The Benefits of Uncivil Dialogue:

The CBC is no longer allowing comments on Indigenous stories because the results are stinking up the place.  But will a Bambi-inspired approach of: "If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all," lead us toward a sunnier way?  It may, but it will be a return to a national fantasy.


One exhibit in Shoal Lake 40's powerful Museum of Canadian Human Rights Violations contains a news article describing the prolonged absence of essential infrastructure in that First Nation - water, sanitation, health services.  The display encourages visitors -primarily urban settlers- to read beneath the article to the spew of ignorant, racist comments that follow.  

At the conclusion of the museum tour, guests almost invariably express dismay that the severe hardships suffered by the people of Shoal Lake 40 should have gone on for so long and in such plain view.  At that point, they're reminded of the vitriol levelled at the First Nation by their fellow citizens …by urban dwellers who continue to draw benefit from a First Nation's imposed marginalization.  

The hateful posts directed at Shoal Lake 40 in particular and Indigenous people in general are typical of what commonly pass for 'fair comment' in the media, the coffee shops and across the kitchen tables of our nation.  We know …we know them far too well.  

So, when museum visitors are shocked by the persistent injustice, persistent inaction, they're confronted by the black and white hate contained in those comments ...and it's plain that justice and equity are bogged down in the racism revealed in those comments.  It's the racism sanctioned by very ordinary Canadian voters.  For many, that unsettling image in the communal mirror becomes an "Aha!" moment.  Almost invariably,  there is resolution to make effort toward change.

So a good argument can be made that settler Canadians need to be constantly reminded of our true range of colours, because only in realizing the worst of our tendencies will fair-minded Canadians find the energy necessary to deal with the flaws in our national character.  
If our difficult truths are not constantly on ugly display, they can and will be denied.  If the myth of Canada as a nice, respectful nation is the only image we see, then self-satisfaction will forgive inaction and our smugness will continue to blind us to our terrible complicity.

Let's keep our considerable capacity for meanness, greed and racism out in the open where we can keep watchful eye on it.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html

STEVEN HARPER COULD NOT KNOW

A CREDIBLE WAY OUT FOR THE PM IN THE DUFFY SCHMOZZLE

Our Prime Minister is getting a lot of heat from the Duffy trial in recent days.  With his former legal advisor, Benjamin Perrin dragging his right-hand man, Ray Novak, into the ring of deception -not once, but several times- the whole mess is lying closer and closer to the feet of Steven Harper himself.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-benjamin-perrin-testimony-1.3197129

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/26/conservative-governments-character-revealed-in-duffy-affair-hbert.html

It's surprising, then, that his team would leave their leader twisting in the wind when there is such a clear way out.

The evidence in court shows that Wright, Perrin, Novak, Gerstein and pretty much everyone above the janitor's pay scale were intimately aware of Wright's Hail Mary cheque-passing.  Everyone who was anyone was in on the coordinated effort to extricate the CPC brand from the enveloping stench of Duffy's 'entitlements'.

Nigel's desperate move has been rightly and universally condemned. The only moral/political question left unanswered is: When did Wright's wrong become known to PM Harper?

Notwithstanding actual documents, conflicting earlier statements and a growing body of quite fathomable circumstantial evidence, the Prime Minister absolutely insists that he did not know of Nigel's misdeed before it hit the media fan.  It's admittedly difficult to square that circle and, if the twitterverse, the pundits and the polls are any indication of the public's acceptance of the PM's persistent rendition, it's pretty clear that sh*t ain't gonna shine -to put it in a down-homey kind of way.

It might appear that the former legal advisor's testimony created a huge credibility problem for the PM but Perrin, ever the faithful foot soldier, might have actually laid out the path to a big back door that gives the Prime Minister a wholly believable, evidence-based way out.

Following the subtly clever line of Perrin's testimony one can see that Ray Novak need only make himself available to an appropriately Vetted National Reporter and Steven Harper can be completely off the hook.  The interview should follow this script:

Vetted National Reporter: You've been with PM Harper forever, right?
Ray Novak: Yes. Some say I sprang from his forehead but I have baby pics so that's likely not true. (laughs sincerely)
VNR: As Chief of Staff you have personally briefed the Prime Minister and you're frequently around when he's being briefed by others, right?
RN: Oh, yes.  Too often to count.
VNR: And does he listen to these briefings?
RN: No.
VNR: Huh?
RN: It's been said by many -and even some of his critics - that Steven Harper is always the smartest man in the room.  So it goes without saying that he need not listen to anyone …not on any subject.
VNR: Please elaborate.
RN: What, for a normal Prime Minister might be "briefings" are, for Steven Harper, more of an opportunity to impart his wisdom, to share his insights.  He conveys his decisions to his underlings in the context of the topic at hand so that they can go forth and flourish.  The track record speaks for itself.  It works marvellously well and it's now the accepted order of things.
VNR: Do you have any examples of this?
RN: Oh, hundreds.  Right from the time he first became PM.  You recall there were a whole lot of economists beaking on about the possible collapse of the world economy.  They were loud and persistent and, as the record shows He didn't listen to any of them.  Then there was that irritating woman with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that other so-called expert from Statistics Canada.  They were on about their "evidence" and he didn't listen to either of them.
VNR: Do go on.
RN: Well, I can't think of how many times some geeky legal type from Justice has droned on about the constitutionality of some government law or another.  You should see him.  He's clearly impervious to all that constitutional mumbo-jumbo.  He just kind of glazes over. Knowing the Truth as he does, he becomes quite serene.  I am in constant awe of his patience.
If you would ask him five minutes later what they said - which I wouldn't, of course- he couldn't tell you.  It's not as if he's deaf, he has the band after all, but when it comes to any decisions, any data or information, any facts that don't align with how he believes the country or the world should be, they simply don't get through.
VNR: Remarkable!
RN:  Yeah.  For instance, on the Duffy thing; Ben Perrin gave him a pretty clear legal opinion on the two qualifications for a Senator. The PM simply ignored the one he didn't agree with.  Here was a black letter Canadian constitutional requirement - and pfft! It was gone!  It simply was not allowed through.  You need to appreciate that the Prime Minister had established reality when he anointed Duffy as the Senator for PEI.  He made his decision and he saw that it was good. There's no point in arguing these things and Perrin accepted that.  Objection could only go badly for him in the new reality.
VNR: So then, to the question that everyone is wondering about:  Did you tell the Prime Minister that Nigel Wright would be personally paying for Duffy's expenses?
RN: Of course.  I told him the minute I found out but, you see, the Prime Minister had already declared that Duffy would be paying himself so reality was already set.  His directive had made it so.  The facts, the details didn't matter …they would not compute.
VNR: Fascinating!
RN: This shouldn't surprise anyone. He signals it almost every time it happens.  If you are acknowledged at all he will say something like: "I disagree with the premise of your etc, etc."  When you hear this you know that you and your silly facts have just disappeared from his reality.
VNR: So when the Prime Minister says he didn't know ……?
RN:  He's absolutely truthful, as always.  To know something, a person has to actually take the information in and accept it.  The Prime Minister has this amazing ability to filter out all unnecessary, conflicting information.
VNR: So what you're saying is: If he doesn't take information in, how can he possibly know it?
RN: Exactly.  It's the same if you were to ask him if he knows about evolution or climate change.  There's a ton of information floating around on these topics but none of it is getting through. For him, it doesn't exist.  It doesn't show up on his radar screen.
VNR: Well that certainly keeps everything perfectly clear, doesn't it?
RN: As he has said repeatedly from the beginning.  Can we move on to more important matters now?

Too bad about the flood ...

The Lake of the Woods Basin is experiencing extreme high water.

But:

The Lake of the Woods Control Board is already releasing more water into the Winnipeg River than it has the legal authority to release. The outlets at Kenora were greatly increased in size, so, whenever they use the full, enlarged opening -which they routinely do, the Control Board engineers knowingly flood over a thousand acres of land downstream that they have no authority to flood, namely on Ochiichagwe'Babigo'Ining Ojibway Nation. And, by permanently holding the lake levels at the Norman Dam above what existed at the time of the signing of Treaty #3, the LWCB also floods thousands and thousands of acres of constitutionally protected land and resources upstream on Lake of the Woods, again, without  the legal authority to do that. The fact that they don't have the right or the permission to flood that land certainly hasn't stopped them - after all, their government masters have given them a much higher purpose which is: To regulate the Lake of the Woods in a manner that will maximize the hydraulic power available on the Winnipeg River - that is, to feed water down the river in a nice steady stream so Manitoba can generate lots and lots of reliable, cheap hydro power.  This primary motivation for the Board means that the lake reservoir is held much higher than it's natural level for most of the time and, when a deluge occurs, as it has lately, things can get very problematic very quickly. 



Unfortunately, this present extreme high water will be inconvenient and even cause damage to some cherished properties over the next couple of weeks. There will likely be some who will demand accountability and even compensation. So, imagine, if you will, a situation in which some people who live very far away, disregard the law and common decency and knowingly flood and destroy local peoples' land for 100 years, with no permission, no accommodation for any loss and they provide no effective means for redress. Such a nasty group of lawbreakers actually exists. Their names are Canada and Ontario and their agent -whom they made conveniently immune from legal responsibility- is the Canadian Lake of the Woods Control Board. But we can't be too hasty about pointing the finger at the colonial masters because  the quiet, complicit folks behind those nasty, illegal flooders and their agent are you and I, the blithe, happy beneficiaries of the electricity the LWCB facilitates by their illegal flooding.


I admit it's not much comfort, but, when the water is half way up the bird bath at the cottage this month, you might count your blessings that your property isn't being "protected" by Canada and their other trusty agent, Indian Affairs. If it were, you'd face the prospect of remaining damaged, soggy and ignored for the next century.



I sincerely hope that the harm and inconvenience of this flood are kept to a minimum for everyone.  But, if you've got some time to spare while you're waiting for the beach to reappear, you might consider writing to your local MP and MPP.  Let them know that you really can't support governments that illegally flood and damage people's land and do nothing about it -especially for 100 years.  You might explain to them how you have some sense of how that might feel.

PMO Discipline and Control Are the Least of Our Worries

Wherein I respectfully disagree with Aaron Wherry's piece in Maclean's on Friday, November 29, 2013:

What is the root cause of the Duffy-Wright affair?

Party discipline and concentration of power in the PMO are not new. What is new is that there is a team presently in that office whose stated intention is to sell us an ideology rather than try to represent a complex, Canadian voice. In a multi-facetted gem of a country, all successful past Prime Ministers -including conservative Mulroney, were motivated to listen more than to instruct. Prime Ministerial power, while extremely concentrated on paper, has always been constrained by both the practice and the pretext of consensual nation-maintenance. Control and discipline were most often used to deal with the cracks in the ever-fragile national consensus.  But Mr. Harper has a pre-formed master plan for our country and he isn't big on listening. ***

This government's to-hell-with-the-facts implementation of an ideological agenda may be new but it should not come as a surprise to Canadians.  On July 7th, 2011, the freshly minted majority Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this:

"the agenda has to be successfully implemented, and the country has to buy into it and be happy with the results."  http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/0…

So, it's not about the means, it's all about the message.

The RCMP documentation of the Senate expenses cock-up has simply given us a less obstructed peek into the 'Ministry of Truth' sausage factory that has been 'managing the issues' and spinning out the talking points of Mr. Harper's grand vision from day one. Concentrated discipline and control are not the problem. These are very old, albeit freshly honed, power tools. The thing that precipitated the current fiasco is that when the short pants crew attempted to apply those power tools to a bicameral house, they came up against some of the remaining bedrock of Canadian democratic structures. For a few glorious, spark-filled moments, at least, those structures and principles could not be completely controlled by ideological discipline. The substantial, media-savy lump of a formerly faithful minion, composed as he is of the hard stuff of ego, self-interest and raw survival instincts also helped to jar control out of the normally unfailing hands of the master's message makers.

It wasn't the size of the steering wheel that caused this pile up, it was the unswerving direction of a bus on ideological autopilot.

***For a glimpse into the incredibly complex balancing act involved in maintaining consensual control in a long-term government in Canada, I can think of no better informant than Eddie Goldenberg: "The Way It Works: Inside Ottawa"

Duffy had a labour lawyer!? ….or, Whyever Did Nigel Write a Huge Cheque to Someone He Didn't Like?

What drove Nigel Wright to attempt to satisfy Duffy's demands, then ultimately pay them out of his own pocket?  The fact that Janice Payne, one of Canada's leading experts in labour law represented Duffy in his negotiations with the PMO/CPC may provide a clue.

The following is reasoned conjecture.  Any and all factual information that might illuminate or dispel the conjecture would be welcome.
Nigel? Mike? Steve? Irving? ...Feel free to jump in at any time

Some motivations that are fairly well understood and accepted:

• In the '08/'09 winter of discontent and facing a potential election, the Conservative Party of Canada would welcome a high profile promoter and fundraiser to their ranks. 
• Frankly, Mr. Duffy wanted the Order of Canada but he made it known that an appointment to the senate might be attractive too.

But there would have been a practical problem in meeting the needs of both these parties:

• A senator's salary of $135 K per annum would hardly maintain Mr. Duffy in the manner to which he was accustomed.  As CTV's senior political analyst it's likely he was pulling down in the neighbourhood of $500 K a year. (By comparison, we know that Don Cherry commands about $800 K and his job description doesn't require that he be informed, intelligent or even civil.)
• In cash alone, the change in employment from pundit to politician could cost Duffy over $300 thousand per annum, which --even for the most public minded of servants-- amounts to quite a lot of potatoes.

So:

• It would make sense that the terms of Mr. Duffy's move from well-paid broadcaster to more modest sober second thinker might need to be lubricated by some additional financial accommodations.  Some creative incentives might have to be arranged.  Such an arrangement would have to be contrived by senior people with access to considerable resources.  Some fairly concrete understandings and assurances might need to be communicated.
• One easy option available to the negotiators would be that the CPC, might provide some financial reward for the Duffster's considerable fund-raising and promotional capacities.
• It would make sense that very senior people in the party and possibly even the PM himself might need to be involved or privy to any discussions of financial contribution by the CPC.  
• As a practiced facilitator, PM king-maker and senior director of the Conservative Fund of Canada, Nigel Wright could easily be the person tagged with the responsibility of crafting a mutually beneficial deal. Indeed, it's not beyond imagining that Mr. Wright could have even initiated the discussion to bring the broadcaster into the CPC fold. 
• It's not beyond imagining that self-declared Party Bagman, soon-to-be-Senator Gerstein might also have had a hand in putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
• Duffy was already in the midst of contract talks with CTV. so he would be very aware of his market value. He was a man who spent freely and money mattered.
• If the move to lower-paying public service were to be attractive, some sweeteners would help.  So, what sorts of inducements might be available to whomever was at the table that might offset any diminishment of a senior broadcaster's pay packet? 
• Well first, not just one job, but two could be offered: There's Senator for PEI but there is also fundraiser and policy promoter/explainer for the CPC.
• The prestige of the Senate would, of course, be an inducement.
• The Senate job is good until 75 so there's a longer run than what television offers.
• The Senate gig is not too demanding and there's a damn fine medical plan and pension.
• There's a healthy office budget and "Senate work" is not well defined and even less well monitored.  A senator can hire their own "consultant" for quite nebulous purposes, for instance.
• Then there's a possible housing allowance for living in Ottawa.  Other senators draw on that --the Liberal's Harb, for instance so they can't say anything.  And work for The Party would require a productive fundraiser to be handy to a major airport like Ottawa. 
• Trips back and forth to the cottage on The Island could also be expensed.
• As for the work for the party, the CPC or the riding associations can cover all travel and other expenses - There might be speaker fees or perhaps finder's fees for money raised by a skilled fundraiser.  Things like that might legitimately be expensed when someone is out there doing trench work for the party.
• All in all, the party would not be without the means to keep a valuable person 'whole' --in short, to ensure that there would be no net loss from a senior broadcaster's income.
• As Revenue Canada could attest, the Old Duffster himself was adept at creative accounting and might have some suggestions of his own.
• Since Mr. Duffy did actually give up his job as a broadcaster and become a Senator and active CPC fund raiser, it would make sense that some sort of understanding would have been achieved --an agreement, if you will, that might have been consummated by a firm and happy handshake among new compañeros.  It might be imagined that Mr. Duffy might understand that he was moving into a new employment situation -not just for the Province of PEI, but also for the Conservative Party of Canada and quite possibly, even the PMO.
• It would not be beyond imagining that, if there were a handshake, then two of the hands could easily have been Mike Duffy's and Nigel Wright's. 
• It is also not beyond imagining that any potential agreement might include a mutual understanding to keep the whole thing on the down-low to ensure that no other new senators-who-will-remain-nameless would demand a similar arrangement.  

Once achieved, such a quiet arrangement could perk along to everyone's mutual satisfaction for several years.  However, the bookkeeping involved in filing expenses with two employers could lead to confusion and result in mistakes.

If one imagines the above to be conceivable, then, when criticism of Senator Duffy's inappropriate claim for his Ottawa residence went public and he was informed by the PMO that he was expected to repay quite a lot of money --cash that he might not have, one might also imagine:

• that Senator Duffy might feel betrayed and outraged.
• that Senator Duffy might hire a skilled labour lawyer to represent his side of an agreement that he thought he had secured. (If Duffy were smart in this imaginary scenario, he would have kept notes or other communication records that captured important elements of the understanding.) 
• that Senator Duffy would look to have his reputation protected by having the PM and senior senators give public assurance that his interpretation of residency and expenses was on the up and up - an assurance that may well have been assumed on his taking on the job.
• that Senator Duffy would look for promised job security in an assurance that he would not be disqualified from the Senate because of residency.
• If Senator Duffy were to demand compliance with the original terms of his "employment", it might prompt someone with knowledge of those undertakings to immediately observe:  “Let this small group be under no illusion, I think that this is going to end badly,”  …even more-so if Duffy was able to cite written undertakings.
• that, even if inappropriate past expenses were paid out, there remains the problem of Mr. Duffy earning much less than before, so Senator Duffy might seek assurance that, if ever the rules should change, he would be once again 'made whole' by expensing his Ottawa living costs.
• that a principled Nigel Wright, while disgusted at someone's insistence on their "entitlements", might none-the-less feel bound by 'commitments' made.  (There is the possibility of even greater motivation for Mr. Wright if there were some record of any commitments made.) While disgusted, a rich and publicly responsible man like Mr. Wright might even be moved to spare both taxpayers and party contributors the cost of a deal gone sour in his hands.
• and, since he was now suffering a dramatic cut in pay, Senator Duffy might want his labour lawyer's legal costs covered for all these amendments to his terms of engagement.
• having saved the party contributors and the taxpayers from Senator Duffy's inflated sense of entitlement, Mr. Wright might be motivated to remain silent.

Mike, Nigel, Steve, Irving - any comments?

An eloquent, disturbing silence ...

Harper Accused Of Fostering Hatred For Aboriginals www.huffingtonpost.caPrime Minister Stephen Harper is being accused of fostering hatred of aboriginals across the country by failing to condemn racist reactions to the Idle No More movement.

Canadians' reaction to the Idle No More movement has stirred up a lot of disrespectful crap in the media stream about this country's indigenous people.  But Canada's founding laws actually insist that there be respect for our Treaty relationships.  So, when things get tense, as they sometimes do among partners in a diverse federation, one might expect a national leader to feel at least some obligation to be a calming, guiding voice --to remind us all of the enshrined principles that bind us together in perpetuity in this beautiful land.  A leader who honoured our history and actually believed in who we have said we want to be as a country should, for the sake of the uniting vision he represents, be moved to insist that all citizens recognize and uphold our critical, founding values.  In a nation such as ours; in a nation whose very existence depends on maintaining respect among diverse peoples; when such a nation's leader remains silence in the midst of a bilious outpouring of ignorance, racism and disrespect from its citizenry; that leader's silence is not silence at all.

One wonders if our Prime Minister would be so silent for so long if the spew currently aimed at First Nations were directed at the French partners in our confederation ...or toward Albertans?


"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."   Dante

Appeal to Stephen Harper

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

My apologies for using this medium, but your official web page limits communication to a certain number of characters and this letter is longer than the limits imposed there.

I should begin by explaining that I'm old enough to have been called upon to deal with the armed occupation of Anicinaabe Park in Kenora in 1974.  It was a very unfortunate and very dangerous period in Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal relations …one that ultimately led to heightened confrontations, injury and the "liberation" of the very island on which Chief Spence now holds her vigil. 

Leading up to those terrible times, there had been, like now, a long series of reports on the conditions suffered by the first people of this land.  This was juxtaposed with the improved education levels and heightened expectations among all Canadian youth.  Unfortunately, the persistent inability of Canada to fix the appalling conditions of First Nations combined with the unmet expectations of their young people led to an extremely volatile environment.  This letter is, in part, to remind you that you and your ministers are both creating and dealing with very similar conditions.

Today's Aboriginal youth are free of many of the debilitations suffered by the survivors of residential schools.  Most are bright and all are much better educated than their parents.  They also have new tools.  But conditions in their communities continue to be abysmal. One Anishnaabe community I work with has been on a boil water order for 16 years.  16 years, yet no resolution is scheduled!  Can you imagine your family living in conditions like that?  Can you understand that in this particular community, there is a whole group of 16 year-olds who are being told in their schools and on shiny government promotional posters that anything is possible for them, yet the grind of daily survival is telling them something quite different?  Which would you suggest the young people in this community do first, Mr. Harper: their homework or should they haul wood and boil water for their grandparents? 

Another community I work with was completely destroyed by pollution, flooding and the results of upstream industrial development.  This is not an exaggeration.  The facts have been reviewed and validated by Canada’s own lawyers. These people were driven from their homeland.  Thousands of acres of their reserve continue to be illegally and daily trespassed upon by Canada and its agency, the Canadian Lake of the Woods Control Board.  This trespass and the admitted violation of these people's rights has gone on for 87 years yet this community has received no compensation, no remedial measures have been undertaken and there appears to be no justice on the horizon through the Canadian Specific Claims process …and this community is only one among more than a dozen First Nations in the basin whose lands are similarly illegally occupied.

But notwithstanding the long-standing, pressing need for essential services and generations of proven, admitted, blatant violation of rights, Canada’s response has not only been ineffectual, it is getting worse.  This year, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's capital budget for the Northwestern Ontario region that could fund things like basic water treatment has been cut by two-thirds.  Canada's negotiators and lawyers who work for the Specific Claims branch charged with resolving validated claims complain that, because of cut-backs, they cannot afford to travel to the affected communities to conduct respectful, face to face negotiations.

The Idle No More movement is the voice of very real and very justified frustration among First Nations people in Canada.  It is the voice that the Chiefs have been hearing for some time and the voice they have been warning you about.  The folks who are participating in the round dances across this country might not be elected but the legitimacy of their voice springs from the fact that it is they who live in the appalling conditions; it is they who bear the injustice of unsettled claims and it is their lands, their waters and their relatives who suffer the daily damage caused by a dysfunctional Treaty relationship with Canada.  The good news is that the "Idle No More" voice is fresh, it's new and it is still hopeful.  It expresses itself in dance and still contains the potential for working together toward solutions.  There are no casualties, no martyrs, no warrior heroes …at least not yet.  There is hope for constructive change.

When the young Anishnaabeg took up arms and occupied Anicinaabe Park, their action had been presaged by a whole series of due-process representations, petitions and non-violent demonstrations.  When the young people finally took their direct action in the park, the response of many of the Government decision-makers was a refusal to meet with them.  They said: "We will only meet with duly elected leaders."  That strategy of using a trite technicality to ignore legitimate, critical concerns only inflamed the situation.  That strategy did not serve our nation well at the time and it will only make matters worse now.

You have a choice, Mr. Harper.  I urge you to take the approach that Mayor Jim Davidson did in 1974.  He recognized that the action of the young people was a legitimate plea.  He could not provide any guarantees of success, he had no authority but he was a caring human being and he was prepared to hear out the message.  He was prepared to listen and then to undertake to do what he might be able to do.  That one meeting between Louis Cameron and Jim Davidson, both caring human beings, led to other meetings and, to this day, I am convinced that it was the leadership of those two men acting only on the basis of their shared humanity, their shared, sacred treaty commitment to live together in harmony, that saved lives. 

I appeal to you to meet with Chief Theresa Spence.  She is appealing to you as a human being, as a Treaty person.  You can meet with her on that basis.  You might even consider taking your family with you.  Your children might learn something important.  I know that they would be welcomed, respected and honoured. 

There are many challenges and realities you face as an elected government leader but you have the opportunity as a human being to confirm to Chief Spence and to all Canadians that the situation faced by First Nations is unacceptable and that you carry a personal commitment to do what you can to get our relationship right.   Such a meeting would provide you with an opportunity to, in turn, appeal to all Canadians, to engage Canadians of all backgrounds, to make similar personal, constructive commitments to get this fixed.  You can remind Canadians that we are all Treaty people, and, in a democracy, the honour and duty of the Crown falls on each one of us.

I am convinced that there are principled ways forward and the Chiefs, along with their young people, have the ideas, the will and the energy.  I have been working in the field of Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations for over 40 years and I can tell you that our Treaties really do hold the potential for principled but also practical solutions to virtually all our present challenges.

I urge you to observe and honour our treaty relationship; to accept, as all Canadians must, the challenging obligation to find a way to share this incredible land together for as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow.  Please, as a human being and as a Canadian citizen, meet with Chief Spence, hear her out, understand the message she carries, then, as Prime Minister, undertake to meet with First Nations leaders with a renewed resolve to work together to find principle-based solutions that can be applied in our time.

You have an important opportunity before you.  In the spirit and intent of our treaty relationship, please choose wisely.

Sincerely,

Cuyler Cotton

Kenora, Ontario

How Harper sees Canada’s role in the world and where he wants to take the country - Macleans Interview

How he sees Canada’s role in the world and where he wants to take the country - The Interview - Macleans.ca

Where he wants to take our country???
This is one of the scariest interviews I think I have ever read. To hell with realities or even pretending to represent our country as we are - of discerning a national consensus.  The stated agenda of this man and his government is to sell us conservative principles, not only sell them to us but to the rest of the world too.  It is, in his mind, the morally correct world view and he is right to insist on it.

"And I think with the eventual merger of the Reform Alliance and Progressive Conservatives, we’ve achieved an organization that embodies conservative principles but is also pragmatic and trying to reach a sufficient number of Canadians to form a government. But it’s also about, in the success of advancing conservative principles, of moving the country toward the values that you represent and that you demonstrate through the policies and the programs you deliver. And I think that both those things are happening. I also think the party and the government have been moving the country toward conservative principles."

To all the hopeful voices that might wish to register different realities, different perspectives in the next four years, his clear message is: "Don't bother. We've got our answers. Not only will we not be listening; we have a lesson to teach you to correct your wrong headedness."

We can thank the wishy-washy Liberals for the spread of this sort of simplistic thinking and its ultimate rise to power in our country.  Harper himself acknowledges their contribution: "we’re greatly helped not just by our own result but by the relative incoherence of the opposition as an alternative for government."  The former 'natural ruling party' lost touch with the principles and the passions of our founding fathers ... leaders like MacDonald and Laurier who, in creating and holding this country together found they must fiercely insist on the accommodation of diversity.  Harper can get away with demeaning a "nice", consensus-building kind of Canada because no leader since Pearson, no modern political party has represented the kind of courage it takes to absolutely insist that different perspectives be heard and validated.  Harper sees consensus building and the accommodation of complexity as weak when, in fact, these are the most challenging, the most sophisticated and, indeed, the most necessary of skills in our ever more complex, ever shrinking world.

Our country -our world- desperately need a voice for the radical centre.  A brave, clarion voice for the difficult principles of respect, inclusion and free speech;  …the principles necessary to build and maintain balance in a great circle.
What we've got is a linear-thinking, single-minded Harper.  God help us.

Canada: Down one more large notch in world opinion

"Canada's cold new dawn

Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper
is our version of George W Bush, minus the warmth
and intellect"   The Guardian:

"The triumph of Harper's Conservatives is a revolution in Canada. Grumpy old men are happy but modernists, women, young people, immigrants, people fond of evidence-based policy will be much less so. It's the beginning of a kind of war, conducted in a dull, quietly agonising way."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/03/canada-stephen-harper-american-politics

Reflections on the eve of the election. - May 1st, 2011

I find it interesting that it was Quebeckers who ultimately reminded us of who we are as a country.  It was Quebeckers who looked past all the fear mongering and the party flag waving and discerned that it was social, environmental and democratic principles that mattered most and they concluded that they were going to make their electoral choice based on those values.  It seems they had judged that the incumbent leadership did not reflect them as a people nor were the values, as practiced, good for Quebec.  They  were ready for change.  Not surprisingly the rest of the country seems to have arrived at a similar conclusion because the kinder, gentler, greener Orange Wave was washing from sea to sea to sea.  The shared ideals were there, we were all just awaiting the arrival of a suitable champion.  The ranks were thin from which to chose, but chose we must because the status quo was unacceptable.  

So Quebec chose first and, in doing so, reminded us that in this shared cold land, it's all about the values, stupid.  

 It's anyone's guess what will happen next.  The mathematical realities of splits and turnouts and failed strategic voting may yet produce a Conservative majority, but no one can deny that there has been a sea change here.  We were being pared away as a people and our collective, structural bones began to show …and they showed first in Quebec where they are strongest -where they matter most.  Who knows, with the influence of the Bloc somewhat muted, perhaps this new post-election reality might afford us the opportunity discover that we might be a coherent collective after all - maybe even a unique kind of country - just not the one Steven Harper imagined.

Merci Quebec! 

Dismantling Democracy - A Reminder

Canada used to be a country in which there was some opportunity for the voiceless to have a voice; for the constitutionality of the actions of our governments to be challenged.  It was a cumbersome process and it was flawed, yes, but the principles of human rights and accountability existed. Now, thanks to Steven Harper and the likes of John Baird and Vic Toews, the principle of constitutional accountability doesn't even exist in principle.

This post is a reminder of what was lost and to whom.

Below is a letter written to the Prime Minister in October of 2006 on behalf of over 175 concerned Canadian organizations. Even at this early stage of the Harper government, it was clear that the strategy was to use discretionary administrative and budgetary powers to dismantle important institutions that had been put in place by thoughtful former parliaments of our country.  Canada's long-held democratic institutions have been eroded even more since then by these weasely methods.

Read 'em and weep.

Then VOTE dammit!  The fundamentals of our country are at stake.

(Here's the link to the original letter posting: http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/node/365 )

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

LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER

October 4, 2006

Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper

Prime Minister of Canada

80 Wellington Street, Ottawa,

K1A 0A2

Dear Prime Minister,

We write today to ask you to reinstate the Court Challenges Program. Only by reinstating the Program can you demonstrate that your government intends to respect the human rights of Canada’s people.

The Canadian Constitution establishes important constitutional rights, including the rights of official language minority groups to education and government services in their primary language and the rights of everyone to equality before and under the law and to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. However, these rights are empty unless the individuals and groups they are designed to protect can exercise and enforce them.

Since the Charter was adopted 25 years ago, successive federal governments have recognized that they have a responsibility to ensure that disadvantaged minorities have funding to take Charter cases forward.

The Court Challenges Program, by providing modest contributions to the cost of important test cases dealing with language and equality rights, has made these constitutional rights accessible to Canadians. Without the Court Challenges Program, Canada’s constitutional rights are real only for the wealthy. This is unfair. And it does not comply with the rule of law, which is a fundamental principle of our Constitution.

The Honourable John Baird has been quoted in the press as saying that it does not make sense “for the government to subsidize lawyers to challenge the government’s own laws in court.” This statement implies that: 1) lawyers are the prime beneficiaries of the Program and 2) the government should not support challenges to its own laws. On both counts, deeper analysis is needed.

First, the beneficiaries of the CCP are individuals and groups who believe that laws and policies discriminate against them or deny them their language rights. They cannot go forward without lawyers to represent them, since constitutional challenges are legally complex. Secondly, when a country like Canada enacts constitutional rights it takes for granted that residents, when they believe the government is violating their rights, can and will challenge the offending law or policy. If residents cannot use their rights because of financial barriers, then Canada’s constitutional democracy is hollow. Governments must care that the rights they embrace are not meaningless, and the CCP has provided a simple and modest way of ensuring that they are not. We should emphasize that what the CCP provides is far from universal access to the exercise of constitutional equality and language rights. The CCP provides only limited funds for selected test cases.

Critics of the CCP dislike some of the cases that it has supported: cases related to same sex marriage, voting rights for federal prisoners, criminal law provisions regarding hitting children. The fact that some individuals or groups do not agree with some of the test cases funded by the Program is not a reason to cancel it. No one among us is likely to agree with every single test case that appears. The point of a constitutional human rights regime is to ensure that diverse claims, perspectives and life experiences are respected and taken into account in the design of laws and policies. The equality guarantee and the language rights in the Constitution were designed to help minorities, whose views and needs may not be reflected by governments, to be heard on issues that affect them closely. Cancelling the Court Challenges Program mutes their voices further, and makes Canada a meaner, less tolerant society.

The Minister of Justice, the Honourable Vic Toews, has questioned the accountability of the Court Challenges Program. This is not a sustainable objection. The Court Challenges Program has an established track record as an effective and accountable institution that promotes access to justice. It provides quarterly reports on its activities to the government and publishes an annual report with statistics on the number and types of cases that it has funded. The annual reports are public documents and are available on the CCP’s website:www.ccppcj.ca . It has been evaluated on three separate occasions by independent evaluators, most recently in 2003-2004, and received an extremely positive report each time.

The CCP is subject to some legal restrictions on disclosing information about cases that are before the courts. This information is protected by solicitor-client privilege and cannot be released by CCP, in the same way that legal aid organizations cannot divulge information about their clients. The CCP’s responsibility to protect this information was affirmed by a Federal Court ruling in 2000 (L’Hirondelle v. The Queen).

In short, Prime Minister, criticisms of the Court Challenges Program are feeble, and the need for the Program is strong. It is disturbing that your Government, in a budget-cutting exercise, would take the step of cancelling this Program that is considered by many Canadians a cornerstone of our justice system.

Commitment to the protection of the Charter rights of disadvantaged individuals and groups is one of Canada’s core values. Prime Minister, you recognized this commitment in the last election campaign, when you stated that if elected, a Conservative government would “articulate Canada’s core values on the world stage,” including “the rule of law”, “human rights” and “compassion for the less fortunate.”

In May, 2006, your Government appeared before a UN Committee in Geneva to defend its commitment to human rights in Canada, and described the Court Challenges Program as evidence of this commitment. Your Government wrote to the UN Committee:

The Court Challenges Program (CCP) provides funding for test cases of national significance in order to clarify the understanding of the rights of official language minority communities and the equality rights of disadvantaged groups. …

It is not possible for the government to support all court challenges, but this uniquely Canadian program has been successful in supporting a number of important court cases that have had direct impacts on the implementation of linguistic and equality rights in Canada. A recent evaluation found that there remain dimensions of the constitutional provisions currently covered by the CCP that still require clarification and the current program was extended to March 2009.

The cancellation of the Program stands in contradiction to the position that you and your Government have taken publicly on the Charter and human rights.

Finally, cancelling the Program shows profound disrespect for the francophones who live in provinces outside of Quebec, the anglophones in Quebec, and for all Canadian residents who may need the protection of equality rights, including women, Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, members of racialized minorities, immigrants, refugees, lesbians and gay men, children and seniors.

The laws of Canada are never perfect. Those who need to point out the imperfections in our laws, in order that they may live on an equal footing with others, deserve to be heard. By cancelling the Court Challenges Program, your Government has indicated that they will not be and do not deserve to be.

Please reverse this decision and give us back a Canada that supports human rights.

Sincerely,

Nathalie Des Rosiers

La doyenne

Faculte de droit civil

Universite d’Ottawa

A. Wayne McKay

Professor of Law

Dalhousie Law School

back to top

On behalf of

Action Canada for Population and Development

Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes (AOcVF)

African Canadian Legal Clinic

Alberta Association for Community Living

Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians / L'Alliance pour l'ÉgalitÉ des Personnes

Aveugles du Canada (AEBC)

ARCH Disability Law Centre/ ARCH Centre du droit des personnes handicapées

Association des juristes d'expression française de la Colombie-Britannique

Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick - AJEFNB

Association of Chinese Canadian Lawyers of Ontario

B.C. Human Rights Coalition

BC Coalition of People with Disabilities

Brain Injury Association Network (B.I.A.N.)

Breast Cancer Action Montreal

Canadian Arab Federation

Canadian Association for Community Living

Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS)

Canadian Association of Law Teachers (CALT)

Canadian Association of the Deaf / L'Association des Sourds du Canada

Canadian Auto Workers Union CAW-TCA CANADA

Canadian Bar Association/ L’Association du Barreau Canadien

Canadian Council for Refugees/ Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés

Canadian Council of Muslim Women

Canadian Federation of Students/Fédération canadienne des étudiantes et étudiants

Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action

Canadian Hard of Hearing Association

Canadian Health Coalition

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa,

Faculty of Law

Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)/

Canadian Union of Public Employees / Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2204

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3260

Canadian Women's Health Network

Canadians for Equal Families

Canadians for Equal Marriage / Canadiens et Canadiennes pour le droit égal au mariage

Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractére sexuel (Calacs) région Côte-Nord

Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel (CALACS) de Rimouski

Centre de Communication Adaptée (CCA)

Centre de femmes l'Éclaircie

Centre d'éducation des femmes

Centre Entre-Femmes de Rouyn-Noranda

Centre québécois de la déficience auditive / Quebec Centre for the Hearing Impaired

CFT French Legal Aid Services/Services d'aide juridique du CFT

Charter Committee on Poverty Issues

Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada

Child Care Workers of Eastern Ontario

Chinese Canadian National Council, Ottawa Chapter

Coalition of Persons with Disabilities (COD) - NL

Community Advocates Network

Community Business and Professional Association of Canada

Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec (COPHAN)

Congress of Black Women of Canada, Manitoba Chapter

Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD)/ Conseil des Canadiens avec Déficiences

Cross-Disabilities, Genders, and Sexualities Working Group

Dalhousie Legal Aid Service

DisAbled Women's Network (DAWN) Ontario/Le Réseau des femmes handicapées de l'Ontario

DisAbled Women's Network Canada (DAWN Canada)

Disabled Workers' Complex Case Network Inc.

Dundurn Community Legal Services

East Toronto Community Legal Services Inc.

Egale Canada

Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario - Bluewater Local

Elizabeth Fry Society of Manitoba

Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario (ERDCO)

Excalibur Learning Resource Centre Canada Corp

Family Alliance Ontario

Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA)

Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law inc.

Fédération des femmes du Québec

Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC

Feminist Coalition of Newfoundland and Labrador

Feminists for Just and Equitable Public Policy (FemJEPP)

Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain (FRAPRU)

Greater Vancouver Association of the Deaf

Grey-Bruce Community Legal Clinic

Halton Community Legal Services

Hamilton Mountain Legal & Community Services

Income Security Advocacy Centre

Institut Canadien De Recherches Sur Le Femmes (ICREF)

Jamaican Canadian Association, Toronto

Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice

John Howard Society of Manitoba Inc.

Justice for Girls

Kamloops and District Elizabeth Fry Society

Kelowna Women's Resource Centre

Kenora Community Legal Clinic Suite

Kensington Bellwoods Community Legal Services

Kitchen Table Collective (KTC)

La Table Régionale des Organismes Volontaires d'Éducation Populaire de la Montérégie (TROVEPM)

L'Association multi-ethnique pour l'intégration des personnes handicapées

Law Office of Mary Eberts

Law Union of Ontario

Le Centre francophone de Toronto

Le Comité des langues officielles de l’Association du Barreau de l’Ontario /The

Official Languages Committee of the Ontario Bar Association

Le Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec

Le Mouvement Action Chômage Pabok Inc

Le Regroupement des comités logement et associations de locataires du Québec (RCLALQ)

Les Centres d’Accueil Héritage, Toronto

Les Frères et Soeurs d'Émile-Nelligan

Let's Teach About Women

LIFT - Low Income Families Together

Ligue des droits et libertés du Québec

Mad Student's Society

Maison l'Océane

Malaspina Faculty Association

MATCH International

Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic

Mokami Status of Women Council

Mouvement d'éducation populaire autonome de Lanaudière (MÉPAL)

Mouvement d'education populaire et d'action communautaire du Québec

National Action Committee on the Status of Women(NAC)/Le Comité Canadien

D'Action Sur le Statut de la Femme(CCA)

National Association of Women and the Law/Association nationale Femmes et droit

National Council of Women of Canada/Le Conseil national des femmes du Canada

National Eating Disorder Information Centre

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Nipissing Community Legal Clinic/La Clinique Juridique Communitaire de Nipissing

North Bay & District Labour Council

North Bay Network for Social Action

Northern Society for Domestic Peace

Nouveau Départ National

Okanagan Advocacy and Resource Society (OARS)

Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Osgoode Hall Law Union

Pacific DisAbled Women's Network (Pacific DAWN)

Parkdale Community Legal Services

PEI Council of the Disabled

PRAXIS Conflict Consulting

Promotion handicap Estrie Inc.

Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan

Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba, Inc.

Public Service Alliance of Canada/Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada

Quebec Community Groups Network

Quebec English School Boards Association (Association des commissions scolaires anglophones du Québec)

Quebec Native Women/Femmes Autochtones du Québec

Refugee Law Office, Toronto

Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario

Regroupement des centres de femmes du Québec

Regroupement de femmes de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Regroupement des associations de personnes traumatisées cranio-cérébrales du Qubébec (RAPTCCQ)

Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale

Regroupement québécois des Centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel (RQCALACS)

Response: A Thousand Voices

Roach, Schwartz and Associates

Saskatchewan Voice of People with Disabilities

Selkirk College Faculty Association

Smith & Hughes Law Firm

Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia (SPARC BC Society)

Société Logique

South Ottawa Community Legal Services

South-East Ottawa Centre for a Healthy Community /Centre du sud-est d'Ottawa

pour une communauté en santé

Students, Recent Graduates, and Legal Workers working group (Law Union of Ontario)

The Canadian Hearing Society/ La Société Canadienne de l' Ouïe

The North Shore Women's Centre

Toronto Disaster Relief Committee

Toronto Women for a Just and Healthy Planet

Toronto Women's Call to Action

Transportation Action Now

United in Marriage (a program of the United Church of Canada)

University of Victoria Association for Women

University of Western Ontario Faculty Association

Urban Alliance on Race Relation

Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter

Victoria Youth Empowerment Society

West Coast Women's Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF)

Women Elders in Action (WE*ACT)

Women for a Just and Healthy Planet

Women of Halton Action Movement, WHAM

Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), Toronto Chapter

Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund Inc. (LEAF)

Women's Health Clinic, Winnipeg

Womenspace

Yukon Status of Women Council