Credit: Graham Pilsworth

Too bad Elizabeth May wasn’t allowed on the TV election debates. The Green Party leader says she would have raised Canada’s shameful treatment of its aboriginal peoples, the widening gap between rich and poor, the continued inequality of women and mass arrests at the G20 summit in Toronto.

These are issues of crucial importance to democracy, human rights and social justice—issues that should concern every voter after five years of Harper-led governments with their blatant contempt for our parliamentary institutions, their steadfast refusal to release government information, their firing and muzzling of public officials and their relentless attempts to demonize political opponents with TV attack ads.

Harper-led governments have also systematically tried to destroy or intimidate independent aid and advocacy groups. Research conducted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that under the Conservatives at least 79 women’s, human rights, community and international development organizations have lost most, if not all, of their federal funding. The Canadian Council on International Co-operation, representing over 90 organizations which participate in Canadian aid efforts overseas, was cut off after 40 years of federal support. The Canadian Human Rights Commission was forced to close its offices in Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver. A volunteer program that, since 1962, had been sending Canadian teachers as educational advisers to Africa, Asia and the Caribbean also lost its funding along with a variety of smaller groups helping immigrants adapt to Canadian society.

Credit: Graham Pilsworth

The Conservatives have made it clear that if they’re re-elected, their assault on human rights and social justice will continue. They promise that if they win a majority, they’ll enact their remaining “tough on crime” legislation within 100 days. Those laws would give police sweeping powers to spy on internet users by requiring service providers to disclose customer information without court oversight, and to reconfigure their networks to allow for real-time surveillance of individuals on the internet.

The new laws would also mean significantly longer jail sentences at a time when crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels in 25 years. Judges would be required to impose mandatory sentences for a broad range of offences including, for example, a minimum of six months’ imprisonment for growing as few as six marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking. Professor Neil Boyd—a drug policy expert—warned a Commons committee that the new anti- marijuana provisions would have “the unfortunate consequences of annually jailing thousands of Canadians who do not threaten our social fabric any more than those who produce, in a regulated framework, drugs such as tobacco and alcohol.”

A CCPA report on Harper’s “tough on crime” laws warns that mandatory minimum sentences are also likely to send more aboriginals to jail. In 1999, the Supreme Court described the disproportionate number of First Nations people in jail as a “staggering injustice.” The Globe and Mail reports that aboriginal people still accounted for 24 percent of those sent to prison in 2006-2007, yet they comprise only four percent of Canada’s population. Thirty percent of federal female prison inmates are aboriginal. Mandatory sentences would make judges less able to impose alternatives to jail such as substance-abuse treatment, community sentencing circles or house arrest.

During a speech to American conservatives in 1997, Stephen Harper described Canada as “a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.” He sneered at the then-Progressive Conservative party’s official support for gay rights, abortion on demand and what he called “our universal, collectivized health care system.” During another speech in 2003, Harper referred to the “damage the welfare state is having on our most important institutions, particularly the family.” He said that the primary conservative value of social order should be reinforced by “moral and legal sanctions on behaviour” and he added that “politics is a moral affair.” In this election, it’s important to remember Harper’s words. His governments’ actions over the last five years make it chillingly clear he still believes them.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. More of Brucie’s leftie drivel along with a characature which borders (being nice) on slander. Yes it’s such a shame to expect a criminal to serve their full sentence. Remember they got their by their own actions. BTW May wasn’t allowed in because the Greens area fringe party and they hold no seats. If you let her in then you’ll have to let the Rhinos in the Libertarians, Communist and every other party. The last time she was invited to a debate all she was doing was talking over everybody else. Bruce it’s time for you to get another playbook and get that scratch out of your record.

  2. It’s so refreshing to read this editorial, telling it like it is. I worry the debates worked in favour of Harper, who managed to maintain a cold stateliness while his three opponents appeared frustrated and a little childish. Because of this Canadians might forget what the Harper government has done to undermine the policies that uphold Canadian values. Thank you for trying to make sure they don’t.

  3. For almost 20 years Darmouth has had a Liberal or an NDP member of parliament.
    Please tell me what they did for poor people, single mothers and the ‘slum’ featured in this issue. Tell me what they have done to eradicate the disparity in education and housing.
    I think the word ‘Nothing’ is appropriate.
    The only ‘social justice’ being dished out in Canada is that dispensed by faith based food banks and the Salvation Army.
    Dredging up speeches from 1997 is kinda cute and desperate at the same time.

  4. From the article above:

    “During a speech to American conservatives in 1997, Stephen Harper described Canada as “a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.” He sneered at the then-Progressive Conservative party’s official support for gay rights, abortion on demand and what he called “our universal, collectivized health care system.” During another speech in 2003, Harper referred to the “damage the welfare state is having on our most important institutions, particularly the family.” He said that the primary conservative value of social order should be reinforced by “moral and legal sanctions on behaviour”.

    The sentiments expressed by Harper on these occasions go a long way towards explaining why the Harper Conservatives’ last few election efforts have resulted in minority governments. He represents the views of a minority of Canadians.

    Bro Tim,

    The Green Party is hardly a fringe party. Almost 1 million Canadians voted for the Green Party in the last election, almost as many as voted for the Bloc Quebecois (1.3 million). In addition, the Green Party ran candidates in every riding across Canada while the Bloc only ran candidates in Quebec (for obvious reasons).

    Harper may yet get his parliamentary majority. If so, I predict the muzzles will come off all of those long-suffering Conservative/Alliance/Reform coalition backbenchers who will then feel emboldened to say exactly what is on their minds. If that happens, I predict most Canadians will not like what they hear, regardless of having just voted Harper into a majority government.

  5. When will the NDP in Nova Scotia keep one of their election promises? or can the left keep one when they say they speak for the common people when they do not. Oddly, Mr. Harper keep every single one of his promises. Wow! Bruce in the last Parliament the Conservative Party had more Women in Parliament than any other party or government before it. As for Ms. May, when her party gets a seat then they can join the debate on TV. The Coast should have a balance election coverage and not how much we loved the lying NDP or the how we repeat everything off the Communist Rabble.ca, since it is well estblished Bruce hates anything to do with the democratic process, or Capitalism, or the West . I’m not saying Mr. Harper has is faults but the Nazi’s cartoons go to far. WE DO NOT CALL HIM THE “DEAR LEADER” or do even live in a fascist society or a cult of personality. Unlike the Societies the far left want for us.

  6. “Mr. Harper keep every single one of his promises” – Um, what? I’m beginning to think that the requisite for being a conservative is to be totally delusional. Harper’s been breaking promises left and right since he got into power. There’s a pretty good list of about 150 that’s he’s broken, compiled here:

    http://www.liberal.ca/files/2011/01/Five-Y…

  7. Joeblow said:

    “Dredging up speeches from 1997 is kinda cute and desperate at the same time.”

    The Conservatives have been playing this game since Michael Ignatieff was chosen as leader of the Liberal Party.

    I’d be interested to know if Stephen Harper has ever vigorously disavowed the statements quoted above.

  8. Commandante, thank you for proving my point about the Greens. The Bloc got more votes and seats (from one province) than the Greens got across CANADA. So yes, they are a fringe party.

    Naomi, if the opposition gets upset and frustrated during a little debate, how the hell are they going to react if a crisis occurs. Are you trying to say the media rigged the debate so Harper would win? Or are you saying the others are inept debaters? Quite honestly I was very disappointed in Iggy, especially after everyone said the Harvard professor would make mincemeat out of Harper.

    You and Commandante have to stop trying to prove yourselves, you’re coming off as silly.

    Joe, you are right, Dartmouth-Cole Harbour hasn’t gotten anything for a very long time.

  9. Bro Tim,

    Perhaps you could share with me your definition (if you have one) of what constitutes a “fringe” political party in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy.

    It seems to me that a party like the Bloc Quebecois that garners 10.0 % of the votes federally and, as a result, wins 49 seats in the House of Commons is hardly a fringe party. However you may feel about their legitimacy as a federal party they certainly represent the views of a significant number (1,379,991 to be exact) of Canadian voters.

    Likewise, the Green Party, which captured 6.8% (937,613) of the votes in the 2008 election represents the views of a significant number of voters. These votes translated into zero seats for the Green Party, but that is only because of the method we use to translate votes into seats in the Commons.

    Going back to the 1993 election, the Progressive Conservatives received 16.0% of the votes (2,186,422) which translated into ONLY 2 SEATS in the Commons, whereas the Reform Party received 18.7% of the votes (2,559,245), a few percentage points more than the Progressive Conservatives, but which translated into 52 seats in the House of Commons. Would you have considered the post-1993 election Progressive Conservatives to be a “fringe party”?

    For that matter, the seat total of the Reform Party after the 1993 election, at 52, was almost the same as the current seat total of the Bloc Quebecois which stands at 49. If you define the Bloc as a “fringe party” wouldn’t you also have to classify the Reform Party of 1993, whose base was almost entirely in Western Canada, a “fringe party”?

    I think you should reconsider your fast and loose usage of the term “fringe party” in this discussion. It really does make you come off looking silly.

  10. I suppose I should have clarified that “they” meant the Greens, not the Bloc (who are traitors as far as I’m comcerned). My point being the Greens didn’t even break a million all ACROSS Canada, however a provincial party (as the Bloc doesn’t have candidates outside Quebec) garnered almost 300,000 more votes with 40 some seats in the house. So yes the Greens still remain a fringe party no matter how much you want it to be different. Maybe after this election it may be different but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  11. Let’s see, no seats, few votes (less than 10%), with some extreme policies, yup, sounds like fringe to me.

  12. Any intelligent/ethical/judicial person will boycott voting for Tory/Libs because if they had had any moral fibre or sense of fairplay or ability to work co=operatively and nicely in the sandbox they would have boycotted the debate until May was invited. It really just shows that the guys still think girls have cooties…even Layton. NDP who claim to be all about the marginalized issues should have boycotted the debate until May was invited….if you cannot stand up for one thing you will sit down for everything.

    I think we should also boycott the broadcasts systems that chose to only invite the males, scratch your ballot if need be, they should have a slot for that anyway…when this first broke I sat back watching and waiting for any one male to stand up and out against the May omission…but they said nada on this unfair play….what else do you need to see, they would do the same to you in a heard beat when no one is looking…. diablo is always in the details

    Robert and Mike need to stop riding on their tail coats of others and get to work like the rest of us…when I moved to DartmouthNorh I was shocked then enraged that all this slumlandlording was waiting for me to have to disrupt my life to take it to the systems..what the feck have the MLAS, city councillors and MPS been doing all this time….dang…this community has been so neglected by so many that it disgusts me they still get paid for doing nada.

    The MPS have done nada here on issues of poverty though Mike claims to be on that discussion-I presented to the Finance Comm of 2006 in front of Mike and the Comm accepted two of my recommendations in addressing the quality of public servants services/interactions with vulnerable persons and to date they and Mike have done nada, they have had zero meetings nor do they come door to door here….. there needs to be reform on how candidates campaign because this gross negligence between votes is shameful. The concentration of attention in middle white communities is disgraceful.
    I am sure if we didnot have any elected officials in this community at any level we would not even notice the difference because they are in absentia most of the time anyway..

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *