The CBC¹ article (23 June 2010) quotes CSIS director, Richard Fadden talking about the danger of the situation

“The individual becomes in a position to make decisions that affect the country or the province or a municipality. All of a sudden, decisions aren’t taken on the basis of the public good but on the basis of another country’s preoccupations.”

We recently saw that the chief of staff of former Conservative Industry Minister, Maxime Bernier, admitted that the Conservatives were pushing through copyright legislation purely to satisfy the preoccupations of the US.

This news is visible from a number of sites (NDP) such as the Speak Out on Copyright site. But its source is an analysis of digital copyright reforms called North American Digital Copyright, Regional Governance and the Persistence of Variation² (PDF – 1 June 2010), which covers Canada, the USA, and Mexico, and was written by Carleton doctoral student, Blayne Haggart. The document includes the following information about the Conservatives last (failed) attempt at revising Canadian copyright law.

“The 2007/2008 bill and its delay demonstrate the complex role of the United States and civil society in the Canadian copyright debate, especially in the context of a minority Parliament, and the supreme role of the Prime Minister’s Office and Privy Council Office as the final arbiter of legislation in the Canadian parliamentary regime. The decision to pursue DMCA-style TPM rules was purely political, the result of pressure from a Prime Minister’s Office intent on passing a U.S.-friendly law. As Michele Austin, then-Industry Minister Maxime Bernier’s (2006-2007) chief of staff, recounts: “The Prime Minister’s Office’s position was, move quickly, satisfy the United States.” When the two ministers responsible protested for political and technical reasons, the PMO replied “We don’t care what you do, as long as the U.S. is satisfied” (Haggart forthcoming).” [emphasis mine]

It’s difficult to see how that comment could be interpreted as anything other than Conservative office holders operating in the interests of a foreign power while disregarding the public good.

It might be argued that the comments were taken out of context and perhaps the Conservatives involved had made other additional comments about ensuring Canadian interests are satisfied. But giving them the benefit of the doubt presents a logical problem. When the US interests are at odds with Canadian interests, one has to give, and the speaker of the quote above makes it clear that it’s the Canadian one, which can be discarded.

Additionally, a benefit-of-the-doubt argument doesn’t hold up to the evidence of the last few years. With respect to copyright and digital rights types of issues, the Conservatives have not acted inline with Canadian interests. They disregarded popular Canadian opinion with respect to copyright policy in favour of foreign commercial and political interests. Even their latest contentious attempt still includes the worst of the US DMCA.

This is a betrayal of Canadian trust.

“”When I become prime minister I will undertake an unprecedented overhaul of the federal government… That is my commitment to you.”

“Cleaning up government begins at the top,” he added, accusing Prime Minister Paul Martin of deflecting blame whenever the taint of scandal touches him.”

In principle of course, I don’t think many would argue that greater government accountability is not only important but necessary for the well-being of our democracy. Unfortunately, the Conservatives’ act was largely just an act. It did little of what the Conservatives led Canadian citizens to believe they’d do. Worse, the Conservatives have repeatedly acted against the spirit of not the letter of the act. Here’s some background and evidence.

Democracy Watch² (16 December 2009) reported on the Conservatives progress since 2006, noting that they’d increased or attempted to increase accountability in a few instances but also that they’d weakened it in eight ways, failed on 29 promises, and ignored 90 loopholes or flaws in the accountability system. Thus they gave the Conservatives a much lower grade than the Conservatives originally set out to earn. Democracy Watch also graded the main parties’ platforms^2b, with the NDP in the lead.

CBC reported³ (25 October 2006) about Justice John Gomery’s concerns his commissions studied recommendations on accountability had fallen into a black hole. John Gomery of course was responsible for the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal and so the 18 recommendations in his reports would have been incredibly relevant to for the Conservatives’ push on accountability. The article states

“Gomery said he thought the government would have taken action on the recommendations by now, or at the very least, started a debate on the issues covered by the inquiry. The inquiry covered a lot more ground than does the accountability act, he said. The act is designed to make the government more transparent and to crack down on unethical government actions. It also tightens political financing laws in Canada. It has not yet been proclaimed into law, although it has passed second reading in the Senate. Gomery said his request for a report on implementation did not mean that the government should do nothing for two years.”

Since Gomery’s report recommended solutions to the very lack of accountability that enabled both the sponsorship scandal to occur and the Conservatives to trumpet their accountability credo and thus eake their way into an minority government, why didn’t the Conservatives pay attention to it?

Gomery was back in the news with a Calgary Herald⁴ report (13 March 2008).

“Gomery told MPs on the government operations committee he was profoundly disappointed the Harper government ignored many of his recommendations because its signature Federal Accountability Act will not fix the imbalance of power between MPs, the prime minister and cabinet.”

According to the article the Harper government never responded to Gomery’s recommendations. Instead the Harper government has let the power of unelected political aides increase.

CBC reported⁵ (12 January 2007) that the Conservatives were already neglecting their own Accountability Act. It had become law in December of 2006. That same month Harper’s Conservatives made 118 appointments but were accused of violating the spirit of their act, which required that an independent body oversee such appointments. This trend would continue.

The Globe and Mail⁶ (5 January 2008) reported about a broken election promise the Conservatives had made requiring “ministers to record their contacts with lobbyists.” the article states

“In the 2006 election campaign, the Conservative Party platform pledged a new law to “require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.”

However, a federal spokesman said the new rules are not going in that direction. The new regulations are the details of how the Lobbying Act, which was passed in 2006 [emphasis mine], will work.

“The balanced approach that we determined as a Parliament was to put the positive obligation on the lobbyists,” said Mike Storeshaw, a spokesman for Treasury Board President Vic Toews.”

It doesn’t sound like the Conservatives followed through with a regulation that would make government more accountable, rather one that introduces easy ways out for officials communicating with lobbyists.

That year continued to show Harper breaking his promises for more accountability in government. After he talked up a storm about reforming the senate, pushing to turn it into an elected body, his actions went in the opposite direction. The Star⁷ (29 December 2008) pointed out that

“With his appointment of 18 Senators, most of whom are Conservative party cronies, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has added another broken promise to the 27 democratic reform and government accountability promises the Conservatives have already broken since they were elected in January 2006.”

Note that Stephen Harper⁸ addressed a senate committee (7 Septemeber 2006) regarding his plans for senate reform.

“As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform – on their way to the top… But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government’s agenda. Nothing ever gets done. And the status quo goes on. Honourable Senators, this has got to stop… As yet another step in fulfilling our commitment to make the Senate more effective and more democratic, the Government – hopefully this fall, – will introduce a bill in the House to create a process to choose elected Senators. This bill will further demonstrate how seriously the Government takes the issue of Senate reform.”

Look back at that same Star (29 Dec ’08) article, which recalls that the Conservatives

“promised to establish an independent Public Appointments Commission to ensure fair, merit-based and widely publicized searches for qualified candidates for the PM and his cabinet to appoint to government agencies, boards and commissions.”

As stated previously the Conservatives already had a problem with their 118 appointments made in 2007, when they also pledged to have that Public Appointments Commission set up in no time. It seems that almost two years later, instead of setting up the commission they continued appointing people, actually over 1000 appointments. So it’s perfectly consistent that they’d do nothing on senate reform after two years either. Stephen Harper succeeded with his own right of passage to get elected and do nothing about senate reform.

These few examples show that Harper’s Conservatives cannot be trusted to act on their own accountability act. There are other examples including questionable use of campaign money, mistreatment of the financial watchdog, and mistreatment of a whistleblower, I’ll get to those in other posts but Greg Weston summarizes nicely in his Toronto Sun article (13 December 2009)⁹.

Other perspectives on the Conservative accountability problem include

• Keith Martin, M.P. — Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca¹⁰ (12 May 2006)
• Doug Banwell’s Blog¹¹ (4 April 2009)

“According to the 2006 report of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, the country is suffering from the absence of the rule of law, a culture of impunity and abuse of power by government officials, a weak judicial system, slow progress on legal cases and lack of reforms in the judicial and social system.”

The article reports on Amnesty International and BC Civil Liberties Assoc’s legal process noting that “Amnesty International has written a letter to the federal government asking it to put an end to any transfers until the application is heard in court”

Radio Canada International² reported (12 March 2007) about then Conservative defence minister, Gordon O’Connor being unable “to meet with Abdul Noorzai of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.” It explains

“Canada has signed an agreement with the commission to monitor the treatment of prisoners handed over to the Afghan government. Mr. O’Connor wanted the Monday meeting to ensure the commission is capable of the job. The leader of Canada’s opposition New Democratic Party wants established human rights organizations to oversee and report on the c[o]ndition of prisoners. Jack Layton [NDP] says Canada has a legal and moral obligation to ensure that its actions do not lead to torture.”

As the torture allegations build momentum against the Conservatives, a Reuters³ (23 April 2007) story reviews a Globe and Mail story about their interviews with 30 men who had been tortured in custody. It raises the issue of the Geneva convention:

Professor Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia, a leading expert in international relations, said if the allegations proved true, Canada had broken a United Nations treaty against torture and the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.

‘”I hope the Canadian people realize just how terrible a day this is. If this report is accurate, Canadians have engaged in war crimes,’ he told reporters.”

This was followed by Stéphane Dion [Liberal] asking whether Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper demand defence minister Gordon O’Connor’s resignation. Harper responded that his government would take the allegations seriously. Strange he didn’t take it more seriously when it was discovered earlier that O’Connor had falsely told “legislators the International Committee of the Red Cross would inform Canada if detainees were being mistreated.”

Eventually we would indeed lose Gordon O’Connor and instead Peter MacKay would take over. Which has played out as anything but an improvement.Two years later and the Conservatives have done nothing to investigate or rectify the situation.

The Globe and Mail⁴ reported (20 November 2009) on the Conservatives’ approach to the testimony of whistleblower, Richard Colvin. Rather than take the issue seriously and respectful investigate the matter to ensure any wrongdoing was corrected, it launched into a vicious smear campaign.

“The Harper government devoted the day to a public-relations counteroffensive against Mr. Colvin through phone calls and e-mails to reporters, as well as Mr. MacKay’s attacks. It painted the career diplomat’s testimony as groundless and ‘ridiculous’ and suggested his reports of torture ultimately stem from Taliban propaganda.”

Then the Globe and Mail⁵ reported (6 December 2009) on MacKay’s many comments, they list at least six instances, countering the notion that Canada had transferred even a single prisoner to Afghan custody with the knowledge that the prisoner would be tortured.

Finally (6, 7 December 2009) the Globe and Mail⁶ uncovered sworn testimony⁷(PDF) from senior officers that went against Peter MacKay’s assertions. The testimony comes from the legal action of Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. For example,

“There was one incident in which the CF took custody of detainee who had ” been turned’ over to the local ANP by the CF In “this case, the CF “learned that the detainee had been beaten by the local ANP. When they learned of this, they approached “the local ANP and reqested that the detainee be given to them. “The ANP complied. and the” “CF  subsequently transferred the detainee to the Provincial ANP.”

And that wasn’t the only instance reported. Will the Conservatives simply cycle through another minister and delay action once again, continuing to allow Canada to break the Geneva Convention?

“A Conservative official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the mailing lists the Prime Minister’s Office uses are drawn from community directories, free publications available to the general public or word of mouth from friends and relatives, but not government records.”

I can’t help but think that it’s a bit creepy to imagine Conservatives getting names and addresses via “word of mouth from friends and relatives.” How exactly would a conversation go in which someone from the Conservative Party asks people to divulge contact information about their relatives and friends? In spite of the types of sources the official mentioned were used, a number of people that received these cards were not practicing Jews and did not have their names or contact information available in such sources to begin with. It casts doubt on how this list was developed.

A year later (10 September 2008), The Ottawa Citizen² followed up its report with another. The Conservatives repeated their weird greeting card campaign, with much the same sort of response. Many people in Jewish communities did not like receiving the blatant grab for votes delivered under the guise of goodwill. Indeed, the article quotes one person’s sentiments

“‘I was a little alarmed at the idea that the government might have some list of Canadian Jews, whether or not they’re using that for benevolent or malevolent or cynical reasons,” Mr. Terkel said. “It doesn’t seem my religion should be the business of any federal government.’”

Although the statement ought to apply to any religion, I would have thought the Conservatives might have given a little extra consideration to the issue not just because of the outcry the prior year but in the context of history, they should know better than to present themselves organizing lists of Jews. Bad form.

Finally they changed tactics as the Canadian Press reported³ (19 November 2009)

“Conservative MPs have distributed taxpayer-funded pamphlets that suggest the Grits are anti-Semitic.”

It goes on to quote Montreal Liberal MP Irwin Cotler

“‘To intentionally misrepresent the facts and to drive a wedge and to seek to associate the Liberals somehow with fuelling anti-Semitic polices or being associated with terrorism, that, I have to say, is something that I have not seen (before),’ said Cotler.”

It wasn’t just the Liberals that were outraged, even though they were the target of the attack. Both the NDP and the Bloc stood against it as well, derided it as a low point in the attack propaganda the Conservative Party distributes.

And finally, The Star reported⁴ (27 November 2009) that the Tories got officially rebuked by the Peter Milliken (the Commons Speaker).

“Agreeing that former justice minister Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) had been dealt a ‘direct and personal’ blow with the circulation of the flyers, Commons Speaker Peter Milliken said ‘the mailing constitutes interference with (Cotler’s) ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and his credibility.’”

It also pointed out that after receiving the propaganda, some people in Cotler’s riding wanted him to leave parliament as well as the Jewish community. Cotler “…is an internationally recognized expert on human rights, especially surrounding Israel, and whose daughter has served in the Israeli military.” So the Tory attack campaign seems to have accomplished significant damage to Cotler’s reputation.

Will the official rebuke, shaming as it is, be enough to stop the Conservatives from their propaganda campaigns targeting Jews? I doubt it, the reports linked above seem to show that the Conservative Party is unable to see anything wrong with its actions.

Now its October 2008, post election, and with minority status the Conservatives sound intent to push through what they failed to accomplish previously. Although large quantities of candidates from the other parties signed on to Michael Geist’s copyright pledge, the Conservatives didn’t. Their words (spinning ideas copied from industry) saying their approach is balanced and trying to sound positive are hollow doublespeak at best. Here’s the background.

2007 from the Financial Post:

A single sentence on copyright reform in Tuesday’s Speech from the Throne spoke volumes about what the future of managing digital media could look like in Canada and suggested a U.S.-style amendment to the Copyright Act is on the way…

In the United States, copyright reform resulted in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was passed by Congress in 1998 and centres around standards established by the World Intellectual Property Organization…

Mr. Knopf said the music industry and the U.S. government will gain if copyright reform is accomplished in Canada are.
“The American record industry is trying very hard to get the same kind of drastic remedies in Canada as [it] can ? in the United States, so you can go around suing children and dead grandmothers, which is not a very Canadian thing to do,” he said in an interview…

In 2007, this was the retreat as reported by CBC:

“A controversial bill that seeks to reform Canadian copyright laws will not be introduced this week, federal officials confirmed on Thursday…

…Prentice was expected to introduce the copyright reform bill earlier this week. The bill would have made such activities as the time-shifting of television shows, file-sharing of music and video, and copying files to CDs or MP3 players illegal…

…Critics said the proposed legislation will mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and take a hard line against the copying of digital materials. Geist accused Prentice of caving in to lobbying from U.S. entertainment companies, who are seeking to curtail digital copying in all its forms…”

12 June 2008, CBC reported on the introduction of Bill C-61:

The federal government has introduced a controversial bill it says balances the rights of copyright holders and consumers – but it opens millions of Canadians to huge lawsuits, prompting critics to warn it will create a “police state.”…

However, Liberal industry critic Scott Brison blasted the government for its lack of consultation with Canadian stakeholders and for not considering the implications of the bill if it passes.

“There’s no excuse for why the government has not consulted broadly the diverse stakeholders,” he said. “The government has not thought this through. It has not thought about how it will enforce these provisions.”…

“They’ve got a few headline-grabbing reforms but the reality is those are also undermined by this anti-circumvention legislation. They’ve essentially provided digital rights to the U.S. and entertainment lobby and a few analog rights to Canadians,” [Michael] Geist told CBCNews.ca. “The truth of the matter is the reforms are laden with all sorts of limitations and in some cases rendered inoperable.”…”

The Toronto Star Reported in early 2008:

“Last week’s introduction of new copyright legislation ignited a firestorm with thousands of Canadians expressing genuine shock at provisions that opposition MPs argued would create a “police state.” As opposition to the copyright bill mounts, the most common question is “why”?…

…Why did a minority government introduce a bill that appears likely to generate strong opposition from both the Liberals and NDP with limited political gain?…

Why did senior ministers refuse to even meet with many creator and consumer groups who have unsurprisingly voiced disappointment with the bill?…the bill dubbed by critics as the Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act (after the U.S. version of the law) is the result of an intense public and private campaign waged by the U.S. government to pressure Canada into following its much-criticized digital copyright model…

The private campaign was even more important. Sources say that U.S. officials, emboldened by the successful campaign for anti-camcording legislation, upped the ante at the Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Quebec last summer. Canadian officials arrived ready to talk about a series of economic concerns but were quickly rebuffed by their U.S. counterparts, who indicated that progress on other issues would depend upon action on the copyright file…

Those demands were echoed earlier by the USTR, which, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, made veiled threats about “thickening the border” between Canada and the U.S. if Canada refused to put copyright reform on the legislative agenda….

7 October 2008, CBC reported that:

The Conservatives are promising to reintroduce controversial copyright-reform legislation if they are re-elected, according to the party’s official platform released on Tuesday…

The Conservatives’ previous copyright-reform legislation, Bill C-61, which died on the order paper when the election was called, was released in June to a wave of criticism. While a number of organizations that represent copyright holders, such as the Canadian Recording Industry Association and the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, praised the plan, it was roundly criticized as unfair by consumer advocates, artists, privacy watchdogs, education groups and other businesses…

Follow the links for the details

The GST enables the federal government to collect a sizeable amount of money that supports all sorts of programs improving the well-being of Canadian living. With respect to the Conservatives’ reducing the GST from 7 percent (in 2006) to ultimately 5 percent in 2007, The Toronto Star said¹ (2 November 2007)

“Economists winced. (Reducing a consumption tax neither boosts productivity nor encourages investment.) . . .  Cash-strapped mayors, weary anti-poverty activists and disheartened aboriginal leaders looked wistfully at the foregone $5.2 billion. And shoppers quickly forgot they had an extra $3.04 a week jangling in their pockets. . . . Ottawa is passing up the chance to strengthen Canada’s industrial base, shore up its aging infrastructure and upgrade the skills of its workers. It is saying that cities can solve their own financial problems, aboriginal communities can continue to languish and the gap between rich and poor can keep growing. . . . Urban voters could have been spared a steep rise in property taxes if Harper had shared 1 cent of the GST with municipalities, rather than giving consumers a bit of extra change at the cash register.”

So if cutting the GST would cause such difficulties for fixing our infrastructure and all sorts of societal issues, who and how exactly would it help? A CanWest News article on Dose² (1 January 2008) explained

“Patti Croft, chief economist with the investment firm Phillips, Hager and North, said anyone making big-ticket purchases will benefit from the consumption tax reduction. But, she said: “In general most economists would prefer a cut in income taxes. It’s a more efficient way to reduce the tax burden. . . . “”

According to the article the cut puts $5 billion ($6 according to Harper) back into the economy. But that equates to only between $150 – $200 per family, per year.

The cut in the GST is really only felt by those capable of making very large purchases, as The Star article noted: “The biggest beneficiaries will be the affluent. A corporate executive purchasing an $80,000 luxury sport utility vehicle will save $800. A single mother buying a $10 child’s snowsuit at Goodwill will save 10 cents.”

In other words the GST cut has almost no real effect on the majority of people’s disposable income but it rips roughly $5 billion dollars out of the government’s hands to effectively use on the programs that make Canadian life better.

The Chalk River reactor/medical isotope problem put the Conservatives in a particularly difficult quandary. Although I think it would have been possible to find a more positive and dynamic solution than to simply choose option a over option b, that’s beside the point. This post is about how the Conservatives chose to deal with the situation rather than what the end result was.

The Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario is a research facility operating a reactor that produces much of the world’s supply of medical isotopes. It is supposed to be regulated by the independent Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which in 2007 found that the facility needed repairs. The Conservatives pushed through orders that overrode the CNSC’s shutdown of the facility, and the story behind that is what looks rather unseemly. The CBC¹ reported on 13 December 2007

“The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) had ordered the 50-year-old Chalk River reactor closed because its emergency power system was not connected to the cooling pumps, as required to prevent overheating during a disaster such as an earthquake.

But the federal government bypassed the regulatory body’s order by fast-tracking an emergency bill allowing AECL to restart the reactor for 120 days.”

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post that was one solution, a debatable one, but the way they went about accomplishing it was not. They drafted emergency legislation and ousted the head of CNSC, Linda Keen. According to CTV News² 18 December 2007

“The Conservative government issued a cabinet order last week to federal nuclear regulators in an apparent effort to pressure them into letting medical isotope production resume at the Chalk River nuclear reactor.

But the directive, dated Dec. 10, failed to resolve a dispute between Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which operates the reactor, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission which sets licensing, health and safety rules.

The government brought in emergency legislation the next day that made a temporary end run around the rules to enable isotope production to resume.”

The CBC article mentioned above also said

“…Earlier in the week, Keen told a committee of MPs the government removed the CNSC’s legal counsel so the agency could not dispute the legislation.”

Harper, as he frequently does, wasted no time making the controversy over a dangerously critical situation, political, suggesting the Liberals fought against the Conservatives’ actions because, Linda Keen, had originally been appointed by liberals. But she was just doing her job. Had the CNSC given the go ahead for the reactor to start up after its last maintenance, it would have been acting contrarily to its responsibilities. It wouldn’t have been ensuring that the proper safety was met. But then, Harper is notorious for ridding us of oversight committees and watchdogs. The political gaming was intensified through Conservative MP Lisa Raitt, but I’ll get to that.

Bolstering the public understanding of Keen’s job description is Thomas Walkom’s 17 January 2008 article³ in The Star explaining

“The government’s case, articulated by Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn at a Commons committee yesterday, is that it was Keen’s job to get Chalk River up and running. In fact, as the minister responsible for AECL, that task belonged to him. Her job under the law was to set and enforce nuclear safety standards – which she did… Certainly, Lunn’s arguments yesterday made little sense. He characterized AECL’s failure to meet the regulator’s safety standards as a “dispute” between two agencies – which is rather like suggesting that someone who breaks the law is having a “dispute” with the convicting judge.”

As promised, here is where things go downhill. Lunn got shuffled out of his job as Natural Resources Minister, and was replaced by Lisa Raitt. As reported by Canwest News Service⁴ (9 June 2009) Lisa Raitt, in conversation with an aide made some unfortunate remarks.

“‘…when we win on this, we get all the credit. I’m ready to roll the dice on this. This is an easy one. You know what solves this problem? Money. And if it’s just about money, we’ll figure it out. It’s not a moral issue.

‘It’s really clear,’ said Raitt. ‘Oh, Leona. I’m so disappointed.’

Later on the tape, the aide says the isotope issue is difficult to manage ‘because it’s confusing to a lot of people.’

‘But it’s sexy,’ Raitt responds. ‘Radioactive leaks. Cancer.’

‘Nuclear contamination,’ the aide says.”

Of course this was a private tape before released to the press. It’s arguable that some of what she said ought not to be taken too seriously, but rather as off-the-cuff remarks. Nevetheless it portrays the attitude that this Conservative representative has toward her responsibilities.

The issue revolves around a reactor, radioactivity, people’s health, our environment. It’s insufficient to reduce it to simply money. Raitt’s flippant remark about it being a sexy issue belies her greater interest in the shallow side of politicking than her deeper responsibility of serving the Canadian public. One would think her career would see better results if she undertook her job responsibilities more earnestly.

(Update: The Globe and Mail reported 19 January 2010 that in Harper’s latest cabinet reshuffling, “Lisa Raitt was downgraded to Labour from Natural Resources after a string of 2009 gaffes”)

Had this issue been consistently present in new reports just before 2008′s sham dissolution of parliament and during the election, would it have influenced the results more?

Quote from the Toronto Star¹ article (18 May 2007).

OTTAWA – The Harper government is being accused of a Machiavellian plot to wreak parliamentary havoc after a secret Tory handbook on obstructing and manipulating Commons committees was leaked to the press.

Opposition parties pounced on news reports Friday about the 200-page handbook as proof that the Conservatives are to blame for the toxic atmosphere that has paralyzed Parliament this week.

“The government’s deliberate plan is to cause a dysfunctional, chaotic Parliament,” Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale told the House of Commons.

New Democrat Libby Davies said the manual explodes the Tories’ contention that opposition parties are to blame for the parliamentary constipation.

“So much for blaming the opposition for the obstruction of Parliament,” she said.

Follow the links for more detailed information.

The Globe and Mail² (15 August 2008) also reminded us of the situation when a year later, the Conservatives tried to scam us into believing the opposition parties were the ones obstructing parliament.

“Last year, the governing Conservatives prepared a secret handbook on how to disrupt parliamentary committees and create chaos. No mere pamphlet, the book ran to 200 pages.

It instructed committee chairmen to select blatantly biased witnesses and tutor them in advance. It gave the chairmen pointers on how to obstruct parliamentary business, to storm out of meetings if necessary. . . .

All along, Team Harper has been quite faithful to its manipulation manual. We recall, among the many examples, the tricks they pulled to avoid being called to account on the censorship of documents regarding the Afghan detainees file. We recall Auditor-General Sheila Fraser saying they were out to gag officers of Parliament.”

It’s hard to understand how the Conservatives could still be respected by Canadians after this blatant puncture through the proper workings of our democracy.

In 2002, Stephen Harper apparently wrote a letter saddling the Kyoto accord with responsibility for “sucking” money from wealth-producing countries. The CBC reported on the issue.

“I’m talking about the ‘battle of Kyoto’ — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord.”

From the beginning Harper viewed the Kyoto accord as “economy-destroying.” It’s not secret he wanted it scrapped. By the time 13 January 2006 rolled around this was further confirmed in this CBC article, where Harper states

“The Kyoto accord will not succeed at achieving its objectives and this government, the Canadian government, cannot achieve its objectives…”

16 June 2006, A CBC article reported on the failing grade, which the Sierra Club gave the Conservative government regarding its approach to the environment. While it was Chrétien’s liberal government that got us into the Kyoto Accord in the first place, the Conservatives’ actions played against their words, as it quoted then environment minister, Rona Ambrose, saying

“Let’s be clear: We are in the Kyoto Protocol and working with our UN partners to find a way for Canada to implement a plan…”

Ambrose didn’t last long, as she continually embarrassed Canada on the international stage and the Conservatives at home with inconsistent messaging. It doesn’t seem many Conservative Environment Ministers do. John Baird came next.

25 June 2007, Environment Minister John Baird doublespoke his way around effecting any real Canadian measures countering climate change. In reference to a law that was passed, which required Canada to respect its commitments in the Kyoto Protocol Baird said

“We’ll respect and won’t be dismissive of an act that Parliament passed, we’ll file the papers accordingly, but we’ve got a very significant plan that’s part of a growing international consensus on reducing greenhouse gases.”

However, the Conservatives’ plan was widely panned by everyone from lawyers examining how its language worked to environmental scientists reviewing how it could work. Years later it turns out the Conservative plans either never materialized or proved so ineffective that they failed to respect Canada’s obligations under Kyoto.

23 November 2007, the Financial Post reported that Harper was the last man standing, so-to-speak, at a summit of the 53 commonwealth countries. He was still pushing against any binding targets for reducing emissions.

23 September 2009, perhaps the most blatant symbol of Conservative inaction on the environment: rather than attend a special UN climate summit in New York to prepare for the upcoming Copenhagen meeting, Stephen Harper chose to visit a doughnut chain. Yes, he trumpeted Tim Horton’s return instead of participating in the force of leaders that were building momentum to global action on the environment. At least the latest environment minister, Jim Prentice, went. But with the conservatives record of Environment Ministers being almost as laughable as its record with the environment, one wonders how much weight that actually carried. No, actually no need to wonder.

The Conservatives continued disregard for Canadian law, international obligations, and environmental respect ought to be called under serious question.