Final Words - Frustrated and Disheartened

Stephen Harper is the schoolyard bully who picks on the smaller kids and when they join together to fight back he cries – that's not fair you're only allowed to fight me one at a time. And the Canadian schoolyard is cheering him on.


Is My Country Gone

In all the years I have watched Canadian politics I have never seen anything like this and I have been watching Canadian politics for fifty years. When I was in high school I had the daily Hansard delivered to my home and read them everyday. After that I earned my degree in Political Science and spent over thirty years working for the House of Commons, reading, analyzing and indexing the House of Commons Debates.

The first election I took an interest in was when I was eight years old cheering for John Diefenbaker. I think I can be forgiven for cheering for a Tory due to my young age, but Diefenbaker captured the imagination of all Canadians. John Diefenbaker was a Parliamentarian and truly a House of Commons man. He must be rolling over in his grave as his successor as Tory leader colludes with the Governor General to overrule the will of the House of Commons.

The last ime I had to write about something like this was almost 40 years ago when Pierre Trudeau suspended the civil liberties of all Canadians. But at least Trudeau had the support of a majority of the House of Commons, with the notable exception of .Tommy Douglas and the New Democratic Party. Today it is Stephen Harper suspending the democratic rights of all Canadians. How ironic that Harper is following in the footsteps of his arch rival.

This is not to say that there are not precedents for what Harper is doing, just not in Canada.

1629 King Charles I in England
1799 Napoleon in France
1913: Victoriano Huerta in Mexico
1933: Adolf Hitler in Germany
1936 Fransisco Franco in Spain
1939: Benito Mussolini in Italy
1973: Augusto Pinochet in Chile
1975 Indira Gandhi in India
1999 Perez Musharaff in Pakistan
2008: Stephen Harper in Canada

Is the Governor General to Blame

I am reluctant to blame Governor General Michaëlle Jean for acceding to Stephen Harper's request for fear of stirring up Republican sentiments and because we do not know what lies Stephen Harper told her or what threats he may have made.

But we do know she has acted in a manner that no representative of the Queen should, by explicitly going against the clearly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected House of Commons. And she did that to allow the government to avoid it's constitutional accountability to the House of Commons, by avoiding a vote of confidence. And she did that on the advice of an illegitimate Prime Minister whom she knew had lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

This must not be allowed to happen again. To deal with the specific prorogation decision the House of Commons Act should be amended to prevent the Prime Minister from requesting a prorogation longer than a week so that prorogation is only used to end a session to allow a government to introduce a new Throne Speech, and not used to shut down Parliament. To deal with the larger issue of the Governor General's constitutional decision making powers, I agree with other bloggers' advice, that this power be delegated to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is truly independent and knowledgeable and experienced with ruling on matters of constitutional law.

Stephen Harper is to Blame For This Political Crisis

Stephen Harper ignored the fact that he had a majority in his first term and, with the collusion of the Liberals, governed as if he had a majority. Then he broke his own fixed election dates law, with the collusion of the Governor General, to attempt to win a majority. He then failed, attempted to ignore his minority status again, and when the democratically elected majority in the House of Commons calls him on it and is about to defeat him and present a democratically elected alternative coalition government, he shuts down Parliament, again with the collusion of the Governor General.

He engages in a campaign of lies, that even CBC commentators have to inform their viewers of the truth every time he speaks. He goes as far as to question the legitimacy of democratically elected Members of Parliament from Quebec and uses rhetoric best designed to create a national unity crisis. Indeed he uses rhetoric that experts and commentators believe will increase support for the Part Québecois in the Quebec election.

And for this his public support increases. And I cry for my Canada.

Stephen Harper's Lies and the Truth About Parliamentary Democracy and the Coalition

Stephen Harper would like to believe that he was elected all powerful President of Canada and he would like us to believe that somehow the people of Canada voted for him to be Prime Minister. The only people who voted for Stephen Harper where the residents of Calgary Southwest. The rest of us voted for individual Members of Parliament just as the residents of Calgary Southwest did.

Yes, we voted knowing that if the Conservative Party won a majority of seats Stephen Harper would become Prime Minister and if the Conservatives won the most seats but not a majority, he would be given the first opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons.

But the most basic principle of Parliamentary Democracy is that the government is responsible to the legislature and can only govern while it retains the confidence of the legislature. The normal constitutional practice when a government loses the confidence of the legislature depends on how long the government has been in power. If it is late in the term of the government an election is usually called. If it is early in the term of the government the opposition is usually given an opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the legislature.

Stephen Harper and his Tory talking points repeat over and over again the lie that the Bloc Québecois is part of the Progressive Coalition. That is a blatant lie. The coalition is made up of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. As to the claim that the Bloc Québecois has a veto over coalition policies. That is also an outright lie. The Bloc is committed to voting with the coalition on all matters of confidence. While it does reserve the right to vote against the coalition on other issues it would require the support of the Tories for them to block any coalition legislation. The only way the Bloc could block any coalition legislation is with the “collusion” of the Tories. And Tories never vote with separatists. Well unless it is to get their budget passed.

The Conservatives argue that we should not change Prime Ministers without an election. That might be true if we elected Prime Ministers, but we do not. Take the case of Kim Campbell who became Prime Minister between elections. On June 13, 1993, Kim Campbell was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. As the leader of the party in power in the House of Commons, Kim Campbell automatically became Prime Minister. That is how Parliamentary Democracy works.

The Conservatives argue that only the party with the most seats should be allowed to form a government. What would they say if the seats won by the four federalist parties were more evenly divided leading to the Bloc Québecois having the most seats. Would Stephen Harper and the Tories argue that the federalist parties should not be allowed to form a coalition. I think not.

Where Do We Go From Here

The Tories talking points are reminiscent of their policy approach of simple solutions to complicated questions – inflamed rhetoric and outright lies instead of fact and logic. Add a massive establishment media propaganda campaign to the mix and a large number of people are falling for it.

But Harper may have outsmarted himself. His campaign may be at its peak the day before the scheduled non-confidence vote would have taken place. Though Harper is hoping the “time-out” will give the Progressive Coalition time to fall apart, I believe he misjudges the coalition. It looks like prorogation will actually give the coalition time to replace Stéphane Dion, who, while he may be a competent leader, is clearly a poor communicator. And more importantly it will give the coalition time to educate the public about the real threat to democracy posed by Stephen Harper and his actions.

As to the replacement of Dion as Progressive Coalition leader, there is a way to avoid circumventing the democratic Liberal Party leadership process. Let the coalition caucus select a leader for the coalition. It need not be either coalition party leader, or it may turn out to be one of them. The chosen coalition leader could serve till the coalition government ends, or be revisited after the Liberals select a new leader.

What we have learned most from this crisis is that Stephen Harper will do anything to cling to power and anything to stop the democratically elected Progressive Coalition from taking power.

The bully must not be rewarded. The coalition must not allow the Conservative government to continue with Harper as Prime Minister. The only way the Conservative government should be allowed to continue is if they replace Harper as Prime Minister and present a budget that meets the real needs of the Canadian people.

If that does not happen and the government is defeated Harper will then undoubtedly request a new election, and if the Governor General accedes to the request of her illegitimate Prime Minister, who lacks the confidence of the House of Commons, we will be into an election campaign.

If that happens I would propose an electoral accord between the Progressive Coalition partners, The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, as well as the Green Party. The Bloc Québecois would not be part of this electoral accord because it is important that Quebeckers have a federalist alternative to the Tories. The Electoral Accord partners would run the candidate best able to defeat the Conservative candidate in each constituency based on historical and other factors agreeable to all parties.

Proportional Representation is the Real Solution

But the real long term solution to to Canada's electoral problems is to adopt an electoral process that allows every vote to count and elects a House of Commons that truly represents the will of the Canadian people. If such a system had been in place during the last election we would now have a ”coalition we deserved”, where the seats held by each party would have reflected their portion of the popular vote. Such a system would give us a government that most of the public are demanding now, one where the House of Commons must work together for the good of all Canadians.

Postscript

The irony of all ironies would be if the Conservative budget was opposed by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party but passed with the support of the Bloc Québecois. Would Stephen Harper resign because a government requiring the support of the evil separatists is illegitimate. I think not.

Jack Laytons Finest Hour

Jack Layton being Prime Ministerial in front to the House of Commons Chamber. How
appropriate.

Read it here

Watch it here If you get an error message at the start close it and hit play

RANTS

Well I have just learned that I am going to have to spend 10 minutes of my life this evening listening to Stephen harper spout lies and garbage. But it is my duty as a blogger to keep informed and this will provide a chance for the Progressive Coalition to respond to the government's disinformation and propaganda campaign.

My rant follows, but first of all, Thank You Rick Mercer:



Perhaps this will go a long way in counteracting the Tory propaganda campaign of lies.

This is a time for Parliament to work together for the good of the country, not a time for the Prime Minister to use lies and deception to try and divide the country to rescue himself from his own political failure.

And thank you Ed Broadbent for calling the Prime Minister on his disgraceful attempt to create a climate of fear and disunity through lies and deception. It is refreshing to hear the truth from one of our country's real Elder Statesmen (not that I'm trying to call Ed old).

If only Canada's premier constitutional expert, Eugene Forsey was alive to explain the truth about the constitutional validity of the coalition. However when you look beyond the hand-picked so-called experts the media have chosen and ask real constitutional experts you will see that there is a consensus that the coalition building process that we are going through is Parliamentary democracy working exactly the way it is supposed to.

But I must say that I am extremely frustrated by the success of the Tories talking points and campaign of lies and deception. Clearly the Canadian people do not understand how a Parliamentary democracy works. I am even more frustrated by the ignorance shown by people who call themselves “Progressive Bloggers”.

But it is not surprising that the Tory campaign is working – it is based on emotion and the people are likely to be much more responsive to that than to our attempts to lecture them on Political Science. Perhaps this is where Rick's Rant will be successful where we are not. But we should not be deterred from dealing with the facts. Democracy is about freedom and the truth shall make us free.

Our European friends must be watching in amusement as we turn a normal part of Parliamentary democracy into a political crisis.

But indeed, it is not as if the constitutiona precedents, such as
this one are not there.

Read more from York University professor James Laxer, here and here.

As to the claim the opposition parties are doing this for political reasons – what political benefit do they have to gain. All the Liberals had to do to ensure they would again replace the Tories as the natural governing party is to let the Conservatives ignore the economic situation and continue to lead the country into hell in a hand basket. Just ask Bob Rae about the political benefits of taking over government just as the county is going into recession. The only reason for the coalition partners to take this political risk is to save the country from the mismanagement and ineptitude of the current government. Actually if only it was just that - what is much worse at this time of economic crisis is the government putting their own political benefit and survival above the concerns and needs of the Canadian people.

As to the claim that the Bloc Québecois has a veto over coalition policies. That is an outright lie. The Bloc is committed to voting with the coalition on all matters of confidence. While it does reserve the right to vote against the coalition on other issues it would require the support of the Tories for them to block any coalition legislation. The only way the Bloc could block any coalition legislation is with the “collusion” of the Tories. And Tories never vote with separatists. Well unless it is to get their budget passed.

And as to the most blatant lie of them all.

Democracy Links
Perhaps they could have avoided this it they had acted co-operatively from the start, but as I said before, it is too late for a Do Over.

While this whole situation is very frustrating, because so many Canadians have been taken in by the deceitful Tory propaganda campaign, when all is done I have no doubt that the Governor General will examine the facts and constitutional precedents and power will pass peacefully to the Progressive Coalition in accordance with the principles of Parliamentary democracy.

The Truth About Parliamentary Democracy – Majority Rule

Since some people seem to be having trouble understanding how Parliamentary democracy works, let me explain it for them.

In our Parliamentary system we do not directly elect the Prime Minister and government but they are determined by the composition of the House of Commons. The only people who voted for Stephen Harper were the voters in his constituency and they voted for him as a Member of Parliament, not as Prime Minister.

The main principle of our Parliamentary system is that it is based on majority rule. The democratic legitimacy of a government is based on the fact that it has the support, or confidence, of the majority of the Members of the House of Commons. The main principle of our democracy is not “party with the most seats” rule but “majority” rule. Let us repeat that – majority rule.

Currently in Canada it appears that the Conservative government is about to lose the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons and a Progressive Coalition is going to be formed that will have the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons.

That is how our democratic process is supposed to work – by majority rule.

Prorogation – Government Wants A Do Over

Special Sunday Fifth Column

At first I thought all this talk about prorogation was a simple misunderstanding of terms and that people were talking about the government recessing the House until after Christmas, but now I am not sure.

A prorogation would mean the end of the session before it even started. The Economic and Fiscal Statement would die on the Order Paper and there would be a new Throne Speech when Parliament resumes.

It would be as if the Tories admitted they screwed things up so bad they needed a do over. It might be a good thing but I cannot see them admitting that.

Anyway, it is too late for a do over. Bring on the Progressive Coalition !

Conservatives Running Scared, Confused or What

Special Saturday Fifth Column

With a confidence vote scheduled for Monday and the opposition parties scrambling to put together a coalition, the best thing Stephen Harper can come up with as a response is to give them more time to get their act together.

Indeed, it is too late to send all the Tories to their rooms to write out lines, "We did not get a majority, we should not try to govern as if we had a majority", "We did not get a majority, we should not try to govern as if we had a majority","We did not get a majority, we should not try to govern as if we had a majority", ... until it sinks in.

Baring some Tory-like incompetence on the part of the opposition parties there is little that can be done now to stop the inevitable.

While my preference is for a progressive coalition if I was to give Stephen Harper any advice on how to prevent the inevitable it would be to propose a grand coalition of all parties to deal with the economic situation, a national unity government of sorts. Of course that would require the Tories to accept that they do not have the god given right to govern as if they have a majority, while they have neither a majority of seats nor a majority of votes.

Bring on the Progressive Coalition !

The Great Debate - My Predictions

As an almost unilingual anglophone I will not be making predictions on the French debate, but I am posting my English debate predictions now, so as not to be influenced by the media coverage of the French debate.

This has the makings of one of the country’s most historical events. It may very well be the turning point in this election that leads to real change rather than the normal superficial changes we usually see in federal elections.

Those of us who say that Jack Layton and the NDP can win this election do not say so frivolously. We know the debate will make the difference and we know that Jack needs to win the debate.

So what are my predictions.

Stephen Harper will be more of Stephen Harper, He will come across as a stronger more intense Stephen Harper. His core supporters will be delighted and see him as the winner. Those who have always opposed him will have their views reconfirmed. But most importantly, Harper’s soft support from traditional Progressive Conservative Party voters, who want to vote Conservative but have doubts about Harper and the new Conservative Party, will be placed in jeopardy.

Stéphane Dion will surprise many and come across better than expected. He will not do a terrible job in the debate, only a poor one. The Liberals Green Shift was a gutsy move but his retreat to the wimpy”we are in the middle” position will hurt him.

Gilles Duceppe will not be playing to his core Quebec francophone audience and that will show.

Elizabeth May will be a disappointment. The debate will give viewers a chance to see beyond her party’s Green label. All her efforts to get into the debate may come back to haunt her as she has to deal with the more experienced debaters.

Jack Layton will continue what he has been doing throughout the campaign and will show he has the leadership capability to be Prime Minister and that the NDP has the polices that ordinary working Canadians and their families need.

Why Green Party Supporters Should Vote NDP

“I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose, than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister, because his policies are too dangerous.”
--Elizabeth May

We Can Stop Stephen Harper

As the federal election campaign begins, early polls have indicated the possibility of a Harper majority.

How can this be.

We have a combination of a lack of leadership on behalf of the Liberal “natural governing” Party and a focus on the environment pitting three pro-environment parties against the anti-
environment Conservatives.

Stéphane Dion clearly lacks the communication skills necessary to counter the Conservatives American style negative campaign and win the election. The public will not elect a Liberal government under his leadership.

On the other hand we have three parties vying for the environmental vote. We have the Liberals with their newly discovered environmental religion. We have the Green Party with an environmental label, along with right wing economic policies and a leader with strong ties to previous Conservative governments. And we have the traditional party of Canada’s environmental movement, the New Democratic Party.

This is all happening at a time when NDP Leader Jack Layton is the most popular of the opposition leaders seeking to become Prime Minister.

But if Canadians were to vote based on the leader they think would be the best prime minister, Ipsos-Reid's Darrel Bricker says there is a clear front-runner.

"(Stephen) Harper is at 50 percent of Canadians saying they think he would be the best Prime Minister, followed by (Jack) Layton at 31 and finally by Stephan Dion at 20 percent."

Bricker adds the fact that Layton's growing popularity across Canada could make things interesting at the polls."

In contrast to Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton’s leadership qualities are shining through in this election campaign, as are the NDP’s polices to support Canadian workers and families.

As Canadians look beyond the labels, and look at the parties long term records, they will recognize that the only party capable of getting elected and implementing progressive environmental policies is the New Democratic Party.

The pundits have always said the New Democratic Party could never win federal power. They also used to say they could never win power in Ontario. That was until 1990 when the voters ignored the pollsters and elected Ontario’s most progressive government ever.

The New Democratic Party can win this election. All it requires is for the voters to realize that they do have a choice. They do not have to choose between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. They can vote for real change.

This is no time for strategic voting. When the NDP won in Ontario they won ridings nobody predicted they would have a chance to win. If people had “voted strategically” they never would have won.

Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party can stop Stephen Harper. Indeed, they are the only party that can.

Tories Going To A Lot of Trouble To Hide Their Innocence

Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that the Tories “in and out scheme” was in accordance with Canada’s election financing laws.

"Our position is that we always follow the law as we understand it," the prime minister said in response to a reporter's question at a joint news conference with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in New Orleans.

"We were following in the last election the interpretations that had been put on that law in the past," Harper said. "If those interpretations change, we will of course conform, but we will expect the same rules for every single party."

If they were so innocent why the elaborate attempts to cover-up the scheme, including the use of forged documents.

Even before last week's raid, Elections Canada had obtained numerous statements from party candidates and invoices from the Toronto-based advertising agency Retail Media.

Investigators also talked to Retail Media executives, including chief operating officer Marilyn Dixon, who when shown one candidate's invoice, speculated that it must have been "altered or created by someone" since it didn't conform to the appearance of the company's invoices.

Why was it necessary for Elections Canada to call in the RCMP and require a search warrant to get access to the documents regarding the scheme.

RCMP searched Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa on Tuesday (April 15) at the request of Elections Canada.

Elections Canada spokesman John Enright confirmed that elections commissioner William Corbett requested the assistance of the Mounties to execute a search warrant, but he wouldn't say why.

Elections Canada is probing Conservative party spending for advertisements during the 2006 parliamentary election campaign. Corbett, who enforces the Elections Canada Act, launched an investigation in April 2007 after chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand challenged the spending claims.

The Tories have done, and are doing, all the things that someone trying to hide a fraudulent scheme would do and none of the things that someone who is innocent would do.

Of course they would have you believe that there is a conspiracy of people out to get them. The only conspiracy will be at the next election when the voters conspire to put them out of office.

Hillier Sees Democracy as a Sign of Weakness

Debate is the basis of our Parliamentary democracy. Indeed, even the word “Parliament” is derived from the French “parler”.

parliament
c.1290, from O.Fr. parlement (11c.), originally "speaking, talk," from parler "to speak" (see parley); spelling altered c.1400 to conform with M.L. parliamentum. Anglo-L. parliamentum is attested from 1216. Parliamentarian originally (1644) was a designation of one of the sides in the Eng. Civil War; meaning "one versed in parliamentary procedure" dates from 1834.

We are supposedly fighting in Afghanistan for, amongst other things, democracy. Yet, as the CBC reports, the Chief of Defence Staff thinks that democracy in Canada is a sign of weakness in the “war for democracy” in Afghanistan.

Yet another reason why the Chief of Defence Staff should stick to his role in leading the military in implementing Canada’s defence policy rather than interfering in the political process and trying to influence policy. Unfortunately Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, as demonstrated on numerous occasions, have shown just as little regard for democracy as Hillier does.

The Cult of Personality Without The Personality

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is specifically built around political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.

I have been in the government and opposition lobbies of the House of Commons a few times, all prior to the Harper government, and while I do recall seeing portraits and photographs of politicians, including the party leaders of the time as well as former Prime Ministers, they were all of a more formal or historical nature and did not dominate the walls. It was certainly nothing like the description provided by Elizabeth May, which strike me as being campaign type photos.

What may have been the most fascinating part of the afternoon was my time in the Government Lobby. Behind the curtains that run along the last row of benches on both sides of the House, are doors to long skinny living room areas. One is called the Opposition Lobby; the other the Government Lobby. In my pre-Green Party leader life, I have spent a lot of time in both. The Government Lobby was a frequent work space when I was Senior Policy Advisor to the federal Minister of Environment back in the mid-1980s. And I frequented both lobbies when I was with Sierra Club of Canada from 1987-2006. It did not strike me until I walked into the Government Lobby to await my turn as Speaker that I had not been in there since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister.

It used to have some paintings on the wall. Past prime ministers, certainly a formal portrait of the Queen. Landscapes. I know there was the occasional photo of current Prime Ministers, but when I walked in this time, I felt chilled to the bone. Every available wall space had a large colour photo of Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper at Alert. Stephen Harper in fire fighter gear. Stephen Harper at his desk. Stephen Harper meeting the Dalai Lama. Even the photo of the Queen showed her in the company of Stephen Harper. None were great photos. None were more than enlarged snapshots in colour. They didn’t feel like art.

This is, of course, “Canada’s New Government” led by the new Conservative Party without a past.

This is the government that decided using Canada’s official colours of red and white on the government websites just had to go because red is also the colour of the Liberal Party. So now we have blue dominated government websites, because blue is the colour of the Conservative Party. If only it was just a symbolic change, but we see so many examples off the new Conservative government’s attempt to politicize the Public Service, as well as independent public agencies.

This is also the government that wants to control how the press does it’s job covering the government and its actions and in particular Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

This is a party without a past, or at least with a past that it does not want to remind people of. It certainly does not want people to be reminded of it’s extreme right wing roots in the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance, and at the same time it does not want to be associated with those “progressive” elements in the old Progressive Conservative Party. In fact better not to have people think about party at all, but rather about a strong charismatic leader.

Stephen Harper is no Pierre Trudeau, and neither is he a John Diefenbaker. So what to do when you do not have a strong charismatic leader. How do you build a cult of personality without a personality. Images. But why the government lobby of the House of Commons when only insiders will see the images. The press of, course, also gets to see them but they apparently did not notice until it was drawn to their attention by Elizabeth May. Is support for Stephen Harper so wishy washy within his own party that they need to inundate Conservative Members of Parliament with photos of “The Leader”.

Perhaps it is all innocent and they are simply using caucus members as a “focus group” for the next election’s campaign images.

The Two Issues in the Chalk River Nuclear Safety/Radioisotopes Affair

Stephen Harper is starting to remind me of Larry O’Brien. They both seem to have no concept of the role of government and public policy beyond the Do What I Say I’m the Boss School of Leadership.

There are two issues involved in the Chalk River nuclear safety/radioisotopes affair.

The second issue is whether Parliament should have passed legislation requiring restarting of the reactor. What Parliament essentially said was that the shortage of radioisotopes justified lowering the normal safety standards for the reactor. It is Parliament’s role to balance competing interests. While many of us disagreed with the legislation, it was within Parliaments role.

The first issue is whether the government should have attempted to influence and intimidate Linda Keen and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission into not doing their job and then fire her for doing her job.

The government claims she was fired for lack of leadership. If Linda Keen has demonstrated anything it is leadership. The government may not have like the leadership she provided but it is ludicrous to suggest she did not provide leadership.

It is the role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to set and enforce safety standards in the nuclear industry. That is what they did in the case of the Chalk River reactor. When Atomic Energy of Canada Limited failed to do required safety upgrades the Commission it did it’s job and ordered the reactor shut down. It is not the role of the Commission to let outside factors or interests influence it’s decisions. Indeed it would be derelict in it’s duty if it let outside interests, or political intimidation, influence it’s decision-making.

If anyone lacks leadership it is Stephen Harper who does not understand the difference between leadership and intimidation.

Don’t Fuck Around With Nuclear Safety

Sometimes an “expletive” is required and this is one of those times.

A Three-Mile-Island-type of nuclear accident could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system, capable of withstanding natural disasters such as earthquakes, is installed, according to an assessment by the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It is “essential” that the safety equipment be installed on two crucial pumps before the reactor, which makes more than half the world's nuclear medicines, is restarted, Linda Keen wrote in a blunt letter to two federal government ministers.

It is frightening that we were placed at risk because Atomic Energy of Canada Limited simply ignored safety directives from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission who discovered the fact in a routine inspection.

The situation is all the more worrisome because the country's nuclear regulator specifically ordered AECL more than a year ago to take extra safety precautions if it wanted to continue operating the aging NRU.

But there's more at stake than isotopes.

The technical competency of an industry trying hard to win back public confidence is being questioned, as is public safety, national security and the reputation of a company whose message to Canadians has consistently been: "Trust us."

Yet AECL not only failed to install a key piece of safety equipment on the National Research Universal (NRU), Canada's oldest nuclear reactor. When its mistake was discovered, it matter-of-factly camouflaged it in a Dec. 4 press release as little more than a routine maintenance issue.

In fact, an important safety repair had not been made.

On Nov. 19, a day after what was supposed to be a routine five-day shutdown, safety inspectors with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) discovered a significant and mandated safety upgrade -- connecting two heavy water pumps to an emergency power supply -- had not been done.

It is even more frightening that the government, with the support of all parties, is going to put Canadians back at risk.

The emergency legislation introduced by the Conservatives, which would allow AECL to start the reactor immediately and run it for 120 days, was passed unanimously by all parties after four hours of civilized debate.

As an NDP supporter it troubles me that the only party to oppose this was the Green Party. The NDP should be ashamed.

The Prime Minister has disgraced himself by accusing the agency charged with the responsibility of protecting Canadians safety with “obstruction” for doing it’s job.

"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be … is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."

The operator of the Chalk River reactor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., had said it expected the plant to be up and running by the middle of this month, but the safety commission was refusing to allow it to restart production until it resolved a host of safety issues.

So it appears that all we have to protect us from a nuclear melt down is the Prime Minister’s word that it can’t happen here.


References:

Globe and Mail: Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog

National Post; Emergency bill to resume isotope production off to Senate

Ottawa Citizen: The major safety snafu behind the isotope shortage

CBC: MPs pass bill to restart urgent isotope production

CBC: Green Leader May slams Tories' handling of isotope shortage

The Canada Elections Act - CLARIFICATION

It appears that I have been duped into believing that the Prime Minister actually understood the legislation that his government proposed and passed.

The amendments to the act do not establish photo identification as mandatory.

Bill C-31 states:

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or error. It requires that electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.

And for more certainty it states:

21. Sections 143 to 145 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Elector to declare name, etc.

143. (1) Each elector, on arriving at the polling station, shall give his or her name and address to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, and, on request, to a candidate or his or her representative.

Proof of identity and residence

(2) If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, subject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:

(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or

(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.

The Fifth Column apologizes. It should know better than to take Stephen Harper at his word.