Can someone explain the government's response to Attawapiskat?

 Stephen Harper has just announced that Attawapiskat, the isolated first nations community whose housing crisis has put it into a state of emergency, will be placed under third party control.

I think I'm missing something here. This doesn't seem a good response to the crisis at all. Let me list the things that I don't understand here:
1. Why is the government putting a the reserve under third party control when First Nations affairs is the responsibility of the federal government? Specifically, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It seems to me, in my ignorant and opinionated way, that if there is a housing crisis, the responsibility lies with the government to fix that.
2. Who is this third party they are appointing? A "third party" could be any person or any corporation other than the government and the reserve willing to step in the breach here, as far as I can tell. Are these going to be people appropriate to solving the housing problem? And is the federal government going to be absorbing the cost?
3. Why did it take them a month to respond to the state of emergency?
4. Why isn't the Prime Minister up there talking to the people of Attawapiskat himself? The leader of the opposition, Nycole Turmel just went up there. I remember Harper going up that town in Alberta devastated by wild fires in the spring, Slave Lake. Why is this community different?

Nycole Turmel, showing more leadership than a certain national leader. 

If someone can explain these things to me, I'd be grateful.

Sunrise, sunset (clause)

Hey blog. It's been ages. What's new? I feel we haven't talked since June. I started a new job over the summer, one that is awesome and so much fun, but required a bit of an adjustment period. I think I've found my sea legs now, and I may even have enough time to blog. 

A couple of interesting things that have happened in the last couple of weeks.
I hear that we're coming up on the bicentenary of the War of 1812 and the Historic Harper Government is going to make something of a big deal of this. Harper himself is a huge War of 1812 buff, which is a side of him I never thought we'd see. 

This is actually something I'd like to see the government do. I like a good historical recreation, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to bring out the costumes. It will also be interesting to see our government try and commemorate a war we had with our current largest trading partner, closest ally, and symbiotic host country without offending them. I bet no-one will bring up the burning down of the White House

It was actually the British who did it, but Canadians have been trying to steal the credit ever since.

Second thing I found interesting was the conservatives bringing back two clauses in the anti-terrorist act that seem frightening from a human rights perspective. The first would allow the police to hold anyone suspected of terrorist activity for three days without a police warrant. The second would allow judges to question suspects in private, with the threat of imprisonment if the suspect refuses.

It seems that the scope for abuse there could be pretty large, but I'm just speculating. As a wooly liberal/sheepish social democrat, this sort of news tends to push my buttons. Would I rather the government allow terrorism to thrive on Canadian soil? No, but I'm not keen on them selling out our human rights or due process either. 

It's not clear what burden of proof would be needed to label someone as a potential terrorist. Hopefully, it would be more than just racial profiling or people denouncing people they don't like.

I have misgivings more about the fact that these clauses are going to be in effect semi-permanently. When they were first passed in 2001, they were sunsetted. The means they would expire after a period of time, in this case five years. I don't know if that period of time is typical for all 'sunsetted' clauses. The happy Harper government has said that it won't sunset these clauses when they bring them back into effect. Which means they will be in effect for the foreseeable future.

I needed a picture. This really doesn't belong here.

New Speaker of the House

The house has just replaced Peter Milliken as speaker of the house with a 32 year old MP from Regina. Andrew Sheer, Tory MP originally elected to the house in 2006, says he's going to bring a more "friendly manner" to the house of commons.

New Speaker, saying hi.

I for one found it kind of interesting to see the race turn out. There's several reasons behind that. Firstly, the speaker of the house is kind of important. The last one found the Harper Government in contempt several times. The last occasion was the pretext for the watershed May election.

Secondly, and this builds off of the first point, it was interesting to see the people who would be filling the last speaker's shoes. Peter Milliken served for ten years as the Speaker, which is the longest anyone has cared to do this. By and large, the candidates were Tories, and fairly green. There was Denise Savoie, the only woman and the only NDP candidate to run, and apparently she came quite close after Sheer.

Personal note - she is the MP for my old riding of Victoria. I was totally rooting for her.

Thirdly, the race is pretty much a huge popularity contest. Anyone can nominate themselves to run, but it's a vote in the house that determines it. A free vote, not determined by party discipline. So the results can be interesting. Usually it's the most respected MP who gets chosen. In other words, it's the most popular girl in school who becomes Student Body President.

As speaker of the house, I'll return civility to the house of commons! :)

And like the student body president election campaigns you probably only remember dimly, the candidates all said nearly the same thing: "I will try and return civility and decorum to the House of Commons."

According to the candidates, the workings of the house has become something of a bear-pit, except less polite. Everyone has been bemoaning the lack of civility in the political process. I don't know how much of this is true. If you go by old politicians' anecdotes, the Parliament of old was a chummy place, with respectful debate, followed by beer and golfing. Back slaps all round!

The one we've ended up with, Sheer, is no different. He says going to restore a degree of friendliness to the House of Commons. That would be quite the accomplishment.

Plus he can write about it in his yearbook! :)

I'd like to see if a rookie MP with only a couple of years experience to his name will be able to pull this off. He has been in parliament since 2006, and he's been involved with the party since the days of the Canadian Alliance.

But Milliken, to draw a parallel, was an MP for 13 years before getting the position. That's a really long time in politics, long enough to build relationships, and learn procedure.

Sheer, as far as I can see is a backbencher with only five years of experience. Are these advantages? He better have a good plan to restore civility to the house, otherwise they'll eat him alive.

Long time since the last post. I have been on vacation. Then I got a job - the director of a small news department in a college radio station.

My last post was on April 29th. Since then, a blue tide has washed over Canada, completely to the surprise of most pundits and commentators. The problem with Canadian politics is that everybody goes into an election with the idea that they know how things are going to turn out: that nothing ever changes, and that nothing interesting is likely to happen this time around.

Well.

So we have now four-and-a-half years of Conservative Majority government to look forward to, with an NDP opposition. As much as I was overjoyed to see the NDP break the 100 seat mark, I was in shock over the majority. I was also flabbergasted (I love this word) to see the Bloc Quebecois eliminated, and the liberals reduced by half.

I think it's important to remember that the liberals in many of the lost ridings didn't loose by all that much. Some places it amounted to about a couple hundred votes. One riding, it was something like four votes that determined the outcome. However, in this first past the post system, it doesn't really matter that it was four votes or four thousand. They still lost.

So Iggy is gone, and Bob Rae is in as Liberal interim leader. Maybe this should have happened much earlier. The received wisdom here in Ontario is that that would have been a suicide move by the Liberals, because everyone in Ontario remembers when he was premier in the early 90s. But I wonder if it really would have been that big a deal. He could not have been worse than Iggy. Rae kept his seat in the election, which is more than you can say for Ignatieff. For that matter, so did Stephane Dion.

Let's say this for Rae - he's a seasoned politician, and very able man. He has political baggage in Ontario from twenty years ago, but that doesn't necessarily write him off as a leader. 

Now the Liberals are pissed that the NDP are evicting Ralph Goodale from his office in the centre block of parliament. Which means that they've been reduced to playing musical chairs, and being sore losers at it to boot.

To change subjects, I'm dismayed at the Harper majority. I am not looking forward to what he has planned for the next four years. While he said that he wasn't going to touch gay marriage or rights of women, I say all bets are off. He has a majority in the house and the senate (yes, that matters now), so he can basically do whatever he likes.

Sun TV smears Layton

Do you remember that Sun Media released a TV news channel lately? No? Don't worry about it. Apparently only 4000 people actually watched it the week after it launched. What a disappointment.

Sun TV might make hay on the latest story they released about Jack Layton. According to an anonymous former cop, Layton was found naked inside a massage parlour by the police in 1996, yet he wasn't convicted of anything or investigated. This little story has gone nation-wide pretty quickly. The NDP are calling it a smear campaign, and are threatening to sue Sun media.

Muckraking is a great technique for a flagging news channel.  You pillory a politician, and you rake in the viewers. There are some problems with this of course, namely the anonymous source. While it's a well respected tradition in journalism to expose politicians and institutions through the use of the anonymous source, it's not always reliable. Also, you can't protect anonymous sources in this country. If a story causes a libel suit, the journalist usually has to reveal their anonymous sources, unless they can prove to the court good reasons for protecting them.

I won't argue that they have made up the whole story -- no one in the NDP camp is calling it a fabrication -- but it does seem like a timely smear campaign. Suspiciously timely. Considering that the links between Sun TV and the Prime Minister seem to go back a fair way -- the station is run by Harper's former top aide -- and with the NDP's recent surge in the polls which puts them a not-so-distant second behind the Tories, it looks like Tory sabotage. Or maybe it's the Liberals, who have been relegated to third place. Either way it looks nasty.

With three days to the election, the question is whether this scandal is going to make a difference; Is anyone going to care about an alleged indiscretion from the 90s? These scandals come with an expiry date on them, and I think it shows desperation that they couldn't come up with something a little more recent.

But good for Sun TV! You're well on your way to being "Fox News North." Keep muckraking your way to relevance!

last week of election.

School ate me alive two weeks ago, and I have just managed to crawl out from under it. To all five people who read this blog, I apologize for my absence.

It's unfortunate too, because a lot has happened in the last two weeks. I left you people at the English language leaders debate. I regret to say I missed the french language debate. Every time, I intend on seeing it, and I just don't. Probably because everyone who is not a French-speaking Quebecker is not remotely interested in it.

People should not have been so damn snotty about it; turns out, it could be the watershed moment of the election. Apparently, Jack Layton of the NDP really pulled a fast one on Duceppe, and has been winning support in Quebec ever since. Approval ratings of the NDP nationally are at 30% according to one poll, which compares favorably to the Tory  ratings of 35%.

Well so what? Firstly, this is a crushing humiliation to the Liberals, who for all their posing for being the only real alternative to the conservatives haven't managed to really set fire to the average Canadian's imagination. I feel bad for Ignatieff.

Secondly, this is a rebuke to both the Conservatives and Liberals for running such unimaginative campaigns in Quebec. I think both parties had written this province off as the territory of the Bloc Quebecois, and the  NDP success who that this is not altogether true.

Thirdly, it shows that you can experience success at a national level with a likeable party leader. This seems obvious, but the other parties have forgotten this. It might not be fair to judge a party by its leader, but I think this lack of connection between party leaders and the public explains why Harper's Tories are still begging for a majority five years after coming into power, and why the Liberals are being relegated to also-ran position.

Layton, unlike the other leaders, does not come off as either a doughy sociopathic man-child or ivy tower ex-aristocrat. Disagree with his politics all you like, but he looks like an approachable and hardworking kinda guy. Someone you could have a coffee and a donut with, someone you could form a connection with. 

Plus he looks like Popeye, which should play well with the voters. 

I feel I should say something in favour of the other parties to at least keep up the pretense of non-partisanship, but hell, it's my blog. So I'll be honest: as an NDP supporter, I'm pretty excited by this.

But I'm going to try and reign in my hopes. There's five days left to campaign in, and that's a long time in politics.

Post debate post

Strange stuff going on with the press conference with Jack Layton. Some random man in front of the press gallary shouted out "Why do you go to the debates, each time you lose?" Layton gave a pretty glib answer, which I won't go into detail about. The interesting thing was, the man who shouted out the question -- an Indian man in a dapper suit posting on his blackberry -- wasn't recording anything with a camera or sound recorder. Maybe he had a cameraman somewhere in the audience, but I think that man is a conservative staffer stirring the pot.

Last question

The last question is... too complicated for me. It's something about health care, but I honestly can't get the bearing of it.

Over here, the fact that Harper is not wearing his wedding ring is upstaging what the debate is about. Strange. We saw him walk up to the debate with the wife. Kinda reminds me about all those rumours that were going around about that marriage being over in December.

But apparently, there's nothing to it. The issue came up last election. He has a sensitivity to metals so he doesn't wear one. I buy that.


I'm not getting much out of this debate question to be honest. Iggy is pushing his family health plan.
Finally the moderator asks them how they're going to fund their health care plan. Harper's answer I didn't catch. Layton attacked Harper's plan. Iggy said raise corporate tax rates. Duceppe mentioned oil companies.

And the debate closed without any mention of the Afghan detainees, or the alleged human rights abuse in the g20. Can't really say who won. It was mostly the three opposition leaders trying to drag Harper down. But Harper wasn't in a debate, he was in a PR event, providing soundbites about the economy when he was under duress. It was smooth, sure, but I think it looked like he was avoiding the question. He was  on the defense for the whole evening, and it looked like he couldn't answer any of the questions honestly

It doesn't really change my opinion about any of the leaders, but I think Ignatieff won my respect a little this evening. Question is, how much did that change Canadian's opinions?

Fifth Question -"#fail"?

Skipped the fourth question. So sue me.

Ignatieff and Duceppe have been asked a question about the gun registry. This is not going to be a debate. This is going to be both of them slagging on Harper for six minutes.

Debate season is refreshing. All of the political dirty laundry gets aired. So far, we've covered the senate, the climate change bill, losing the UN security seat to Portugal the G20, and now the gun registry. Let's not talk about the economy, which has been brought up too many times.  If we can mention the Afghan detainee scandal and the mega jails. before 9:00, I think we've covered all our bases.


In reaction to the gun registry, Harper is falling back to his tough on crime platform. Well, it's better than hearing "We're pulling out of the recession before anyone else, our economy is the strongest in the world" and such hyperbole.

Layton just said that one of Harper's policies was a "hashtag-fail". Awesome!

Third Question

"Mr Harper, you haven't earned the trust of the Canadian people, because you don't trust the Canadian people." That was Ignatieff referring to the UWO student kicked out of Harper's meeting. "This is not strong leadership."

Harper will not look at the other candidates, even when he is answering their questions. He's talking to  the camera.

"You keep talking about parliament like it's some sort of debating society that doesn't matter. Well it isn't - it's the Parliament of the Canadian people!" and "It's time you showed respect for the basic institutions of the country."

Whenever Harper gets into trouble, he talks about the economy. He's totally in denial. My colleges watching the debate have suggested a drinking game where every time Harper talks about the economy, you take a drink. If they were drinking, I think everyone will get absolutely pissed by the end of the first half of the debate.

Layton has just dropped the first hint that he might be open to a coalition. Kinda sounds sleazy when he says it like that.

Now the debate has turned into how parties form government. This part is boring. Hey! he mentioned the Economy again! We can drink!

Second question

Was on how Canada can its positive international influence abroad. Ignatieff and Layton started the dance, by making it about democracy. "How can Harper promote democracy abroad if he doesn't believe in it at home?"

Layton followed up by mentioning the Senate killing bill S-11 in November. I knew it wasn't long coming. It seemed like a tag-team against Harper for a minute. Until they started talking about Afghanistan. Then Layton began laying in to Iggy. "I think it's responsible, for our armed forces to help the Afghan people."

Then it became a free-for all. Again.

Harper still a cool customer. He actually looks at the camera when giving a response, while the others stare at the other candidates. I think that could pay off really well with voters. The point of the leaders debate isn't to win the argument with the other leaders, but to win over possible voters.

Reaction from the NCB when Harper speaks.
"I hate his creepy voice!"
"I hate his creepy FACE!"

Somehow Ignatieff managed to tweet during the middle of the debate. How did that work?

First Question

 "I'd like to congratulate Harper for answering a question from a citizen for the first time this campaign." Said Gilles Duceppe

The first two debaters were Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper. The question was how Harper could justify cutting taxes while the country was in a recession. Basically Harper kept harping on how well the Canadian economy was. Gilles is quite the pit bull.

Ignatieff entered the debate guns-a-blazing.  A little stiff maybe.  "This was not stimulus. This was just wasting money, building Gazebo and fake lakes."

The leaders of the opposition have been hammering on at Harper about the contempt ruling, and how he's not been altogether honest about the amount it actually cost.



I think Stephen Harper is a very cool customer. About the contempt ruling. "I don't agree with it. You were determined to have an election regardless of whether Canadians wanted it."

I'm disappointed that no-one has taken to him to task about the Senate in November. But I'm sure that will come up later.

Pre-debate post,

I'm at the TV studio in my journalism program, where a bunch of our buddies are waiting for the the debate to begin. They've 

There's about fifteen minutes until the debate starts. So far, the candidates have walked out in front of the cameras and posed together. It looks really awkward when they try to smile. I suspect that they're not in their element, posing and pretending to be best buds. They're in their best element when they're going for each others throats.

I'm excited to see how Ignatieff does this evening. I've never been impressed before when I saw him speak, but he and his party have been fighting a good election.

Thoughts on candidates:

--Layton is sporting a cane, and it's kind of endearing. One of my buddies, Alex Ballingall, thinks he looks like the Monopoly Man, just needs the cigar and top hat.

--Gilles Duceppe's face is a mass of primary colours: blue eyes; red Face; yellow teeth.

--Ignatieff makes me laugh when he tries to smile. He looks like he's grimacing.

--Then again, Harper wins for fakest smile. He looks remarkably like the Galactic Emperor.

We've seen his softer side before. We weren't taken in.

Greens not taking part in leaders debate

It's hard being the leader of a small party.

You have to constantly prove the to the world that you are a real party, a real option in the general election. You have some minor success, sure - a Grit backbencher defects and gives you a solitary seat in the house; you get invited to the leaders debate.

But by-and-large you get no respect. The Tories ignore you. The Liberals and NDP distrust you. Even the Bloc, which is almost vilified in English-speaking Canada, gets more respect than the greens.

And even though you grind and canvass hard for that 6.8 percent of public support, this doesn't translate into seats in Parliament. Any seats in parliament. Not under the first-past-the post system we live under, where the winner of the riding has to win more votes than anyone else.

And in a final blow, they overlook you for the leaders debate. According to the Globe and Mail, Elizabeth May and the Green party will not be taking part in the upcoming leaders debate.

The consortium of TV broadcasters which put on the debate have apparently decided to leave her out. The other parties told the Globe that they will not be disputing the decision. The article didn't mention whether they were tittering maliciously when they gave over this information, but I can picture it.

I feel this is a little like sabotage for the greens. No, they did not win any seats last time around, but keeping them out of the leaders debate makes it harder for them to reach voters. And that makes it even more likely that they won't win a seat this time around.

Also, I think the TV broadcasters haven't got the right to make that decision for Canadians. It's not exactly controlling who we can vote for, but it does sort of show us that some options are taken more seriously than others.

.

The Red-Faced Chamber.

Last autumn, millions of Canadians became aware, for the first time, of how sinister the Senate has become. Unelected, unaccountable, these men and women lurking behind the scenes on capitol hill are answerable only to their master. When he tells them to kill legislation passed by parliament, they kill -- no questions asked. 

Here is their secret volcano layer

The bill at issue was bill C311 on climate change. It had passed parliament despite the opposition of the conservatives, only to be struck down on the second reading by Tory aligned senators.

 This came as something as a surprise to the general public. The senate were never seen before as the henchmen of a particular government. In fact they weren't thought about much at all. Their traditional role was something like a glorified rubber stamp: If parliament passed a law, the Senate would give it a going over, and then either pass it along to the Governor General for approval, or back to the parliament for another going over. They didn't have the legitimacy to vote things down, because they were not elected.

This is your job!

That was the understanding everyone had. That was how it was taught to me in Social Studies 11. But, this understanding is not written down in the constitution. It's one of those unwritten, traditional rules, which is so hard to enforce when broken.

And according to the Globe, they have been given orders to kill again. Tony Clement, the minister of finance and saviour of unnamed women in distress, has apparently ordered the Conservative senators to block an NDP bill that would allow companies to sell cheap versions of medication in the third world.

Apparently, this led the New Democrat MP Paul Dewer to ask: "Do the Conservatives understand democracy, or do they just not like it?" 
 
I'd like to think that Canada is a functioning democracy. Sure, there are weird antiquated parts, and unaccountable appointed public officials, and far too much ceremonial weaponry than should be deemed safe. But I'd like to believe the process is still basically accountable to the people and the parliament they elected.

But lately, it's beginning to look less like a democracy, and more like a certain game where you get to make up the rules as you go along.

The score is always Q to 12 in Canada

A couple of bills, killed by the election

All the signs point to an election being called within a week. The CBC's saying it. The Globe is saying it. My magic eight ball even said that it was likely.

Elections in Canada aren't the orderly things they are in the States. The come on very suddenly, causing all business to stop briefly. In that sense, it's more like an infectious disease than a government.

Interesting feature about the election: Not only does the parliament stop voting on bills, all legislation that is still before the house essentially dies. Any bill that doesn't pass the third reading by sometime this week is dead in the water and will have to be reintroduced in the next parliament.

So, let's have a look at a couple of the bills that will be killed this week if we go off to the polls.

Firstly, there's the Citizen's Arrest and Self Defense Act, which is in its second reading. This is my favorite bill, personally, because it allows me to carry out vigilante justice.

"The legislation would authorize an owner, a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by them, to arrest a person within a reasonable amount of time after they find that person committing a criminal offence either:

* on their property (e.g. the offence occurs in their yard); or
* in relation to their property (e.g. their property is stolen from a public parking lot)."

This bill was in relation to that incident where a Toronto Chinatown Grocer, David Chen, tied up a shoplifter, and left him locked up in the back of his van for several hours. David Chen was charged with kidnapping, and forcible confinement, but was acquitted of both charges.

Not seen: three hogtied shoplifters, hidden beneath the counter.

It looks like that bill is going nowhere for the time being.

Another bill that's going to die an untimely death if we head off to the polls is Bill S-10. Called "An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act", essentially would raise minimum sentences for those caught in a possession of as little as four pot plants. It would also introduce mandatory jail-time for an non-violent crime.

You're within your legal limit with one?

This bill was introduced in parliament last December  after passing through the Senate. Which is funny: I might just be naïve, but I didn’t think that the Senate initiated much legislation. Or any. My high school social studies class taught me that it was there to go over legislation passed by parliament. Then again, I didn’t expect them to vote down a bill passed in the Parliament, either.

In any case, this bill also gets axed if we have an election.

The next government can reintroduce these bills when they get into power after winning the election. Question is, whether it will be another conservative minority, or whether Harper will get a shiny new Majority this time around. In the latter case, expect both these bills to be reintroduced.

Canadians get to be the first locked out of NY Times.

Do you like the New York Times? I do. Do you like paying for the newspaper on the internet? Well, I don't, but that's never really been an issue.  Till now.

Scrolling down the main page I found this article which told me that the NYT would be trying to encourage people to start paying for its coverage. They will be restricting the number of free accesses to 20 times a month, unless you pay a $15 a month subscription.

You can't really fault them for wanting to be paid. As much as I hate the idea, it might be good for the paper. Anyway, this doesn't take into effect until the 28th.

Except... if you live in Canada:

"The 20-article limit begins immediately for readers accessing NYTimes.com from Canada, which allows the company time to work out any software issues before the system begins in the United States and the rest of the world"

Out of all the countries in the world, they chose mine. Great.

Why would they choose Canada? Maybe they figure that demographically, we're very similar to them. Not in terms of size, but like them we're a wealthy, North American English speaking -- for the most part -- nation, and that it's a good idea to see how we react first.

Squeal, Canada, Squeal!

Well I wish them luck in this experiment. At least they're not testing on animals -- just Canadians.

   

US Republican congressman Asa Hutchinson is warning Canada to rethink the new "Tough on Crime" laws the conservatives are introducing. 

These polices have been responsible for a huge incarceration rate in the states. The costs of incarceration are staggering, at 50,000 per year per inmate in California according to the Economist.

At the moment, the Tories are officially "tough on crime". The government claims that the crime rate is going up in Canada, even though experts are skeptical. According to some commentators the crime rates have actually been going down.

Though it should be said that Hamburglary rates are rising.

Maybe in an effort to be tough on the remaining crime, they are bringing in tougher minimum sentences for various violent and introducing mandatory minimum sentences for non violent crimes.

Recently the government proposed bill S-10 which would apply harsher minimum sentences for people caught with a small quantity of pot plants. This would be Canada's first mandatory minimum sentence applied to a non-violent crime.

Also part of the "Tough on Crime" policy Hutchinson is warning us against, they are building new prisons. Many new prisons. Last year, the feds announced that they would build new prisons in Ontario and Quebec to the tune of $155.5 million.

Are they making an industry of imprisonment? In an editorial published last year in the Globe and Mail, Margaret Atwood expressed concerns about the creation of prisons on an industrial scale.  

"... When prisons are seen as an industry, prisoners become the raw material, and must be constantly supplied. The methods for creating criminals are well known; they include poverty, lack of employment and education, dehumanized prisons where novice criminals may learn from experts, and the criminalization of petty offenses."

The expansion of the prison system may have unintended consequences: this one article in the Globe says that inmates at one BC prison are in the final stages of becoming a labour union. Called ConFederation, this would be the first all-convict union in Canada.

"The Harper Government" is now the official name of Government of Canada.

I'm satisfied to see tax dollars at work where it matters, building a cult of personality around the prime minister.




According to this article from the Globe and Mail, the government released a directive last night saying that the Government of Canada should be referred as "the Harper Government" in federal communications.

It's his government. He can wear what he likes.

This is a bit much. Technically, it's not his government at all. In a strictly constitutional sense, he's just running it for the Queen, who presumably has better things to do. And if he is running the government at the moment, it's not because of overwhelming support from the electorate. It's been five years since he took power, and only now are the conservatives "flirting with a majority."

While the whole thing has a certain arrogance to it, it's small change. If you really want to discuss cults of personalities, let's look at Saparmurat Niyazov, the dictator of Turkmenistan. He was not content with having Turkmen schools, airports, streets and highways named after him. In 2002, Niyazov renamed months and days of the week after himself and his family members.

Now Niyazov could get things done. Crazy things. He banned dogs from the capital, lip syncing at concerts, and shut down the internet. He also made his people build a golden statue of himself which rotated to face the sun (which has since been dismantled). 

On a cloudy day it just spun in circles, presumably

Harper informally renaming the federal government pales in comparison. Until I find myself wondering what I'm doing Harper-day night, or planning to go skiing in Whistler next Harper-uary, or sewing my costume for Harper-ween, I'm just not impressed.