee.

But others said they really couldn't see how Gomery's recommendations will make a difference.

"I fail to see how any change of law, or how any additional norms or rules and regulations could make sure that political actors that deliberately choose not to follow the law, will from now on," said Christian Rouillard, an expert in governance and public management at the University of Ottawa.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/harper-promises-new-era-of-accountability-1.593762

That was Feb 1st, 2006.

And believe it or not, he did put in a Federal Accountabilty Act, and it is law.

What?

Since then he and his government have broken every single aspect of this law multiple times, and have merely re-written or removed rules to suit their control agenda at will.

This makes the Liberal sponsorship scandal look like nothing.

Is Stephen Harper friend or foe of democracy?:

Back in 2006, Stephen Harper rode to electoral victory by promising the most sweeping package of democratic and parliamentary reforms the country had ever seen.

Harper made the campaign pledge in the wake of a controversial series of political scandals and democratic abuses under successive Liberal governments.

While his critics may have doubted his commitment, Harper in fact acted quickly by making the Federal Accountability Act the first piece of legislation he n brought in after assuming power.

At the time, Harper said the act would restore Canadians’ trust in government, limit political donations, restrict lobbying by former cabinet ministers, decrease the control of leaders over party nominations, reduce secrecy and ensure protection for whistleblowers.

Today, most of those promises are sad jokes.

Indeed, Harper has introduced some positive changes in government accountability since he was sworn in as prime minister some nine years.

However, he didn’t act on nearly 50 per cent of those 2006 promises, has taken steps backwards on others, failed to enforce his own rules, cut key ethics rules, increased secrecy and ignored other legal and ethical loopholes.

This uneven record raises questions about whether Harper is a friend or foe when it comes to protecting our democratic institutions and traditions.

They are questions that could play a key role in the Oct. 19 federal election.

Already, the parties are pursing voters who fear for the future of our democracy. To that end, Harper’s Conservatives recently unveiled an “action plan on open government” that they hope will convince voters in October that they are serious about reform.

Meanwhile, both the New Democrats and Liberals are talking big about the need to shore up our democracy. It may be just talk, though, because both parties failed miserably when they had the chance during the 2006-2011 minority government years to work together to force Harper to get serious about democratic reform.

On the positive side for Harper, his initial reform act and other decisions have increased accountability in about 30 ways, according to Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch, a respected non-partisan organization that focuses on democratic reform.

Among the moves were the creation of a parliamentary budget officer, an expansion in the scope of the Access to Information Act to cover more Crown corporations and federal agencies, and the establishment of the office of conflict-of-interest and ethics commissioner to watch over MPs.

But Conacher believes that overall the Harper Tories have failed to live up to their promises. He feels the situation is so bad that a new accountability act is required regardless of which party wins in October.

Conacher cites nearly 30 cases of broken Harper promises, eight moves that weakened government accountability and some 100 cases of ignoring loopholes and flaws in the accountability system. In addition, Harper hasn’t even bothered to respond to the 2010Oliphant Commission, which looked into the controversial dealings between businessman Karlheinz Schreiber and former prime minister Brian Mulroney. The commission made four recommendations to close ethics rules loopholes and 14 proposals to increase ethics enforcement.

The Harper government’s enforcement of democratic rules and accountability is so weak that it’s “a scandal,” Conacher said this week.

For example, the Tories removed a rule requiring ministers, their staff and senior government officials to “act with honesty” and failed to strengthen enforcement for unethical activities.

Also, the Harper government slashed funding to some citizen groups working on democracy and human rights issues, broke a promise to protect and compensate whistleblowers properly, and refused to ensure full independence of and an adequate budget for the very parliamentary budget office that it established.

In addition, the Conservatives have broken almost all their promises for open government and to bolster the Access to Information Act.

The latest instance came just last month when Treasury Board President Tony Clement admitted Ottawa “has run out of time” to review Canada’s Access to Information Act before the October election. The act hasn’t been updated since it was introduced 35 years ago and Clement didn’t say why the Conservatives have done nothing about it since they took power in 2006.

Clearly, the coming election will be critical for Canadians worried about the state of our democracy and hoping for honest, ethical and open government.

That’s because this election will give voters a chance to decide whether Harper has been a friend or foe of democracy.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/01/28/is-stephen-harper-friend-or-foe-of-democracy-hepburn.html

This is scandalous.

WHY aren't opposition leaders raking Harper over the coals on this issue?

[4thLineGrinder]

We aren't just talking about 'someone'. We are talking about Stephen Harper, and his reputation is far from stellar. Is there a rational reason to vote for Harper? I don't care what age you are....I have yet to see one.

The guy is surrounded by criminals....the only skill that has impressed me is his ability to evade being charged for all the disingenuous practices his party engages in.

Here's several reasons NOT to vote for Harper: (just a few of many)

-Selling off resource interests to China

-Giving away our softwood lumber

-Subversive tactics to guarantee success in the last federal election

-Failure to reform the Senate despite making that very act an election promise

-Muzzling of scientists

-Participation in overseas conflicts that ultimately paved the way for ISIS

-Cutting social programs including support for war veterans

-Lying to the public, claiming to be a stalwart fiscal manager, despite running up Canada's debt dramatically during his tenure

I am not 100% convinced by Mulcair or Trudeau, but it would be hard to do worse than Stephen Harper at this point.

-dismantling the canadian wheat board

-introduced bill c-51 the canadian patriot act

-completely ignored our kyoto accord environmental commitments

-scraped the fresh waters act, we have barley any protected fresh water under harper

-has given up on our peacekeeping missions in favor of the "war on terror"

-taken away veterans benefits while starting more wars

-building massive super prisons all while crime rates are dropping

harper was a guy that saw the bush administration and fell in love with the fear and misinformation, shock and awe style politics. All he wants to talk about is terrorists and economic growth, science doesn't exist and the environment is just a roadblock to corporate profits

[The Bookie]

er, this probably should have just gone in the election thread - mods can move it. and I just realized it's a few days old, so maybe already discussed.

as the person who posted it in the election thread on Friday I say: +1 to this thread

the more eyes the merrier

worth it for Mustapha's reply alone

[BI3KSA-]

Sadly though the older generation are the ones that will make the decision because young people are too lazy or unwilling to vote.

So our next prime minister will be decided by a bunch of 70+ year olds who "like the cut of Harper's jib" (whatever a jib is...) or will vote conservative because they always have.

This is so far off from true. I know practically not a single uni aged person who doesnt vote, and almost none of us (that I know of, at least) vote conservative, either.

[mediahack]

I don't really like Harper but this article is just a troll job. This is a classic example of using selective "facts" to build an argument around your ideological agenda. Why doesn't this author examine how Trudeau is just a vapid pretty boy with a famous last name? Or better yet how Muclair is a proud citizen of a foreign country?

[John Tortorella]

I am running for premier in approx 6-7 years but my run for prime minister is blocked by my lack of french.

My platform is:

Education: nutritional/financial/personal planning are 3 huge areasof neglected study

Focus on future technology, desalinators/alternative renewable energy

0 tollerance for pipelines to sell crap harper subsidized product to asian markets

Bc is only for sale to canadian buyers.

Selling fresh water above or below ground is prohibited

When my party takes form, BC will become prosperous. Le me know if you want to be part of this change!

[inane]

I don't really like Harper but this article is just a troll job. This is a classic example of using selective "facts" to build an argument around your ideological agenda. Why doesn't this author examine how Trudeau is just a vapid pretty boy with a famous last name? Or better yet how Muclair is a proud citizen of a foreign country?

Because they haven't been running the country for the last number of years?

[Neversummer]

Yes, Harper has his shortcomings and draconian personality but this is coming from a reporter in a country who had Bush II as president? And Trump as leading Republican candidate? If Canadians are 'willful ignorant' ... what is the proper word for Americans?

[RUPERTKBD]

Sadly though the older generation are the ones that will make the decision because young people are too lazy or unwilling to vote.

So our next prime minister will be decided by a bunch of 70+ year olds who "like the cut of Harper's jib" (whatever a jib is...) or will vote conservative because they always have.

A Jib is a sail...

You do have a point though. It's going to be up to the Libs and NDP to get the vote out. They have all the ammunition they need to take Harper down, (heck, Harper's providing most of it) but it'll be for naught if people don't get out and vote.

[aGENT]

Stan said it best on South Park in regards to politics

No, I think voting is great, but, if

I have to choose between a douche and

a turd, I just don't see the point.

I'm not going to try to sell you on other parties being saints. Politicians are politicians and they pretty much all have to be some level of scum to get to this level in particular. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

But there's two pretty clear lines of thinking heading in to this election. You can elect politicians (with the negative connotations noted above) who will benefit the people, the environment, law reform, election reform etc or you can elect the people who have silenced scientists, sold our resources to foreign corporations for peanuts, slashed social programs/veteran support/environmental protection and has been the complete opposite of their promised 'transparent' while having one of the worst economic records of any federal government in the last century.

Nobody's going to have a magic bullet that will fix everything Harper's undone overnight or all the things that were problems before he got in to office. Nobody's going be perfect saints while in office. There'll be scandals and likely someone will idiotically misspend some funds somewhere along the way. Mistakes will be made.

But would you prefer scummy politicians do that while by in large improving the country or while continuing to dismantle it?

Yes, Harper has his shortcomings and draconian personality but this is coming from a reporter in a country who had Bush II as president? And Trump as leading Republican candidate? If Canadians are 'willful ignorant' ... what is the proper word for Americans?

Who better to recognize a turd filled downward spiral than someone whose already seen their fair share of the inside of a toilet?

[John Tortorella]

Yes, Harper has his shortcomings and draconian personality but this is coming from a reporter in a country who had Bush II as president? And Trump as leading Republican candidate? If Canadians are 'willful ignorant' ... what is the proper word for Americans?

Please explain how harper who is owned by oil and gas is the same as trump who is self funded and runs purely on his chosen platform. Please let me know how they are going to bribe a billionaire.

Ill wait here.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Please explain how harper who is owned by oil and gas is the same as trump who is self funded and runs purely on his chosen platform. Please let me know how they are going to bribe a billionaire.

Ill wait here.

Probably with more billions?

Trump isn't necessarily pro oil & gas as much as he's pro Wall Street. He regained his immense wealth during the Clinton administration due to the deregulating of Wall Street. This is why he's less a GOP candidate and more of a Clinton plant. I won't be surprised if he eventually runs as a 3rd party candidate, like Ross Perot, so split the right. However, Jeb Bush looks unelectable at this point, so the GOP may actually go with Trump. A Trump/Clinton race is win-win for the establishment.

I don't think Americans are too thrilled about either candidate. They seem to be rallying around old man Sanders, who's more 'Canadian' than any Canadian candidate. Strange times.

[Red Light Racicot]

He has been the worst PM of all time by a considerable margin.

[RUPERTKBD]

He has been the worst PM of all time by a considerable margin.

Just curious: How many PMs have you lived under?

[Cpt.Clutch]

How is this not merged yet with the election thread? Should every election article get its own thread?

[Red Light Racicot]

Just curious: How many PMs have you lived under?

I never imagined anyone could outdo the likes of Mulrooney and Chretien in terms of infamy, but Harper has lapped those two several times.

[aGENT]

I never imagined anyone could outdo the likes of Mulrooney and Chretien in terms of infamy, but Harper has lapped those two several times.

Chretien was my favourite PM

[The Bookie]

I am beginning to think we have done Stephen Harper a disservice. No, I’m sure we have. In fact, I think we — and by we I mean the media, me included — have been grossly unfair to him, and never more so than in the matter of Mike Duffy’s expenses.

You will be familiar with the picture we have created of him: suspicious, paranoid, controlling, a leader who trusts no one, leaves nothing to others, insists on taking a hand in even the smallest matter. Well, you’d be suspicious, paranoid and controlling, too, if everyone around you was lying to you all the time.

Consider what we have learned about the Duffy affair. More to the point, consider what he has learned. Wholly without his knowledge, several of his closest advisers, including his chief of staff, his principal secretary, and his legal counsel, together with his Senate house leader, the chairman of the Conservative party fundraising arm and the party lawyer, conspired over a period of several months to pay Duffy for his improperly claimed living expenses, then to pretend to the public that he had repaid them out of his own pocket, then to attempt to block, shut down, or rewrite a confidential audit, then finally to rewrite a Senate committee report so as to absolve Duffy of any fault.

But it did not end there. Not content with deceiving the prime minister about this complex plan, with the enormous risks — legal, political, personal — it entailed, they stood by and let him make a series of (unwittingly!) false statements to Parliament and the public about it: not only that Duffy had paid his own expenses, but when it emerged that he had not, that the whole scheme had been the work of one man, Nigel Wright. Not only did he know nothing of it, the prime minister was allowed to say on multiple occasions — indeed, he would have put a stop to it had he known — but neither did anyone else.

Imagine the sense of betrayal he must have felt — the vertigo, the nausea — as it slowly dawned on him that everything he had been led to believe about the whole affair was a lie: that in fact, everyone knew. Everyone, that is, but him. Imagine the humiliation, to have been played for a patsy in this way — him, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada — and what is more, for the whole world to know it. He is a proud man, but not immune to feelings of self-doubt. Would anyone respect him now? Could he carry on as leader, if he were not master even of his own office?

It must have felt like the room was spinning, like the earth was opening up in front of him. Inevitably, there must have been a certain amount of self-recrimination. How could he have been so blind? Why had he not suspected? Little things that seemed innocent before — the way everyone suddenly shut up when he entered the room, that time Nigel borrowed his Blackberry without asking — must have suddenly taken on a darker hue.

And then, the fears: If he could have been kept in the dark about this, he must have wondered, if the people he trusted most could have conspired in such a scheme, so repugnant to him in every respect, and not only done so but lied about it to his face, and gone on lying even after the scheme had been exposed — for he must surely have made the most searching inquiries after the story first broke — well, what else could they have been up to all these years? What else did he know nothing about? What other lies had they told him? These things don’t usually happen just once, after all. There’s usually a pattern.

And yet, this good man, deceived, humiliated, betrayed on all sides, found it in his heart to forgive them. You or I, had we found ourselves in the same position, might have taken the most foul sort of revenge: fired the lot, paraded them in front of the media, forced them to answer for what they had done. But that is not, we can see now, Harper’s way: this supposedly ruthless autocrat, this cold, vindictive brute of caricature, responded to this monumental breach of trust with comprehensive mercy. No one was fired, though some were allowed to leave. Some are even travelling with him on his campaign. He was even going to forgive Wright, and would have, had it tested better.

But now the braying jackals in the press gallery are demanding he fire Ray Novak, Wright’s replacement as chief of staff, after evidence was presented at Duffy’s trial that he, too, knew that Wright had paid off Duffy, contrary to every statement he or Harper or anyone in his office had made until, well, this very week. In the name of all that’s decent: can’t they at least let the man grieve a little? For God’s sake, this is Ray Novak we’re talking about, the closest of his closest advisers, the one commonly described as being “like a son” to him — his eyes and ears, the guy he depended on to tell him things. And now he finds out that even Novak was lying to him? The press complain Harper won’t answer their questions. Frankly, I’m amazed he can even stand upright.

Oh, we have misjudged him, all right. More than that, we have mistreated him. After what Harper has gone through these last two years, he deserves not our condemnation, but our deepest sympathy.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-oh-harper-forgive-us-we-misjudged-you-over-the-duffy-affair

[TOMapleLaughs]