An Update on My G20 Summit Inquiry

In my last posting, I questioned the legality of the stern security measures imposed for the G20 summit in Toronto. In yesterday's Globe and Mail, columnist Adam Radwanski finally addressed the issue, but his explanation of the legislation that allows for the suspension of our Charter rights is hardly reassuring, suggesting that Canadian democracy is at best an ethereal concept, and at worst, fragile and ephemeral.


When it comes to summit security, police answer to no one

Police make their presence known Tuesday on the streets of Toronto. Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail

With neither legislation nor precedent to limit their powers, the rights of Canadians come off second best

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 8:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2010 11:14AM EDT

It's known as the “red zone.” But given the extent to which police are being left to their own devices in locking down a large swath of Toronto for the G20, the “grey zone” might be more apt.

The federal government did police and local residents few favours by sticking the summit smack in the middle of downtown. That it’s in an area more difficult to secure than other available locations, such as the city’s Exhibition grounds, forced more heavy-handed enforcement than should have been necessary.

But it doesn’t help that, as officers are expected to balance security with civil liberties, there’s neither legislation nor clear legal precedent specifying what they can and can’t do. From the handling of protesters to the requirement of identification to enter public spaces and private homes, it’s left to their discretion.

Since each summit is different, there’s no choice but to be somewhat ad hoc in handling them. But civil liberties experts argue that it didn’t need to be quite this ad hoc.

On that front, the responsibility seems to lie more with a past government than the current one.

Following widespread criticism of how the RCMP handled security at the 1997 APEC meeting in Vancouver and (to a lesser extent) the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, there was pressure on Ottawa to set ground rules for how such events should be policed. Instead, Jean Chrétien’s government opted to amend the existing Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act in a vague manner that, if anything, gave police further carte blanche.

“For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility [to secure multi-state conferences],” the amendment stated, “the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.”

It’s not clear to what extent that legislation was considered as security plans were made for the G20. (A spokesman for the Summit Integrated Security Unit, the joint force headed by the RCMP, was quicker to cite the basic duty to keep the peace.) But it would at least be used to justify any tactics called into question.

Appearing before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee in November, 2001, University of British Columbia law professor Wesley Pue called the amendment “a terribly unfortunate piece of legislation” that “simultaneously reaches too far and is inconclusive.” His complaint that it failed to consider how police powers would be balanced with the rights of Canadians to move freely, to express themselves, to assemble, to enjoy their property, and to “go lawfully about one’s daily life without interruption or harassment by the police,” might strike Torontonians as prescient.

It’s debatable whether the law would withstand a court challenge. But part of the reason there’s so little precedent on police powers at international gatherings (a problem extensively documented in a study late last year by Dr. Pue and Capilano University professor Robert Diab) is that there’s rarely much incentive for anyone to bother with cases after the fact. Probably the most relevant decision came when a Quebec judge ruled against a lawyer’s complaint that the Summit of the Americas barriers infringed upon his right to move freely and protest peacefully – this just days before the event’s start, when ruling the other way might have forced its cancellation.

In fairness to the RCMP, it seems to have come a long way on securing national events since the APEC days of pepper-spraying students; by most accounts, its conduct around this year’s Vancouver Olympics was encouraging. But the G20 is in a whole other realm.

Most Torontonians probably wouldn’t fault police for erring on the side of caution. But the fact that they’re operating without any real restrictions, however noble individual officers’ intentions, could cause a bit of alarm.

For a few days, the related rights questions might get some attention. But history suggests they’ll soon be forgotten, at least until next time.

Parliamentary Democracy to be Suspended for More Than Two Months

As reported online in today’s Globe and Mail, our sinister Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, plans to suspend Parliament until March. Although he will have to ask permission of the Governor-General, Michele Jean, this is considered a formality, and, indeed, a forgone conclusion given her collusion with the government just over a year ago when she agreed to a Parliamentary ‘time- out’ to prevent the government from falling and being replaced by a coalition consisting of the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP.

What is the Harper government fleeing from this time? The answer lies in the parliamentary committee examining alleged government knowledge that our military was contravening the Geneva Convention in handing over Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities who commonly practice torture on its prisoners. Recent testimony by Richard Colvin clearly suggests a cover-up about this knowledge, and the fact that the government has refused the committee’s request for unredacted documents is the most obvious catalyst for this contemptible move by a craven Prime Minister. Harper is doubtlessly counting on the public’s short attention span to be his biggest ally in this shameful attack on freedom of information in particular and democracy in general.

The Transformational Power of an Election, or How Stephen Harper and I Saw the Light

There is nothing quite like unnecessary elections to bring out the cynic in me, although lately I’ve begun to question that cynicism and consider the benefits such excursions to the polls may offer, not only for the country but for the Prime Minister himself.

Like many, I have long viewed our Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, as a controlling, manipulative, aloof man with an especial disdain for the press and for the many opinions that differ from his. It is, for example, well-known that Conservative Members of Parliament, even cabinet ministers, cannot speak publically without the explicit approval of the P.M.O. (Prime Minister’s Office) lest they risk demotion, even denial of nomination papers at election time. This from a man who, in the last election, campaigned for more openness, Parliamentary democracy, etc.

Indeed, Mr. Harper went so far as to deny the parliamentary press gallery reporters access to him unless they signed a list from which some would be selected to ask questions at press conferences, a seemingly shocking breach of freedom of the press and a complete departure from the Canadian tradition of reporters taking turns asking their questions in a queue. The cynics suggested this was yet another means by which the Mr. Harper was attempting to control the message, thereby further debasing democracy.

I realize now that I have been wrong not to have given the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt.

What accounts for this transformation of perspective? Part of the answer, I think, lies in the public transformation of Stephen Harper. My family and friends tell me that the election ads they’ve seen suggest he is a changed man. Unfortunately I can only rely on their reports, as to this point I have been unable to watch the commercials featuring Mr. Harper and his blue sweater-clad musings, lest an unfortunate Tourette’s-like stream of profanity issue from me. I hereby acknowledge my weakness.

Apparently in one such ad, Mr. Harper talks intimately about his family, especially his children and the bond-strengthening activities they share; for example, son Harper plays the guitar while Dad plays the piano; after all, according to the P.M., son Harper is at that age when he doesn’t want to hang out so much with his dad (a sentiment, by the way, with which I would be able to readily identify, were Stephen my Dad), so those times, as in all families, are precious ones. Again, this from a man with a reputation for aloofness and disdain for public exposure; thanks for sharing, Prime Minister Harper.

There are apparently other ads including one in which he reminds all of us, in talking about military veterans, how fortunate we are to have had brave men and women defending our precious way of life and that we owe them a great debt of gratitude, a true departure from the impression some have of him as a Prime Minister willing to consign our contemporary military members to danger and death on mere ideological grounds. Indeed, as I write this I have just learned that Mr. Harper says he intends to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan in 2011, going well beyond the Parliamentary motion this year committing to the withdrawal of troops only from Kandahar province, the most dangerous part of the country where most of our troops are serving. I am beyond words in my amazement of and appreciation for the Prime Minister’s evolution.

Indeed, every day seems to bring new evidence of even more rapid growth in the development of Mr. Harper’s compassion. I just saw a news report in which the Prime Minister, obviously sharing our incredulity over the 13 cent a liter gas jump that has taken place today, September 12th, allegedly as a result of Hurricane Ike-driven threats to Texas oil refineries, has teasingly suggested that there will be some announcements regarding government intervention in oil companies’ gouging of consumers. Again, this from a man who earlier in the summer stated there was little government could do to affect gas prices, so no efforts would be made. I’m beginning to think that as this election continues, Mr. Harper’s growth will perhaps culminate in a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for his sheer humanitarianism.

Even his clothes reflect a changed man. Gone are the suits and ties, replaced by an array of blue sweaters. I guess it depends on your age, but when I see Mr. Harper dressed that way, I can’t help but think of Ward Cleaver at home with his family, dispensing all of the wisdom, love, patience, understanding, compassion, firmness, and fairness that we associate with Beaver’s dad..

I have been pondering what could bring about what seem to be such abrupt changes in Mr. Harper’s personality. Barring an undiagnosed medical condition, I am only left to infer that there is something humanizing and humbling about engaging in an election campaign. Perhaps it is the regular and daily contact with ‘regular’ people; after all, I am told that in one of the photo gallery series, Mr. Harper, accoutered in that ubiquitous blue sweater, is depicted sitting at someone’s kitchen table in a B.C. home, perhaps extolling life in Canada under his ministrations and demonstrating his understanding of ‘regular’ people. This is clearly a man attempting to forge a bond, especially meaningful for those of us who have ever fantasized about such a visit.

Or maybe it’s something in the coffee, croissants, or donuts in the diners Mr. Harper has been seen frequenting during the campaign, the very places we regular folks gather to strengthen community bonds. Or perhaps a humanizing synergy mysteriously emerges during the campaign of an unnecessary election. Who knows?

In any event, maybe it is only the result, not the explanation, that really matters here. Stephen Harper has worked his magic on me; he has restored my faith, which I long believed to have been obliterated, in the human capacity to change and to grow.

Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.

When is a Crisis Not a Crisis?

For those of you with no interest in politics who may be wondering how my recent postings on Canadian politics are in any way related to education, allow me a moment to explain. As I implied much earlier in my postings on critical thinking, in my view the truly educated person is one who is able to assess with both knowledge and logic the information she or he is bombarded with. Sometimes that information consists solely of facts, as in a new report of an accident or a crime, but much of what we read and see in the media are expressions of opinion, some well-reasoned, some merely demagogic rants, and some only sadly misinformed.

While I am not in any way suggesting that we can simply turn aside our own values, experiences and prejudices when assessing opinions ( for example, the Conservative Government’s dictatorial and manipulative propensities deeply offend what I consider my more balanced perspective and philosophy), the application of reason and critical thinking skills at least prevent me from living in a world entirely closed off to new possibilities - in other words, I think I still have the ability to grow as a person.

I will be continuing with these political posts now and again, largely because I am so deeply offended by the complete contempt Mr. Harper and his crew are showing for the intelligence of the Canadian people in their use of lies, misdirection, and half-truths as they vainly seek to convince us of the need for an election. What follows is the editorial from today’s Globe and Mail that addresses some of these concerns:

Manufacturing a crisis
August 28, 2008

Shortly after he took office, Stephen Harper explained why he was comfortable establishing fixed election dates. "I've fought many elections and leadership races over the past couple of years and I'm quite happy to govern," the Prime Minister said in May, 2006. "Obviously, governments always prefer a majority, but I think we can make a minority work most of the time so I'm happy to keep on governing as long as we're getting some things done."

That Mr. Harper is now prepared to run roughshod over his own legislation by forcing an election campaign to begin as early as next week suggests he is now convinced it is not possible to get things done. He has all but said as much, telling reporters this week that "this Parliament is increasingly reaching an impasse on a range of issues." But Mr. Harper failed to mention a single major policy his government has been thwarted on - possibly because one does not exist.

It is difficult to imagine any minority government having an easier time pushing its legislation through. Not prepared to face voters, Stéphane Dion's Liberals have allowed the Conservatives to have their way on virtually every issue - from accountability legislation to tax cuts to an extension of Canada's mission to Afghanistan. Even on immigration reforms that the Liberals claimed would throw the country "back to the Diefenbaker era," they meekly caved in rather than defeating the Tories in a confidence vote.

Absent his own policy priorities necessitating an immediate election, Mr. Harper now claims that Parliament cannot proceed because of a disagreement over an opposition party's platform. "The other party has tabled an economic agenda that remains diametrically opposed to everything this government stands for," he said Tuesday of the Liberals' proposed carbon tax. "I think you really have increasingly in Parliament two visions of where we should be leading the country, particularly during challenging economic times, and that's something I'm going to have to reflect on."

Mr. Harper made a good case for the Liberals to finally work with the other opposition parties to bring down his government. But if there is to be an election, it should result from the defeat of an important piece of government legislation in the House of Commons - not because Mr. Harper has manufactured a crisis.

A difference of opinion over a policy that is not on the legislative agenda is hardly a compelling reason for a government to refuse to continue governing. By the standards he set for himself in 2006, Mr. Harper has no justification for breaking his promise not to call elections on a whim.

Harper Hypocrisy Assailed in Globe Editorial

In a strongly worded condemnation of the obstructionist tactics being used by the Harperites in refusing to appear before the House of Commons Ethics Committee looking into the ‘in and out’ scandal that I wrote about yesterday, the Globe and Mail points out the hypocritical nature of a government that ran in the last election on a promise of greater parliamentary democracy. I am reproducing the editorial below, and I have placed in bold print certain parts for emphasis:


In-and-out sinks to new depths
From Friday's Globe and Mail
August 15, 2008 at 7:53 AM EDT

'We have seen increasing signs that this Parliament is really not working very well any more, it's becoming increasingly dysfunctional," Stephen Harper said yesterday. The Prime Minister's assessment was accurate, and it is time for the election he hinted at.

But after their performance this week, Mr. Harper's Conservatives are full partners in that dysfunction - particularly when it comes to what he described as "a committee system that is increasingly in chaos."

Parliament's ethics committee, justifiably maligned for its often laughable hearings into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, should never have launched its own investigation into the "in-and-out" election spending controversy.

A probe by highly partisan MPs into alleged Conservative improprieties during the last federal campaign was certain to turn into the kangaroo court predicted by Mr. Harper, and has only confused matters as Elections Canada officials carry out a proper investigation. But that does not justify the contempt that the Tories have shown for the committee this week, which has made a mockery of their past promises to strengthen parliamentary democracy.

Summoned by the committee, Conservative officials and operatives could have raised the tone of the hearings - or at least risen above it - by comporting themselves with dignity. Instead, they have lowered the tone to new depths.

The week began with a bizarre stunt by the Conservative campaign manager Doug Finley, who was scheduled to appear on Wednesday but arrived on Monday morning, planted himself at the witness stand and refused to leave until he was escorted from the room by security guards.

The antics continued yesterday, when a former Tory candidate, Sam Goldstein, arrived unannounced two days after his scheduled appearance and occupied much of his time literally screaming at the committee chair, Paul Szabo, and other opposition MPs. At the alleged urging of their party, most of the other would-be Conservative witnesses simply ignored their subpoenas altogether - some of them actively dodging bailiffs' attempting to serve their summons.

The Conservatives may be pleased with their role in making a farce of a committee that has them in its sights. But in the process, they have also undermined the entire system that Mr. Harper purports to be concerned about - and not just for the duration of this Parliament.

By demonstrating that it is possible to deliberately obstruct parliamentary committees without consequences beyond a bit of negative press, they have jeopardized the long-term ability of MPs to conduct hearings into matters of importance. If members of the governing party can thumb their noses at committees, why shouldn't others?

Harper and His Crew Strike Again

There is an interesting article in today’s Globe and Mail by Simon Houpt which, in my view, exemplifies the repressive nature of the Canadian Federal Government, led by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A very secretive administration that came to office promising greater accountability and access to information, the Harperites have done everything in their power to ‘control the message,’ tending to ridicule and punish those that don’t share its ideological bent.

Houpt’s article, which I am reproducing below, looks at two recent cuts in arts funding in that context:

New York Diary: Whither Brand Canada?
Without the arts, our image grows dim abroad
SIMON HOUPT
From Monday's Globe and Mail
August 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM EDT

Last month, for the first time in almost a decade, Central Park was eerily quiet on Canada Day.

Every year since 1999, the federal government has sponsored a New York City satellite of its July 1 party on Parliament Hill, importing a handful of Canadian bands as part of the park's free SummerStage concert series. There have been delicate tribute shows to Joni Mitchell, fuse-blowing rock from the Tragically Hip, a resplendent Rufus Wainwright, rain-soaked sets from the Cowboy Junkies and Natalie MacMaster, and musicians making in-jokes about hockey and the CBC that the expats in the audience would then politely explain to the locals.

And at the end of every show, the Upper West and Upper East Sides of Manhattan would suddenly blossom with thousands of tiny Canadian flags worn in the hair or thrust into the back pockets or temporarily tattooed onto the sun-kissed arms of concertgoers, most of whom were merely honorary Canucks for a day.

No more. This year the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) killed the concerts. When I asked a spokesperson in Ottawa last month for an explanation, she refused to comment. Last Friday, it all became depressingly clear when DFAIT announced it was cutting all ties to culture by axing its PromArt program, a $4.7-million annual fund that sent artists into the world to speak for Canada.

The program's death notice was revealed in exquisitely cynical fashion. On Thursday, a government official leaked the story to a reporter by explaining the program had funded mainly political radicals and others it deemed naughty: the former CBC pundit and current Al-Jazeera contributor Avi Lewis, the journalist Gwynne Dyer, and a Toronto rock band known as Holy Fuck. Talk radio and conservative bloggers lapped up the talking points like so much cream, outraged that millions of dollars of tax money had been used to support speech with which they disagreed.

Did they care that they'd been spun? In fact, the vast majority of the funds sent abroad artists and companies that Stephen Harper would enjoy with his wife and kids: $8,000 to send Newfoundland's Duo Concertante dance company to China; $30,000 for the acclaimed experimental circus troupe Les 7 doigts de la main to give 42 performances in Mexico and Germany; $15,000 to The Nickle Arts Museum of Alberta to present an exhibition for six months in Poland.

There are the dozens of $500, $750 and $1,000 grants that paid the airfare for award-winning authors to go forth as independent representatives of Canada. Last year, more than 300 grants were awarded.

The program was not, as its critics are barking, a wasteful socialist/Liberal boondoggle. Its greatest champion was in fact Joe Clark, who as the secretary of state for External Affairs (now DFAIT) from 1984-91 oversaw a major expansion in the cultural diplomacy budget because he recognized the importance of increasing Canada's presence abroad as the country embraced free trade with the U.S. and made its way in a globalized world.

And killing PromArt was never really about silencing radicals; that was just a red herring that paid political dividends. Late on Friday, while attention was focused on the DFAIT cut, the government quietly said it was also ending Trade Routes, a $9-million program run by Heritage Canada to help artists take their work abroad.
It's hard to overstate how low a profile Canada has abroad. If that's the way the government wants it, that's their decision. But if we want our voice to have influence in the rest of the world, to be the moral beacon we believe it is, that requires marketing Brand Canada. Sending artists and writers abroad is an integral part of that marketing that happens to be extremely cost-effective.

A little while ago Pamela Wallin told me that when she served within DFAIT as the consul-general of New York, culture was an indispensable tool to create a broader understanding of Canada within the United States. “It's all about presence; it's all about being top of mind. The more stages we continue to take ourselves off of, the more difficult the overall mission becomes,” she said.

“In order to be more than the Great White North, or more than just a trading partner like others, I think we have to show how interwoven the connections are, and how broad that cultural mix really is.”

She noted that the consulate also often used Canadian artists visiting New York to soften potential trading partners.

“It's an entrée point, it's a way to deal with people other than at the office, nine-to-five, about economic matters.”

That's why it was smart foreign policy to have Feist headline the Canada Day show in Central Park back in 2006, shortly before she became the iPod girl and a four-time Grammy nominee.

Even the United States, which invented the globalized free market in culture, has a long tradition of spending government money on so-called cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War, the U.S. State Department sent jazz musicians Louis Armstrong, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis and others to the Middle East, Asia and Europe to spread American values. The U.S. is spending more than half a billion dollars a year on TV and radio broadcasts that bring American music, comedy, and drama to the Arab world and other territories.

This is lost on DFAIT, where PromArt and its antecedent programs were never really understood. One long-time bureaucrat in the department told me recently: “Anyone caught doing culture, it was a career killer.”

DFAIT, being stocked with diplomats used to reading scripts written at head office, was always uncomfortable with the voices of artists who weren't direct government employees.

This might, in fact, be the core reason the feds have just cut a small but effective program that didn't really mean much to the overall budget. Since taking office, Stephen Harper has tightened communications coming out of Ottawa, putting choke collars on his cabinet ministers and spokespeople. He wants to be the only one who speaks for Canada abroad, too. From the government's perspective, artists especially are suspect: they don't tend to stay on message; sometimes, they even voice independent thoughts. Worst of all, they're more interesting to listen to than a droning politician. Maybe Harper is jealous.

I'm only half kidding.