And now the end is near, and so I face the final curtain

This post originally appeared here: http://voteagainstapathy.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-now-end-is-near-and-so-i-face-final.html

As you can see, since I am in fact posting this here now, I have decided to continue blogging about anything and everything that interests me! Yay for no longer being limited to election coverage.

So. It's been a good run. Over the course of the election, I wrote 100 posts (this is the 101st on this blog). And you know what? For all of our activism, the voter turnout only went up by 1%.

Where do we go from here? I could keep on blogging about Canadian politics but now that we're in a majority government situation, there's not likely to be a vote anytime soon so the title of this blog, at least might be a little irrelevant. Also I would have to start taking stances on policy issues not related to youth and student issues, something I've been trying to avoid doing this election because this blog was intended to appeal to youth voters of all political leanings (as long as they believe in the Westminster System...).

I haven't decided on my blogging future. I may just go back to my old blog on feminist issues. Or I may stop entirely.

As for the future of the country? Economists are pleased, claiming that the Harper majority will stabilize the economy. They talk a lot about how this majority means less uncertainty, but I'm not too sure.

Oh, I'm not all doom and gloom like the folks over at The Galloping Beaver.

There will be no sudden declaration of martial law or dramatic day when CPC stormtroopers surround Stornaway or round up dissidents in the night - there won't need to be. That nice, soft-spoken, Christian economist and hockey dad who just wants to protect us from the bad guys doesn't work that way. There will just be a steady drip of manufactured small crises that lead to privatization, deregulation, and "temporary" security measures, until we get back to the good old days of the robber barons.

I'm not that cynical. But I am nervous.

From my perspective, this majority means more uncertainty, not less. Is certainty measured in whether or not there is a clear leader in the House of Commons? One constant you will always see in a minority government is compromise. The parties compromise in order to run the country, which means things tend to run down the middle of the political spectrum, nothing much drastic happens to get either side too riled up. In other words, outside of Question Period, the country is calm. Change is slow and gentle. But majorities can do things--big things--drastic things. And often, in the past, they have surprised their electorate. I find much uncertainty in not knowing what the Conservatives will choose to do with their majority, and yet knowing that they CAN do whatever they choose.

And even if the economy initially stabilizes due to perceived lack of uncertainty--the economy is largely a psychological beast after all--with the strength of the NDP, union party par excellence, how can there not be striking?

A friend of mine, a recent graduate of business school, thinks the country is going to hell in a handbasket. She's appalled by the Conservative majority, hating their social conservatism, and possibly even more appalled by the strength of the NDP and their left-wing economics. Where is my centrist party? she asks.

Another friend sees the rise of the NDP as a positive development. The polarization of opinion in this country is a good thing, according to her, because the parties can differentiate themselves more. Centrist parties and special interest parties like the Bloc have no place in the current ideological landscape.

Can we reconcile all our opposing views? I don't know anymore. We're moving farther and farther away from the conciliatory style, all about compromise and attempted consensus, championed by early prime ministers like Laurier, and more and more towards the down-and-dirty uber-partisan uncompromising two-party republic along the lines of the US. Some people think this is a good thing, and others want to move to Australia.

But maybe my favourite prediction for the future is this. "Stephen Harper is going to pull a Brian Mulroney," said my Awesome Housemate last night. "He's going to do all this crap, and then everyone will hate him, and at the next election he'll lose everything and the NDP will win."

Oh, my inner instincts are warring between delight at the political games and sadness at what this will mean for the parliamentary system I love so dearly...

Clearing the Air on Parliament and Government

This post originally appeared here:

http://voteagainstapathy.blogspot.com/2011/04/clearing-air-on-parliament-and.html

Two things I want to draw your attention to. First, Peace, Order, and Good Government, Eh?'s five principles of parliamentary democracy:

1. Parliament is the core institution of Canadian democracy. The House of Commons, its elected chamber, is the one body elected by all Canadians.

2. When Canadians go to the polls they elect the House of Commons not a government. The right to govern goes to the members of the house who can secure its confidence.

3. The prime minister is the servant of the House of Commons and must be accountable to it all times.

4. When no party has a majority in the House of Commons, it is for the House to decide what kind of government it will support. In these situations, the House basically has three choices: 1) a coalition government of two or more parties who share cabinet posts; 2) a minority government in an alliance with two or more parties who agree to support it on the basis of agreed upon policies but who do not share cabinet posts; 3) a minority government that works out agreements with opposition parties issue by issue.

5. The Governor General's role is to exercise the crown's discretionary reserve powers only when necessary to permit the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.

I think these are very important to remember, especially when we look at the next item, Dan Gardner's reasoned discussion of leadership and minority governments. On the desirability of minority governments:

Lots of people agree, at least about the desirability of majority government. Majority is normal, they feel. Majority is stable. After a string of minorities, each more rancorous and dysfunctional than the last, a majority is the only thing that can pull Parliament out of the quagmire and deliver effective government.

This is not an unreasonable view. But it's wrong. Starting with its basic premise.

Minority governments are not some strange and unfortunate aberration. One survey of democratic governments in western Europe and the British Commonwealth between 1945 and 1987 found that 87 per cent did not feature a single governing party in control of a majority of seats. They were minorities, in other words.

Within Canada, the first federal minority government was formed in 1921. Since then, there have been 27 governments, 13 of which were minorities.

Most of these minority governments were nowhere near as rancorous and dysfunctional as the last Parliament. Some functioned brilliantly. The minorities of Lester Pearson had partisan clashes and scandals — they all do — but they were among the most productive in history.

The story is the same internationally. Name a peaceful, prosperous, well-governed country and chances are you have named a country in which minority governments are the norm.

Agnes Macphail said something similar, in the speech I quoted earlier today: "I do not believe that when you have a stable government—one with a very comfortable majority, you get a good government [...] I do not see how we can expect a legislative program that will be pleasing to our constituencies."

But anyway, back to Dan Gardner. He makes the point that the Conservative minority government worked well its first year or so, until Stephane Dion became the leader of the Opposition and Harper sensed a chance for a majority:

Out went decorum, respect and negotiation. In came insults, stonewalling and brinksmanship.

The Opposition contributed to fractiousness — recall the new Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff declaring the prime minister to be "on probation" — but historians will heap the lion's share of the blame on Stephen Harper. The petty and pointless provocations. The how-to manual on obstructing committees. The constant refusal to deliver documents demanded by the House of Commons. The historic speakers' rulings. The even more historic contempt verdict.

It's a dismal record. Perhaps worst of all were the attack ads: A prime minister who sincerely intends to work with an Opposition leader does not publicly and viciously insult the man he will shake hands with over the negotiating table.

That's the biggest problem with Harper saying he won't negotiate with other leaders if he gets another minority. Leaders of minority governments HAVE to negotiate with the other leaders or nothing will get passed. It's one of the most important checks and balances of a government. Refusing to negotiate will lead to the instability Harper predicts.

Why? It's not a defect inherent in minority government. Nor is it that the big three parties have irreconcilable visions and policies. In fact, the substantive disagreements between the parties are as small or smaller than they've ever been in modern times.

No, the problem is the leader. Stephen Harper gambled everything on winning a majority. Now, after swearing that anything less would cause earth to shudder and sky to weep, it would be personally calamitous if a Conservative minority government functioned smoothly.

Harper said there would be instability, damn it. And he will make sure of it.

It may not come to that, fortunately.

It's likely the Liberals will be under new management soon, which should help blow away some of the animosity hanging in the air over Parliament Hill.

But what would make all the difference is a new Conservative leader, which is possible. Having tried and failed four times to win a majority — including twice against the weakest Liberal leaders in modern history — Stephen Harper may decide it is time for a career change. Or Conservatives may decide it for him.

Ominous.

This is How a Parliamentary Democracy Works

This post originally appeared here:

http://voteagainstapathy.blogspot.com/2011/04/this-is-how-parliamentary-democracy.html

The CBC have an article called "Ignatieff, Harper in war of words over minority scenarios". They've got that right.

So, here's the 411, to use Layton-esque slang. Yesterday, Michael Ignatieff said that if the Conservatives win a minority, but are unable to secure the confidence of the House, and the governor general asks the Liberals if they can form the government, he will try to do so.

He acknowledged that he could try to form a government — without going back to Canadian voters — if a Conservative minority is elected but subsequently defeated in the House of Commons. Moreover, Ignatieff made no apologies for that possibility — saying that this is exactly what would normally happen in a parliamentary democracy.

Ignatieff's comments set up a clear contrast with views held by Conservative leader Stephen Harper over the legitimacy of a government led by a second-place party and promise to be pivotal issues in the remaining days of the campaign.

He's absolutely right. This is exactly what would normally happen in a parliamentary democracy. It's called the Westminster system. In the Westminster system, electors choose the MPs that make up the House of Commons, and whichever party has the support of the House gets to form government whether it has the most seats or not. Usually the party that has the most seats gets to try first, but if things change, that party loses confidence but another party gains it, then that second party can form the government. Here's the hypothetical situation in question, according to Ignatieff:

"If Mr. Harper wins most seats, forms a government but does not secure the confidence of the House — and I'm assuming Parliament comes back — then it goes to the Governor General. That's what happens. That's how the rules work.

"And then, if the Governor General wants to call on other parties — myself for example — to try to form a government, then we try to form a government. That's exactly how the rules work. And what I'm trying to say to Canadians is, I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I'll follow them to the letter and I'm not going to form a coalition."

Seriously. Trust Ignatieff on this. He's right. That's what happens, that's how the rules work. I mean before he was a politician he used to study and teach this stuff for a living at some of the greatest universities in the world!

Stephen Harper sees things another way. He's already mentioned he thinks it's "undemocratic" that the second-place party rule. He also believes that Ignatieff is secretly talking about a coalition:

The Conservative leader said Wednesday he would be “honoured with any mandate” his party receives from voters on May 2.

But refused to discuss what changes to the party’s platform he would be willing to accept to keep the Conservatives in power if they win another minority.

Instead, Harper ratcheted up his rhetoric about the prospect of a coalition, calling it a ‘black hole” that would stall the recovery, provoke more constitutional squabbling, and trigger a “national-unity crisis.” He was likely referring to comments by Jack Layton in the English-language debate, in which the NDP leader said he was open to re-opening the debate on how to get Quebec to sign the constitution.

Harper also declared that an opposition coalition would lead to another referendum on whether Quebec should separate from Canada, even though it would be up to the provincial government to put forward such a vote.

“We don’t know what that government will stand for,” Harper said of a possible coalition.

“But we do know the general outlines. There’s no focus on the economy. There are tax hikes, and of course these parties have very dangerous and conflicting views on national unity and constitutional matters. So as I say, I think the option for Canadians to avoid all of this, is to vote for a strong, stable, national majority conservative government on May the second.”

Okay. First of all, it is FAR FROM a clear choice between a Strong Harper Majority and an Evil Reckless Coalition. Firstly, majorities tend to be more reckless than coalitions, who must remain moderate in order to appease all parties involved. Secondly, Ignatieff has said time and time again that he WILL NOT form a coalition, and in the hypothetical situation he has outlined he's not forming a coalition either. Thirdly, if there is a Conservative minority, what makes a minority stable is having the support of the House. If Harper refuses to co-operate with other parties, any minority he had would be lost very quickly. And I'm not even going to get into the allegations that a Liberal government will mean another sovereignty referendum in Quebec.

But back to the CBC article, where the leaders are bickering and trying to clarify their statements.

"I have never said I will vote against his budget," Ignatieff told reporters in Saint John.

Harper would have to negotiate support with the other parties and govern accordingly, he added.

"What I've said is, I want to form a government. I want to get … the most seats. I then want to offer a budget to the Parliament of Canada and seek its support. If he gets more seats than me or my party, then he will present a budget, and hey, you know what I do with a budget: I read it."

Harper says he wants to form a majority government. Ignatieff says he would be happy to form any government at all. Clearly this makes Ignatieff a volatile vigilante bandito. Even worse, the leader of a gang of volatile, vigilante, separatist, socialist banditos! But Ignatieff responds to Harper's comments about the coalition:

"No. I repeat, no," Ignatieff said to applause from Liberal supporters.

"I don't have a problem about coalition, and I don't have a problem about respecting the constitution of my country. With the greatest respect, I would tell you that Mr. Harper has a problem with both."

Later, Ignatieff said of Harper: "What does he think he is? The king here? It's 'my way or the highway' the whole time .… He has an obligation to present a budget that has the confidence of the House of Commons .… The ruthless, relentless disrespect for Parliament is why we're having an election here."

And Gilles Duceppe weighs in on the issue with clear insight, reminding me that during the leaders' debates some people commented that he has the best understanding of how our government works:

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe was critical Wednesday of what he called Harper's "no compromise" approach to dealing with the possibility of another minority government, calling it irresponsible.

Speaking with reporters in the Eastern Townships, Duceppe said Harper "needs to respect those whom Canadians choose to send to Ottawa to represent them."

Because, see, THIS is how the Westminster system works, THIS is how a parliamentary democracy works, THIS IS HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. We, Canadians, choose our MPs, based on the interests they're trying to protect. Then the MPs go to Parliament and duke it out there over who gets to form the government, based on who has interests in common. Your MP will presumably vote to protect the same interests WHETHER OR NOT their party is government. In the case of a minority government, it doesn't have that much more power than the other parties in terms of creating legislation, except it makes the budget. Whether a minority government is formed by the largest or the second-largest party doesn't really make a difference, because either way they have to work and compromise with other parties in order to pass their budgets and their bills. So, as Duceppe pointed out, Harper's refusal to work with the MPs the majority of Canada chose, in the case that he has a minority government, is incredibly irresponsible and WILL result in him losing confidence of the House.

This seriously feels like the King-Byng affair all over again. In that case, Mackenzie King's Liberals, who finished second to Arthur Meighen's Conservatives, formed the government with the support of the Progressives. The next year, when King's government was under threat due to a scandal caused by one of his ministers, King asked Lord Byng, the governor general, to dissolve parliament and call an election, but Byng refused. Since Meighen actually had more seats than King, Lord Byng wanted to give him a chance to form government before calling an election. Meighen was prime minister for only a couple of months before his government lost the confidence of the House. Then there was an election and King won a majority.

Moral of the story? Sometimes the second-place party makes a better government.

Also, I kind of want to be governor general. But that's another story.

Just a couple of things...

1) I'm working two part-time jobs to put myself through university, where I currently have a full course load. It's a really busy time right now at both my workplaces, so I've been working double-shifts and training new staff and teaching workshops and all that. I have to take a road test next week because Ontario's graduated licensing is kind of stupid. I'm also getting audited for rent expenses, which means I have to contact my douchey old landlord to get a rent receipt off him. There is a weevil infestation in my pantry. I have some kind of usage surcharge on my internet bill. I'm running around like crazy trying to get scholarship applications done because the history department only announced the deadline three weeks in advance. My best friend had a minor nervous breakdown last week. Needless to say, my stress levels are not doing so hot. Remind me again how as a student I'm supposed to be leading some kind of magical charmed life free from the stresses and strains of the "real world"?

2) Once again, two part-time jobs and full course load. In total I will have had 4 days off in September and 2 in October (which I will be spending traveling to and from Montreal for my grandfather's 75th birthday party, where he will hopefully refrain from the racists comments). November will be full of term papers and December, exams and grad school applications. Needless to say, don't expect much posting in the next few months.

3) Instead I think I might do mini-posts when an issue really strikes me. For example, go read this: Long John Flaherty's Talk Like a Prat Day.

If we really don't want an election, why do the Harpercons have to keep reminding us of that?

Also,

"The coalition led by Mr. Ignatieff has its own agenda – power, power, power.
Under an Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois government, nothing would be safe."

"Nothing would be safe"--what, you mean like the long-form census, Jim? That wouldn't be safe? The long gun registry? The freedom of the press, and the ability of MPs to say anything without running it by their Fearless Leader first?

Also: As opposed to Harper's agenda, which is clearly gumdrops and sunshine. Harper's agenda is not at all power, power, power. At all. Nope. No power tripping here. None whatsoever.

4) One of my classes is on user-friendly web application design. For lack of a better idea I'm creating a Sir John A Macdonald tribute website as my project. This might not mean anything to you but it amuses me greatly.

So I have been a little bit absent recently, due partly to the crazy whirlwind that is my life right now, and partly due to an overwhelming sense of doom that comes over me whenever I read the news.

What is happening to my country? I wonder if this is how my great-grandparents felt as they slowly became disenchanted with Mussolini's totalitarian leadership methods. Because I find what is going on right now to be seriously scary.

This morning, I was shocked to read the following opinion piece (quoted here in its entirety) from a Sun Media paper, which is normally sympathetic to Harper (they're the ones who are trying to create a Fox News North):

In just the past six weeks, this Conservative government has made bad decisions that have or are going to waste enough taxpayer money to fund the $4 million "deficit" of the prison farms for years to come.
At least $1 billion dollars was spent on the G8/G20. The cost of which, including lost tax revenue from business closures and more, will take months to learn. And now what will certainly be more than $600 million on a census that includes a useless voluntary survey that will potentially cripple a world-renowned government agency.

The G8 & G20 summits alone racked up more than $4 million in costs for each 20 minutes of the three-day affair. And to what end, exactly? Most of the work was done in the weeks leading up to the event by civil servants whose names we will mostly never know.
The voluntary National Household Survey, which is attempting to play the part of the mandatory long-form census of yore, has been decried as basically useless by most statisticians and professionals in the field including Statistics Canada's two most recent heads. Its bias will potentially permeate through all national statistical models and skew results for years to come.

All three of these decisions are bad decisions and, thankfully, two of them can be easily corrected. This government of mistakes needs to recognize that it has gone astray and reverse these decisions before it's too late: keep the prison farms alive and reinstate the long-form census.

The G20 came as a huge shock to me. I have no love for the Toronto riot police--I know from personal experience their tendency to overreact and power-trip--but even I was surprised and horrified by the experiences of peaceful protesters who were rounded up, incarcerated, brutalized, and even threatened with sexual violence.

This time the violence was actually reported in some mainstream media outlets, which is not usually the case for police brutality in this country. Usually it's glossed over if it must be mentioned at all. And then--despite the fact that most of the country now knew what a cock-up the whole thing was--Harper and his mouthpiece, Dimitri Soudas, praised Toronto police for the great job they did in keeping the summit safe.

We've all known for quite some time now that Harper muzzles his caucus and especially his staff. Between that, the fact that information being released by the government according to the Access to Information Act had slowed to a trickle, and Harper's two semi-unconstitutional prorogations of Parliament--and the underhanded tactic of making announcements at the same time as major hockey events, proving that he considers hockey to be the opiate of the masses in Canada--made me fear that Canada was slowly turning into the kind of dystopic dictatorship you usually only read about in scifi novels.

And then the Tories announced that they were getting rid of the long form census.
My first reaction, as posted on Facebook:

Just when I thought I couldn't dislike Tony Clement and the rest of Harper's minions any more... they pull some stupid shit like this. MAJOR CHANGES TO THE CENSUS. The long portion of the census will now be replaced by some weird-ass voluntary survey, and the data will NEVER BE RELEASED. OMFG. Not only will this result in a crazy bias in results, meaning that WE WILL NOT KNOW ACCURATE STATISTICS REGARDING THE ETHNICITY, DISABILITIES, EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, OR INCOME of Canadians--information which policymakers and others use regularly to ensure that the majority of Canadians are benefited by their policies, information that potential immigrants look at before choosing to come here, information that it would just generally be nice to know--FUTURE HISTORIANS will know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about today's Canadian population on account of how even the voluntary information collected won't be released after 92 years the way census data currently is. And why? Because apparently the current census is an intrusion of privacy. WHAT THE CRAP EVER. I'm probably not going to be around in 92 years, I don't care if people see my census data, I WANT them to see my census data if it contributes to their general knowledge. You know who's really going to be the losing party here? GENEALOGISTS, who regularly use census data to find out information about their ancestors. And since there is a closet amateur genealogist in all of us (there totally is, admit it), this census reform is really hurting ALL CANADIANS.

I stand by that even more than before now that I've learned that the question of official language is also on the long form census.

Conservative spokespeople have offered up a variety of finely-tuned bullshit to explain/defend this decision. The long form census is invasive, and the fact that it is compulsory abhorrent. (Bullshit! Of all the organizations collecting personal information about me, StatsCan is the one I worry about the least. Also--how long does it take to fill out the form, like half an hour?) People have been complaining about the lack of privacy. (Also bullshit, according to the Privacy Commissioner.) StatsCan said that the voluntary survey would provide them with enough information. (Bullshit! The head of StatsCan resigned over this statement. StatsCan said it would be theoretically possible to get statistically significant data from a voluntary survey as long as the sample size was big enough.) So many Canadians list their religion as "Jedi" that… actually, I don't think they explained why this justified cutting the census. (Also, the New Zealand census counts Jedi as second-most-popular religion, and they still have a census, so...) And--my favourite--Canadians won't notice, anyway.

Seriously.

Despite all the headlines and the backlash, there is a strongly held belief within the Conservative ranks that the census story has not penetrated the psyche of many average Canadians and will soon fizzle out.
"It's just another dead news-cycle story," said one Conservative MP. "Most people will look at it, and say, what's the difference?"

But it didn't quite work out that way, did it? Provincial governments are complaining. Just about every organization representing an "othered" group is complaining. Municipalities are complaining. Everyone and everything that deals in information is complaining. Impolitical has a (partial) list of 43 organizations who are against the removal of the census, and three that are for it.

The Official Languages Commissioner is investigating the issue and its potential impact on francophone communities outside of Quebec and New Brunswick. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is even taking legal action against the federal government over this issue.

And the Tories' idea of a compromise is to suggest making the official language question a part of the mandatory short form. Otherwise they remain unbudged.

Way to rule like you have a majority, Harper.

The Conservatives are no longer leading in the polls, but they are neck-and-neck with the Liberals. I'm surprised that they're still that far ahead, considering that literally the only person I know who actually supports Harper is my grandfather (the one who forwards me racist emails).

The third issue mentioned in the Whig editorial is the closure of the prison farms. Where I live, in Eastern Ontario, this issue is enormous. Everyone--LITERALLY everyone--is against the closure. Even at my nominally non-partisan place of work, where we're not allowed to talk about politics because we're technically agents of the federal government, my manager once suggested shutting down the site so we could all go to a local protest, and I'm not at all convinced she was joking.

The reasoning for shutting down the prison farms: the skills they teach (farming) are no longer applicable in today's world as they were a century ago when the prison farms were first founded; in a farm setting, there are more security issues and successful escape attempts; and the prison farms are posting a deficit.

Legitimately, farming skills are not in super high demand right now. But just learning new skills and putting in a day's worth of honest work can raise inmates' self-esteem and general desire to succeed without resorting to petty crime. It also gives them something to do with their time other than just watching TV or reading in their cells, which I would think probably reduces drug use and elaborate escape plots (inmates of maximum security prisons have spent a lot of time and energy whittling weapons out of toothbrushes and making hollow spaces in stacks of lunch trays).

Security was an issue at one of the prison farms, I think in Saskatchewan, where there were quite a few successful escapes. But here in Eastern Ontario, there are seven correctional facilities within a short drive of the city of Kingston, including maximum securities like the Kingston Penitentiary (where rapist and serial killer Paul Barnardo is held) and Millhaven Institution (where the brother was sent in the Tragically Hip song "38 Years Old"). It's safe to say that area residents are far more concerned about a recent security breach at the Pen and the fact that last week a Millhaven employee was discovered smuggling in drugs than they are about an escape from one of the minimum security prison farms.

As for the deficit issue--tell me, are any non-farm prisons making money?

As I type this, protesters are blockading the entrance to Frontenac Institution, as they have been since yesterday morning, to prevent cattle trucks from entering the prison and removing the dairy cows. Yesterday nine people were arrested at the blockade, including a 14-year-old girl and an 87-year-old woman, and a dozen more have been arrested today. Most protesters, including some of my co-workers who were at the protest yesterday, have said they would also be willing to be arrested for their cause.

All you need to do is take a look at the pictures accompanying the media coverage to tell that these are not radicals, or even people who protest regularly. When an entire community--a community in a prison town, in fact--gets together to oppose something, you should probably sit down and think about it. People are not stupid. They have a pretty good idea of what works best in their own community.

Meanwhile, Stockwell Day is still an idiot. Probably in order to distract the (apparently stupid) Canadian populace from the census issue, Day announced the expansion of several prisons, including Millhaven, which is apparently going to become some kind of prison super-complex. A Walmart Superstore of a correctional facility, if you will.

When asked why the government was spending billions of dollars to expand prison capacity when crime is on the decline, and has been for at least a decade, good ol' Doris went on some kind of rant about how there is an epidemic of unreported crime in this country.
Now, there IS a StatsCan survey that says that reporting of crimes has gone down a few percentage points in recent years. However, it also reports that most crimes aren't reported because they're dealt with another way (eg. when your neighbour's son spray-paints something nasty on your fence, you make him repaint the fence rather than reporting vandalism to the police) or because the people involved don't think it's important enough to report to the police (eg. while fighting, someone punches you in the face, and you don't charge that person with aggravated assault because it was just one knuckle-sandwich, no permanent damage). The same report says that 94% of Canadians are confident in their personal safety.
Basically, there is nothing to justify this prison expansion.

Now, what can we take from all this? Some have argued that the Tories are arrogant, secure in their support, ruling like a majority, in order to "cover the fact that they are truly lacking when it comes to governing. Harper knows that without tight control over anything said in the media, they will very quickly be revealed as bumpkins." In a hilarious editorial, Dan Gardner argues that Harper is "liberating" himself from reality, much like the "truthiness" of the Bush administration in the US. By strictly controlling the dissemination of information, and getting rid of one of the most accurate and invaluable sources of information in the country, Harper is allowing himself to take the actions he feels are correct, such as expanding prisons, without letting those pesky little facts get in his way. Susan Riley remarks that Harper's "successes"--the things his government have accomplished which have not caused the majority of the country to despise him--have been very minor things: "a free trade deal with Colombia, a successful royal visit, reopening beef exports to China, restricting pardons for violent offenders. This is tweaking, not leading."

I find myself agreeing with all of these assessments. Since Harper usually acts without reference to how the country feels anyway--his ability to ignore protests, both in person, in the media, and in letter-campaign form, will probably end up being legendary--and controls his cabinet (not to mention the Governor General) with an iron fist, Parliament is getting more and more to be the Stevie Show. At first I thought maybe he was angling for more of a republican, presidential role--wouldn't he love to be the head of state--but now I'm thinking it might be something more, especially since he is now deliberately obfuscating the information that any good policymaker would find necessary. I know I've made jokes about Harper "not being dictator yet" in the past, but feeling the world kind of crumble around me these past few weeks, I'm starting to seriously wonder if that's actually what he's aiming for, or if this is just a ginormous power trip.

I'm sorry if this post seems like a giant flood of kind of disconnected ideas. I'm still trying to work through these things for myself, and trying to figure out if there's any way to get Harper out of office without a heck of a lot of gerrymandering. Next election--and I really, really hope that the Opposition can force one for this fall--I'm going to be out there singing "Raise a Little Hell" with the best of them, trying to get the youth vote (which, in my experience, tends to be left-of-centre) out to the polls.



RUBBER DUCKIE TIME!!!!



I can't tell if these duckies are hunting or in the military, but either kind of works. The Tories in their spare time--because we all know how much Peter McKay loves illegally wearing a Canadian Forces uniforms, and I bet all the cabinet ministers would like to put on some camo and scout out my housemate's herb garden, as these duckies are doing.