Fate Brings Anthony Panayi to Canada With Fateful Consequences

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

Tony Panayi arrived with his parents to Canada when he was just four-years-old. Of Middle Eastern descent, his father a Greek Cypriot and his mother a Canadian. This was 1965 and by 1972, his parents had separated, and he would spend the rest of his childhood in a high-rise apartment in Toronto.

He cut his political teeth campaigning door to door with his mother for her boss, Ontario Tory MPP Bill Hodgson. However, he was never a Progressive Conservative at heart, and in fact his political beliefs were what is now called neoconservative.

"What I saw on the front of Time magazine, which I read religiously every week, was this failure of the American democratic impulse," he remembers. "Around us was the fall of Vietnam, the emasculation of American power, Watergate .... What I remember was the frontal assault on American power, and the encroachment by communism all over the world. And in Canada, there were the failed experiments of Pierre Trudeau. His economic experiments were a shambles, his anti-Americanism wasn't getting us anywhere, the increasing role of the state in all aspects of our lives was, in my view, creating more problems than it was solving. And then in 1978 you had this woman named Margaret Thatcher, who proved you could turn back some of the awful things done by socialism and set things right again. And then in 1980 you had this guy Ronald Reagan. They showed you could have conservative principles and still win." (1)

Unfortunately, Clement was misguided by his heroes. Margaret Thatcher was a train wreck:

When Margaret Thatcher was elected I started my first year at university. Very quickly in the face of her Reagan-inspired "hard economics" and austerity treatment I saw every possibility of employment at the end of my course evaporate. 3.3 million were unemployed with no hope of a job. The economy went into recession and the dole was being withdrawn unless you could "prove" you were actively searching for work. It ruined millions of people's lives and put millions more into unproductive boredom and hardship. It cost the country £40b in lost productivity and the only thing Margaret did was make it worse. (2)

And Ronald Reagan, while he preached small government, actually expanded the government and his horrible economics made the rich richer and created the most homeless people in the history of the United States. (3) He also increased the debt by two trillion dollars, while increasing federal spending and federal staff. (4)

Nonetheless, Panayi "... arrived at the University of Toronto in 1979 filled with missionary zeal to bring the faith of Thatcher and Reagan to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario ..." (1)

But he also arrived with something else ... a new name. His mother had just married former MPP John Clement, and though already an adult more or less, Tony decided to take his stepfather's name, reinventing himself as Tony Clement.

The same year, 1979, another young man would enrol at the University of Toronto, but would only stay for two months, opting to move to Edmonton to take a job in the mail room at Imperial Oil, the company his father had worked for. This would be his only real job outside of politics. Also an avid fan of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Stephen Harper would go on to help found the Reform Party, lead the Alliance Party and eventually become the movement's first prime minister. (5)

It's unlikely that Clement and Harper met at the school, but Tony did find willing accomplices in fellow students Alister Campbell, Tom Long and Mitch Patten, all sharing the same ideology.

"At a time when the rest of the country was enchanted with the charismatic prime minister [Trudeau] and his vision of Canada, simply being a Conservative was an unusual choice. To be committed to the neoconservative agenda of Thatcher and Reagan during this period was nothing short of suicidal, politically speaking." (6)

And yet this small group of young radicals were able to take over the campus Conservatives, increasing it's membership from being almost nothing to 500, with gimmicks (Clement once dressed in a penguin costume), and aggressive marketing. Did they change minds? It's difficult to know, but they presented a platform that was anything but the status quo:

They believed that governments needed to cut taxes in order stimulate spending and increase individual choice, that they needed to balance their budgets in order to escape the trap of escalating deficits, that they needed to get out of most economic regulation in order to let the market reward winners, punish losers, and generate wealth for everyone. Most important, governments needed to abolish most of their social programs, which took money from people who earned it and gave it to people who hadn't. Such a doctrine was anathema to moderate Conservatives, who felt, as former federal leader Robert Stanfield argued, that the market should not be trusted more than was necessary. (7)

And not content with simply drawing in the conservative minded they also sought to change the views of the left:

Eventually the young PCs at the University of Toronto also decided to take on their left-wing enemies on campus, launching a campaign against a proposal to double the compulsory fees levied against each student in support of the Ontario Federation of Students. The Tories accused the federation of wasting money on a bloated administration, and of worrying more about helping the Sandinistas than representing student interests. (Among other things, the Tories put up a sign in an Engineering building proclaiming "Three dollars will get you the Ontario Federation of Students or seven beers at the Brunswick House. Take your pick.") They won a referendum on the issue in a landslide. (7)

They quickly became a force to be reckoned with:

By the early 1980s, as Mike Harris was first finding his feet as a young MPP, the neo-conservative youth were an increasing power within the provincial Conservatives. Long—a bit older than most of the others, passionate and uncompromising—led the troops. "There were huge fights over who was going to control the campus wing of the party," Long remembers. "That got settled in the late seventies, and for about ten years or so my faction controlled the campus wing." In 1982, Long managed the campaign that secured control for the neo-cons of the executive of the Progressive Conservative Youth Association. Both the campus and youth wings of the party were now firmly led by ideologues of the far Right. These wings were important to the party, both for the influence they wielded at leadership conventions, and for the legions of indefatigable volunteers they supplied during campaigns. (7)

But they would soon move on to bigger challenges as they steered toward taking over not just a university campus, but an entire province.

Sources:

1. Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, By John Ibbitson, 1997, ISBN: 0136738648, Pg. 30

2. 1979: Looking back at the Thatcher era, By Mike Rumfitt, May 4, 2005

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2

4. Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy, By Will Bunch, Free Press, ISBN: 978-1-4165-9762-9

5. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

6. Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 164

7. Ibbitson, 1997, Pg. 31-32

Health, Wealth and Stealth Continued: James Lunney and Quackery

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

Dr. Stephen Barrett is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of websites dealing with quackery and health fraud, focusing on consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. (Wikipedia)

He publishes a list of 'Questionable Organizations' and the Consumer Health Organization of Canada made his list of one of those he would treat with considerable distrust.

I posted on them earlier as one of the groups that David Lethbridge cornered, as a possible front for fascist activities, given the people they bring to their "health" fests.

The founders of the group Libby and John Gardon, have defended their choice of guests, suggesting that the controversy is good for business. At the time they were speaking in particular, of the late Eustace Mullins, one of the most controversial anti-Semites in the United States. He referred to Jews as furry insects who drink the blood the children.

What was telling was the fact that Libby Gardon called Mullins a friend. She said she has known him for 15 years and described him as gentle and caring. Eventually the Jewish community banded together and Mullins speech was cancelled.

David Lethbridge had suggested that the connection between some of these so called 'Health' experts with their miracle cures, and neo-Nazi fascist organizations, needed further research, especially since some of the names also link to our current government.

So I did a bit of googling to see if there was any merit to that, and indeed there appeared to be. One of the names that cropped up on a regular basis was that of James Lunney. Lunney was a friend of Stockwell Days, who was encouraged to run in 2000, with Day's new Alliance Party (formerly Reform Party). He was given the health critic post while in opposition, but instead of making health his focus, he instead became an advocate for the snake oil vendors, many of whom have been exposed by Dr. Barrett.

Lunney introduced Bill C-420 which has been tossed around for a bit, an attempt to move these "miracle" cures from the restrictions of what he refers to as the "regulatory regime" and move them to food, claiming they are mostly just vitamins and food products. (His favourite EmPowerplus sells for $74.95 a bottle)

The Standing Committee on Health, dealing with the issues surrounding Bill C-420, called in some experts, and one of these experts was Libby Gardon. Another was Trueman Tuck, a purveyor of some of this stuff, whose mission statement is:

“God created Sovereign Spiritual / Human Beings as children of God. God's children cannot and should not claim to have sovereign supremacy with their creator. The Sovereign Children of God created artificial entities, which are all sole or aggregate corporations including rulers, governments, parliaments, senates, judges, etc. THEY do not posess [sic] any sovereign supremacy and cannot and should not claim to be equal or greater than their creators.”

Trueman of the Tuck clan (aka Trueman Tuck), is a son of God and a Sovereign Spiritual / Human Being that is purpose driven to educate, assist and defend the unalienable rights, freedoms and liberties of other sons and daughters of God.

Did I mention that Trueman Tuck was a bit of a nut? But more importantly he dispenses 'herbal' medicines but has no medical degree or training, and even offers legal advice to other 'herbal' medicine businesses, calling himself an "Attorney-In-Fact", when in fact, he is not an attorney at all. He is a salesman. A salesman providing 'expert' testimony to the Standing Committee on Health. That's how low we've sunk.

Wrapped up in all of this is such a maze of organizations, you'll be needing some "herbal magic" just to keep your head from exploding. Most have 'Freedom' and 'Health' somewhere in their titles and are run by people like Gardon and Tuck. This is not to say that Health food stores, etc. don't have a purpose. They clearly do and homeopathy is definitely something that needs to be researched extensively as an alternative to chemical therapy. However, I believe that anything with 'cure' or include the suggestion of a 'cure', need to be regulated by Health Canada. Lunney and his pals do not.

Quackwatch has exposed another dubious character who has been making the rounds, when they discovered that his books and products were being sold on a Neo-Nazi website.

Dr. Cassim Igram, aka Dr. Oregano, Cass Ingram, is a frequent guest .. in Canada. On November 20, 2003 he appeared again on the Michael Coren TV show on Canada's foremost Faith-based family TV cable network CTS-TV. We told Michael that Ingram's products were being sold by at least one neo-nazi web site, but he ignored us completely. In fact, he mentioned at the beginning of the show that people had e-mailed him to basically complain about the show before it aired.

Three days later, Cass Ingram appeared at a rally at the OISE in Toronto to raise money to help pass Bill C-420. On that panel was Trueman Tuck, Helke Ferrie, and MP James Lunney. It seems that the "freedom" to sell nutraceuticals is heavily entwined with right-wing politics around the world. Some of these agendas are anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-tax, etc. A few years ago the Consumer Health Organization's Total Health Expo, where Cass Ingram regularly appears, was in the spotlight because Eustace Mullins, a self-proclaimed rabid anti-Semite was cancelled after numerous complaints were filed.

... Ingram still wanders around North America proclaiming that he has the answer to SARS, toxigenic E. coli, and other ills despite all of this? Hmmm.........Could it be it improves his bottom line? ... Now Trueman Tuck has hooked up with Nick Jerch in another attempt to support nutraceutical misadventures.

I checked out the website they mentioned; Free American, and it is extremely racial. They have a video touting Hitler as a hero and promote a book claiming that "2000 years ago the bible told us of the coming of the New World Order as the English Beast, the mark of the beast and warned us about the Jews who would say they are Jews but are not. Jesus told us they were liars and of their father Satan." This is quite a racket.

Now I don't believe that Lunney or Tuck are involved with any of that, and as David Lethbridge reminds us: "Wherever we find tendencies to irrationalism and conspiracy-mongering, there we find fertile ground in which fascism can grow, or a movement which fascism can exploit. These tendencies are rife within the ever-expanding and overlapping alternative medicine, New Age, and tax refusal* circles." (2)

But there is another element that binds these groups together: "faith healing". That's up next.

Footnotes:

Trueman Tuck also runs a site TaxTyranny.ca

Sources:

1. Cass Ingram's oregano oil products and books sold by neo-nazi web site, Quackery Watch Canada

2. Prescription For Fascism: Alternative Medicine and Right-Wing Politics, By David Lethbridge, April 2001

If the Issue is Not Whether You Broke a Few Rules, or Took a Few Liberties, What is it About?

During the Congressional hearings into the possible criminal actions of Goldman-Sachs, CEO Lloyd Blankfein said:

“The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our in-the-dark counterparties; we did. But you can’t hold a whole bank responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole banking system? And if the whole banking system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our financial institutions in general?

“I put it to you, Carl Levin! Isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!”

Who was bad mouthing the United States of America? This was an investigation into the actions of one firm, gambling on the failure of the sub-prime mortgage industry.

The same sub-prime mortgage industry that Jim Flaherty now has us heavily invested in.

So who is Lloyd Blankfein?

According to Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks in their new book The Trouble With Billionaires:

For the most part, Western governments did little to clip the wings of Bankers, who continued to reward themselves exorbitantly even after they'd devastated the global economy in 2008. The one exception was Britain. After bailing out its banks for more than $1.6 trillion, Britain's Labour government slapped a 50 percent tax on bank bonuses in the fall of 2009. The move prompted howls of protests from the banking elite, including foreign banks operating in Britain.

As the furor grew, Goldman Sachs, the legendary Wall Street firm, quietly informed a key British media outlet that it was considering relocating its massive London operation to Geneva, signalling that its top officials had no intention of submitting to higher taxes. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who received $73 million in compensation in '007 and had amassed some $500 million in Goldman stock, revealed how little the crash of 2008 had affected bankers' perception of themselves and their role in society. In an interview with The Sunday Times of London, Blankfein steadfastly defended his company and himself, explaining that he was just a banker "doing God's work."' (1)

A banker doing God's work. Was it God's work to rake in profits while people lost their homes? And yet that's just what Goldman Sachs did.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged global investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs with subprime fraud on Friday, April 16, 2010. The SEC claims that Goldman Sachs intentionally defrauded investors with a risky hedge fund that was backed with ill-fated subprime mortgages.

And guess who Jim Flaherty hired for advice on our banking industry? An adviser from Goldman Sachs.





Sources:

1. The Trouble With Billionaires, By Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, Viking Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-670-06419-9, Pg. 15

Yes. God Knows Some Very Stupid Things Were Done.

When the World Economic Forum convened at Davos in January of 2009, the mood was somber. Or at least it should have been. After all, these movers and shakers had been responsible for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And many in attendance had been the recipients of the largest taxpayer bailouts in history. People who would normally scream against government interference, had not only welcomed it, but demanded it.

And despite this helping hand from taxpayers, Wall Street bankers still saw fit to pay themselves a record $140 billion in bonuses in 2009, even beating their 2007 record. Seems perverse, and yet there appeared to be little objection.

And many of the elite were determined to shake off any responsibility for the 2008 financial meltdown. Not just those on Wall Street, who directly engineered it, but also those in government, who dismantled the regulatory walls, or simply encouraged the culture of greed that brought it about. (1)

According to Julian Glover, who covered the event for the UK Guardian:

... few people here will admit to have done anything personally wrong. The boss of JP Morgan Chase, James Dimon, is an exception: "I take full blame, yes. God knows some very stupid things were done." But he can say that with the confidence of a survivor.

... There is no real sense of collective guilt, or serious consideration of what to do next, other than rebuild the world that has just been lost. Davos has the air of a crash inquiry into an airline that intends to keep on flying. One hero, alone among thousands, suggested that the bankers should simply be jailed until they give the money back. The problem with that is that most of them have no money to return. The ocean on which the global boom floated has evaporated.

Yes, pay the money back. What a novel idea, but not something that's likely to happen. In fact they continue to demand more and more tax dollars, so they can continue their reckless behaviour.

Canada was represented at Davos in 2009, by Stockwell Day and Jim Flaherty, who were chest thumping over our strong banking sector. But what they didn't mention was that Jim Flaherty had bailed out our banks to the tune of 150 billion dollars, by buying up on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, all the rotten paper.

And Canada's bankers were not immune to the disease of greed, because they took 8 billion dollars of that taxpayer handout, and gave it as bonuses to their executives. And with additional tax cuts, they handed out another 10 billion this year.

And while we may now own a bit of those banks, we are still being hit with enormous bank fees. No breaks for the unemployed. No job creation. Nothing. Just 150 billion dollars of our money, and more to come.

The 'Free Market' theory is failing us, especially when those who want to be left alone to regulate themselves, come to us with their hands out, whenever they get into trouble.

Enough is enough.





Sources:

1. The Trouble With Billionaires, By Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, Viking Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-670-06419-9, Pg. 2

Tory Backbenchers Found Bound and Gagged

In Harper's ongoing attempt to keep his caucus bound and gagged, we learn how totalitarian he has become. All messages are scripted by his office and any MP daring to go off text, risks dismissal.

Rather ironic that our soldiers are supposedly fighting for our freedom, while the government is slowing taking away ours. We have a right to know what our elected officials are doing, not just what Harper tells us they're doing.

I guess their next campaign slogan should be 'Vote Conservative. We'll never bore you with the details'.

Backbenchers reluctant to express views
Only 2 of 41 Tory MPs agreed to talk to Star
May 27, 2008
Joanna Smith Richard Brennan
Ottawa Bureau
Toronto Star

OTTAWA–When former Liberal public safety minister Anne McLellan appeared before Parliament's public accounts committee looking into the RCMP pension scandal last year, she expected tough questions.

But she was taken aback by the harsh digs from one young Tory MP, "just a charming, quiet guy," who joined the others in grilling her. When the meeting – derailed by over-the-top partisanship from both the Tories and the Liberals – was over, the MP walked up to McLellan, she said, looking a little sheepish.

"I'm sorry," she said he told her. "This isn't how I like to do things."

McLellan was reluctant to share this private moment between two politicians. But she said it is an example of how individual MPs are getting swept up in an "overly partisan atmosphere" she attributes to four years of minority parliaments and the "tone from the top" coming from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his office. Along the way, she said MPs are losing the human voices they brought to Parliament Hill in the first place.

Conservative MPs are strongly discouraged from speaking their minds publicly – be it to the media, in committees, or the House of Commons – on any given issue without approval from the government's communications staff. As a result, the story of the muzzling of government backbenchers is inherently difficult to tell.

The Star requested telephone interviews on the topic with all 41 Conservative MPs in Ontario last week. Only two of them replied.

"I don't clear anything with the PMO," said MP Larry Miller (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound), in his second term on the Hill, who returned a call 15 minutes after being contacted. "I'm known as a constituent person and if I can't take their issues I can't do my job."

MP Royal Galipeau (Ottawa-Orleans), a deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, said government secrecy is "mostly something that the chattering classes like to complain about."

Two former Tory MPs, however, said they were routinely prevented from talking to the media. Independent Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley) was kicked out of the Tory caucus in June 2007 for voting against a budget implementation bill he said broke a government promise to Atlantic provinces on resource revenue.

"Any time an issue would come up, we'd get an email to say `Here is the position and the identified spokesperson will be (blank) and nobody else is supposed to speak on the subject,'" Casey said.

Harper revealed a $1 billion spending cut to his MPs in September 2006, said former Conservative MP Garth Turner (Halton). Turner, who was dropped from the Tory caucus a month later for his maverick style and betraying caucus confidentiality, said Harper warned MPs not to talk about it publicly.

"We sat in caucus one Wednesday morning and the Prime Minister said `Later today, we will be announcing details of this program spending cut.' ... He said, `If you comment on this, you can count on having a very short political career,'" Turner recalled. "If that isn't PMO chill, I don't know what is."

Turner, who is now a Liberal MP, said Harper has rendered Commons committees powerless.

The PMO did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.

MP paid big price for speaking out in Harper's Ottawa
Garth Turner recounts events that led to ouster from Tory caucus
SECRET CAPITAL
VIEW FROM THE BACKBENCHES
May 27, 2008
Garth Turner Special to the Star

This is the Prime Minister's Office calling. I have the Prime Minister's chief of staff on the line. Please hold."

As I stood in my new, empty apartment in Ottawa a few weeks after the last election, phone in hand, it occurred to me I might want to remember this call. So, I made notes, scarcely believing the words I was recording.

Stephen Harper's right-hand man, Ian Brodie, head of the most powerful and secretive PMO in national history, was telling me what I would be doing in the next few hours. You will issue a media release, he said, praising the Prime Minister for appointing David Emerson to cabinet. And you will immediately stop writing your blog.

But Brodie, the former Reform party organizer and University of Western Ontario professor, did not stop there. "If you want to be a f---ing independent," he said, "then go ahead. We can arrange that." And he was gone.

Eight months later, of course, he did, after I refused to recant my comments about Mr. Harper's cabinet choices, or silence my writing.

One Wednesday morning in October of 2006, I walked into Ontario Conservative caucus in the ornate meeting room in Centre Block and noticed Doug Finley leaning against the back wall. As Stephen Harper's director of political operations, he runs the entire Conservative backroom – a shadowy and omnipotent party operative – who never attended such gatherings.

But 20 minutes later, the penny dropped. A surprise motion was made to expel me. Taking the microphone to immediately speak against me were Jim Flaherty, the finance minister I was pushing hard in public to bring in family income-splitting, and Doug Finley's wife and immigration minister, Diane. Moments later, in a show-of-hands vote most MPs did not participate in, or apparently understand, I was out. Shortly afterwards the full national caucus – with no vote – was told of my expulsion.

Within a few minutes, the computers in both my Hill office and riding office went dark, the result of an order, the House of Commons tech guys told me, that was issued by Tory whip Jay Hill even before the vote was taken to toss me from my own party.

Welcome to Mr. Harper's Ottawa.

This is a world in which a member of Parliament, sent by the people to represent them, is cowed and threatened by an unelected staffer. It's a place where a political party can silence internal debate and, in a hasty few moments, overthrow the results of an election.

It's where Harper MPs are told they need permission from the PMO to speak to reporters, and are expected to carry wallet cards reminding them how to avoid the media. It's a capital in which promised free votes don't take place, where a government elected on openness fights to restrict access to information and public servants fear for their careers if they dare speak in the public interest. Where regulators are fired for seeking to regulate and federal scientists muzzled for talking about science. Where MPs like myself and Bill Casey are expelled for speaking, and former cabinet minister Michael Chang demoted for having convictions.

Some may counter, cynically, that it has always been this way. When governments change, the new guys move in, suck up power and put a lie to the notion this is a responsive democracy. True enough, to a degree. But Stephen Harper's taken it all to a new level.

I've been an MP twice now, and with a dozen years between stints. I've served under four leaders and three prime ministers. I've run to be a leader, and sat at the cabinet table. I was a Progressive Conservative my entire life, and believed Mr. Harper when he told me, straight out, he'd run a moderate, mainstream, middle-of-the-road administration.

But never did I expect – nor bow to – a demand that MPs be stripped of free speech, prevented from standing in caucus without permission, denied the ability to lobby for constituents, to raise any issue not party policy or simply put principle ahead of a leader's vanity.

In contrast, the current Liberal caucus of which I now am a member functions like the Progressive Conservative ones of the past – free speech, unfettered debate, fierce lobbying for ideas and criticism of leadership when it is required. It is, doubtless, what voters expect MPs to do.

In Mr. Harper's Ottawa, though, his MPs work for him, not the people. At least those who curry favour, keep their heads down, and hope against hope no one notices.

More Posts on Harper's Muzzling:

1. Another Civil Servant Who Refuses to be Muzzled

2. They're Dropping Like Flies. Another Victim of Harper's Fascist Regime

3. Conservatives Try to Bury Secrets by Wiping Out Past

4. Harper Fires Whistle Blower in Fit of Rage

5. If the Dog Isn't Watching, Why Feed the Beast?

6. Harper's Hissy Fit Has Cost Taxpayers One Million Dollars Plus Change

7. I Love it When Young People Get Involved

8. Some Conservatives are Clearing Their Throats and Speaking Out

9. Why Was N.W.T. Labour Leader Barred From Harper's Labour Announcement?

10.Am I on a Conservative Do Not Call List?

11. They're Leaving on a Jet Plane ... OK. Maybe they're Just Taking the Bus, But They are Leaving

12. Harper Secrecy is a Threat to Our Democracy

How Harper Got Caught in the Spin Cycle

Though Stephen Harper and the Conservatives always claim that the media is out to get them, they use it to it's full advantage.

No matter what scandal is uncovered, or how horrible a decision they've made is, they will always find a way to spin it.

Lately, they rarely put even put in an effort. When they were accused of threatening national unity, they simply said that the country has never been more united. Based on what?

Their whole blaming everything on the Liberals, is still a standard, but it's been getting old and weak. Ever wonder how they do it?

How Harper controls the spin

OTTAWA–In the 6th-floor office of a nondescript building sit the gatekeepers, the bureaucrats who decide what Canadians learn about the workings of their government. Questions on the hot issues of the day all get funnelled through this office, the "communications and consultations" unit of the Privy Council Office, housed in the Blackburn building that fronts the Sparks St. pedestrian mall.

Throughout the government, it's known simply as "downtown," the place where decisions are made on who speaks on issues and what they say. In the Conservative government's clampdown on communications, this is Ground Zero. Public appearances by cabinet ministers – whether it's a speech or an interview – are carefully staged, starting with a "message event proposal" vetted by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister's Office.

Mum's the word till message vetted

OTTAWA–No federal cabinet minister speaks to a journalist, gives a speech or makes a policy announcement until a "message event proposal" has been vetted by a wing of the Prime Minister's Office.

That proposal, prepared by a minister's Communications staff, spells out the venue, topic, expected questions and the politician's speaking lines.

It's only after the proposal receives high-level approval by the Privy Council Office – the bureaucratic branch of the PMO – that the event can proceed, insiders say.

That's one example of how the Tories have centralized control over government communications since taking power in February 2006, officials tell the Star. The Privy Council Office has a "central role in the co-ordination and management of government communications, as determined by the Prime Minister and cabinet," said spokesperson Shawn Salewski ....

Under the federal communications strategy, issued by the Treasury Board, bureaucrats are required to:

• Communicate openly with the public about policies, programs, services and initiatives. ... "Openness in government promotes accessibility and accountability."
• Cultivate "proactive" relations with the media. "Journalists ... play an important role in the democratic process – providing the public with news and information about government, and reporting on the public's views and opinions of government."
• Operate and respond effectively in a 24-hour media environment and be able, on short notice, to inform media on important issues.
• Facilitate information or interview requests from the media, and manage plans and strategies for communicating with the media.
• Promptly address media inquiries, whether by phone, email, letter or in person, to accommodate publication deadlines.

But when has Harper and his team ever cared about the law?

Why Did Harper Hire Company Guilty of Corruption and War Crimes?

Peter MacKay has recently suggested that Canada could still be involved in Afghanistan for some time, as the Provincial Reconstruction Teams attempt to create a new infrastructure for the country we blew to bits.

Most are good initiatives, though the way they are being handled sounds more like a money pit.

But since Canadian civilians in Afghanistan will have to rely on private security to carry out those projects, who will be getting the contracts?

Uncertainty over the Canadian PRT's future does not mean that elaborate, tax-funded "signature" projects such as the reconstruction of 50 Kandahar schools, the vaccination of all children in the province for polio, and the $50-million Arghandab Irrigation Rehabilitation Project will wither and die, Hoffmann said.

He said the projects should move forward to completion, regardless of how far behind they might be in terms of scheduling and progress. A lot of work remains to be done, he said. "We have to accelerate (the pace on) some of them."

Officials from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) have told Canwest News Service that work on the Arghandab irrigation project — Canada's biggest foreign aid project in a generation — is only just getting started and will continue well into 2012, long after Canadian troops have left the province.

Canadian civilian workers from Montreal-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin and irrigation consultant Hydrosult Inc. will soon start arriving to begin their work on the project, Canwest was told.

They will be housed inside private compounds in Kandahar city while the work proceeds. They will not be protected by Canadian soldiers. Private firms will be contracted to provide them security instead.

Security contracts will go to private companies "that are legally registered in this country, that have the right to provide the services they are providing," said the ambassador, who spoke to reporters from the Canadian embassy in Kabul.

Hoffmann emphasized that regardless of the pullout in 2011, Canada will continue to play a role in Afghanistan. He made specific mention of its strong diplomatic presence.

Security contracts will go to private companies "that are legally registered in this country ... What does that mean? It doesn't guarantee they will go to Canadian companies, only those legally registered to operate here.

I have always supported our soldiers, but not the war. It would appear however, that just like the Bush Administration, the Conservative government is poised to make some of their cronies very rich.

Which brings me to the largest recipient of the contract to build the dam and irrigation system known as the Arghandab Irrigation Rehabilitation Project: SNC-Lavelin. This company was involved in one of the largest corruption trials in India, and has been complicit in war crimes in Iraq. Harper sure can pick 'em.

SNC Lavalin scandal

The CBI stated that Vijayan along with other accused had 'fraudulently with dishonest intention' of showing undue favour to SNC Lavalin entered into only a 'non binding' memorandum of understanding on April 25, 1998 for MCC instead of a legally valid MOA which facilitated Lavlin to back out from the commitment later, thereby 'cheating the government. ....

The investigations revealed that supply contract for renovation and modernisation of the Panniyar, Shengulam and Pallivasal hydel projects was given to SNC Lavalin at an exorbitant rate and the per MW cost for the same was the highest. This caused a loss to the Kerala government with corresponding wrongful gain to Lavalin.

Bullets over bay Street

TORONTO, MARCH 21, 2005 -- All the 10 or so members of Homes not Bombs wanted to do today was have a dialogue on ending SNC-Lavalin's participation in the war crimes being committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. SNC-Lavalin profits handily from its Quebec-based SNC-TEC subsidiary, which is providing hundreds of millions of bullets to U.S. occupation forces across the globe.

But SNC-Lavalin management would have none of it, preferring to treat Homes not Bombs as a security threat. In their largest display of force yet, some three dozen Metro Police, eight wearing riot visors and riding horses -- backed up with two police wagons ready to cart folks away -- were on hand early today at the Etobicoke offices of the firm, which has been the site of two prior, peaceful protests.

All this for a group of ten people with placards and flyers calling for an end to the profits being made from war crimes. And just to make sure we got the point, police immediately accosted the small group as we walked towards the western driveway to the offices. The officer in charge told us that the company had pre-issued trespass notices against us "that would be enforced," and another officer took it upon himself to single out one demonstrator, grabbing him by the arm, without explanation, and proceeding to shove him around. The officer then threatened to attack another demonstrator for standing on the sidewalk.

"Move, how many times do I have to tell you, you're blocking the driveway!" he thundered at her. She reminded him that his police cars were in fact blocking the driveway and that she was simply standing on the sidewalk. Despite his repeated thundering at her, she stood her ground, staring him down until he backed off.

Indeed, police cars blocked both entrances, and a row of squad cars was lined up at the front entrance to the building, perhaps to prevent a repeat of the scene on Martin Luther King Day,when a group of about 50 people, including some recently returned from first-hand witnessing in Iraq,had paraded around the grounds and a smaller group of about 10 had tried to enter the building for a dialogue. That day, police had seemed unprepared, and made no arrests.

Why was there such a display of force today? Were the police simply embarrassed by their lack of preparation last time out (only to be made even more embarrassed with today's show of firepower for the small vigil)? Or has the campaign to get SNC-Lavalin to divest itself of its bulletmaker or, better yet, transform itself into something socially useful, begun to have an effect inside corporate boardrooms?

Bullet production certainly has been cause for a great deal of dialogue inside the building, according to employees who ventured out for lunch and discussed the issue with the demonstrators. And if SNC-Lavalin was trying to deflect attention away from itself because of its unsavoury practices, this was certainly not the way to do it. The huge police presence also meant many passersby slowed down to see what was going on and, having found out, honked enthusiastically their support for our vigil.

While some employees refused to look at us, others nodded in silent support, and a few were vocal in their words of encouragement. Some said they were unaware there was to be a protest, so there was concern when police on horseback started circling the building this morning. Once that occurred, the company did much of the work for us, by explaining once again in an internal email that SNC's profiting from bullets was the cause of our demo.

Some employees stood out on the front porch for a short time while we called out to them to have a dialogue on divestment, but apparently a senior manager ordered them back inside. It is that kind of treatment--not even allowing employees the right on their break to speak with us--that has contributed to a
certain amount of discomfort within the company.

Indeed, one employee told us of a personal decision to give notice in a few weeks time, declaring that the bullet contract was one more reason to leave the company, in addition to concerns about what the individual described as shoddy environmental practices by the firm in its engineering and mining projects and poor treatment of employees.

As we left the armed encampment that was SNC-Lavalin this afternoon, we vowed to return, to once again expose the lie that Canada is not involved in the crimes taking place in Iraq, and to challenge a complacent population which seems to have bought that lie in much the same way as many have swallowed the line that Paul Martin's announcement on star wars means Canada is not involved in space warfare (when in fact it is official Canadian government policy to view space as the fourth medium of warfare).

Note: SNC-Lavalin sold its previously held subsidiary SNC technologies to General Dynamics Corp, one of the largest munition manufacturers in the world. SNC Tech have a contract with the U.S. Military to manufacture 500,000,000 bullets per year, for 12 years.

General Dynamics wins military contract
Will supply a fully digital communications system to the Canadian Army
Montreal Gazette
March 9, 2009

The Canadian unit of General Dynamics Corp., the world's biggest defence contractor, said Monday it will supply a fully digital communications system to the Canadian Army, ensuring troops will continue to have access to critical communications services in combat zones. The contract, awarded by the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada, is worth $341 million over the five initial years and can be extended for up to five more years, bringing the total tab to $682 million.

It just keeps getting better.