Making Canada Ugly

After five years of Conservative government we can trace an interim balance of this party's use of power. So let us very briefly look at how they have put the office into practice:

• Militarism
• Cult of Personality
• Nationalistic rhetoric and jingoism
• Propaganda and Message control
• Submission of Parliament
• Delegitimation of the opposition
• antagonizing the media and other oversight mechanisms
• Intimidation of the Civil Service
• Unaccountability of the Executive
• Cronyism and corruption

Does this not sound incredibly like some Eurasian dictatorship ? At close inspection it does. Harper has succesfully introduced Putinism to Canada.

Question: Did 9/11 hit us or U.S.?

yo Harper, what's up with this brand new "National Day of Service" business???

9/11 was a tragic episode that affected the United States, not Canada. Do you really wanna be poodle-in-chief and make it a national celebration in Canada????? And, by god, let's just hope the justification for this silly move are not the 24 Canadians having lost their lives in the World Trade Center attacks- may they rest in peace.

Even pro-american has a limit! Especially in the face, lest we forget, of the cost we had to bear to appease american paranoias, and of accusations of laxitude in security and policing, with those unfounded allegations that the perpetrators of the attacks came from Canada.

Once again, Conservative ideological zeal makes Canada look petulant and grotesque.

The Cornwall Border Crossing Controversy: Killing Three Birds with One Stone

Can you believe the conservative government's latest screw up?
Tensions between the Canadian Borders Services Agency (CBSA) and representatives of the Akwesasne Mohawk Reserve on Cornwall Island, had been growing since the GoC's announcement on May 1, 2009, that CBSA officials would start carrying duty firearms starting June 1st.

Mohawk leaders pleaded for an exception given that the border lies on Mohawk land, and feared the symbolic implications of seeing armed Canadian officials manning the border crossing. Protests had also been held.

According news reports, in the face of the ongoing spat, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan has recently ordered the Border post be moved inland in the form of a "makeshift checkpoint," from where they have been operating since July 12, under RCMP protection.

What a great idea! The Conservatives have effectively managed to kill two (perhaps three) birds with one stone...

First, they have unilaterally retracted the reach of Canadian sovereignty- the principal meaning of which, Max Weber reminds us, is the monopoly over the use of legitimate violence within a bounded territory. The move, as a matter of fact affects both elements of sovereignty contained in this textbook definition: Firstly, in the face of the well known and public revendications of the Mohawk community to establish a Mohawk sovereign state, the territorial integrity of Canada has been somehow undermined, if not jeopardised, and potentially, a precedent lain. And God forbid, Quebec separatists should hear about this story... Secondly, the monopoly of legitimate violence over the area has been relinquished. Perhaps not the domestic policing side of it- reports are not specific enough on this matter- but certainly the defense from external threats.

Second, they have created one of those dreaded no-man's lands outside of any control that punctuate the world -with due distinctions, but similar to Transnistria, the South American Tri-border area, or the Ferghana Valley- at the heart of North America. Fears have been expressed that this will curtail attempts to control drug and Tobacco smuggling, and bolster organized crime groups. To this should be added the more serious security threats that a patch of anarchy within Canadian territory could generate, should the situation extend itself, for both Canada and the United States.

This latter point leads us to the third bird of the potential repercussions on bilateral relations with the United States, who remain highly focused on the countering of asymmetric threats and the protection of the continent from potential attacks. This could spur renewed distrust in a Northern neighbour that simply does not do enough for the Security of North America. For a government broaching itself as a champion of law and order, and the first Executive taking security seriously, the handling of the border crossing issue grazes on ridicule.

Watching over the MDA Verdict

The Honourable Jim Prentice in the end rejected the takeover of MDA by Alliant technologies, on grounds that "under the Investment Canada regime (...) we don't see net benefits to Canada in this transaction." (CBC, 10.04.2008). This decision was wlcomed by choral paeans across the board (The Star, 11.04. 2008; Rideau Institute, 11.04.2008), with the exception of commentator (Macleans, ).

Unfortunately, positions like Croynbee's are not uncommon in Canada, where oftentimes an idealised view of economic liberalism has blinded analysts and decisionmakers alike to the power dimension of corporate ownership in the competitive international political economy.

This naive opinion has, over time, been responsible for the sell out of some major pieces of Canada's industrial and financial capitalism, on which successive governments have regularly failed to stand up against.

The final decision by the Federal Government is due today (08. 05. 2008). Let us watch that today's decision is not just an act in a panthomime where the actor's knew of a positive outcome from the start. Let is make sure, that is, that the Minister of Industry stays the course of his initial opinion and definetely rejects the sale.

So, Jim and Stephen, be advised: ve'll be watching over your shoulders...

Of Satellites, Pride and Sovereignty

A big up for The Honourable Jack Layton, who has overtaken the Conservative government on the Canada First lane. With this, the Conservatives undoubtedly deserve some heartfelt sarcasm for all their rhetoric and pizzazzy about reclaiming national sovereignty.

The problem is that after all said and done, the waiting game played by the Harper government by lowering a delay on any decision on the prospected sale of the satellite-producing division of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., the maker of RadarSat I and II, as well as the Canadarm, to Alliant Techsystems of the US, looks ironic, not to say contradictory.

This stems from two main considerations:
I- Radarsat2 is essential to the ensure surveillance of the many remote areas Canada's territory is made of, including the Government's new crusade: the Arctic region. Besides considerations of accountability given that MDA has received CND$ 400 million in taxpayers' contributions for the development of sensing technology, for the government to allow the alienation of such a strategic industry would mean jeopardizing Canada's national security as well as any future capabilities.

II- Allowing the sell-out of such a strategic industry "to the almighty dollar" would cast a very negative shadow on the Conservative government. To the extent that the main threat to Canada's sovereignty comes and has always come from the stronghold of the Canada-US defence relationship, permitting the prospected transaction would witness of a serious miscalculation of the nature of that bilateral relationship. The point being that having a technological edge as afforded by devices like Radarsat2 (which at present the US can only dream of) is key to bring some degree of balancing into an otherwise heavily asymmetrical relationship.

While it is true that Cabinet Minister Jim Prentice has until April 21 following his potponement of any decision, and a second level of clearance needs to be granted by Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, in compliance with the 2005 Remote Sensing Space Systems Act; Jack Layton's promise to take a potential sale of MDA's satellite division ot the court is welcome (Globe & Mail, 06:04: 2008).

Together with the Rideau Institute's important advocacy and awareness activism it is helping to make the Canadian public aware of the issue and putting necessary pressure on the goverment in office.

Will the Harper Government show the maturity to say no to our powerful neighbour thereby living up to its rhetoric, or will it give in to the pressures that are surely being exercised from Washington.

What is right for Canada is easy to tell, but what will the legendarily secretive Harper government do is far from clear. So go on Stephen, make your choice.