Why don’t you ever say what you mean, Mr. Harper? Your minister Tony Clement said: “If only one Canadian complained about the mandatory long-form census, that was good enough to kill it,” when the real purpose was to reduce the credibility of census information so you could make decisions based upon hunches rather than data. Take the Crime Bill, for example.

You eliminated the long-gun registry because it was a Liberal legacy, but you took your time about doing it because it was such a great cash cow for the Conservative Party. Your argument was that no one should be made a criminal or subjected to arbitrary search and seizure just because he owned a rifle or shotgun.

But then you came out with Bill C-30, the Lawful Access Act. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin tried a version of this bill before, but it died on the order paper due to an election. Some regulation of electronic communications is necessary to get our house in order, but C-30 goes way beyond any reasonable law in that it gives police, public employees, and “Inspectors” the right to snoop into the online activities of ordinary Canadians without notifying anybody of what they are doing.

Sure, the bill has the usual pages of how notifications and permissions have to be obtained, but the loopholes are there: any policeman or employee in a police station or anybody appointed as an “Inspector” can snoop without the victim’s knowledge and not leave a record.

This bill, if enacted, will make Canada a police state. And this comes from a government which killed the long-form census because fewer than ten Canadians over a period of two years complained about it? A government which killed the long-gun registry rather than risk making criminals out of farmers with unregistered .22’s?

These were feints before the real roundup. Mr. Harper, your thought police (all right, “Inspectors”) will do more harm to ordinary Canadians of all ages than any number of long-gun registries or long-form census rules.

And how did you defend this invasive legislation in the House? An hour before the first reading someone changed the name to the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.” The only thing Bill C-30 has to do with child pornography is that both are about the Internet.

Then Vic Toews, your Minister of Public Safety, stood up in the House of Commons and faced down any critic of the bill with what may go down in history as the stupidest comment ever made in the Canadian Parliament: “He can stand with us or with the child pornographers.” So a government which didn’t want to make a criminal out of a farmer with an unregistered shotgun has now called virtually all Canadians outside Parliament Hill the worst kind of criminal.

This comment was so mystifying that I tried to track its origins down with Google. It traced partly to the attack-dog style of your government, Mr. Harper, and the way you have trained your ministers to respond with bullying put-downs to opponents. “You’re not supporting our troops!” and “Liberals are soft on crime!” over the last six years have been standard substitutes for reasoned argument in question period. On June 20, 2004 you yourself said, “Paul Martin supports child pornography!”

But the child pornography accusation of Toews was more extreme than the others, so I looked a little further. Then I came up with the following quotation:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Was this the idea floating around in the mind of your Minister of Public Safety —
hide behind the children and you can manipulate the people any way you want?

So if the long-form census was to cut off support to needy people and aboriginals because you would no longer be able to count them, and the long-gun registry was to fill the party coffers and erase a liberal tradition, what’s the point behind Bill C-30?

It’s not eliminating child pornography. Effective laws are already in place to do that. But the same part of Bill C-30 which allows emergency access to Internet records for an Amber Alert can allow access to businessmen who want to find ways to make the Internet pay.

Mr. Harper’s favourite slogan in the last election was: “Canadians don’t care about that. It’s all about the economy.” Most of the Internet in Canada is still free, but if corporations can track our clicks they can meter them and make us pay. Internet copyright laws in Canada are just about unenforceable at the moment. On Torrent sites I can download first run movies and view them along with yesterday’s T.V. programs if I want, all without commercials. My friends in the United States can’t do that.

Bill C-30 is a giant step toward tracking our keyboard clicks to make us pay. There’s no moral or safety issue here, just indirection and scare tactics, the standard techniques of the pickpocket and the mugger.

Harper’s hubris

September 26, 2010

Following his party’s defeat in the House of Commons this week, the certainty with which Stephen Harper vowed to hunt down and destroy the Long Gun Registry put me in mind of a quote from Bertrand Russell I saw once on a tractor site: “The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

In the ongoing soap opera on Parliament Hill, no one could accuse Stephen Harper of a comic role. He’s the stuff of tragedy: larger than life, towering above his peers, neither predominantly good nor evil, imbued with a personal vision quite apart from the conventional moral code. It is of this vision I wish to speak.

Over the last year Stephen Harper and his government have declared war on statistics and the more rational forms of record-keeping. Lump sum payments to wounded soldiers suddenly took the place of a rational system of disability pensions for life. So much for supporting our troops, up until then the mantra of the Harper Government, but the system was simple.

The census is the bastion of all rational public administration in Canada. This summer it had its foundation cracked on the laughable premise that no one should go to jail for the failure to fill out a form. No one has ever gone to jail for not filling out a census form. But without believable, objective data, one can only govern by one’s beliefs and impulses, and that seems just fine for Harper and his inner circle.

And the latest battle to destroy the Long Gun Registry took on the context of a rebellion against an oppressive law which criminalized honest gun owners. What madness is this? The strength of the LGR is the set of rules for the possession and storage of firearms it carries with it. Every time I handle ammunition I remember the rule which requires that the shells be locked up in a separate room. This legislated requirement for the careful storage of firearms and ammunition in Canada undoubtedly saves lives because it makes Canadians careful.

Even Jim Flaherty caught the mania. To the annoyance of his audience at the Canadian Club, last week Flaherty read a rip-roaring speech accusing the opposition parties of a lust for power so that they can destroy Canada. It ended with an extended pirate metaphor so corny that it would have had my grade nine students of a decade ago jamming fingers down their necks in protest.  This is hardly fit behaviour for a Minister of Finance of a G8 country, but like Tony Clement, Flaherty does what his boss tells him to do.

So what’s going on in Stephen Harper’s head?

Remember two years ago when Harper and Flaherty devoutly promised Canadians that there would be no recession in Canada? Harper even denied the stock market crash, suggesting it would be a good time to pick up some bargains. Yet these same two plan to run on their economic record and expect a good number of Canadians to believe them.

Stockwell Day disregarded statistics which show Canada’s crime rate steadily declining over the last two decades, and justified billions of dollars in prison expenditures with his claim of “unreported crimes.” How do you know there have been crimes if they’re not reported? I guess Stock just believes there must be some, so we need more prisons.

“This madness erects therefore its own foundation, owing nothing to reason. While holding itself high above reason, it makes itself reason’s counterpart. It is through this madness that subjectivity becomes absolutely sovereign, and the ultimate truth of folly is revealed.” Marina Van Zuylen, Monomania: the flight from everyday life in literature and art. Ch. 5

This mania for the subjective over objective evidence is the downfall of Harper and his government. Certainly a world closed in around a few strongly-held beliefs is more comfortable than one where the viewer is exposed to all of the banal, often hopeless confusion which makes up the normal world with its lack of a coherent narrative. If one can subscribe strongly enough to one’s mania, the world can be a comfortable, rewarding place. One can create meaning within the fantasy world, and appear frighteningly confident to an outside observer. But faced with the statistics of a nature “Which is but an inert mass that does not depend in the least upon one’s creative powers when all it does is remind us of our limits, of our fallen condition, of our imminent return to dust,” the fantasy crumbles and the created ego shatters (Van Zuylen).

Look at the sudden departure of former Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke from Sun Media two weeks ago. In combat with author Margaret Atwood, he pushed the delusion to a point beyond which the fantasy could not go, and he cracked.

I can accept a certain fragility in Canada’s prime minister and his or her government, but not at the cost of ignoring the real issues for which we need a parliament to provide leadership.  Columnist David Olive offered the following list of critical issues in October of 2008.  Have we made any progress?

  • healthcare
  • the Canadian mission in Afghanistan
  • foreign policy generally (Do we have one? What should it be?)
  • squalid conditions in Native Canadian communities
  • education reform
  • immigration reform
  • conventional pollution, specifically the proliferating toxic lakes in the Athabasca tar sands, and the continuing disgrace of the Sydney tar ponds
  • the infrastructure deficit
  • the widening gap between rich and poor
  • the flat-lining of middle-class incomes

Martin and a few other grad students have been planning a spring goose hunt for some time now, so a couple of weeks ago he showed up at the farm with two class-mates, a box of clays and a hand-held launcher, determined to practice his marksmanship before the climactic day. The three of them came back to the house, crestfallen. They couldn’t hit anything with his single shot Cooey.

I dug my Remington pump out of a cupboard in response to his hang-dog look, and away they went. They quickly ran out of shells, but progress was good.

Time passed, more clays were broken over the walnut field, and then came the email: “May I please use your gun for the goose-hunting trip? I checked the regulations and I need to have the original of the registration form with it, so could you dig it up?”

This proved a problem. Over the last twenty-five years as computer records improved I became less and less concerned about keeping track of specific pieces of paper. Whereas in 1975 looking after a single copy of an essay from a student was of critical importance, by 2004 when I cleaned out my desk I routinely required a printout of an original on the school computer with a backup or two on the student’s disk. As well, over the course of the writing process I would have looked at anywhere from three to five versions of the work.

After reading, marking, and returning well over a million sheets of paper over three decades, I wasn’t about to be bothered by a specific piece of it any more, not when a simple computer search can produce a pristine copy to everyone’s satisfaction.

This mindset no doubt governed the purge of the large filing cabinet the day I moved it from my study in our last house to its current residence in the barn, empty of all but tools. I carefully saved income tax forms and personal correspondence. Everything else went for disposal.

A search through remaining documents produced no registration sheet for long guns. Fine, I’ll call and have them send me another copy. That’s the point of a gun registry, right?

The OPP guy gave me the number, so away I went on my own wild goose chase, not nearly as pleasant as Martin’s planned expedition.

I landed in the middle of one of those telephone menus. None of the many selections had anything to do with what I needed, which was simply to ask them to print a copy of the list of guns I have registered with them or send it along by email so that Martin could legally take my shotgun into Quebec.

I punched button #5, and waited until an operator answered. First I had to convince the woman that I was not a criminal looking around for a nice cache of guns to steal. I don’t know if she ever got past that impression.

Eventually after I had given her every piece of information she requested and discovered that I had offended her by not notifying the Registry within thirty days of a change of address (even though she had somehow obtained my unlisted cell-phone number), I realized that this operator had no intention of helping me at all. This was a one-way information tap, and the only direction for the flow was away from me, towards her.

She directed me to the registry’s website to download a file and make a written application for a copy of my registration, “Which is to be kept with the gun at all times.”

Fine, lady, but that wasn’t what they said in 1995 when I was one of the first to register a firearm online. Do I need to keep a copy of a book if I have donated it to the local library?

We ended the call with her assurance that there was no way on earth I would get a registration certificate replacement within a week. “I don’t do that. You have to send down-east to have them print certificates.”

“Where are you?”

“Orillia,” I think she said.

On the website nothing applied. From the looks of their forms, having guns already registered doesn’t mean a thing if you wish them to provide a replacement copy of the certificate. Looks as though you have to go through the whole registration process again. This does not make sense.

Based upon this experience I have to conclude that the current Long Gun Registry is a dead list, poorly conceived insofar as it does not serve the needs of those who contribute to it, and the bureaucracy that I have encountered actively resists citizen interaction with the list.

I explained to Martin that he was out of luck. A day later he proudly informed me that a prof sold him an almost new Remington 870 which had been used for a research project a few years ago involving the destructive testing of snow geese.

As for the Long Gun Registry, that is one sick puppy of an organization. Put a hunter in charge of that office for a month and things would be a lot different.