Stephen Harper as Vacuum Cleaner Salesman?

I have no problem with differences of political opinion and philosophy, but I have a huge problem with rulers like the Harper Tories which lack values such as integrity, full disclosure, etc. I have no problem with Canadians going to the polls more often than every five years, and no problem with coalition governments. There could be ways to improve the system. I’ve wondered why we don’t do away with the election period. We could just have an immediate election (allowing time for Elections Canada to get set up) but with no campaigning. Then the parties would have to always be doing their best between elections, and we would judge them on that – not on the promises that they make during campaigns, and are not likely going to keep anyway. Another danger of campaigns is that people will forget the “wrongs” that parties have done since the last election. There is a site (click shitharperdid.ca to see it) which lists some of these things not to forget. Don’t be put off by the summaries on each page. Click on the related links and you will get legitimate news coverage to back up the topic.

I’ve tried to remember some of the wrong-doings of the Harper Conservatives. As I made this list it just made me sick. The Harper Conservatives are way over the top in terms of their secrecy, lack of accountability, pattern of misinformation, limited truthfulness, obstructionism and overly controlling nature. That’s not the sort of transparent and accountable government that Canada should have. Harper Conservatives do not deserve to be elected. Here’s the list that I’ve come up with (for those of you who are really interested in the Harper as a Vacuum Cleaner Salesman, which is based on a piece by Margaret Atwood published in The Globe and Mail, it comes after the list):

-the Harper Conservatives prorogued Parliament in 2010 rather than face legitimate questions about Afghan detainees. The issue is whether Canadian officials knowingly handed over prisoners for torture by Afghan authorities, a potential violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Harper Conservatives have steadfastly refused to provide documents on the matter, even though they were ordered to do so a year ago by House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken. To date the documents have not been released. Here’s some further material that The Globe and Mail published on this on April 8, 2011:

The detainees story offers an extraordinary portrait of the governing morality. It led to former defence minister Gordon O’Connor’s demotion after he had to apologize for misleading the House. It led to Mr. Harper and ministers, as well as Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk, having to issue embarrassing corrections of previous claims. It led to the Prime Minister’s dumping of Peter Tinsley, the head of the Military Police Complaints Commission, who was hot on the trail of the file. And it led to other outrages, such as the government denial of documents to the commission on the basis of national security - even though commission members had national security clearance. There was more. The detainees imbroglio saw the government attempt to discredit a respected diplomat, Richard Colvin, for having the courage to come forward and challenge its story. It prompted Mr. Harper to try and deny Parliament its historic right of access to documents. It was a catalyst in the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament 15 months ago, which touched off a national protest. It led to the Speaker’s historic ruling condemning Mr. Harper’s government.

The Speaker ruled condemning the Harper Conservatives! How can they be elected?

-the Harper Conservatives around March 23, 2011 failing to provide all of the information requested by MPs around the cost of the Conservative’s crime legislation and the purchase of 65 fighter-bombers. Recall that around March 11, 2011 the Parliamentary Budget Office stated that the F-35 stealth fighter jets could cost Canada $29.3 billion, nearly double the Harper Conservatives’ initial estimate of $16 billion. The Harper Conservatives have again misled us about the real cost of their agenda.
-the Harper Conservatives are so big on law and order, and integrity, that the Prime Minister himself hypocritically hires someone like Bruce Carson as one of his senior advisers, working on sensitive issues including Afghanistan, the federal budget and climate change. Mr. Carson has had five criminal convictions, been bankrupt, and had years of debt problems. It was Mr. Carson’s relationship with another sex worker that first landed him under the glare of the RCMP. Mr. Carson is alleged to have performed lobbying on behalf of a company with ties to Michelle McPherson, a former prostitute who also owns a house with Mr. Carson.
-the charge by Elections Canada around February 26, 2011 of some prominent Harper Conservatives of violating federal law in connection with their in-and-out financing scheme involving more than $1 million in expenses during the 2006 election, which skirted an 18.3 million spending cap. For a party which says that it is very pro law and order, this doesn’t sound very respectful of the law!
-and let’s not forget the Harper Conservatives’ cuts to social programs such as literacy. Right, let’s keep illiterate people unemployable; that will lead them into poverty, which can lead to crime; which will be a way for the Harper Conservatives to fill the jails they want to build and won’t tell us what they will cost!
-the ruling around March 10, 2011 by the House of Commons Speaker that on its face the Harper Conservatives withheld information from a Parliamentary Committee and that International Co-Operation Minister Bev Oda may have misled the House of Commons (re her testimony about an altered memo that she signed cutting funds to an aid agency), which ruling could have been the basis of contempt of Parliament charges if the election had not come.
-the unfounded allegations by the Harper Conservatives about former cabinet minister Helena Guergis.
-the secretive axing of the mandatory long-form census. So let’s not have information about our population. That way no one can argue when the Harper Conservatives say there is no need for social, education, health etc programs to the extent that they are needed and where they are needed.
-the sundry hirings and firings of executives in government-funded agencies.
-RCMP investigations into interference in access-to-information protocols and allegations of illegal lobbying.
-the development of the black eye for Canada on the world stage to the point that we were not able to be voted a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.
-the big splash by the Harper Conservatives that they were going to do so much for mothers and children in Africa, and then we find out that they secretly were also going to impose the Harper Conservatives’ own family planning views along with the program. How deceitful!
-further evidence of the control-freak nature of the Harper Conservatives is the actions during the early part of this campaign when they cordoned off reporters and had the RCMP evict people attending events based on information that they were not Conservative supporters. These are public events. Are we to expect a society from the Harper Conservatives in which only their chosen ones will participate – i.e. we will not have freedom of association and freedom of speech.

So here’s the piece about the vacuum cleaner salesman. Margaret Atwood outdid herself in this piece I've copied below, which was published in The Globe and Mail.

Would you buy a vacuum from this man?

Isn’t this your signature? the salesman asks. Yes, but the document’s been changed to mean the opposite of what you signed

MARGARET ATWOOD
Wednesday, Apr. 20 2011

I am a fiction writer. So here's a fiction.
A vacuum cleaner salesman comes to your door. "You must buy this vacuum cleaner," he says. "Why?" you say. "Because I know what's good for you," he says. "I know things you don't know." "What are they?" you say. "I can't tell you," he says, "because they're secret. You are required to trust me. The vacuum cleaner will create jobs."
"Where is the vacuum cleaner made?" you say. "In another country," he says. "So the jobs will be created in another country? Not here?" you say. You believe it's your right to query: It's your money and, come to think of it, you pay this guy's salary.
"Stop bickering," he says. "I am competent. That's my story and I'm sticking it to you." "I'm not bickering," you say. "I'm asking relevant questions. How much will the vacuum cleaner cost me?" "I can't tell you that," he says. "Why not? Because it's more than you claimed at first?" you say. "Or because you don't really know the cost?" "I can't tell you that, either," he says. "But you have to pay."
"Just a minute!" you say. "You want me to commit to an unknown, very large sum? That's not fair! And it's not competent, either." "More bickering!" he says. "We need stability!" "But I might have to go on paying huge sums for decades!" you say. "We're already up to our necks in debt! I'll have to give up other things - I won't be able to pay for the doctor, or support for special needs, or drinking water, or care for the elderly, or the kids' education, or ... and what happens if there's a pandemic, or a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake, and you've already spent the money that could have helped in a disaster?"
"You are a very negative person," he says. "You are not welcome here." "Where is here?" you say. "In my country," he says. "These are my mountains, this is my hockey, this is my flag. Mine! All mine! And I'm stamping my image on all of it!" "I like those icons, too," you say, "but I think they should be shared with everyone, don't you?" "What is this 'shared' of which you speak?" he says. "I believe in the individual and nothing but. Talk to the hand! Weak to the wall!"
"I don't want to pay for the vacuum cleaner," you say. "You have to pay for it," he says. "See, it says here on this document. Isn't this your signature?" "Yes," you say, "but the document's been changed to mean the exact opposite of what I signed. If I altered a document like that, I'd end up in jail." "You are double-plus not welcome," he says. "I make the rules around here."
"But -" you say. "Don't interrupt," he says. "In addition to the vacuum cleaner, you will have to pay for several very expensive jails, the cost of which is unknown."
"But the crime rate is falling!" you say. "Not for long," he says. "I'm planning to have it rise again. Once people have their money vacuumed away, with none left for doctors, or the kids' education, or making sure you don't eat poisoned food - all those frills - they'll get scared and depressed and desperate, the middle class will be toast, and the crime rate will rise. Anyway, I will criminalize lots more things. Because we need to fill up those jails!"
"I get the feeling you don't like me," you say. "Is it because I'm a girl? Or because I don't want you to run up huge debts without telling me what the money is for? What happened to accountability? It used to sound so great!"
"You are beneath my notice," he says, giving me the Death Glare. "Once I really get the whip hand, I will never have to answer another question from anyone. Not one question. Not ever again."
"That's a very dark fiction," says the reader. "Surely people won't sign away their right to know how their money is being spent! That would result in tyranny! It can't happen here!"
"Anything can happen anywhere," I say.

Margaret Atwood's latest non-fiction book is Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth.