Why are the RCMP so Good at Routing Out Michael Ignatieff's Facebook Friends, But Can't Spot a Criminal at 50 Feet?

During the Maxime Bernier scandal, when he left sensitive documents in the apartment of his girlfriend, an ex-biker chic, the media focused on the sex angle.

What they should have focused on was her criminal past and why she was granted access to our foreign minister. Harper allowed the RCMP to take the blame, but given his control, it's rather doubtful that he didn't know who she was.

Now in the words of Yogi Berra, "It's Deja Vu all over again".

Bruce Carson was granted unprecedented access to Stephen Harper, despite a criminal past that included ties to money laundering.

Convicted fraudster Bruce Carson’s past should have raised red flags that he was a security risk to government, even if he may not have been a likely target for blackmail, some former CSIS experts suggest. “Any investigator in my 33-years’ experience, nobody would have recommended to keep that guy. Nobody,” former CSIS intelligence officer Michael Juneau-Katsuya said about Carson being green-lighted for a secret-level security clearance.

A secret clearance is given to many federal employees and is the second-lowest security clearance level. Carson, a former senior aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, obtained a secret clearance despite having been convicted of five fraud charges in the early 1980s and 1990s.

And Harper is not explaining how Carson was given the contract to sell us on the tar sands. Millions of taxpayer dollars.

And worse still why he became the point man on the Afghan file, a place where screening is of the utmost importance.

Stephen Harper now says he never would have hired Carson had he known all the details of his criminal past. But starting in 2007, Carson was a regular participant in daily telephone briefings on Afghanistan involving senior officials from departments such as foreign affairs, defence, RCMP, justice and corrections.

“It was evident to all the departments that he was the main player, Harper’s point man on the file,” said one source familiar with the briefings. “He was given the most sensitive file to work on . . . it’s not like he was working in the mailroom.”

The media has also been focusing a lot on the sex angle, but this is a very serious breech, that could be a threat to national security.

We could ask Harper but we know what he'll say. Absolutely nothing. Or at least not anything that isn't a lie.

Remember May 2. Our last best chance.

Harper Government Poised to Scrap Canada Health Act: We Knew it Was Just a Matter of Time

Stephen Harper did not spend three decades with the National Citizens Coalition, four years as it's president, for nothing.

This group was originally founded to scrap the Canada Health Act and put an end to free health care, though eventually it became a vehicle for corporate greed.

So it's finally happened. So as not to get his hands dirty, Harper is allowing a backbencher to wear it ... putting out feelers.

It's being suggested that Bernier is vying for party leadership, but he's talking and Harper doesn't allow his MPs to talk. I think there's something else going on here.

Billions for planes, corporate tax cuts and prisons is OK. Keeping a nation healthy, not his priority.

When Are the Members of Harper's Caucus Going to Stand up to Him?

I used to like Maxime Bernier. I never agreed with his Libertarian views but he was usually naively honest.

He was the first to suggest that the War in Afghanistan was for drugs not democracy, and stated publicly that his party was committed to reducing government and hence social programs.

Not politically wise, but he was who he was.

So why has he suddenly resorted to lying? First he claimed that he received thousands of complaints about the long-form census, then changed his story when the facts were presented.

And his continued effort to support Harper's decision, despite opposition from across the country, is further diminishing his integrity.

Now we find that Bernier has always been in favour of the long-form census.

One of the biggest opponents of the long-form census within the Harper government actually defended the mandatory survey as an "essential" tool for Canadian society when he was industry minister, according to a newly released letter. "Most of the questions that appeared on the 2006 Census long-form have appeared on many censuses," Maxime Bernier wrote in a letter dated Aug. 21,
2006, as minister responsible for Statistics Canada.

"These questions continue to be essential for providing the information needed by governments, businesses, researchers and individual Canadians to shed light on issues of concern to all of us — employment, education, training, transportation, housing, immigration, income support, pensions for seniors, transfer payments, aboriginal issues and many more."

Is he so enamored with Stephen Harper that he will completely destroy himself? Has he been whipped into compliance?

I don't know what our little dictator has, but demagogues everywhere must be...well ... agog.

If Just One Person Complaining Will Cause This Government to Act, I Have a Complaint

In a continuation of the Harper government's weak arguments for scrapping the long form census, Tony Clement is now saying that even if there is only one dissenting voice, that's reason enough to make the change.

But it's been a journey for poor Tony to reach that level of enlightenment.

At first he simply lied, suggesting that this was all StatCanada's idea:

The Harper government asserted that the voluntary long form option was an idea put forth by Statistics Canada, when in reality the department was in favour of the mandatory long form option (which is supported by virtually all of Canada’s leading business, academic, government, and civil society groups). Also advocating for the mandatory long form option were Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of Canada, and the governments of Ontario and Quebec, which have decades of experience using the data provided by the census. In a letter dated September 11, 2010, the minister of industry, Tony Clement stated, “The chief statistician has indicated that this new approach will provide useful and usable data that can meet the needs of many users.”

Then he, with the help of the hapless Maxime Bernier, just started making stuff up.

An Industry Canada employee questioned Conservative MP Maxime Bernier's claims in July that as minister he received about 1,000 complaints a day about the mandatory long-form census, internal documents obtained by CBC News show. Maxime Bernier said in July his office received about 1,000 complaints a day about the mandatory long-form census when he oversaw it in 2006 as industry minister. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)The former industry minister, now a Conservative backbencher, said in July of this year that he was blitzed by complaints when he oversaw the 2006 census as minister.

However, in a July 18 email found among documents obtained by CBC News through an access-to-information request, ministry employee Paul Halucha asked a high-ranking official at Statistics Canada whether the agency had any numbers to back up Bernier's statement. Industry Canada's "internal survey of correspondence did not show anything close to a thousand a day," he wrote to Statistics Canada's Connie Graziadei, adding in brackets "we got a standard 25-30 a year."

And the majority of those complaints were because our census forms are now being processed by the arms dealer Lockheed-Martin.

The blogger Vanity Press has invited her readers to issue their 'one complaint'. But maybe we should create a scroll. Everyone write down their 'one complaint', sign it and we'll send it to the government. That way we'll be able to set the agenda.

But let's not kid ourselves. We all know whose 'one' voice this really was. The only voice now allowed in this country.

Does Stephen Harper Have a Caucus Revolt on His Hands?

I wondered how long it would be before Maxime Bernier spoke out against Harper's latest plan to give 200 million dollars to a multimillionaire, to build a for-profit rink.

Possibly, the same multimillionaire who is Kory Teneycke's boss and the man who wants to bring us Fox News North.

Former cabinet minister Maxime Bernier as come out against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's willingness to use federal dollars to fund sports arenas and stadiums across the country. The Quebec MP has joined other Conservatives, particularly in Western Canada, who are reportedly angry at the proposal. Sources have told CBC News that a caucus revolt could possibly be brewing, with MPs demanding the federal government keep out of the business of professional sports.

Writing on his blog, Bernier said that "the project is simply not profitable and will constitute a financial burden for taxpayers for decades to come, even in the best scenario. That’s why not a single private player has been found to invest in it."

How could any of the Reformers possibly campaign on that? They are supposed to be pretending to know what they're doing on the economy. We have a huge debt and deficit. They are asking the working class to pay more taxes and higher EI premiums. But they are giving money to PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY CLUBS!!!!

Millions and millions of dollars with the promise of more to come.

My question would be, even if we could afford this, since taxpayers are footing the bill, do we get in to watch the games for free?

Harper's Trading Away of Our Natural Resources is a Threat to National Security

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

There is a recent story in the news about the possible foreign take over of Canada's potash industry.

BHP Billiton Ltd's massive bid for Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan is forcing Ottawa to contend with a hot-button issue that went dormant with the credit crunch: how to respond to foreign suitors poised to take over major Canadian corporations. (1)

The assumption of the authors of this piece is that the Harper government is concerned with this. However, the foreign takeover of Canada's resources by the neoconservative movement is a decades long dream.

...Many of Canada's small or mid-size but promising high-tech companies have also been sold off to foreign investors, making them R&D branch plants of foreign corporations rather than a potential RIM .... Last year alone, according to investment Canada, there were 437 foreign investments in Canada – 338 of them were foreign takeovers and 99 were new businesses. Of the 338 foreign takeovers, just 22 were reviewed and all were given the green light. (2)

According to Bruce Campbell, Executive Director of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

The Harper government portrays itself as standing up for Canada, but it is preparing a major sell-off of Canadian interests that will compromise our cultural sovereignty, national identity and national security. In last week's federal budget, the Harper government signalled its intent to throw open the doors of foreign ownership in three strategic, previously protected, sectors: telecommunications, satellites and uranium. (3)

Maxime Bernier once wrote about the unimportance of Canadian sovereignty:

Individual sovereignty is what is important – not sovereignty of the state. Indeed, the sovereign state is, by its very nature, a steam-roller of the individual ... 'With economic globalization, is nationality important?' (4)

I believe that it is, but there was a reason why Harper named him the first industrial minister. Because he had no commitment to Canada:

... since being named to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet in February, the rookie 43-year-old MP from Quebec's rural Beauce riding has demonstrated a stern resolve to get government out of the way of business. It is a perhaps an unusual stance for an industry minister.The holder of that post is commonly seen as the champion of government programs aimed at helping Canadian companies compete with global titans and foster innovation at home. (5)

And Tony Clement also knows how to play the game. When Canadians started dying from Listeriosis, as a result of Stephen Harper and George Bush "standardizing the jelly bean" (6), Clement was in the U.S., protecting the 'proportionality' clause in the NAFTA agreement. This clause is good for the U.S. but could be devastating to Canada. According to the Parkland Institute:

This obscure-sounding clause essentially states that, when it comes to energy, no Canadian government can take any action which would reduce the proportion of our total energy supply which we make available to the United States from the average proportion over the last 36 months.

In other words, if over the last 36 months we have exported just under 50 per cent of our available oil (including domestic production and imports) to the United States—and we have—then no government in Canada can do anything which would result in us making less than two thirds of our total oil supply available to the US....this clause seriously jeopardizes our own energy security in this country, and severely hampers our government’s ability to set our own energy policies. ... For example, if a natural disaster were to hit eastern Canada tomorrow, our government could not say that we will cut oil or gas exports to the US by 10 per cent in order to increase the oil and gas available for disaster relief in Canada. (7)

He has prevented us from responding to our own natural disasters if it means cutting into the profits of U.S. companies. And apparently he has also sold off, or is in the process of selling off our water rights. And he's not done by a long shot.

The Harper government has sent a strong signal that a part of the Canadian economy – our phone companies – not already under high levels of foreign control could be headed for the auction block in the not-too-distant future. This could mean that Bell Canada, Rogers Communications and Telus end up with foreign owners. Will the airline industry be next? The government is already committed to eliminating reviews of foreign takeovers of companies with a stock market value of less than $1 billion, thereby putting many of Canada's larger companies potentially on the auction block ... (2)

The most recent act of government vandalism is right from Harper's backyard. Bitumen will now be piped to the Gulf of Mexico for processing.

These pipelines are sending our raw, unprocessed bitumen from Canadian tarsands to spanking new oil refineries in the U.S. It is the equivalent of shipping millions of raw logs for others to cut the two-by-fours and create the wood furniture. Like forestry, the best jobs are in processing. We are left with the tarsands’ massive mess. The Americans get the good jobs. (8)

When are we going to start paying attention? When it's too late? Executives from Vale said that they were surprised when they bought Inco that our government had few, if any restrictions. They claimed that most foreign countries they move into demand that workers and the communities are respected. Clement asked for nothing. And yet they are now trying to convince us that they give a damn.

I'm not buying it.

Sources:

1. Potash bid tests Canada's takeover rules: Ottawa says any foreign buyer of fertilizer company must meet investment requirements, By Jeremy Torobin and Andy Hoffman, Globe and Mail, August 18, 2010

2. Big fish feed in Canadian pond: Investment is welcome but impact on economy should be studied before declaring open season, By David Crane, Toronto Star, March 11, 2010

3. Owning the podium, selling the stadium, By Bruce Campbell, Toronto Star, March 12, 2010

4. The growth of government in the 20th century and the importance of debating ideas, By Maxime Bernier, Bishop’s University, December 3, 2005

5. How far will this free marketeer go: Telecom sector is Bernier's next target for reform? By Konrad Yakabuski, Globe and Mail, September 26, 2006

6. The Jelly Bean Summit, Council of Canadians, Autumn 2007

7. Over a Barrel: Exiting from NAFTA's proportionality clause, By Gordon Laxer, John Dillon, July 16, 2008

8. Pipeline would ship oil and jobs south, By Dave Coles President of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union, Toronto Star, August 8, 2010

So the Census is Invasive Huh? But what do You Call This?

The Reformers are sticking to their tired line that the census is too invasive and they don't want to intrude on our lives like that. Oh, really?

How about Canadians being reported if they appear at all suspicious when they're at the bank?

Imagine you are an ordinary Canadian. Like most ordinary Canadians, you have a bank account. Sometimes you go into the bank. And conduct various financial transactions. And the whole time, you are being monitored. By the government. Didn't know that? Of course not. It's secret. The law specifically says you must not be told when a report about you is filed.

The monitoring is conducted by the employees of the bank, not government officials. They have no choice. If they find your behaviour in any way "suspicious" — a term deliberately left vague — they must file a "suspicious transactions report" with a government agency, and they must not tell you they did so. If they fail to comply, they can be punished with up to $2 million in fines and/or five years in prison.

That sounds pretty invasive.

Or how about the Reformers keeping a database with all personal information on their constituents. Harper used it to create a Jewish mailing list.

The federal Conservative party's central database is set up to track the confidential concerns of individual constituents without their knowledge or consent, says a former Tory MP. The issue spilled onto the floor of the House of Commons on Thursday when Garth Turner, the expelled Tory-turned-Liberal MP, accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of an "unethical invasion of Canadians' privacy." Privacy experts agree the practice is a clear breach of standard privacy ethics - but probably not the law, because federal political parties fall into a legislative grey area. A recent mailing by the prime minister to some Jewish households, and households with Jewish-sounding names, highlighted the micro targeting that sophisticated modern databases now facilitate.

The Rosh Hashanah greeting from Harper prompted several recipients to complain to the federal privacy commissioner, who has begun a preliminary inquiry. It's cast a light on the 21st century art of political communication that may make some Canadians uneasy.

That sounds pretty invasive.

Or how about Harper MP Cheryl Gallant using personal information from passport applications?

In 2005 she sent out birthday cards to some of her constituents. The cards featured a picture of Gallant, with the words "May all your birthday wishes come true," and... were sent to residents who had unsuspectingly submitted passport applications at her Pembroke office.Several constituents accused Cheryl of obtaining birth-date information from a passport application during the 2006 campaign. One affected resident told the Ottawa Citizen "The principle is really bothering me: that my information has been gathered without my knowledge. I don't know how it's going to be used." Two families who received cards have sent letters to the privacy Commissioner of Canada, asking confirmation the MP won't use the collected personal information. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has no jurisdiction in investigating such matters.

That sounds pretty invasive.

Or Stephen Harper paying $ 75,000.00 a pop to spy on us when we're debating politics online?

The Harper government has been monitoring political messages online, and even correcting what it considers misinformation. One local expert says the government is taking things too far.Under the pilot program the Harper government paid a media company $75,000 to monitor and respond to online postings about the east coast seal hunt. UBC Computer Science professor and President of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, Richard Rosenberg, says it seems unnecessary for the government to be going this far.

That sounds pretty invasive.

Their decision has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to protect our privacy. They just don't want a report card on how poorly they are doing, but more importantly they don't want stats that provide arguments against their bad decisions.

Opposition parties are calling for the Conservative government to reverse its "ideological" decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census, saying it has thrown Statistics Canada into "chaos." The calls by Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale and NDP MP Charlie Angus come a day after Munir Sheikh, the head of Canada's national statistical agency, resigned in protest over Industry Minister Tony Clement's decision to end the mandatory census.

Goodale told reporters in Ottawa on Thursday that the reputation of the internationally renowned agency is "hanging by a thread at the hand of a bumbling minister and a Conservative government that simply doesn't believe in fact-based decision-making." " 'Don't bother us with facts,' they say," Goodale said. "The result is a general dumbing down of government ...

James Travers agrees in his piece: Forget the beaver, dumber Canada needs the ostrich

Conservatives are going soft. Instead of stopping the dumbing-down of Canada at abolishing the mandatory long-form census, Stephen Harper should take the bolder step of dumping the eager beaver for the foolish ostrich. Even if its head-in-sand defence is a myth, the ostrich has other metaphorical merits as a fitting new national symbol. It’s been known to deliver devastating kicks to onrushing locomotives and isn’t naturally found in this northern habitat.

Conservatives share those characteristics. They resent the relentless march of progress and resist it with alien ideas imported from other places. Opting to know less about ourselves is about as smart as flying without instruments. Reliable information opens the decision-making conduit that carries us safely from present to future.

And as Jeffrey Simpson Says"

There is only one reason this census situation is so senselessly white-hot: the government's position. Its radical ideology and stunning stubbornness have raised the stakes alarmingly high. There must be plenty of Conservatives who are recoiling at the shenanigans of these so-called Conservatives.

Every time Industry Minister Tony Clement and the prime minister's spokesthingy says "coercive" and "intrusive" without bidding, my mind flashes up pictures of our own police in riot gear at the G20 protests and hundreds of people being filed into and out of detention centres for public disturbances like blowing bubbles. Is this my Canada?

Yes I would say getting the crap kicked out of you for peacefully protesting, and allowing male police officers to strip search women is pretty bloody invasive.

No, Mr. Simpson. This is not your Canada, or my Canada, it is his Canada. But not for long.

"Special Interest Groups" Opposing Harper's Census Long-form Debacle is Especially Interesting

After Maxime Bernier referred to those opposing the scrapping of the census long-form as "special interest groups" who could pay for the census themselves (it will cost us millions to scrap it), the list of those "special interest groups" is growing.

Now several of them have written a letter to Tony Clement:

We are writing to request an opportunity to meet with you to discuss your Government’s recent decision to discontinue the Census long-form questionnaire and replace it with a new voluntary questionnaire, the National Household Survey. We are greatly concerned about this decision. Loss of the long-form Census information will cause considerable economic and social costs. The data are a key part of the decision-making processes of businesses, marketers, public service providers, community service providers, and charities. The effectiveness and responsiveness of public policy initiatives of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments will be compromised. Canada is a vast country with considerable differentiation in the economic and social situations by geographical location. For many purposes the long-form Census questionnaire is the only valid source of data available of a local nature.

Some of those "special interest" include economist Don Drummond, Nik Nanos, Craig Alexander (President, Canadian Association for Business Economics and Chief Economist, TD Bank), Canadian Institute of Planners, Institute for Research on Public Policy, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Canadian Labour Congress , Canada West Foundation, United Way, National Specialty Society for Community Medicine, Canadian Public Health Association, School of Public Policy and Governance - University of Toronto, Canadian Association of University Teachers, Canadian Council on Social Development, Canadian Economic Association, Toronto Board of Trade ...

Even the city of Edmonton is weighing in.

Bernier has suggested that the Liberals must answer as to why they want to keep it. I don't think the Liberals are Bernier's problem.

The Americans already tried this and it failed.

And the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors is wondering if Harper also plans to scrap mandatory jury duty.

This was a bad idea, but like all bad ideas that Stephen Harper has, he will not reverse them regardless of who criticizes him for them. No doubt this will be the same and he will again hope that it just goes away.

The problem is, his war against the Canadian people has a growing number of enemies, and he may wake up one day and wonder where all of his foot soldiers have gone.

Four of Harper's MPs Could be Barred From Running in the Next Election

I've been trying to keep track of the ongoing court case surrounding the "In and Out" scandal. There has been nothing new, but just a reminder that it is far from settled.

After one victory, and Pierre Poilievre sticking out his tiny chest and claiming it was over, Elections Canada has said "Not so fast".

A court ruling initially hailed as a triumph by the Conservatives turns out to contain a bitter pill that could poison the electoral prospects of three senior cabinet ministers.

... the Tories are also appealing, hoping to strike down a little-noticed section of the judgment that would mean up to 10 candidates — including Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Josee Verner and former minister Maxime Bernier — exceeded their campaign spending limits in 2006.

If the ruling is allowed to stand, the four sitting Tories and up to six former candidates could face charges. If convicted, they could be barred from running again or even be barred from sitting in the House of Commons, much less cabinet ... "Apart from any conviction," the agency goes on, "this option would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election of the four candidates ... who are current members of Parliament."

Hopefully this will be settled before the next election.

Dean Del Mastro's Replacement Calls Evangelists Special Interest Groups

When Dean Del Mastro was trying to defend the abuse at the G-20 and the cancellation of the census long from, it was almost painful to watch. When Tony Clement began just making stuff up, we thought, OK. It's Tony Clement. It's what he does.

But now Maxime Bernier has referred to Evangelicals as "Special Interest Groups":

"The census in recent years has become very important for churches and religious charities...in understanding their neighbourhoods, and how to intelligently do more outreach within their neighbourhoods," Rick Hiemstra, director of the Centre for Research on Canadian Evangelicalism, told The Canadian Press. "What we have now is the potential of losing that information and losing the historical comparability of the data. We're not going to be able to understand how the religious landscape in Canada is changing."

Bernier doesn't agree. "If some special interest group wants data on Canadians, they can do that, they can pay for that and they can do it," he said.

Hey Max. have you read Armageddon Factor? Those "special interest groups" are the only thing keeping you in power buddy.

Well that's three down. How many more before hell freezes over and Stephen Harper comes out and explains himself?

Has Maxime Bernier Been Ill? Was His Muzzle on Too Tight?

I know that Maxime Bernier is one of the caucus members Stephen Harper would prefer stay home, because lately his ramblings are puzzling to say the least. But his latest nonsense over the census long form is further proof that this government is running on fumes.

He wants to call a hearing into the census decisions. Good. Will they attend? Who cares?

But where Bernier starts to lose touch with reality is here:

The Tories also want to use the emergency committee hearings to put the opposition Liberals on the spot, said Bernier. "The opposition will have to explain to Canadians why they want the state and the government of Canada to know lots of details from their private lives. They will have to answer that
question."

Bernier said that when he was industry minister during the last census period in 2006, he received an average of 1,000 e-mail complaints a day while the survey was going on.

Now apparently Bernier doesn't read the papers or he would know that while yes, the opposition parties are opposing, it's other groups who are far more vocal. And when those groups became vocal, the opposition parties did what we and those groups pay them to do. They opposed.

And the list of those upset by this assinine decision is growing: Evangelical and Jewish communities, banks, Tony Clement and Jim Flaherty, the business community and economists, doctors and health care professionals, etc. etc. etc. Does he want them at the hearing to explain themselves?

Stephen Harper made this decision because he's now playing to his base. But when the "you know what" hit the fan, where is Harper? Probably another photo-op.

So Maxime, I think you need to find another biker chick, settle down, raise a brood and leave us alone, because frankly, you're starting to scare me.

1,000 a day. Give me a break. Tony Clement is the Industry Minister now, and he begged Stephen Harper not to axe it.

I think Vanity Press may have another reason to explain Steve's decision:

Stephen Harper has been PM for about five years. He became PM in 2006, the same year as the last census. The 2011 census will be the first national collection of data on the state of the population since then. There's now been plenty of time for the results of his government's policies to have statistical effect in the population. There is, in fact, no way that the results of a comprehensive 2011 census would not be interpreted as a means of judging his performance ... Harper wants to control his own reputation long-term, and the one thing he can't control is reliable, independently collected and analyzed data. Therefore, he's just going to prevent its collection in the first place.

He wants to hide his report card so we can't see his failing grade. Too late. We see it every day.

The Sovereignty of Money and the Sovereignty of the Consumer, but Not the Sovereignty of the Nation

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. (Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850)

I mentioned Frederic Bastiat in relation to Maxime Bernier, former Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute, and presently the Reform-Conservative member of Parliament for Beauce, Quebec.

The MEI belongs to the school of thought that government is the impediment of progress, and the only real sovereignty is that of the consumer.

Other Libertarian thinkers also refer to the sovereignty of money. But none feel any connection to the sovereignty of a nation.

In a 2005 speech, Maxime Bernier claimed that "Individual sovereignty is what is important – not sovereignty of the state. Indeed, the sovereign state is, by its very nature, a steam-roller of the individual."

Bernier, like most Canadian neoconservatives, doesn't believe that Canada should be protective of any industry. In fact he once asked: 'With economic globalization, is nationality important?'

There was a column in the Star this week by David Crane: Big Fish Feed in Canadian Pond. The author was sounding the alarm on the increase in foreign ownership and control of Canada's high-tech industries.

...Many of Canada's small or mid-size but promising high-tech companies have also been sold off to foreign investors, making them R&D branch plants of foreign corporations rather than a potential RIM .... Last year alone, according to investment Canada, there were 437 foreign investments in Canada – 338 of them were foreign takeovers and 99 were new businesses. Of the 338 foreign takeovers, just 22 were reviewed and all were given the green light.

There was another column in today's Star by Bruce Campbell, Executive Director of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, discussing the same thing: Owning the podium, selling the stadium.

The Harper government portrays itself as standing up for Canada, but it is preparing a major sell-off of Canadian interests that will compromise our cultural sovereignty, national identity and national security. In last week's federal budget, the Harper government signalled its intent to throw open the doors of foreign ownership in three strategic, previously protected, sectors: telecommunications, satellites and uranium.

Notions like sovereignty, democracy and nationalism, are direct threats to neoconservatism; so if you are writing about things that the Harper government is doing, from their neoconservative ideology, you would say they are right on course.

The problem with most of our media, is that they don't view anything this government does from that perspective, so they think they have a scoop if they discover them 'moving away' from being fiscally conservative, or doing anything that jeopardizes the future of our country.

We may watch Stephen Harper mouth the words to Oh, Canada and feel all warm and fuzzy, but believe me, those words mean nothing to him. The sovereignty of money drives the neocon bus, and silly notions of nationality only get in their way.

Bruce Campbell knows this. I think by now most of the country's economists have caught on. They continue to sound the alarm, but few Canadians really listen to this country's economists. Let's face it. It's pretty boring stuff.

So instead they view the budget from the summary provided by the mainstream media, which is usually just "Oh look. It's shiny".

But I believe that Bruce Campbell and David Crane, are simply speaking to us in language we can understand. They've taken the shine off the glowing reports, and are trying to warn us of what exactly is happening here.

We are losing our sovereignty. We are losing our ideas. We are losing our country.

It started off as just a bit of chipping away, but now it is being broken off in big chunks. Once these things are gone, they are gone. Permanently. We can't stand up in outrage a year from now and say we want it back.

Another person who had a lot of influence over this movement in Canada was Roger Douglas, former New Zealand labour minister, and author of the book Unfinished business.

He guided not only Harper's Reform Party but also Mike Harris of Ontario and Ralph Klein of Alberta.

New Zealand's slash and burn pioneer, Sir Roger Douglas, an occasional consultant to Ralph Klein's government, promoted the strategy of 'retroactive consensus' at the Reform Party's 1991 assembly): the idea the governments should ruthlessly and quickly force change to minimize the effectiveness of opposition, building consensus only after all the decisions had been carried out."

(Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9Pg. 163 )

And is this not how the government does things now? They shut down the House for almost three months, while they negotiate the most aggressive trade deal in our history. And of course we only learn of it after the fact.

When Brian Mulroney introduced the Free Trade deal he held a referendum. Stephen Harper doesn't even hold a press conference. He just does it and lets someone else announce it.

Roger Douglas, whose slash and burn policies have been dubbed 'Rogernomics', also told his disciples, at that 1991 Assembly:

"Implement reforms by quantum leaps. Moving step by step lets invested interests mobilize. Speed is essential. It is impossible to move too fast. Once your momentum starts, never let it stop. Set your own goals and deadlines."

But he said above all. Don't Blink!

I think we've seen the momentum building, and I'm afraid that no matter how many economists and other experts sound their warning it may be too late. Roger Douglas turned New Zealand inside out with his policies. Back to that 1991 Assembly:

"What Preston Manning and Roger Douglas did not tell their audience was the story of the impact of Douglas's policies on the people of New Zealand. Saskatchewan political economist, Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them. Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work since 'restructuring' took effect.

(Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114)

But a handful of people got filthy rich, and isn't that what's really important here?

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Pay Attention. We Are Being Sold Off by the Ideology of Dead People

I mentioned before, that I had been doing a lot of research into the neoconservative movement, since our media are still under the mistaken belief that the Harper government is Conservative, or even more ridiculously, Tory. Neoconservatism is the anti-Tory.

I'm going to start laying it out, as simply as possible, and applying it to current events. I think you'll get a better picture of what is really happening, and what is driving Stephen Harper and his Reformers.

I just posted on Maxime Bernier and an economic/philosophical theorist, Frederic Bastiat. He was kind of an early free marketeer, who influenced some of the later schools of thought.

And though he's been dead since 1850, his ideas live on in the Montreal Economic Institute. In fact they published a book Frederic Bastiat Defender of Sound Economics, and present a Frederic Bastiat Prize for journalism.

In 2005 Maxime Bernier wrote a speech The growth of government in the 20th century and the importance of debating ideas which he recently posted to his blog.

While putting my papers in order recently, I found the text of a speech I gave in December 2005, just a few days after resigning as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute to run as a candidate in the federal election that took place in the weeks thereafter. The event was a debating contest among students organized by the Canadian University Society for intercollegiate Debate at Bishop’s University in Sherbrooke, Quebec.

I spoke about the importance of defending the right ideas and discussed one idea in particular: the threat to individual freedom arising from the growth of government.

Most of it is the usual Libertarian jargon, though we do get some idea of just how much he believes in individual freedom, when he rebukes the necessity of alcohol control. That would sure put the Socons in his party in a flap.

But he also again reiterates his opposition to Canada as a sovereign nation.

The fact that the growth of government has slowed in the 1990s supports my hope. One reason why I am optimistic is that I believe in the individual. Individuals will start again demanding the respect of their sovereignty. Individual sovereignty is what is important – not sovereignty of the state. Indeed, the sovereign state is, by its very nature, a steam-roller of the individual.

This radical political thought does not believe in borders, and they have been tearing them down, especially with the United States; by allowing a shared military and police force.

They have also been working to encourage other sovereign states to do the same, believing that all economies should be 100% foreign (multinationals) controlled. In fact they are (on Canada's behalf) becoming bullies to smaller nations, who don't necessarily agree with their theories.

At the WTO, Canada heads a group of delegations pressing developing countries to open their economies to the supposedly superior services of foreign financial institutions. The world's major financial conglomerates are claimed to have sophisticated risk management capabilities that can stabilize economies.

You might think these days such a claim would not pass the laugh test, but that did not stop financial liberalization from being pushed at the WTO ministerial meeting held in July 2008. The enormity of what's at stake in the WTO financial sector negotiations is revealed in a February 2006 bargaining request sent from Canada's Department of Finance to developing countries.

Canada asked that foreign financial institutions be guaranteed rights to "establish new and acquire existing companies" in all financial sectors. This would mean among other things that countries would have to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of their banks and insurance companies. Canada has also asked that companies be given WTO enforceable rights to trade in derivatives, which has been described as a high-octane form of financial speculation similar to gambling. Warren Buffett famously called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction," destruction that is being witnessed on a daily basis on the world's stock exchanges.

No borders, no customs, no tariffs. So nice to know that a man who's been dead for a century and half is alive and well in our federal government.

But this brings me to a recent column in the Star about how quickly this country and our ideas are being bartered away, and not for the good of the nation but for the benefit of multinationals.

The Harper government has sent a strong signal that a part of the Canadian economy – our phone companies – not already under high levels of foreign control could be headed for the auction block in the not-too-distant future. This could mean that Bell Canada, Rogers Communications and Telus end up with foreign owners. Will the airline industry be next?

The government is already committed to eliminating reviews of foreign takeovers of companies with a stock market value of less than $1 billion, thereby putting many of Canada's larger companies potentially on the auction block ...

... But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many of Canada's small or mid-size but promising high-tech companies have also been sold off to foreign investors, making them R&D branch plants of foreign corporations rather than a potential RIM .... Last year alone, according to Investment Canada, there were 437 foreign investments in Canada – 338 of them were foreign takeovers and 99 were new businesses. Of the 338 foreign takeovers, just 22 were reviewed and all were given the green light.

...There are, of course, big differences between foreign companies making new investments in Canada, which adds jobs and output, and foreign takeovers of existing companies, which can lead to a loss of jobs.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? SOON IT WILL BE NO ONES.

************

Related Stories

Maxime Bernier and the Unimportance of Nationalism

Maxime Bernier and the Unimportance of Nationalism

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God" (Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850)

Last Month Andrew Coyne wrote on his blog under the title: Maxime Bernier unplugged

That was a remarkable speech Maxime Bernier delivered the other day in Calgary. That is, it was an entirely unremarkable speech, the kind you would hear every other day in any normal democracy: a fairly pedestrian restatement of conservative principles by a leading conservative politician.

But in the Conservative Party of Canada, in its present moribund state, it counts as Luther’s 95 Theses. It must surely rule out any return to cabinet, if it does not lead to his outright expulsion from caucus, since it contradicts every line of current Conservative —

I often find myself upset with the media (oh, really?), and the first time I read this I was just as miffed with Coyne. The reason being that most journalists and columnists have no conception of neoconservatism, so they write their assessments and predictions, based on what a conservative government would do.

And what a conservative government in the real world would do, is pretty much the exact opposite of what a neoconservative government does.

But in fairness, I think Coyne does get it, but was just surprised that Bernier was not more discreet. However, I don't think that 'discreet' is a word in Maxime Bernier's vocabulary, and I actually respect him for that.

As foreign minister he stated that the real reason for being in Afghanistan was the drug trade, and was the first to publicly sound the alarm on Asadullah Khalid. Naivete got him in trouble, but with Maxime, I believe it's just a case of what you see is what you get.

Bernier is a true Libertarian, and follows very much the philosophy of Frederic Bastiat who never believed in any kind of trade restrictions, tariffs or government controls. He felt, as most Libertarians do, that individuals should be responsible for themselves and that everyone should have an opportunity to make as much money as possible.

Ronald Reagan once stated that he wanted America to be the kind of country where someone could always get rich. Unfortunately his vision made America a country where someone could always 'get' poor, and his administration created the most homeless people of any other. But that's not on the neocon's radar.

Mr. Coyne's surprise at Bernier's speech was his commitment to reducing the size of government. From Bernier:

Last year, the federal government’s total expenses were about 250 billion dollars. You can do a lot of things with 250 billion dollars! From a historical perspective, it’s a gigantic amount of resources. What if we decided that this is more than enough? That expenses are not going to grow anymore?

And I’m not saying zero growth adjusted for inflation and population or GDP increase. Just zero growth. The overall budget is frozen at 250 billion. From now on, any government decision has to be taken within this budgetary constraint. Every new government program, or increase in an existing program, has to be balanced by a decrease somewhere else. ... We have to convince people that we’re not simply aiming to be better managers of a bigger government; we are aiming to be better managers of a smaller government.

Smaller government? Coyne asks. What party does this guy belong to? Surely not the gang that increased spending by nearly 40% in four years? I can hear the opposition parties already: Does the PM believe in Zero Budget Growth? When will he repudiate these remarks?

However, that is the other side of neoconservatism. Before you can justify spending cuts, you have to make sure that you clean out the coffers. It's why they blew a thirteen billion dollar surplus, and were in deficit long before the recession hit.

I guess the reason I wish Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty would be more open like Bernier, is because I think that Canadians have a right to know. Instead of pretending that you plan to balance the books then snicker into your hand, lay it out there.

Harper always did before. When he was helping to found the Reform Party, he made speeches suggesting that the government had no business providing unemployment insurance, or Canada Pension, health care, Old Age Security.

He detested social programs: These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

In 2006, the Globe knew where Bernier's head was:

... since being named to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet in February, the rookie 43-year-old MP from Quebec's rural Beauce riding has demonstrated a stern resolve to get government out of the way of business. It is a perhaps an unusual stance for an industry minister.

The holder of that post is commonly seen as the champion of government programs aimed at helping Canadian companies compete with global titans and foster innovation at home. That mindset is at the heart of Technology Partnerships Canada, the $300-million-a-year Liberal loan program that helped Bombardier Inc. become a world leader in regional jets and countless biotechnology and software companies develop new products. Mr. Bernier is now considering abolishing TPC altogether ... In the same vein, the new minister is largely unmoved by calls from the Ontario government to buttress with federal money its $500-million Automotive Investment Strategy. The fund has been a key factor in attracting $7-billion in new auto investment to Ontario. (How far will this free marketeer go? Globe & Mail, September 26, 2006)

See to a free marketeer, Libertarian; the first priority is not the country, or it's inhabitants; it's the markets. They actually push for foreign ownership and foreign control, as Stephen Harper is now.

Or as Maxime Bernier once asked: 'With economic globalization, is nationality important?'

I think nationality is very important. But since Frederic Bastiat did not believe in borders or sovereignty or 'states', only individuals; do we not get a vote?

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Maxime Bernier Confirms the Theory: There is Shrinkage

It's always interesting reading columns about this government's handling of the economy.

Over and over again, 'Jim Flaherty shouldn't have lowered the GST', 'Jim Flaherty should listen to economists', 'Jim Flaherty should do us all a favour and move to Lower Slobovia' (yes that last one was mine).

However, they always think they're so clever when they say 'Gotcha', you are not a fiscal conservative!

Well sorry guys, but the only ones earning 'Gotcha' claims are the Reformers.

It was never ever about fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget or handling the economy.

It was always about reducing government revenue and tearing down our social safety net. They have now created the perfect storm. In the recent sale of our country, Harper and Simon Bar Sinister, have put our health services into the new trade agreement, and provinces will no longer be able to limit private health care.

But this doesn't just mean that they've opened the door to a two-tier system, because by allowing the Americans or the multinationals to get their hands on our health services, they will no longer be sustainable. And with the Harper government dangerously reducing our revenue, there's no way we could pay for it even if we tried.

POP!

Did you hear that?

That was the sound of the champagne cork at the National Citizens Coalition office, as they toast Colin Brown. He was the man who started the NCC with Ernest Manning, for the sole purpose of destroying the Canada Health Act. Step outside you'll get a faint odour of smoke. That's the Act being torched.

Stephen Harper has won. Who knew? We thought he'd need a majority to put an end to public health care in this country. But all he needed was a sleeping public and a complacent media.

At Harper's church, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, they sing God Bless America. We will soon be too.

Maxime Bernier's Shrinkage

For most of us paying attention, we know what neoconservatism is, so can usually predict the next stages. Andrew Coyne over at MacLeans thought he had the scoop of the century. Poor Andrew.

Yes, Maxime Bernier laid out the neoconservative agenda in all it's ugliness, but where were you four years ago? Four months ago? Four days ago? We could have used a scoop then and we might not be in this mess.

Maybe you could have scooped Patrick Brown last election campaign when he too suggested that Harper would never allow our economy to grow.

Maxime Bernier unplugged
by Andrew Coyne
February 9, 2010

That was a remarkable speech Maxime Bernier delivered the other day in Calgary. That is, it was an entirely unremarkable speech, the kind you would hear every other day in any normal democracy: a fairly pedestrian restatement of conservative principles by a leading conservative politician ....

UPDATE: And what’s this? Pierre Poilievre calling it a “brilliant speech”? So: the last four years, then. They’ve just been a bad dream?

Afghanistan and the Drug Trade. Who Are we Protecting?

When the story first broke about former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier leaving sensitive NATO documents in the apartment of a girlfriend, the media became focused on the sexy side of the story, ignoring most of the important issues. Like what was in the documents, and why is he taking them home?

But the woman in question, Julie Couillard, revealed something else that Bernier had told her, stating on national television that Maxime had said “the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with building democracy in that country but has to do with the global control of the opium trade. It’s a drug war.”... "the War In Afghanistan was about the control of the global opium trade, not democracy".

According to a United Nations report in 2006:

UN anti-narcotics chief calls for wide-spectrum action against Afghan opium production

Afghanistan, the world’s largest opium producer, is already a “narco-economy” and risks becoming a “narco-state,” with drug production its largest employer, the top United Nations drugs and crime fighter warned today.

UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa called for a wide range of international action to curb production, trafficking, demand and accompanying corruption, terming the reduction of heroin demand “the mother of all drug control challenges.”

“Afghanistan has already become a narco-economy in the sense that drugs are now Afghanistan’s largest employer, income generator, source of capital, export and foreign investment,” UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa told a ministerial conference in Moscow on drug trafficking routes from the country. “It has become a narco-society in the sense that many Afghans are now hooked on the drug money and now it risks becoming a narco-state,” he added.

“Pyramids of protection now connect the upper world of the Afghan establishment to the underworld of Afghan mafias.”

Seasoned journalist Arthur Kent, shown in the video above, is also concerned with the drug trade and made his concerns known to our ambassador in Afghanistan, Arif Lalani; when he first arrived. He told him that there members of the Karzai government involved in the illegal drug trade, but his warnings fell on deaf ears. Now remember, Arthur Kent is the brother of Reform-Conservative Peter Kent, so this is not a partisan issue.

The New York Times recently reported on the issue, but are suggesting that the Taliban are the only ones involved and that the drug trade is supporting their forces.

WASHINGTON — The United States-led counter narcotics effort in Afghanistan, viewed as critical to halting the flow of funds to the Taliban and curtailing corruption, lacks a long-term strategy, clear objectives and a plan for handing over responsibility to Afghans, the State Department inspector general said in a report released Wednesday.

The report said that military and civilian anti drug programs lacked clearly delineated roles, and that civilian contracts for counter narcotics work were poorly written and largely supervised from thousands of miles away.

We learn that there are new anti-drug initiatives, but are they really working? This from the Associated Press on December 24, 2009: US anti-drug effort in Afghanistan criticized
Afghanistan produces roughly 90 percent of the world's illicit opium. By MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON — The State Department's internal watchdog on Wednesday criticized the agency's nearly $2 billion anti-drug effort in Afghanistan for poor oversight and lack of a long-term strategy. The department's inspector general said the Afghanistan counter-narcotics program is hampered by too few personnel and rampant corruption among Afghan officials.

The inspector general's report also noted that despite a consensus among U.S. agencies that eradicating poppy fields is essential, the focus has shifted to interdiction of drug organizations and alternative crop projects ....

One more reason to RETHINK AFGHANISTAN!

More Evidence That Our Government and Military Knew About Torture

As much as I believe that all unredacted memos should be provided to the Opposition, I shudder to think what might be in them, given revelations so far.

Canadian Press has just reported that a former Afghan governor, Asadullah Khalid, had a reputation for being one of the worst violators of human rights, and despite repeated warnings; our government and military threw their support behind him.

He is seen in the video above, returning from a 'vacation' in the U.S., and enjoying a warm relationship with our military. You wouldn't know it from the video, but I guess he was one sick SOB.

Canada defended Afghan 'human-rights abuser,' memos allege
Murray Brewster
THE CANADIAN PRESS
December 13, 2009

OTTAWA–A former governor of Kandahar who is accused of personally torturing Afghans might have been removed from office as far back as 2006 if Canadian officials hadn't defended him, according to diplomatic memos that have never been made public by the Canadian government. The revelation about Asadullah Khalid, who stayed on as governor two years after concerns about his notorious reputation were raised, opens up another embarrassing avenue of inquiry over Afghan prisoner abuse.

The new allegation is contained in a two-year-old end-of-mission report by Richard Colvin, the whistleblower foreign service officer. An uncensored version of the report was shown for the first time to The Canadian Press. Colvin's disgust that Canada would support a "known human-rights abuser" was palpable ...

Ernest Manning, Orvis Kennedy and the Communists

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past." George Orwell, 1984

In 1956, the Social Credit national organizer Orvis Kennedy, was addressing a crowd at a community hall in Nokomis, Saskatchewan, when he stated: "I think if they had left Hitler alone, he'd have been alright." His statement was part of a broader speech in which he condemned communists and international financiers for their world-wide manipulations.

The media immediately jumped on it. For a decade or so, Social Credit had been trying to reinvent itself from the party of extremists, to a moderate conservative option.

The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix claimed that Kennedy's statement was "strange and disquieting. But it is no stranger and no more disquieting than many other things about the Social Credit organization." The Calgary Herald remarked: "no better summation of the basic, sinister philosophy of Social Credit has been made openly in recent years. With Social Credit's move toward respectability, and its effort to woo financial support from big interests, some people have forgotten this ... No wonder Mr. Kennedy sees no harm in Hitler. Social Credit and Hitlerism are 'spiritual' soul-mates." (1)

Was this a fair assessment? Maybe not. However, for Canada I suppose Social Credit was the closest thing to fascism we had (other than of course the short-lived Fascist Party of Canada). In Lloyd Mackey's book, Like Father, Like Son, he addresses the many accusations of fascism during Ernest Manning's time:

Finkel's The Social Credit Phenomenon in Alberta some of the ideological issues that had been part of the 1944 election rhetoric are explored. Manning never made too fine a point of it, but he and some of his MLAs let it be known that they believed socialism had more of a connection with fascism and Nazism than did Social Credit-style conservatism. At the time, of course, young Canadian men were fighting the Nazis in Europe. Stung by the charges against them with respect to their views on the banking system, the Socreds began to remind Albertans that "Nazi" was short for "National Socialism." (2)

However, Ernest Manning like many others were wrong. Adolf Hitler hated socialism.

Journalist Konrad Heiden who followed Hitler's career from his days in the Munich beer halls, wrote several books on the man and his party long before the Holocaust was brought to light.

In 1923 he joined the staff of the Frankfurter Zeitung, with the special assignment of covering the National Socialist movement in Munich. He is credited with coining the word "Nazi" — as a term of contempt, because in Bavaria "nazi" was a slang term for a country bumpkin. (3)

Hitler only added 'socialist' to the German Workers Party to appeal to the masses. His party was originally referred to as the Fascist Brown Shirts.

What is interesting though, is that Social Credit got some help from Canada's Communist Party back in the early days, and in fact contributed to the one and only election victory of Orvis Kennedy, the man who suggested that Hitler would have been OK if they'd just left him alone.

Flirting With Communism?

When William Aberhart first decided to push for the adoption of social credit principles to help Alberta to weather the Depression, his motives were pure. One of his former students had committed suicide because of his dire straits, leaving him wondering why there was so much poverty in the 'midst of plenty'. So Social Credit principles were originally about sharing the wealth.

I think that if Aberhart had still been alive when oil was struck at Leduc in 1947, there would have been a fairer distribution of the wealth. For all of his faults, he was a caring man. I also believe that had oil not been discovered, Ernest Manning would not have been premier for as long as he was. He was running out of ideas by 1947.

And a decade earlier, in 1937, the Party was in trouble. The Bankers' Toadies Incident was threatening to topple the government. This referred to pamphlets that were printed (at taxpayers' expense. Sound familiar?) that read: My child, you should NEVER say hard or unkind things about Bankers' Toadies. God made snakes, slugs, snails and other creepy-crawly, treacherous, and poisonous things. NEVER, therefore, abuse them—just exterminate them! Along with this was a list of nine "toadies" that needed to be exterminated.

One of them was the leader of the Conservative Party, Dave Duggan, who brought up the issue in legislature. The Social Credit offices were raided and the two men responsible arrested. There was concern that someone could take the "extermination" seriously and take matters into their own hands.

Aberhart did everything in his power to stop the trial from going through, even firing the Crown Prosecutor, but the two men were charged and imprisoned. In the meantime, the opposition parties had formed a coalition to oust Aberhart, creating a new party called the People's League.

The story drew a lot of press and was brought to the attention of the Communist Party of Canada, and they called for a "united front" against the People's League, feeling more solidarity with the Socreds, than the parties representing "big business".(4)

On March 21, 1938, a federal by-election was being held in East Edmonton, and hoping to gain support for the Liberals, then prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, announced the release of the one socred still in jail, Joseph Unwin.

Upon receiving the news of his impending release, the Socred M.L.A.s broke into jubilation and performed a snake-dance in the Legislature. The Liberals' hopes of winning support, however, failed. Social Credit candidate Orvis Kennedy won the election, and that night a huge victory rally was held in honour of Kennedy and Unwin. Joining them on the platform was Jan Lakeman, leader of the Communist Party in Edmonton, who had helped with the Social Credit campaign. Lakeman was thanked by Kennedy for his support, and Lakeman in turn thanked the voters "for giving an overwhelming defeat to the forces of reaction in the dominion.'' Leslie Morris, secretary of the Canadian Communist Party and correspondent for Pravda, who had also helped in the campaign, took part in the victory celebrations. (5)

Manning would later purge the party of 'socialists' and adopt a very pro-business attitude, often speaking out against socialism that threatened his centralized power. He also believed that capitalism was a better option, a true neoconservative before neoconservatism became a household word.

This evangelical view of humans as essentially alone in the struggle for salvation leads to a gospel of the individual and also, naturally enough, "in the world" to the gospel of free enterprise and capitalism. It compels many of its adherents to elevate capitalism to the level of Biblical command. Richard Neuhaus, an American evangelist, says it is "imperative for Christians to support capitalism. It is an amazing thing ... It comes from the grace of God."

This fundamentalist view commands its adherents to promote capitalism as the "best hope" of the poor. According to Reverend Ben Smillie, using Ernest Manning as an example, these evangelical sects "have religiously sanctified the privileges of the economically powerful." The multi-millionaire Ernest Manning could denounce the "Godless materialism" of the communist system, while materialism sanctioned by God allowed him to "equate [his] wealth with the blessing of God."

The party would continue it's reputation for intolerance and anti-Semitism would often rear it's ugly head. But the revisionist history that gives Ernest Manning saintly powers, is mostly the stuff of legends, and as Helen Hayes once said: Legends die hard. They survive as truth rarely does.

Sources:

1. Beyond the Purge: Reviewing the social credit movement's legacy of intolerance, By Janine Stingel, Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal, Summer, 1999

2. Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Manning and Preston Manning, By Lloyd Mackey, ECW Press, 1997, ISBN: 1-55022-299-6, Pg. 41-42

3. Books: Master of the Masses, Time Magazine, February 7, 1944

4. The Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of Social Credit in Alberta, By John J. Barr, McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1974, ISBN 077101015X, Pg. 110

5. Bible Bill: A Biography of William Aberhart, By: David R. Elliot and Iris Miller, Edmonton: Reidmore Books, 1987, Pg. 276

6. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, Pg. 9

Michael Fortier and Why a Fund Raiser Should Never Head up Public Works

When Stephen Harper fast tracked Michael Fortier into a senate post, then made him head of public works, jaws dropped.

Not only was it a departure from Conservative, Reform and Alliance Policy, it broke a direct promise that Stephen Harper had made on Radio-Canada during the election campaign.

He swore emphatically that he would never appoint a senator or name an unelected person to cabinet.

We're so used to his lies now, that it no longer matters, but there were many problems with this appointment, that go beyond simple lying.

As a Senator, Fortier was not allowed to attend Question Period, to respond to questions from the opposition parties in the House, even though his department spent several billion dollars a years.

It reeked of patronage, since Fortier was a former colleague of Brian Mulroney, when they both worked at the law firm of Ogilvy Renault, and was also the co-chair of Harper's campaign to lead the new Conservative Party in 2003.

But perhaps the worst conflict of interest was the fact that Fortier was the co-chair of the entire 2006 Conservative campaign. Even if it was completely above board, which I doubt, it really looked bad. I mean think about it. He solicits campaign contributions for the Party and then is in a position to return favours. Hmmmm.

So when his name popped up in the Maxime Bernier scandal, I wasn't at all surprised. His aide, Bernard Cote took the fall, but it appears that if you want to work for a Conservative MP it means you have to be prepared to take a political bullet for them. Cote got it right between the eyes.

Mr. Cote was also a former romantic interest of Julie Couillard and apparently put the pressure on Monte Solberg to hire her mother, in a position she seems to have doubtful qualifications for. However, it was his connections to Couillard`s employer, Groupe Kevlar, that landed him in hot water.

Couillard affair trips top Tory aide
Toronto StarJune 11, 2008
Tonda MacCharles in Ottawa
Sean Gordon in Montreal

The tangled web involving former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier's ex-girlfriend has ensnared another federal cabinet member.

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier dismissed senior Quebec adviser Bernard Côté yesterday after it emerged Côté had a romantic relationship with Julie Couillard last year. (Is there anyone she hasn' t dated?)

Because Couillard is officially listed as an "affiliated agent" of Groupe Kevlar Inc., a Montreal-based property development firm that is involved in at least one multimillion-dollar tender with the public works department, Fortier says he acted immediately to dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest.Fortier told the Star "this matter was only brought to my attention today, June 10."

"Mr. Bernard Côté failed to inform me that while he was in a personal relationship with Julie Couillard, at the same time she was also vying for government business for Kevlar and raised it with Mr. Côté," he said. "Mr. Côté should have recused himself of having any dealings with the matter at hand, which he unfortunately didn't." (Yeah, right)Fortier said Côté offered his resignation "and I accepted it." (A lot of that going on in the Conservative government)

"I've insisted with all my political staff that they disclose any dealings with suppliers in the context of matters being the subject of requests for proposals (or any other request leading to a request for proposal)," he said. Sources said Fortier summoned Côté after receiving a phone call from a La Presse reporter seeking comment on the link between Côté and Couillard.

After confirming he dated Couillard, Côté was asked to clean out his desk, a source said.

Côté was a special assistant in charge of Fortier's Montreal office. Côté twice had unsuccessful runs for the Progressive Conservatives – in the 2000 federal election in the southwest Montreal riding of Verdun, and in a 2002 by-election in Jeanne-LeBer – and was a former national vice-president of the now-defunct party.

Before joining Fortier's office, he worked as a commercial real estate broker and property manager. Friends say he and Couillard briefly dated in the spring of 2007 – shortly before she was introduced to Bernier at a Montreal dinner.

"He feels terrible. Bernard's a very ... upright guy. He knew his name would probably come up. Now he's worried he's going to be dragged through the mud," said a Conservative who has known Côté for more than a decade.The Star was unable to reach Côté for comment. A phone call to Couillard went unreturned.Bernier resigned last month hours before the airing of a TV interview in which Couillard revealed he had left sensitive documents at her house in Laval, Que., in mid-April.

She spoke at length about her past associations with underworld figures, including her romantic relationships with a loan shark who had close ties to the Hells Angels, her brief marriage to a full-patch member of the Rockers biker gang – an Angels puppet club – and a third live-in mate who was a truck hijacker who owed large debts to the Hells Angels and other criminal gangs.

She neglected to mention a fourth underworld person with whom she had romantic liaison: Montreal mafia figure Tony Volpato, whom she dated in the early 1990s.

The Quebec media have reported in recent days that Couillard's first brush with the Conservative party would have taken place in March or April of 2007 – around the same time Investissements immobiliers Kevlar, a subsidiary of Groupe Kevlar, began the preliminary stages of a bidding process for a multi-million dollar contract to build a 200,000-square-foot federal office building in downtown Quebec City.

According to sources, Couillard was first registered as a Kevlar affiliate agent in early April 2007 – around the time she dated Côté and shortly before she met Bernier.

Her permit was renewed this year, and as of yesterday was still in effect.

Last April, La Presse reported, Couillard attended a fundraising cocktail party in Châteauguay-Saint-Constant, a riding on Montreal's south shore, making a $1,000 contribution to the party. Le Devoir reported yesterday that Fortier was at the party.

The event's organizer told the paper that Couillard handed him a Kevlar business card at the cocktail party, but that he remembered her mostly because the $1,000 cheque bounced.

Groupe Kevlar issued a press release on May 27 indicating that Couillard "is not an employee of Investissements immobiliers Kevlar and has never been." It said the company had agreed to serve as an affiliated sponsor for Couillard so she could qualify for membership in the provincial commercial realtors' association, and would have vetted any transactions she had brought their way. The Star could not reach Kevlar president René Bellerive for comment yesterday.