Common Sense and Hookers. How Mike Harris Stole my Vote

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I came across something the other day, that I hadn't realized I had kept. (I really having to start throwing stuff away)

It was a videotape with a white cardboard cover, and the dire warning to 'View Before June 8' [1995]; the [former Ontario premier] Mike Harris's campaign video when he was flogging his so-called Common Sense Revolution.

So I popped it in the VCR last night, in an attempt to understand what drove me to vote for this party through their local candidate Bill Vancoughnet. And I realized that it was as much about the language used to sell it, as the product.

The art of ambiguity helped to mask their true intent.

Mind you at the time, few Canadians understood the concept of neoconservatism, so we trusted the basic good of the Canadian identity, not realizing that much of this campaign was imported from the United States.

The two key elements that were hammered out by Vancoughnet and Harris on the tape, were taxes and the reduction of government waste. They promised four billion dollars in "tax rebates", a much better choice of words than "tax reduction", since they imply a cheque in the mail.

They also promised to "eliminate the barriers to job creation" - the removal of environmental restrictions.

"Cut the size of government by involving the private sector" - costly and service reducing privatization

"Arms length involvement by eliminating red tape" - the removal of health and safety concerns.

Welfare Reform

In 1975, Andrew Armitage wrote one of the first comprehensive books on Canada's social welfare system, and he stated that the way that Canadians view welfare or social assistance, is not with an eye to eliminating it, only to making it fairer.

He said that it had to be about not simply a transfer of funds, but an "exchange". That is why we liked Harris's notion of Workfare. The able bodied expected to pull their weight.

But the way this was presented to Ontarians was fundamentally flawed, and yet Harris was able to sell it not only to the working class, but to those receiving assistance.

He sold it to the first group as getting "those lazy bums off the couch", and to the latter, as finding them jobs. But what we got instead was one of the most vile attacks on struggling citizens in modern history.

They cut the welfare rolls in half and drastically reduced benefits. The McGuinty government has attempted to raise the rates since then, but they are still far below pre-1995 levels. Thousands of people were thrown into the streets as a result, many freezing to death in their cars or in allies. The use of food banks rose and for many it was a return to depression era conditions.

And the promised jobs never materialized. Those on assistance were told they had to work, but also had to find their own employment in an already overstretched job market.

But a handful of people got filthy rich. A neoconservative success story.

Transfers and Exchange

The Harrisites were able to find willing accomplices to their inhumane policies because of stories. We all knew some.

Like the cab drivers who told of welfare recipients using their taxi chits to have them deliver cigarettes. Or the single moms with eight kids receiving thousands of dollars a month. Or welfare cheques going for booze or drugs.

The stories were true but not as common as we were led to believe.

I recently spoke with a woman who has worked in the system for three decades. She remembers the Harris era well and said that she can't remember a day during that time, when she didn't feel sad. Many of her clients were axed and she worried about what became of them, fearing the worst.

And as to the lazy "welfare bums", she told me that most of her clients wanted to work and hated having to accept what they thought of as "charity".

But we allowed a few "cheats" to define the entire system, and few raised a hand to stop "Chainsaw Mike" (those who did felt that wrath of the "Riot Police", a common view in Harrisland).

So maybe it's time to tap into the notion of "transfer and exchange". What are we getting from our government in exchange for the enormous amounts of our money we entrust them with?

In Ontario back in the day, we entrusted John Baird with millions to fix the welfare problem. In exchange we got a boondoggle computer system that never worked, and a contract with Anderson Consulting of Enron fame, who charged us 4 to 1, what the job would have cost using a civil servant.

In exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects, transferred to the Harris government, we got signs, glossy pamphlets and self-promotion advertising. In other words, taxpayers funded his re-election campaign.

And yet we transferred the same hundreds of millions of dollars to the Harper government, for the same signs, pamphlets and self-promotion advertising.

We have also transferred billions to the war in Afghanistan and have no idea what we got in exchange. Or maybe we do. A request for more billions.

Ontarians were lured into complicity, because the Harris government focused on the cheats. Yet any system involving money is always open to exploitation.

And that also includes John Baird billing us $61,000 for his vacation to Bali (since he did nothing to address climate change), or Tony Clement $11,000 to deliver a cheque that he could have mailed. Or Christian Paradis presenting a claim of $5,000 for an $800 coat.

Cheats are cheats.

We will now be transferring more funds for an extension of stimulus money, and what will we get in exchange? Nobody knows because nobody asks. Tom Walkom believes it is to help pay for Stephen Harper's election campaign, and has nothing to do with the jobs he's promising.

In fact, job figures are looking better, simply because many out of work Canadians are simply giving up. In exchange for this transfer of funds we should demand that the money go to areas hardest hit by unemployment, but we know it won't. It's going to the 905 in an attempt to buy 10 seats.

In the United States the Republicans have blocked plans to cancel further tax cuts for the richest Americans, while the U.S. unemployment rate remains high and thousands are set to lose their benefits. What will the American people get in exchange for this enormous transfer of funds from the working class to the ultra-rich?

What will Canadians get for the enormous transfer of our tax dollars to the ultra-rich (60 billion in total come January)? An abstract promise of job creation.

But a handful of people will get filthy rich. Another neoconservative success story.

Epilogue

Another man appearing on the tape was Mark Mullins, referred to simply as an economist. He said that he had reviewed the Harris plan and confirmed that it would create 725,000 jobs.

Mullins went on to become an advisor for the Alliance Party and CEO of the Fraser Institute.

Bill Vancoughnet would be forced out of politics for soliciting an undercover cop in Toronto. The charges were dropped on the promise of his attending 'John' school.

Mike Harris's lap dog, Tim Hudak, husband of the infamous Debbie Hutton (Harris's gate keeper), is now heading the PC Party in Ontario, hoping to be our next premier.

Another neoconservative success story.

The Politics of Jabberwocky: As Canada Plummets Down the Rabbit Hole

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Watching Question Period, something I no longer do, is like stepping into a parallel universe, since the Harper government came to power. They perform like they are in opposition.

But even more than that, their performances are unusual. Almost frightening, as if something has possessed them. It's like a really bad play, that while it offends and leaves you embarrassed for the actors, also keeps you spellbound. Can this really be this bad? Will the plot finally be revealed that explains their actions? Will Canadians stand up and cheer when it reaches it's climax, or simply demand their money back?

In Lawrence Martin's new book Harperland, he explains why during Question Period, everything appears both robotic and chaotic at the same time. The performances of the Conservative MPs are pre-scripted and they actually hold "dress rehearsals" before the big show.

[Says adviser Keith Beardsley] "I'd throw the question out and the PM would be sitting there watching. And if the minister wasn't prepared, Harper knew it." The ministers had their own briefing books with preset answers. "But the last thing they wanted to do was to be frantically looking through their books with the prime minister staring at them.' When an iffy answer was given, Beardsley would look over at Harper with raised eyebrows, as if to say, "What do you think?" And Harper, he recalled, "would just shake his head like 'That's no damn good."' (1)

And according to David Emerson the Liberal MP who crossed the floor immediately after winning his seat as a Liberal:

"You'd go through a dry run as to what was going to be said, and the prime minister himself would intervene regularly to shape someone's response to an issue. And the discipline was amazing." So were the results. The prep session was remarkably accurate in forecasting what would be asked during Question Period. "You'd probably capture 90 percent of what was coming..."(1)

Now this would be admirable if the script dealt with the issue, but it does not. It only provides ammunition for an attack on the person asking the question.

It was clear from the start .. that all the prepping was not intended to produce candid answers to opposition queries. The strategy was not to reveal information but to shield it and counterattack ... Harper's cabinet had documented Liberal failures on every conceivable issue. On some days, the Tories turned almost all of the Opposition queries into a counterblast. All governments had used this tactic, but it soon became apparent that this government would exceed all others. The Conservatives didn't mind looking evasive. They didn't mind if it looked intellectually infantile to defend their own inadequacies by pointing to the inadequacies of others. (1)

I'm reminded of an incident when my children were younger. After calling his sister "stupid", my daughter responded to my son, with "well at least I'm not as stupid as you are". To which my brilliant boy fired back "You are so".

During the first year of Harper's government, one of their favourite responses to any question was the inclusion of "for the past thirteen years", referring to the length of unbroken Liberal reign.

But they got a little carried away, allowing it to exceed it's best before date, until NDP Pat Martin reminded them that they were now part of that "thirteen years". They never used it again.

I wonder how future historians will view this period, and what their impressions will be of the Harper government, after reading the transcripts? They will no doubt determine that this was a group who was functionally illiterate, intellectually depraved and categorically insane. How else could you explain it?

Wait! I know.

It's Pure Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky was the name of a poem of pure nonsense, included in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. I used to think that the Conservatives behaviour was like 'Lil Abner meets the Muppets', but then after reading Elizabeth May's description of their antics, that poem immediately came to mind.

You need a special dictionary to translate what the Harperites are trying to say. Some call it Orwellian, but I think that's too deep. Nope. It's pure Jabberwocky.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Brillig is simply 4 o'clock, 'slithy' is 'lithe and slimy' 'Toves' are "something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews" (undefinable creatures), while "gyre and gimble," means to "rotate and bore". Mimsy is 'flimsy and miserable' 'borogove' a thin shabby-looking bird, 'Mome' means to seem 'grave' and 'outgrabe' is something between bellowing and whistling. So the translation:

’Twas 4 o'clock and the undefinable creatures
Did rotate and bore on their thistle;
So flimsy and miserable were these shabby birds,
That they gravely began to bellow and whistle.

Or as Elizabeth May says:

Heckling has become much more common over the last two decades or so ... [but] it has now become far worse. One unpleasant aspect to the current heckling is the willingness of the government front benches to engage in rude shouting across the floor. Bad behaviour used to be reserved for backbenchers who tended to remain rather anonymous in their interruptions. Even when such opposition heckling was notorious, as in the case of the famous Liberal "Rat Pack," it was by a scattering of MPs, not by an entire caucus and rarely, if ever, by government ministers. Under the current government, a number of ministers will initiate heckling across the floor. The prime minister himself does not stoop to it, although it is clear that he encourages a pit bull approach from his ministers on certain files. (2)

See. Jabberwocky. "Outgrabe" - bellowing and whistling.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

Jabberwock is "offspring". The Jubjub is "a desperate bird that lives in perpetual passion". Frumious is a combination of "fuming" and "furious", and Bandersnatch, "a swift moving creature with snapping jaws".

“Beware the horrible offspring, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that snare!
Beware the desperation, and shun
The snapping jaws of little Pierre!"

A perfect description of Pierre Poilievre. The little man-boy who struts around in perpetual passion, with jaws flapping and snapping. A perfect Bandersnatch. Belligerent and aggressive, Harper pulls him out when the questions get tough and they have no script.

He's been known to flip the bird, use profanity, and once even did a little pixie dance when the Speaker of the House was asking his caucus to settle down.

He took his vorpal sword in hand:

Long time the manxome foe he sought—

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought.

Vorpal is "verbal" and "gospel", manxome "manly" and "buxom". Are you seeing Jason Kenney? I know the manly is debatable, but remember when he denied removing the protection of gays and lesbians from the citizenship guide, then ran out the door in tears? He was later forced to admit to his dirty deed, but running away with his buxom chest extended is his modus operandi.

"He took his Bible on tape in hand:
Looked into the mirror, the foe he sought—
Then rested he by the Tumtum tree,
In hopes that his nonsense they had bought!"

Jason Kenney to a tee.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

Uffish means "when the voice is gruffish, the manner roughish, and the temper huffish". Jabberwock another offspring. Tulgey is "thick, dense, dark". Burbled is "a mixture of the three verbs 'bleat', 'murmer', and 'warble'".

I know ... John Baird, right?

Grouph, rough and in a huff he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through thick, dense and dark,
Bleating and warbling as he came!

It is so much easier to understand what the Harper government is saying when you realize that it is Jabberwocky.

Like when Stephane Dion, then leader of the Opposition asked for information about press reports of the ill treatment of Afghan prisoners. Instead of answering the question, Stephen Harper responded in typical fashion.

Stephen Harper attacked Dion and questioned why he cared more about the Taliban than our own soldiers. [March 21, 2007]. I actually felt the air being squashed from my lungs, so deep was my shock at this answer from the prime minister: "I can understand the passion that the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers." (2)

"T'was late in March when the slithy tove,
Did gyre and gimble in the House;
And mimsy were his arguments,
His outgrabe that of a louse."

It's easy really. Jaberwocky. It doesn't have to make sense, and clearly it never does.

But maybe Alice says it best: 'It seems very pretty, but it's rather hard to understand! Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas— only I don't exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that's clear, at any rate.'

Previous:

The Politics of Contempt: The Nixon-Harper Ticket

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

The Politics of Conceit: "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"

The Politics of Opportunity: Election Tampering


Sources:

1. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 44-45

2. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 70

3. It's time to ask: Is Poilievre fit to hold public office? By Randall Denley, The Ottawa Citizen, June 15, 2008

The Politics of Opportunity: Election Tampering

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

A vote of non-confidence on November 28, 2005, resulted in the fall of Paul Martin's government and the beginning of an election campaign. At the time the Liberals were running about 10 points ahead of Harper's Conservative-Alliance coalition.

On the same day, NDP finance critic, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, sent a letter to the RCMP requesting an investigation into allegations that some people had made stock market gains through advance knowledge of the federal government's decision not to tax income trusts. "The media has reported a sharp and unusual increase of trading in income trust investments in the hours immediately preceding the Finance Minister's [Ralph Goodale] announcement. There has been speculation in the press that a leak about the government's decision could be responsible."(1)

What happened next continues to remain a mystery, but what is clear is that members of the RCMP were involved in election tampering, that went straight to their former boss, Giuliano Zaccardelli.

Zaccardelli responded to the NDP MP's inquiry, suggesting that they had already started an investigation. But her offices were closed for the holidays so he took the unprecedented step of calling her personally to make sure that she read the letter. Wasylycia-Leis not only posted it on her website, but also called a press conference to announce that the Liberals were the subject of an RCMP investigation. This caused an immediate drop in Liberal popularity (2), a surge in Conservative momentum, and was instrumental in Harper becoming prime minister.

And to make matters worse, the RCMP actually mentioned Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale by name, a man with a squeaky clean reputation, and though he was cleared of any wrong doing, that cloud continues to hang over his head, as evidenced by comments posted now and then by Harper supporters.

So Why Did Giuliano Zaccardelli Do It?

Lawrence Martin believes that the RCMP chief had an axe to grind with Paul Martin.

The Mountie intrusion into the election campaign led to accusations that the force was biased against the Martin Liberals. This was a telling piece of irony for the Conservatives, who had long suspected the Mounties of being too close to Jean Chretien. During the uproar over alleged conflicts of interest in the Shawinigate controversy, Conservatives had howled in protest at how the Mounties appeared to be backing Chretien at every turn.

Giuliano Zaccardelli, then the RCMP commissioner, enjoyed a close working relationship with Chretien. One time at an American embassy reception he told a journalist just how that relationship had benefited him. He described how he was now a celebrated figure in his Italian home town because of his status as commissioner. What had helped him succeed, he explained, was that he had backed the right Liberal horse. His fellow Italian, Liberal MP Maurizio Bevilacqua, didn't enjoy the same status in his home country, Zaccardelli said, because he had sided with the wrong guy—Paul Martin. (3)

Paul Martin recognized the animosity but believed that it was because Zaccardelli was upset when he called an inquiry into the Arar affair that put him him right in the thick of it. He describes the events:

The decisive moment in the campaign came three days after Christmas. I was in a hotel room in Halifax when Alex Himelfarb reached me by phone with the news. I realized the significance right away. What had happened was unbelievable and built on a falsehood, as subsequent events have proven. It was nonetheless devastating.

Guiliano Zaccardelli, the then still-respected commissioner of the RCMP, had written a letter before Christmas to the NDP'S finance critic, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, saying that the RCMP had launched a criminal investigation into the possible leak of a planned change on the taxation of income trusts announced by Ralph Goodale the previous month.

There is no doubt in my mind that what Zaccardelli did was improper. The only question there can be about the incident is whether it was an act of ineptitude or of malice aforethought. My own view is that no one can be that inept ... Was it my decision to call the Arar inquiry? (4)

He also hints that the Conservatives may have been involved, which gains credibility given the actions of the Harper government when they came to power. Maybe they just owed Zaccardelli a debt, but they went well beyond simple gratitude, raising even more questions about the entire affair.

Following the election, there was no immediate call for an inquiry. For the defeated Liberals to have demanded one would have appeared self-serving. The NDP had played the role of willing enabler for the RCMP plan, so it was not keen to demand accountability. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper, unlike Paul Martin and his zeal to appoint Judge Gomery to uncover his own party's scandal, had no interest in investigating a scandal that had helped the Conservatives win.

On September 18, 2oo6, the inquiry Paul Martin had launched into the illegal rendition of Maher Arar to Syria by U.S. authorities, headed by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor, reported its findings. Maher Arar was completely exonerated, but the O'Connor Commission found that the RCMP had passed incorrect information about Arar to the Americans. It found that Commissioner Zaccardelli had misinformed the solicitor general both about the likelihood that Arar was tortured, as well as darkly hinting that Arar had real terrorist links. Heads should have rolled, but Commissioner Zaccardelli kept his and he was not asked to submit his resignation when the report was issued. (1)

Instead the Harper government built a wall around the commissioner, and went to extraordinary lengths to protect him.

Within days, there were allegations that the Prime Minister's Office and the office of Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day had ordered the commissioner not to appear before the Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee. In the House of Commons on September 24, 2006, interim Leader of the Opposition Bill Graham repeated former RCMP Commissioner Norman Inkster's claim that Zaccardelli was being muzzled by the Harper government. It was a subject of much media speculation when Zaccardelli refused to appear before the House Committee. A confidante of Zaccardelli approached the media to assert that Stockwell Day had written Zaccardelli to instruct him to avoid the House Committee. (1)

When it was later determined that he had lied under oath he was forced to resign but never really punished. (5) And even after that his name came up once more in a criminal investigation over the misuse of pension funds. And again the Harper government stepped in:

The next troubling scandal was over the misuse of RCMP pension funds. A month before Commissioner Zaccardelli resigned, an RCMP whistle-blower, Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis, sent a package to every member of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. The package documented allegations of RCMP senior officers misusing RCMP pension funds. (1)

And when a House Committee was formed to look into the matter:

The members of the committee voted down proceeding with an investigation. To be more precise, the five Conservative members of the committee acted as a group to block any investigation. And they did so repeatedly from the fall of 2006 until they lost by one vote and the RCMP whistle-blowers finally appeared in April 2007 ... At every key point when the committee voted to deal with the issue, they [the Conservatives] blocked it or tried to block it. The Conservative committee members also blocked pursuing reports from the auditor general that all was not well within the RCMP. (1)

In a column Don Martin wrote:

It's incredible and inexplicable why a government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which wraps itself in the uniform of aggressive law and order, would vote repeatedly to deny RCMP officers access to the spot-light when they were willing to risk their careers telling a disquieting truth . . . there's no sensible explanation for why Conservatives, who usually act in unison in committees, would circle the wagons against RCMP insiders seeking to blow the whistle ... (6)

This was a very serious situation. We have our national police force getting involved in an election campaign, essentially winning it for the Conservatives. And we have those same Conservatives breaking every rule in the book to make sure that the head of that police force does not have to answer to serious allegations against him in both a torture case and the possible misappropriation of funds. (7) Things like this happen in third world dictatorships, not western democracies.

And where is Giuliano Zaccardelli now? Someone obviously pulled some strings because he is now a senior official with Interpol in Lyons, France, heading its “OASIS Africa” program which aims to help African police forces more effectively combat international crime.(8) Unbelievable.

Sources:

1. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 132-147

2. Income trust a major campaign turning point, Canadian Press, January 22, 2006

3. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 30

4. Hell or High Water: My Life in and Out of Politics, By Paul Martin, McClelland & Stewart, 2008, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5692-5

5. RCMP's Zaccardelli resigns over Arar testimony, By CTV News Staff, December 6 2006

6. Block Party? No Clear Explanation Why Tories Obstructed RCMP Whistle Blower, By Don Martin, National Post, April 3, 2007

7. RCMP officers accuse top ranks of coverup, CBC News, March 28, 2007

8. Wikipedia

John Baird and Kimberley Rogers: Why Neoconservatism is Wrong for Canada

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

When Mike Harris first came to power in Ontario in 1995, he waged war against the province's poor, blaming them for everything that was wrong with our economy.

We had just come off a double dip recession and thousands of jobs had been lost to Free Trade, but the enemies were the poor who were "bleeding" us dry.

As part of the Made in America, "Common Sense Revolution", the Harrisites proclaimed that able-bodied people must work for their benefits. Ironically, many welfare recipients voted for Harris (1) believing that he was going to find them jobs, something most of them preferred. But that was not the case. They were left on their own to find employment that didn't exist, which is how they found themselves on welfare in the first place.

It was a horrible time. There were Big Brotherish signs everywhere, encouraging neighbours and family to "turn people in". Rewards were offered and a culture of fear and mistrust was created. Mike Harris wanted all welfare recipients finger printed and John Baird wanted to conduct drug tests before they received their cheques. He even put on a ridiculous public display, pouring out hypodermic needles on a table for the media, claiming that the poor would no longer be able to shoot their payments up their arms.

They had already reduced benefits by 22% when Tony Clement rewrote the "Tenant Protection Act" in favour of landlords, in order to kill rent control and make it easier to evict tenants, driving even more people into the streets. It was like living under the Gestapo.

But the saddest story of this period, was that of Kimberley Rogers, who was single and pregnant and trying to better herself, so that she would be a position to care for her child. She wanted off the welfare rolls so was taking classes at Cambrian College in Sudbury and was a straight-A student.

But in order to afford to do this, she had to take out student loans. I wouldn't class loans as income, but John Baird did, and had the woman charged when he found out that she was also receiving social assistance. As a result, she was sentenced to six-months house arrest, and confined to a second floor apartment except for three hours a week. Her welfare benefits were cut off and she was ordered to repay the government more than $13,000.

'I ran out of food this weekend. I am unable to sleep. . . . I am very upset and I cry all the time.' Kimberly Rogers wrote these words in her court appeal in May. Three months later, 40 years old and eight months pregnant, she was found dead in the Sudbury, Ont., apartment where she had been confined 24 hours a day for the crime of taking student loans while on welfare. (2)

This was May 14, 2001, when Rogers launched a case under the Charter of Rights that challenged the constitutional validity of Ontario Works regulations that suspended benefits after a conviction of welfare fraud. She was able to have her welfare benefits reinstated May 31, but the court had yet to rule on her challenge at the time of her death. (3)

The Globe described her living conditions throughout this ordeal:

It's a 21st-century Dickens story. There's not much to look at out the narrow second-floor window of 286 Hazel St. in downtown Sudbury. The back yard is a grey gravel driveway strewn with litter. There's a rusted black Ford that looks as though it's been up on blocks for a decade, and a yellowed dishwasher that someone discarded years ago. And overlooking it is the ramshackle two-storey, five-tenant apartment building where Kimberly Rogers, perhaps Ontario's best-known welfare recipient, spent almost every hour of the past three months ... this is where the 40-year-old expecting mother and straight-A recent college graduate spent her last days ..

Her body wasn't found for two days. Eight months pregnant, she was trapped inside her sweltering apartment for the duration of a record-setting heat wave. Temperatures were above 30 degrees for six days in a row the week she died. "It was like a sauna in there," Amanda Chodura of Sudbury's Elizabeth Fry Society, who frequently visited with Rogers, told The Globe and Mail. Rogers's crime was one only a poor person could be convicted of.

"I have no one to turn to for money or a home if I am evicted," she said. "If I were evicted, I would have to go to a shelter. I would have no money to pay for storage of my belongings, and fear that I could lose everything." She worried about where every meal would come from, and feared for the future of her unborn child. (2)

Sadly, her unborn child had no future, as he perished with his mother. "John Baird has said he cannot comment on the case, which he calls "a regrettable occurrence".... " (2)

"A regrettable occurrence". They had a lot of those, from Dudley George to Walkerton. All victims of a neoconservative agenda.

So when I read the story of another single mom being denied human compassion, it brought back the story of Kimberly Rodgers and why neoconservatism is the wrong fit for Canada:

A Moncton, N.B., single mother who is off work as she helps her two-year-old son recover from brain surgery is fighting the federal government's decision to deny her employment insurance benefits. Tricia Moran's two-year-old son Brayden has a rare condition, which causes cavernous malformations to grow on the outer surface of his brain. Two of these growths became so large that Brayden needed brain surgery last month to remove them. While his skull heals, he can't go to daycare out of fear that a knock in the head could cause seizures.

Brayden, 2, has a rare condition, which causes cavernous malformations to grow on the outer surface of his brain. Moran, armed with notes from her doctor, her son's neurosurgeon, and her employer stating her job is waiting for her when she is able to return, applied for sickness leave under employment insurance, citing stress. "I applied for the EI insurance, and they called me on July 14 and told me that I was denied because I wasn't the one that was sick, and the only reason that I was home was to care for my sick son, so they said I didn't qualify for it," Moran
said.

And I think that if we really want to understand where John Baird was coming from, claiming to be only protecting taxpayer's "hard-earned" money, we need to look at his involvement with Anderson Consulting, and Baird's attempt to privatize social services. Andersons changed their name to Accenture after the Enron Scandal.

The Canadian Province of Ontario's contract for social services delivery, essentially privatized welfare during the duration of the contract (which was to be for 4 years, but has gone over that limit by more than a year). As of March 2002, Accenture has been paid $246 million (CND) to do this "overhaul of the Ontario welfare service", even though the original estimate was $50 - $70 million and the project was eventually capped at $180 million. At one point, Accenture billed taxpayers $26,000 in unreceipted out of pocket expenses and Accenture management was paid up to $575/hour. In 1999, a year after the Auditor General of Ontario put out a scathing report on the contract, hourly rates paid to Accenture management actually rose (3%), rather than being cut. After this, the government was forced to finally renegotiate a cut to Accenture's billing rates. The Ontario government cut welfare payments to $355.71 per child in poverty and fired massive numbers of social service workers, making this contract essentially a transfer from those in need to those in Accenture. (4)

Accenture has a huge, problem-filled contract, to 'streamline' the delivery of welfare in Ontario. In 2000 and 2001, Accenture gave $20,000 Canadian to the governing Tories. Interestingly, they started making donations to the Tories only after the Tory government's Accenture contract was given a scathing review by the Provincial auditor, and they were forced to renegotiate the contract. Said Deputy Liberal Leader Sandra Pupatello: "They [Accenture] were fearing that they were going to lose the contract altogether because the government was taking far too much heat on this contract. Then, suddenly, they started contributing to the PC Coffers" (5)

And yet no one from Accenture or the Harris government were ever put under house arrest, despite the fact that they stole more money than Ms Rodgers or her unborn child ever could. Why is that?

Sources:

1. Mike Harris's Ontario: Open for Business, Closed to People, Fernwood, 1997, ISBN: 1895686733

2. Bleak House, By Mark MacKinnon and Keith Lacey, Globe and Mail. August 18, 2001

3. Inquest into welfare mother's death begins, By Darren Yourk, Globe and Mail, October 15, 2002

4. "Tory Welfare Donations Under Fire", Hamilton Spectator, October 25, 2001

5. "Consulting Firm Boosts PC Coffers, Liberals Say", By Richard Brennan, Toronto Star, October 25th, 2001

Guy Giorno Wins by Reviving Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

What does the article say about Guy Giorno? "Any discussion with insiders about control from the centre quickly turns into a debate over the relative strengths and weaknesses of director of policy Guy Giorno ... Nicknamed `Rasputin'...he is, some say, the ultimate insider, a right-wing true believer who sidelines any ministerial move that doesn't jibe with his ideology ... I am concerned when I see that nothing can get through without the thumbs up from Guy Giorno. I asked before, what riding does he represent? What constituency elected him? (1)

Guy Giorno, as many are no doubt aware, is not just a consultant or chief of staff for Stephen Harper. He is Stephen Harper. It's only been since 2008 that the media has started calling Harper a brilliant strategist. Before that he was kind of a lunk head. Always putting his foot in his mouth.

Then along comes Guy, and nothing is left to chance. I'll bet Harpo has a little chip embedded somewhere with Giorno choreographing his every move. "Watch out for that step" ... "There's a car coming" ... "You forgot to zip up."

I've realized that I have to do the same with Stephen Harper as I did with Mike Harris. Ignore him and go straight to his puppet master: Guy Giorno.

So when I learned that Canada is going to continue with tax breaks for the oil patch I was not at all surprised. Giorno is a lobbyist. In fact he is the king of lobbyists. Maybe even the emperor of lobbyists.

And when Canada was adopting the Kyoto Protocol this emperor of lobbyists swung into action creating the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, which was an astroturf front group for National Public Relations (NPR), the lobbyists for ... you guessed it ... the oil patch.

Some of Ernie Eves’s top cabinet ministers partied last week with Kyoto-bashers the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, a lobby group with close ties to both Ralph Klein and the energy industry ... It took place in the Queen’s Park dining hall and was a very chummy shrimp-and-wine gathering, a chance for members of the coalition -- the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, etc -- to schmooze Tory heavies. (2)

And guess what hand picked former federal environmental minister was on hand for the festivities?

There were speeches by coalition organizers, and a particularly passionate Ontario energy minister, John Baird, made his anti-Kyoto rallying cry. Needless to say, the audience was very receptive. Baird’s parliamentary assistant, Scarborough MPP Steve Gilchrist*, who at one time helped block developers’ plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine, was busy propping open doors with chairs to give relief to a very hot and stuffy room. I couldn’t help remarking to him that perhaps the room was so unbearably hot because of climate change. He was not amused. (2)

And of course we find the big guy, 'Big Guy', lurking in the shadows:

While Eves has been slightly slippery on just where he stands on Kyoto, it was interesting to learn that this meeting was organized by Guy Giorno, Mike Harris’s old chief of staff and ultimate Tory party insider. Giorno now works with National Public Relations (NPR), the coalition’s high-priced lobby firm.

Two days after the meeting, Giorno sent every MPP at Queen’s Park an e-mail suggesting what they might say in op-ed news pieces or letters to their constituents about Kyoto. Then Liberal and NDP members, for whom the missive was obviously not intended, were sent a second e-mail that read, "Unfortunately, materials from the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions were sent to your office in error in a previous e-mail. I do apologize for any inconvenience."

So now we have Mike Harris’s former number-one man trying to dictate environmental policy to our government members. It might make you wonder if the Eves government is really any different from Harris’s where the environment is concerned. It certainly doesn’t seem to be. Then there’s Klein’s relationship with the coalition, which is kind of like that of an organized crime boss and his "legitimate business activities."

Leaves me asking the same question as they asked in 1997 about Guy Giorno: "What riding does he represent? What constituency elected him?"

Footnotes:

*Steve Gilchrist was the former boss of Harper MP Paul Calandra: "The Conservative minister of municipal affairs and housing is under Ontario Provincial Police investigation after allegedly telling developers to go through his own personal lawyer, Tory fundraiser Peter Proszanski, to get an audience with him — a privilege that'd cost them $25,000 each ... Even juicier, Gilchrist has a criminal record for tax evasion dating back to 1984, shared with his father, who was at the time a federal Tory MP." (3)

Sources:

1. Ontario Legislative Assembly, Official Records for December 2, 1997

2. Big Oil's Kyoto Party: Harris whiz kid pulls strings at wine and shrimp fete, By Josh Matlow, NOW Magazine, October 24, 2002

3. How Mike Harris and his minions manipulate TV news, Ryerson Review of Journalism, Summer 2000

Pierre Poilievre: Sneaky and Manipulative

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

The City of Ottawa was recently named the best city to live in Canada:

Ottawa's great economy, low crime rate and steady population growth put the city back on top as the best place to live in Canada, according to rankings released Thursday by MoneySense magazine.

You would think given that, people in Ottawa would be proud and perhaps congratulate their government for a job well done

I'm sure many do, and have, but not a new group of rabble rousers calling themselves the Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group. They claim to be non-partisan but their leader, Ade Olumide, was a candidate for the Conservatives in 2006, and their battle cry parrots most neo-con groups associated with Stephen Harper "The Silent Majority is Silent No More"

Stephen Harper was always speaking up for the muzzled Canadians. Now he muzzles everyone else, but whatever.

In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said. "Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive," the Canadian Alliance leader says.

Ironically most of these "silent" groups are pretty noisy, but what is this really about?

I've read their quotes in newspaper articles and perused their website and they are just another cut taxes, reduce the size of government, bust unions and privatize until Canada has nothing left, advocacy group, for the Conservative Party of Canada and Tim Hudak's Neo-cons.

They raised a flap when Ottawa's buses refused to allow their advertisement attacking the bus drivers union, to be driven around the city. If I could get John Baird and Pierre Poilievre to wear T-Shirts with my ads 'I'm with stupid' pointing at each other, I'd gladly pay, but I suppose that wouldn't be fair.

And speaking of the gruesome twosome, they've both spoken at the group's functions. I think they were billed as 'An Evening at Yuk Yuks with The Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group', because I laughed and laughed.

Federal Transport Minister John Baird waded into Ottawa civic politics on Sunday, blasting municipal officials for what he said were a misplaced sense of priorities. Baird, the MP for Ottawa West-Nepean, told an audience from a taxpayer advocacy group Ottawa's city hall has a history of wasting money.

"There are some people who can't make priorities," he told a Sunday audience gathered to hear potential municipal candidates in Ottawa's upcoming election.

Considering that Baird's government is on record as spending the most amount of money since any government before them, and he himself has created such an accounting nightmare in his department that it may be years before it's sorted, I don't really think he should be judging anyone else's spending habits.

MP Pierre Poilievre applauded OTAG as a counter-balance to special interest groups which, he said, apply pressure on governments to spend more money on programs. A special interest group getting praised for dissing special interest groups. He is funny.

I'll bet it would be neat to follow the money here though wouldn't it, because they sure have a bunch of it. Not to worry though they are non-profit ... and of course non-partisan.

Advocacy groups are important and if they were genuinely concerned with the people of Ottawa, they would offer better solutions than simply no tax hikes and reduce their staff by 10%. And if they were really non-partisan they wouldn't have two of the loudest mouths of the neoconservative movement speaking for the "silent majority".

Maybe I'll try to follow the money with these guys, something our media should be doing before quoting them all over the place. Just a thought.