Harper looks beyond the fringe

Yes, it has been a few months since anything has been posted at this blog, but that does not mean the Department of Culture has disbanded. Oooooh no, it does not. Rumblings of yet another election are well underway, and we're all waiting for the big news, whenever it might arise.

In the meantime, Harper continues to play foul. Thank you to the Toronto Star and Antonia Zerbisias for posting this truly important and informative article!

Harper looks beyond the fringe by Antonia Zerbisias
Sep 11, 2009 04:30 AM
http://thestar.com/article/693897

I'm thinking of making T-shirts: "Proud to be a member of that `left-wing fringe group' called `Women.'"

They'd be pink, of course, for socialism – and also for the pink triangle, the badge the Nazis made gays and lesbians wear before shipping them off to the camps.

Thanks to Prime Minster Stephen Harper, those T-shirts will make me rich!

So props to you, P.M., for letting down your hair, and your guard, last week at that not-so-closed-door speech in Sault Ste. Marie.

Thank you for finally admitting that your government shut down the Court Challenges program in 2006 not just because, as then-Heritage Minister Bev Oda claim- ed in Parliament, you "recognize the importance of women" but because you believe that that women's rights are "left-wing fringe" rights.

Truth is, you only "recognize the importance" of some of the women some of the time. Members of fringe groups such as R.E.A.L. Women, which opposes women's rights and same-sex rights, plus just about everything that doesn't hew to the "family values" one-man, one-stay-at-home-woman and lots-of-babies fantasy.

But they are not "fringe" to you, Prime Minister. At least not judging from how everything your government attempts to do comes right out of R.E.A.L. Women's playbook. So thank you for, once again, opening that not-so-hidden agenda, the one that you would impose if you ever won a majority government.

The agenda that thinks women's work is not as valuable as men's.

The agenda that would treat lesbians and gays as less than equal.

The agenda that would curb the rights of people with disabilities.

The agenda that would discriminate on the basis of race and religion.

The agenda that would leave women without reproductive freedom.

That's because that Court Challenges program your government deemed "wasteful," was, according to its website, "a national non-profit organization which was set up in 1994 to provide financial assistance for important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution."

Not just "important" cases, but landmark cases, many fought by LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund – a group clearly overrun by rabid fringe feminists.

They intervened in "left-wing fringe" court cases such as Torres v. Minto Management (2002), which prevented a landlord from increasing a single mother's rent by 41 per cent just because her husband had left the building.

Then there was the "left-wing fringe" case The Queen v. Keegstra (1990), which kept a Holocaust denier from teaching his anti- Semitic ideas to Alberta schoolchildren.

Or how about that "left-wing fringe" case Brooks v. Safeway (1989), which forced employers not to discriminate against pregnant staffers.

And here you are, Mr. Harper, such a champion of "childcare choices" that, last week, you boasted of your government's failure to create a single daycare space.

"We need to win a majority," you told your enthusiastic audience. "If we do not win a majority, this government will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists."

And later, you added: "Imagine how many left-wing ideologues they would be putting in the courts."

Frankly, I think more Canadians would find the alternative a scarier proposition.

Finally, thank you for revealing your nasty, petty and vindictive side, the one that you batten down when you know the cameras are on you.

Maybe, while you're scrapping the gun registry, you could start one for cellphone cameras so, next time, nobody in your audience can tape you, and then leak the videos to CBC.

So, anyway, I'm thinking of adding shimmy-shimmy-shake fringe to the T-shirts.

Rich! Rich I tell ya!

(Marketing types can contact me at my email address below.)

Antonia Zerbisias is a Living section columnist and feature writer. azerbisias@thestar.ca.

"[Confidence in the government] isn't going to be restored by seven weeks of propaganda."

Reposted from: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html

GG agrees to suspend Parliament until January
Decision gives Tories reprieve, thwarts imminent attempt to topple government

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has granted a request from Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament until late next month, a move that avoids a confidence vote set for Monday that could have toppled his minority government.

"Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a 2½-hour meeting with Jean.

Harper would not reveal the content of the discussion, citing constitutional traditions, but he said the first order of business when Parliament resumes Jan. 26 will be the presentation of the federal budget.

"The economy is the priority now, and the public is very frustrated with the situation in Parliament. We're all responsible for that," he said in French.

Monday's no-confidence vote could have precipitated the rise of a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québécois, or it could have resulted in another election, depending on the Governor General's response.

The decision to suspend Parliament — made after Jean cut short a two-week trip to Europe — only gives the Tories a reprieve until Parliament resumes in six weeks. At that point, the party could be brought down when it tables the budget, which would be a confidence vote, as all money bills are.

In the interim, the Tories will continue to wage a public relations blitz against the Liberal-NDP coalition. But the opposition parties showed no sign of easing talks of a coalition and planned to continue waging their own campaigns to gain public support.

'Monumental change' required: Dion

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion accused Harper of "running away" from Parliament and said only a "monumental change" from the prime minister would change his position on toppling the government.

"Warm sentiments are not enough. His behaviour must change," Dion told reporters.

NDP Leader Jack Layton suggested that his party may even try to bring down the government at the first opportunity — voting against a speech from the throne even before the Conservatives table the budget.

"We need a government that actually believes in what it's doing," Layton told reporters.

"[Confidence in the government] isn't going to be restored by seven weeks of propaganda."

He also accused Harper of attacking democracy by using a "parliamentary trick to put the locks on the door" so MPs cannot express themselves.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, meanwhile, accused Harper of denigrating Quebec voters and asking his supporters to engage in the "worst attacks" against Quebecers since the Meech Lake Accord.

The reference was to the failed negotiations in 1987 aimed at bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fold under then prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Asked whether the Bloc might support the Conservative budget, Duceppe said he would be surprised if Harper met their demands.

Supporters greeted Harper

Harper was greeted by about 40 chanting supporters, including many Tory staffers, when he arrived at Rideau Hall, the Governor General's residence, at 9:30 a.m. ET. A single anti-Harper demonstrator stood waving a sign reading "Harper Must Go."

Opposition parties had hoped to have a word with the Governor General before she made her decision. They planned to present her with a petition with signatures from all NDP and Liberal members that the Conservatives had lost the confidence of the House and urging her to accept a coalition government.

Dion, who would head the proposed coalition, had said he sent a letter to Jean on Wednesday, urging her to reject any attempt by Harper to prorogue Parliament.

The Conservatives have lost the confidence of the majority of members of the House of Commons — largely because of their, in the opposition's view, inadequate reaction to Canada's financial crunch — and thus "have lost the right to govern," Dion said.

The Conservative leader had vowed to use "every legal means" to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition government from taking power and took to the airwaves late Wednesday to make his case to the public.

In a five-minute, pre-recorded statement Wednesday night, Harper spoke bluntly against the coalition backed by "separatists," saying the federal government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together in the face of the global economic crisis.

Economic statement lambasted

The coalition sprang up after the Tories released an economic statement that was lambasted by the opposition parties.

They accused Harper of doing nothing to address the current economic crisis and slammed what they saw as ideologically driven measures such as the proposed elimination of subsidies for political parties, a three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike and limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity.

Harper has since backed down on those contentious issues, but the opposition has pushed forward with the coalition.

The coalition — which would have a 24-member cabinet composed of six NDP and 18 Liberal MPs — has vowed to make an economic stimulus package a priority, proposing a multibillion-dollar plan that would include help for the auto and forestry sectors.

With 77 Liberal MPs and 37 New Democrats, plus the support of 49 Bloc members, the three parties have more seats than the 143 held by the Tories.

Why the opposition can't back down now

Sixty-two percent of Canadians said NO to Harper on Oct 14... we must continue saying NO!
Contact your MP! Tell her/him you reject Harper and support a coalition!

Reposted from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081129.WReid29/BNStory/Front

Why the opposition can't back down now
The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois will never get a better chance to take out Stephen Harper
SCOTT REID, Globe and Mail Update, November 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM EST

First things first: take him out.

After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the jungles of Parliament. He is a threat to the future viability of the Liberals. A blood simple opponent of the NDP and the only serious contemporary challenge to the Bloc Quebecois. Without him, his party is an unlikely combination of Reform Party leftovers, Harris refugees and Red Tory desperates. They don't matter or even exist without Mr. Harper. So before you think a moment longer, opposition leaders, think on that.

And if that's not compelling enough, remember: He doesn't play to win. He plays to conquer. Under his guidance, the public interest is always subjugated to his personal political advancement. And he poisons Parliament with an extreme, bare-fanged breed of partisanship that has no hope of repair until he is banished.

This becomes relevant because suddenly, he is weak. In fact, at this particular moment, he is almost unable to defend himself. Owing to a ridiculously ill-considered act of hubris, he has laid himself vulnerable to his opponents. Their imperative could not be more clear: kill him. Kill him dead. Do not, whatever you do, provide him with an opportunity to extend his hold on power. Because you can be damn certain he will never again be so reckless as to give you a chance to finish him off.

Fate tends to be grudging with gifts of this significance. To ignore it would be an error every bit as historic as the one Mr. Harper himself has made.

So don't get fancy. Don't get confused. And don't get weak in the knees. If you don't put Mr. Harper in his grave, he'll put you in yours.

The next question is how. Nothing should be taken for granted. The guy has bought himself a week. And he'll use it to his advantage. He'll spend money, time and every ounce of energy to make it difficult on the Opposition.

Already, he's abandoning the liability of his own electoral financing proposals. He'll further correct his mistakes by having Jim Flaherty tease out talk of stimulus. He'll attack the legitimacy of an unelected "Prime Minister Dion." He'll turn the Liberal caucus loose on itself. And he will have success in rallying public opinion to his side.

Here's why: Already, the debate has shifted from the illegitimacy of what Mr. Harper has done to the illegitimacy of what comes next.

So be smart. Be deserving. Prove your case and show you have a plan that serves the public interest. Above all else, use the coming week to exert real leadership on the issues that matter.

The next few days are a campaign. Mr. Harper is no longer on trial; the coalition is. So take the initiative, show leadership and demonstrate competence.

That effort must first focus on the economy. Start with an articulation of how the coalition would direct the stimulus that the Conservatives withheld. Indicate that you will create a fund to echo U.S. investment in the auto sector. Express a willingness to create incentives to boost the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Announce an advisory board that is widely held and draws on the most talented that business and labour have to offer. Above all else, show that you're prepared to act, that you enjoy the support of serious people and that you will be guided by the need to create jobs and protect middle-class Canadians.

The other elephant in the room is leadership. Stephane Dion has bargained his way to the drive wheel of the new government. Good for him, but only if it suits the greater good. If Mr. Dion can make his case, then great. If he can't, move to an alternative - and do it fast.

Mr. Harper knows that his greatest advantage lies in Mr. Dion's weakness. The coalition can't let that impulse triumph. Don't permit the defeat of Mr. Harper to depend upon Mr. Dion's personal credibility - or that of any single individual, for that matter. There's too much at stake.

The coalition must be ruthless. Be quick to signal that if Mr. Dion can't win the confidence of his own party, or the country, an alternative will be identified before the vote in the House.

Mr. Harper will spend the next week marketing the evils of the coalition. And he'll do it like his life depends upon it - because politically, it does. The coalition can't show weakness or indecision. It must be clear in its determination to finish off Mr. Harper, to market its own virtues and to offer a leadership that Canadians find acceptable. It has to prove its legitimacy.

This is a rare moment in political history. A prime minister has been foolish enough to sacrifice control over his destiny to others. We know that Mr. Harper is tough. Between now and Dec. 8, we'll find out if the opposition is tougher.

Scott Reid was the communications director for former prime minister Paul Martin

Tory views on women's rights perfectly clear

Reposted from: http://www.thestar.com/living/article/539189
Antonia Zerbisias, Toronto Star, November 19, 2008

Stephen Harper can put on all the warm and fuzzy sweaters he likes, smile and say soothing things to politically moderate Canadians but, every time his base speaks out, the Prime Minister's carefully crafted image begins to unravel.

This was evident during the Conservative national policy convention in Winnipeg last weekend, at least when it came to issues concerning women.

Passed were three policy resolutions that affect women, and their rights, and choices.

In ascending order of outrageousness, they are:

Resolution P-305 would allow for income splitting for families with children, which would ease the tax burden on the main earner and put more cash in the couple's pockets.

That means spouses – usually women – who don't work outside of the home for pay could also get some financial reward for their contributions to the family, assuming, of course, that they actually see some of the dough.

Now, on the surface, this is great.

Except for one thing: It discriminates against single-parent families, many of who struggle to make ends meet.

It also works more to the benefit of the rich than the middle classes. The more income that a couple can split, the bigger and better the tax break. And aren't non-working spouses dependents anyway?

What income splitting as official policy really says is, especially in the absence of a national daycare program, a woman's place is in the home.

Resolution P-213 should hardly come as a surprise to anybody following the Harper government's efforts to wipe out any and all support for women's rights.

The proposal eliminates support for full gender equality as well as equal pay for work of equal value.

Let me repeat that: It would eliminate support for full gender equality.

Oh it couches that in airy fairy speak, stating that the party is all for "the full participation of women in the social, economic, and cultural life of Canada." But the phrase "gender equality" was scrubbed and equal pay will only go for "equal work."

That means male parking lot attendants can continue to make more than female child care workers, even if the latter have university educations and are entrusted with your precious kid instead of your car.

Which says a lot about where the Cons stand on the issue of women's work and independence.

And, if you still don't get their agenda, consider what bloggers Dr. Dawg and Danielle Takacs both reported from the floor. At least one delegate objected to the resolution because women already have it "too good" and the proposal should have included men.

Last but, oh so very far from least, is Resolution P-207 which is all about, here we go again, protecting "unborn children" from violence.

Rewind to the eve of the last federal election when Harper pulled the plug on the controversial Bill C-484, the so-called "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" because it contained language that could lead to the definition of the fetus as a legal person.

Well, a similar bill could be back like the stink of skunk after the rain. According to Kady Malley of Maclean's, when one delegate got up to say that passing this would open the door to fetal rights, she was cheered. But, when the applause died down, she concluded that this was not a good thing. Which was when she was booed.

True, after the vote, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told reporters Harper has publicly stated he has no intention of reopening the abortion debate. So why can't he close it in his own party ranks?

It's obvious that, whatever face Harper presents to Canadians, his dark grass roots will always be showing.

Antonia Zerbisias is a Living section columnist. azerbisias@thestar.ca. She blogs at thestar.blogs.com.

Food for Thought

Electoral Reform: My Mixed Proportional System
http://www.publicbroadcasting.ca/2008/10/electoral-reform-my-mixed-proportional.html
Posted: 20 Oct 2008 10:37 AM CDT

Since last Tuesday's election Electoral Reform has been the hottest topic in the country. there are discussions about it everywhere you turn. Still, some people have real problems with the idea of proportional representation. Many are concerned that it would lead to a parliament filled with tiny parties who's power in a coalition would vastly outweigh their popular support. Still others don't like the idea of losing their local MP, they want someone to call with local problems.

Having given this considerable thought over the last few years I think I have a solution to the problem that no one will love, but everyone will be able to live with and, in a democracy, that's usually a good sign. The system I propose is actually a combination of first past the post, preferential balloting and proportional representation. It also adds 100 new Members of Parliament (I can hear the groaning already - but democracy is important and it's worth it.)

Before I get to the voting system I'm suggesting I'd like to point out a few other changes I think are needed to make our democracy work outside of the voting system.

• First elections should be held on weekends, giving people a full 48 hours in which to cast their ballots
  
  
• The management of debates needs to be removed from the group known as 'the Consortium' and made a matter of law, enforced by the CRTC. Any party receiving over 5% of the popular vote in the previous election must be included in the debates and debates must be presented to receive the largest possible audience. They should be aired in 'prime time' on all licensed Canadian stations (television and radio), re-aired at least once on a weekend afternoon and made available in their entirety online.
  
  
• The power of the Prime Minister must be scaled back so as not to infringe on the democratic rights of other members of parliament. Ethics rules need to be put in place to prevent any disciplinary action by a political party when a Member of Parliament votes against party lines. Additionally, it should be considered a violation of ethics for any party to prevent an elected MP or party candidate from speaking publicly on any topic they choose or to punish a candidate or elected member for such speech.
  
  
• Local Riding associations should have the sole power to choose local Candidates. Under the system I'm about to suggest, party leaders will still be able to have their 'star candidates' in parliament
  
  
• Civics courses, including the workings of government and the importance of voting should be a part of every school curriculum and should be re-presented several times over a student's academic career.
  
  
• The voting age should be changed so that interested young people can participate in the system (this too I will cover in the plan I'm going to propose.)
  

The Plan

It's election weekend, you head down to your local polling station to vote. It works the same as it always has, even the ballot is the same.


The first thing that has changed is you no longer put an X in the box next to your candidates name, you put a "1". Under this new system the need for 'Strategic Voting' is gone so choose the party you really, really like - what is most important in this election is which party gets that "1".

Now, having done that you pick the candidate who you would vote for if you couldn't have your first choice and you put a "2", then you pick the candidate (if any) you like best after that and put a "3".

You're done. That's all you need to do, the rest is vote vote counters.


Counting the Votes

In each riding the ballots are counted, initially they just look at the "1" and come up with a total for votes. If none of the candidates has 50%+1 of the votes, they set this original number aside (because it's important again later). The vote counters now take the top two from the first count, and go back to the ballots for other candidates. For ballots where the "1" vote was for a candidate outside the top 2, they count the "2" votes then re-total the numbers. If one of the top two candidates now has 50% + 1 of the votes they are declared the winner. If they do not have a majority though the vote counters once again return to the ballots. Looking at only the ballots where neither of the two top contenders was "1" or "2" they now count the threes. The candidate who is ahead at this point (50% or not) is declared the winner. That person is the candidate that most of the voters in the riding at least found acceptable, even if he or she wasn't their first choice.

Now that that's done the totals from that first ballot are brought back out. The "1" votes are the ones that will determine Federal funding for parties, they will also, in part, determine the proportional seats. I say in part because there are more votes to add here. While voters 18+ were voting for their local MP, High School students were also voting. In an effort to empower them and get them in the habit of voting they were casting 'party only' ballots - that is they were voting for which of the federal parties they liked the best. These votes are added to the "1" votes nationwide and a total emerges.

Let's pretend that the numbers were like last tuesdays vote totals:

------------------
Conservative 37.63%
Liberal 26.24%
NDP 18.2%
BQ 9.97%
Green 6.8%
------------------

The proportional seats are awarded based on percentage of the vote 1 seat per 1% rounded up (but a party would have to receive at least 1% to get a seat). So the Conservatives would receive an additional 38 members, the Liberals 26, the NDP 18, the Bloc 10 and the Greens 7. These 'at large' members would be appointed by the party and could be used to return members not elected to parliament, to fill gaps in representation (regional, minority etc), to fill gaps in expertise or to bring in those 'star candidates' I mentioned.

This is not, as I said, a perfect system. It doesn't give everyone what they want, but it does answer everyone's concerns - it insures that parties with public support get a voice in parliament, it provides an opportunity for minority voters (Conservatives in Toronto, Liberals in Red Deer etc) to be represented in party caucus', but at the same time it does not give undue power to small extreme parties and it allows people to retain local, riding level, representation in parliament.

New identification rules bar some Canadians from casting ballots

Omar El Akkad, Globe and Mail, Wednesday Oct 15, 2008

OTTAWA — One of the lowest voter turnouts in Canadian history began to take shape late last night as voters across the country expressed anger at new voter-identification rules that left some Canadians unable to cast a ballot.

Although it is too early to tell exactly what percentage of the roughly 23 million eligible voters cast their ballots in this election, the numbers hovered about 60 per cent. If that percentage is correct, it would be a historic low.

Turnout has been steadily declining over the past 50 years, dropping from almost 80 per cent in the early sixties to between 60 and 65 per cent in the past few elections.

Tuesday marked the first election since Parliament passed a law last year requiring potential voters to present ID showing their name and address.

Although Elections Canada spent millions of dollars advertising the new rules, it became clear Tuesday that many people who showed up at polling stations across the country only with identification such as passports were not aware of or did not understand the new rules.
"They denied me the right to vote," Lawrence Oshanek complained after being turned away from a polling booth in Calgary.

Mr. Oshanek has lived in Calgary for years, but has no fixed address. The identification he produced and the statutory declaration was not enough, Elections Canada told the local elections officials, he said.

Elections Canada rules allowed three options for potential voters.

They could present a piece of ID with their photo, name and address; they could also present two pieces of ID, at least one of which had an address. Voters could also swear an oath, as long as they had another valid voter from the same polling district vouch for them.

But some Canadians complained that the new address requirements disproportionately alienated younger voters, who may move from house to house more often, or live for periods of time with their parents.

Rick Salay's 21-year-old son and 25-year-old daughter both tried to vote in Toronto Tuesday using their voter identification cards and passports. Mr. Salay said his children were told that wasn't enough. His son managed to find a piece of mail with his address, and could vote; his daughter did not, and couldn't vote.

"It just seems ludicrous to me that with those two pieces of ID [voter registration card and passport], it's still not enough," Mr. Salay said.

"A passport is good enough to get them out of the country."

Elections Canada officials acknowledged some anecdotal problems with the new ID requirements, which first surfaced during advance polls earlier in the election campaign, but described the issues as relatively minor.

With a report from Dawn Walton in Calgary

Labour and social movements have made a difference!

Reposted from: Rabble.ca, Thurs Oct 9

Labour and social movements have made a difference
By Fred Wilson

There is one very strong conclusion to draw from Canada’s five election campaign. Don’t draw any conclusions yet.

The trend is now negative for Harper, and positive for Liberals and the NDP. How far that trend goes by Tuesday is simply unpredictable, but this in itself is the excitement of these last days.

Three weeks ago when it looked like Harper would sweep Quebec, I suggested that we could only put our hope in the Quebec labour and social movements. They have delivered, and brought the country back from the edge of an abyss. A sweetener from Quebec is the imminent defeat of Jean-Pierre Blackburn in Saguenay – the Conservative Labour Minister who could not be more anti-labour.

In English Canada, my union has been better informed and more involved than in any recent election and I think that is largely true also for most of the major unions. PSAC was one of the first to turn the tide against Harper with its campaign on food safety. CUPE, Canada’s largest union, has met daily during the campaign to discuss how to strategically intervene with their membership on crucial issues. CUPE.ca today focuses on the war in Afghanistan and child care – two issues that have not dominated the party campaigns, but are vote determining for many people. The Canadian Labour Congress, which has been relatively quiet through the campaign while it focused on organization in priority ridings, is out today in 49 Canadian newspapers with labour’s political ads on health care, manufacturing jobs and forestry.

Other social movements have also stepped up and delivered as never before. The arts community has been passionate, articulate and remarkably effective. Harper’s attempt to scapegoat artists turned into a Conservative fiasco that is already part of Canadian election lore. One more initiative on the cultural front this week was a joint effort by CEP, ACTRA and the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting on the issue of Canadian ownership of media with ads strategically placed across the country. You can check it out at friends.ca or keepitcanadian.ca.

The grim and frightening prospect that loomed over us a month ago seems to be giving way to opportunity. Inevitably, “the ABC campaign” will favour both Liberals and New Democrats depending on the local scene. Elizabeth May seemed to accept that in her comments Wednesday.

Few will spend the long weekend paying attention to the frenetic closing gambits of the campaigns. It is now about organization on the ground, and word of mouth. Undecided numbers are in the 20-25% range, and a large percentage of those will decide with the ballot in their hand. Herein is the potential for the anti-Harper trend to turn into a wave. It should also be the motivation for progressives to be focused and purposeful, knowing that what we have done in our organizations and as individuals, and what we do over the long weekend and on Tuesday, makes a difference.

Messages from Allies

Vote Strategically!

From Anyonebutharper.ca
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=se4G8t_o0T8
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=se4G8t_o0T8

Video from Alberta Artist Richard Sixto on Harper, the Military, the Arts the Media, the Environment and more
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu9XE4fZZEQ
(link to share)
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu9XE4fZZEQ

Also, thank you all for watching and sharing the "You Have a Choice" video from yesterday. So far it has been seen (after 1 day) by 11,433 people and has a 5 star rating!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=slnN3GMy7Nc&feature=related


NEWS

Conservatives Bail Out Banks
They are trying to sell it as an investment, but what they are actually doing is buying 25 billion dollars in questionable mortgages.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/10/10/flaherty-banks.html

A Green Candidate in Quebec has withdrawn to help the Liberals
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/09/green-liberal.html

Duceppe Calls Harper on His Linguistic Double Standard
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/10/duceppe-dion.html?ref=rss


POLLS

CPAC Nanos
Conservatives 33% (no change) Liberals 27% (-2) NDP 22% (+2) Bloc 10 (no Change) Green 8 (+1)
other points of interest - the Tories are down 2 points to 16 in Quebec but they are up 4 to 32 in Ontario with the Liberals down 6 to 33.

Canadian Press Harris-Decim
Shows a Conservative Rebound
Conservatives 34% (+2 up 3 over 2 day) Liberals 26 (-1) NDP 18 (-1) Bloc 9 (+1) Greens 12 (no change)

Open Letter from Canadian Economists on the Current Economic Crisis and the Appropriate Government Response

Reposted from an e-newsletter circulated by the CCPA

The deepening global financial crisis, the decline in world commodity prices, and the growing possibility of global recession are exposing worrisome weaknesses in Canada’s economy. Complacent expressions of faith in our “fundamentals,” and other varieties of economic denial, will not protect Canadians from the coming storm.

Canada’s Economic Fundamentals are Anything but Strong

Macroeconomic performance has weakened dramatically since the current government came to power at the beginning of 2006. Economic growth has largely stalled. Productivity has declined. The recent expansion was largely propelled by high commodity prices and a housing bubble – both of which are now ending.

Labour markets have weakened, and employment is poised to decline further as the slowdown takes hold. Some sectors have already been badly hit. Over 300,000 jobs in manufacturing have been lost. Yet less than 40% of unemployed workers qualify for Employment Insurance benefits.

Excluding petroleum and minerals, our international trade performance has deteriorated. Incomes for corporations, governments, and some households have been inflated for a time by record global commodity prices. But over-reliance on resource extraction is not a sustainable basis for our future economic progress. Meanwhile, in large part as a consequence of this growing resource reliance, Canada has failed miserably to do its part in the urgent global effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Although Canadian financial institutions did not engage as aggressively in risky practices as their U.S. counterparts, the Bank of Canada has already had to step in to provide many billions of dollars in short-term liquidity. Credit conditions in Canada are becoming more uncertain, restricted, and costly, and this will inevitably constrain spending and output in the months ahead.

Canadian households are more indebted than ever, with $1.25 of debt for every dollar of disposable income. Amid gloomy headlines, falling stock and housing prices, and precarious household finances, Canadians are starting to cut back on consumer spending.

Many Canadians did not benefit much during the good times: poverty rates in Canada did not meaningfully decline and real wages have hardly increased at all, even while corporate profits surged to all-time highs. But the prospect of recession now threatens all of us with hardship – whether we shared in the good times or not.

Crisis Demands an Active Government Response

The general approach of Canadian economic policy in recent years has been to reduce the scope of government (through tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization), ratify the growing resource orientation of Canada’s economy, and squander the chance to use revenue from the resource boom to enhance long-run productivity, prosperity, and stability. Some politicians wish to further reduce the size and influence of the public sector.

The dramatic events of recent weeks have destroyed the idea that markets are best left to their own, unregulated devices. The enormous costs of this complacency have been clearly demonstrated. Government and its institutions must now show leadership and play a more active role in stabilizing financial markets, stimulating real investment, and maintaining employment and incomes.

The spreading downturn in both the financial and the real sides of the economy is likely to undermine spending and employment levels in many regions and sectors of Canada’s economy. Income support measures, employment insurance in particular, should be strengthened. In addition, public infrastructure projects, including those aimed at reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and expanding affordable housing, should be ramped up to maintain employment and production (as private-sector activity declines).

The federal budget is narrowly balanced, and may slip into deficit (especially if real GDP begins to decline). The current government has pledged to prevent such a deficit at all costs, and this will mean significant cuts to public spending as the budget balance deteriorates. But that course of action would worsen the economic downturn and job losses. It is far better to maintain public programs to support employment and incomes, even at the cost of a cyclical deficit.

The Bank of Canada must continue to support the financial industry with liquidity, and should reduce interest rates to stimulate borrowing. But the government must also explore other avenues (including the use of public institutions, like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Export Development Canada, and other conduits) to expand lending to households and businesses. At the same time, the financial industry must be re-regulated to prevent the unproductive speculative excesses that caused the current crisis.

The global economy is heading into a challenging, dangerous period – perhaps the worst crisis since the 1930s. Canada cannot expect to be immune from those global developments. Economic history teaches us that government intervention is essential in times of crisis: both to stabilize markets and to shorten downturns with counter-cyclical measures.

Signed by: 85 economists
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/10/07/open-letter/
--
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
410-75 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7
tel: 613-563-1341 fax: 613-233-1458
email: info@policyalternatives.ca
http://www.policyalternatives.ca

Harper's attacks on women's rights

Women have reason to fear another Harper government.
by Linda Silver Dranoff, Tuesday, October 07, 2008
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=522

Women have a lot to fear from a Harper government, whether he gets a majority or a minority. The polls show that in battleground ridings across Canada, the Conservative party leads among women voters. How can this be? How can we have forgotten?

Just because Harper's stylists and public relations advisors have tried to soften Harper's tough image by putting smiles on his face and sweaters on his back does not change the fact that women's interests have suffered at the hands of Stephen Harper and his government's misguided policies in the two years since he has been Prime Minister. Everything he has done indicates that women's interests will continue to suffer if he is re-elected.

Soon after taking office, Harper broke the promise he made during the 2006 election campaign to "take concrete and immediate measures... to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women." By a simple stroke of the pen (and without parliamentary involvement), he removed "the pursuit of equality" from the mandate of Status of Women Canada (SWC).

Before that, SWC's role was to protect the equality interests of women in government policies and programs. Harper ruled that SWC could no longer fund any organization that did research, advocacy or lobbying to promote women's equality. Then he financially crippled their ability to do the part of the job he had not excised, by cutting $5 million from a $13 million budget.

Twelve of the agency's 16 regional offices were closed. Any available funding was short-term and for projects; there was no core funding and no funding for administrative costs.

Many organizations lost their financial underpinnings. Because advocacy was no longer eligible, the National Association of Women and the Law was a casualty. For more than 30 years, NAWL's lawyers did advocacy and research to support legal improvements for women. Under Harper's government, it had to close its office and terminate its paid staff.

The Court Challenges program, in place since the early 1980's, was another fatality. This program subsidized test cases to interpret and clarify the1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It financed some of the work of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF"), founded in 1985, which has intervened in over 150 constitutional equality cases on a wide range of issues including violence against women, sexual assault, workplace inequities, socio-economic rights and reproductive freedoms.

LEAF's goal is to ensure that the law guarantees substantive equality for all women in Canada. It now relies on donations.

The Women's Future Fund closed, another victim of the 2006 government funding cuts. The WFF had raised money for national women's organizations that fostered equality rights for women and girls, like the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, National Congress of Black Women Foundation, and the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women.

Then there's childcare. Women have sought for thirty years to establish a universal and accessible childcare plan with substantial government funding to ensure that as many Canadian children as possible have access to safe and regulated programs. Under the previous government, all the provinces and the federal government had agreed to a major initiative, by which more childcare centres would be built and financially supported.

One of the first things Stephen Harper did when he took office was to summarily and unilaterally terminate the program. There was no parliamentary vote; there was only executive fiat. Harper's choice to make a limited cash payment to select families did not provide any daycare spaces (much less a national system) to care for children. You can't buy daycare services for $100 a month.

Stephen Harper slashed or terminated funding to the organizations that were vigilant on women's behalf. He made these funding cuts to equality-seeking women's groups and to women's programs apparently for ideological reasons. He wasn't facing a deficit when he did it; he was rolling in the bountiful surplus inherited from the previous Liberal government.

In only two years, the Harper government has done a great deal to dismantle major advances won by the women's movement, working with woman-friendly governments, over the previous 30 years — advances such as family law reform, pay equity, maternity and parental leave benefits, modest improvements to childcare programs, domestic violence programs and much more. Important, respected and effective programs have been crippled and then shut down.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website still tells the world that, "Canada is a world leader in the promotion and protection of women's rights and gender equality." Ironically, the main link on that page leads to a 404 — File Not Found. And that is exactly what is likely to happen to women's rights if the Conservatives manage to form the government again.

Linda Silver Dranoff is a Toronto lawyer and author of Every Canadian's Guide to the Law. She spearheaded the lobby effort for family law reform and is a former vice-chair of the Ontario Status of Women Council.

An open letter to Prime Minister Harper by Wajdi Mouawad

This open letter to the Prime Minister was published in Le Devoir a few weeks ago; the translation is thanks to John van Burek. We just realized that we'd not included it here as well, for all of you to read, in case you haven't already.

***

Monsieur le premier ministre,

We are neighbours. We work across the street from one another. You are Prime Minister of the Parliament of Canada and I, across the way, am a writer, theatre director and Artistic Director of the French Theatre at the National Arts Centre (NAC). So, like you, I am an employee of the state, working for the Federal Government; in other words, we are colleagues.

Let me take advantage of this unique position, as one functionary to another, to chat with you about the elimination of some federal grants in the field of culture, something that your government recently undertook.

Indeed, having followed this matter closely, I have arrived at a few conclusions that I would like to publicly share with you since, as I'm sure you will agree, this debate has become one of public interest.

The Symbolism

Firstly, it seems that you might benefit by surrounding yourself with counsellors who will be attentive to the symbolic aspects of your Government's actions. I am sure you know this but there is no harm in reminding ourselves that every public action denotes not only what it is but what it symbolises.

For example, a Prime Minister who chooses not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, claiming his schedule does not permit it, in no way reduces the symbolism which says that his absence might signify something else. This might signify that he wishes to denote that Canada supports the claims of Tibet . Or it might serve as a sign of protest over the way in which Beijing deals with human rights. If the Prime Minister insists that his absence is really just a matter of timing, whether he likes it or not, this will take on symbolic meaning that commits the entire country. The symbolism of a public gesture will always outweigh the technical explanations.

Declaration of war

Last week, your government reaffirmed its manner of governing unilaterally, this time on a domestic issue, in bringing about reductions in granting programs destined for the cultural sector. A mere matter of budgeting, you say, but one which sends shock waves throughout the cultural milieu ­rightly or wrongly, as we shall see- for being seen as an expression of your contempt for that sector. The confusion with which your Ministers tried to justify those reductions and their refusal to make public the reports on the eliminated programs, only served to confirm the symbolic significance of that contempt. You have just declared war on the artists.

Now, as one functionary to another, this is the second thing that I wanted to tell you: no government, in showing contempt for artists, has ever been able to survive. Not one. One can, of course, ignore them, corrupt them, seduce them, buy them, censor them, kill them, send them to camps, spy on them, but hold them in contempt, no. That is akin to rupturing the strange pact, made millennia ago, between art and politics.

Contempt

Art and politics both hate and envy one another; since time immemorial, they detest each other and they are mutually attracted, and it's through this dynamic that many a political idea has been born; it is in this dynamic that sometimes, great works of art see the light of day. Your cultural politics, it must be said, provoke only a profound consternation. Neither hate nor detestation, not envy nor attraction, nothing but numbness before the oppressive vacuum that drives your policies.

This vacuum which lies between you and the artists of Canada , from a symbolic point of view, signifies that your government, for however long it lasts, will not witness either the birth of a political idea or a masterwork, so firm is your apparent belief in the unworthiness of that for which you show contempt. Contempt is a subterranean sentiment, being a mix of unassimilated jealousy and fear towards that which we despise. Such governments have existed, but not lasted because even the most detestable of governments cannot endure if it hasn't the courage to affirm what it actually is.

Why is this?

What are the reasons behind these reductions, which are cut from the same cloth as those made last year on the majority of Canadian embassies, who saw their cultural programming reduced, if not eliminated? The economies that you have made are ridiculously small and the votes you might win with them have already been won. For what reason, then, are you so bent on hurting the artists by denying them some of their tools? What are you seeking to extinguish and to gain?

Your silence and your actions make one fear the worst for, in the end, we are quite struck by the belief that this contempt, made eloquent by your budget cuts, is very real and that you feel nothing but disgust for these people, these artists, who spend their time by wasting it and in spending the good taxpayers money, he who, rather than doing uplifting work, can only toil.

And yet, I still cannot fathom your reasoning. Plenty of politicians, for the past fifty years, have done all they could to depoliticise art, to strip it of its symbolic import. They try the impossible, to untie that knot which binds art to politics. And they almost succeed! Whereas you, in the space of one week, have undone this work of chloroforming, by awakening the cultural milieu, Francophone and Anglophone, and from coast to coast. Even if politically speaking they are marginal a nd negligible, one must never underestimate intellectuals, never underestimate artists; don't underestimate their ability to do you harm.

A grain of sand is all-powerful.

I believe, my dear colleague, that you yourself have just planted the grain of sand that could derail the entire machine of your electoral campaign. Culture is, in fact, nothing but a grain of sand, but therein lays its power, in its silent front. It operates in the dark. That is its legitimate strength.

It is full of people who are incomprehensible but very adept with words. They have voices. They know how to write, to paint, to dance, to sculpt, to sing, and they won't let up on you. Democratically speaking, they seek to annihilate your policies. They will not give up. How could they?

You must understand them: they have not had a clear and common purpose for a very long time, for such a long time that they have no common cause to defend. In one week, by not controlling the symbolic importance of your actions, you have just given them passion, anger, rage.

The resistance that will begin today, and to which my letter is added, is but a first manifestation of a movement that you yourself have set in motion: an incalculable number of texts, speeches, acts, assemblies, marches, will now be making themselves heard. They will not be exhausted.

Some of these will, perhaps, following my letter, be weakened but within each word, there will be a spark of rage, relit, and it is precisely the addition of these tiny instances of fire that will shape the grain of sand that you will never be able to shake. This will not settle down, the pressure will not be diminished.

Monsieur le premier ministre, we are neighbours. We work across the street from one another. There is nothing but the Cenotaph between our offices, and this is as it should be because politics and art have always mirrored one another, each on its own shore, each seeing itself in the other, separated by that river where life and death are weighed at every moment.

We have many things in common, but an artist, contrary to a politician, has nothing to lose, because he or she does not make laws; and if it is prime ministers who change the world, it's the artist who will show this to the world. So do not attempt, through your policies, to blind us, Monsieur le premier ministre; do not ignore that reflection on the opposite shore, do not plunge us further into the dark. Do not diminish us.

Wajdi Mouawad

Playwrights provoke with political work

Reposted from: Stage Door / By Kevin Prokosh / Winnipeg Free Press, October 1, 2008

***

The Wrecking Ball is swinging through Winnipeg next Monday in an attempt to poke a hole in the notion that political theatre is dead in Canada.

Wrecking Ball is a four-year-old Toronto theatre movement that seeks to address the annoying reality that there's too much theatre in our politics and not enough politics in our theatre. Prominent Canadian playwrights such as Jason Sherman, Norm Foster, Morris Panych and Daniel MacIvor have penned politically minded monologues meant to challenge and provoke audiences.

For the first time, Wrecking Balls are going national, with eight of them, including one here, set to go Monday, showcasing the work of writers venting expressively about the federal election. The lineup for the Winnipeg ball consists of Michael Nathanson, Ellen Peterson and the Royal Liechtenstein tag team of Gord Tanner and Trish Cooper, as well as a piece called Nail Biter by playwright Judith Thompson.

The 8 p.m. cabaret, to be held at Prairie Theatre Exchange, is open to the public and is a pay-what-you-can event, with proceeds going to the department of culture, an ad hoc group of artists fighting the Stephen Harper government's funding cuts to the arts.

The Wrecking Ball will be welcomed in Winnipeg, where political theatre sightings are quite rare. Last season, Theatre Project's production called How to Kill Yourself With a Screwdriver by Devin McCracken -- inspired by the 2005 shooting of Matthew Dumas by a Winnipeg police officer -- was one example. The Wrecking Ball is seeking a more immediate, ripped-from-the-headlines response to events.

"It's a way to unify the country on political grounds," says Wrecking Ball organizer Michael Rubenfeld, a Toronto actor/director. "As Canadians, we fear controversy. We fear asking difficult questions and being too political. We're not comfortable disagreeing."

The local participants must adhere to two rules: Create brief, explosive pieces inspired by what's happening right now in the election and do it in one week to guarantee maximum freshness. A two-hour rehearsal during the day Monday is all that stands between author and audience.

"This is gloves off," says local producer Rick Chafe, author of Shakespeare's Dog. "It's so immediate, it will be charged with a different kind of energy. What you'll hear is right out of a writer's pen. There will be blood on the floor."

Nathanson, a huge fan of TV's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, said he was seduced to join in by the opportunity to write political satire.

"I think artists have understandable concern about the state of the arts and the relationship of the Conservative government to the arts," he says. "My inspiration is being drawn from one of the best (and oldest) political satires: Duck Soup, the famous Marx Brothers movie."

An Economics of Culture

Even if you're one of those [few] people who don't recognize that there's more to culture than it's consumer value, you'd be hard pressed to deny the economic benefits of a strong cultural field. It's no surprise that the same government that rejects the widespread benefits of culture is the same government that's blowing Canada's surplus on corporate welfare and other giveaways that genuinely serve only the financial elite.

* * *

Valuing Culture: Measuring and Understanding Canada’s Creative Economy
The Conference Board of Canada (July 2008) | weblink
Prepared by The Conference Board of Canada for the International Forum on the Creative Economy.

This report highlights the substantial social, cultural, and economic contributions of Canada’s culture sector and assesses its economic footprint. This report is a joint initiative of the Conference Board’s Organizational Effectiveness and Learning Division and Forecast and Economics Division, in collaboration with the Government of Canada’s Department of Canadian Heritage.
See also: ‘Arts and cultural industries add billions of dollars to Canadian economy’, The Conference Board of Canada News Release, September 16, 2008 | weblink

Artists ‘should be landlords, not tenants'

TENILLE BONOGUORE AND MURRAY CAMPBELL
Globe and Mail Update, September 24, 2008 at 5:04 PM EDT

Canada's artists have launched a pointed and passionate attack at the nation's political leaders, decrying Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's statement yesterday that ‘ordinary' Canadians don't care about the arts.

In a united press conference on Wednesday morning, leading actors and artists insisted that arts is not about galas and subsidies.

Rather, they said, it's a resource that comes from the minds of Canadians and delivers fantastic returns in the form of quality of life, education and national identity.

“We should be the landlords of our own industry, not the tenants,” said veteran actor and CBC presenter Gordon Pinsent.

“We know about Mr. Harper's master plan. We know about Mr. Dion's big idea. But it would be hugely comfortable to know that we have a seat at that table – not just in the children's section, not just below the salt, but right there, smack dab in the middle of the big meal.”

The difficulties and pressures being felt within the arts community are nothing new, Mr. Pinsent said. The business has undergone numerous starts and stops, applying “tourniquets” as it went along.

“Yet we still have this feeling here that we are practically compelled to bend or dissolve within the larger picture of the American sensibility, and we don't like it,” he said. “We all want to work. We're artists to begin with.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Harper cast his lot with “ordinary, working people” and not with “ivory tower” justice experts or with a cultural elite he characterized as government-subsidized whiners.

“I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people, you know, at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have actually gone up, I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people,” he said during a campaign stop in Saskatoon.

Mr. Harper's barbed shot at whining elites attending glitzy affairs was curious, given that his wife Laureen is the honorary chair of the National Arts Centre's gala next month in Ottawa.

The performers — including Colm Feore and Wendy Crewson — noted that the arts provide 1.1 million jobs within cultural industries and contribute $86-billion to the GDP.

They say the $45-million that the Conservative government cut from culture funding last summer could seriously damage their industry.

The performers called on voters to reject the Tory cuts and demand that the government restore stable funding, with Mr. Feore saying the arts are crucial to Canada's identity.

Actress Leah Pinsent, who is Mr. Pinsent's daughter, said today it is culture, not economics, that truly makes a nation.

“If we as Canadians are left only with other people's stories .. then what can we be proud of?” she asked. “There will be nothing left to be proud of.

“... We don't visit Rome, Japan or Africa to learn about their economies. We go to experience their culture.”

NDP Leader Jack Layton also lashed out at Mr. Harper's arts comments. Speaking in Kenora, Ont., Mr. Layton challenged the Conservative Leader to repeat in French a comment he made in English on Tuesday. When the Conservative Leader commented on the government's $45-million in cuts to arts and cultural programs, saying the issue is of little concern to ordinary Canadians, he did not repeat the same comments in French.

The arts cuts issue has drawn the most outrage in Quebec, where all four major parties are fighting for close seats.

In Ontario, the arts issue was also receiving a lot of attention, with the province's culture minister Aileen Carroll saying she is “flabbergasted” by Mr. Harper's views on the role of culture in Canada.

Ms. Carroll took issue today with Mr. Harper's comments that arts programs were “a niche issue for some.” She said the Ontario government understands that arts and culture is about “how we tell our stories” but also that it contributes $20-billion annually to Ontario's economy.

She said the issue of arts funding isn't important just for artists but also for those in supporting in roles in areas like film and television production.

“The comments yesterday ... just completely leave me flabbergasted,” she said. “If we can understand that so well in this important province, I don't understand his failure to understand that.”

Premier Dalton McGuinty also weighed in on the issue although he refused to single out Mr. Harper for blame.

He said arts and culture “enrich us not only economically but in so many other ways.” He said a society does not reveal itself through its roads and golf courses but rather through its literature, architecture and music.

“It simply enriches the enjoyment of our lives,” Mr. McGuinty said. “I think that's pretty powerful stuff and I think we should continue to find ways to support arts and culture.”

- With a file from Omar El Akkad and Canadian Press

To be creative is, in fact, Canadian

To be creative is, in fact, Canadian
by MARGARET ATWOOD
Reposted from: theglobeandmail.com,September 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM EDT

Mr. Harper is wrong: There's more to the arts than a bunch of rich people at galas whining about their grants

What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).”

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called “ordinary people” didn't care about something called “the arts.” His idea of “the arts” is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an “ordinary person.” Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. “Ordinary people” pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for “the arts” in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. “The arts” are not a “niche interest.” They are part of being human.

Moreover, “ordinary people” are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. “Ordinary people” have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and “ordinary people” will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is “ordinary.” It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of “ordinary people.” He's the “niche interest.” Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is “ideologically motivated.” Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art! Adapted from the 2008 Hurtig Lecture, to be delivered in Edmonton on Oct. 1