Cancelling and Avoiding Dissent

"When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”

Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 18, 2005

When Stephen Harper was Leader of the Opposition he claimed to believe that a government that cancels or avoids dissent loses its moral authority to govern. If he indeed believed that, he was right. A diversity of opinions is essential to democracy. The alternative is autocracy.

Despite what some people may tell you, criticizing the policies and actions of the government or Prime Minister when you have cause to believe that criticism is due is not unpatriotic. Quite the opposite; the ability to, as they used to say, speak truth to power without the fear of government reprisals is what separates democracies from dictatorships.

When he was in opposition Mr. Harper claimed to believe in the importance of being open to dissenting views, but how has his government faired on that score? We contend that its record has been dismal. Consider the following evidence.

Prorogations

We’ve written about the 2008 prorogation that shut down Parliament to prevent our elected Members of Parliament from expressing non-confidence in the government. Read about it here.

We’ve also written about the 2009 prorogation that, according to the Conservative Party, was called so the government could “recalibrate,” whatever that means. Few people believed that. Instead, it was widely thought that Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament to prevent it from citing the Harper Government for contempt of Parliament as a result of the government’s refusal to turn over documents that parliamentary committees are constitutionally entitled to demand to see. Read about it here.

Attacking Dissenters

Cancelling and avoiding the dissent of the people we elected to represent us in Parliament is inexcusable. But that’s not the end of it. The Harper Government has exhibited a pattern of sidelining or attacking government watchdogs and others who have criticized it. For example, consider the following sampling of examples:

Linda Keen

As recent events in Japan have proven, safety at nuclear reactors must always be taken seriously. That’s why we should be thankful that the Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Agency (CNRA) carefully monitors the safety of all nuclear reactors in Canada. That is, we would be thankful if the Harper Government did not jeopardize the work of the CNRA.

In November 2007, the then president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Linda Keen, ordered the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to shut down its reactor at Chalk River because of concerns about the emergency power system.

The Harper Government was not happy about this. Considering the dangers, did the Harper Government allow nuclear safety to trump its other concerns? No, it fired Linda Keen instead.

There is a post-script to this story. In May 2009, the Chalk River reactor had to be shut down because of a heavy-water leak and corrosion at the base of the reactor vessel. AECL wasn’t able to restart the reactor until July 2010.Instead of firing Linda Keen, maybe the Harper Government should have listened to her.

Louise Arbour

Louise Arbour is one of the most respected jurists, not just in Canada, but around the world. In her career to-date she has been a chief prosecutor of war crimes before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, a Canadian Supreme Court judge, and a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In 2006, Ms. Arbour made some comments about the Israel/Lebanon war that were controversial. That was unfortunate for Ms. Arbour when the Harper Government came to power.

In June 2008, when Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay called on the government to acknowledge Ms. Arbour's work as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, was the Harper Government’s response, “we appreciate her human rights work, but we respectfully disagree with some of her views”? Not exactly. Vic Toews, who was then Mr. Harper’s president of the Treasury Board, shouted out in the House of Commons, “she’s a disgrace.”

That’s part of a pattern for members of the Harper Government. When someone dissents, they don’t argue against the position taken. They attack the person.

Peter Tinsley

Peter Tinsley used to be the chairman of the military complaints commission, but he made a mistake. He did his job and investigated military complaints. His commission’s hearings into allegations that Canadian military police knew or should have known that some of the Canadian-held Taliban prisoners handed over to local authorities faced possible abuse in Afghan jails were thorough.

To reward Mr. Tinsley for his efforts, the Harper Government refused to renew his appointment. According to some experts, despite the fact that his original term of appointment had ended, it would have been normal to grant an extension due to the ongoing investigations. That’s not what happened.

Discussing the issue, Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa legal expert was quoted in an October 4, 2009 online CBC article as saying, “This raises a huge, huge systemic issue. Is it legal or constitutional to stymie legal and administrative tribunals in this way? Because if it can be done to this commission, it could be done in any administrative tribunal in this country and that calls into question the fundamentals of administrative justice.”

Richard Colvin

In November 2009 a senior Canadian diplomat, Richard Colvin, testified before a House of Commons committee where he said that prisoners handed over to local Afghan authorities by Canadians were likely all tortured.

Mr. Colvin did not volunteer to testify before the committee. He was summoned to appear.

What’s more, Mr. Colvin had nothing to gain by saying things the government didn’t want to hear. In fact, because he was still a diplomat who served at the pleasure of the government, he took a significant risk in doing so.

Unlike the MPs he testified before, Mr. Colvin worked as one of our diplomats in Afghanistan. Being on the ground there, he was in a much better position to know what was going on than our politicians.

In light of this, one would think that the government would thank Mr. Colvin for bringing vital information to our intention, even though that information might differ from what the government wanted us to hear. Did the Harper Government thank him? No, it launched vicious personal attacks against him in an attempt to discredit him. Former diplomats were appalled and signed a letter criticizing the attack on Mr. Colvin’s reputation.

Paul Kennedy

Paul Kennedy, a career civil servant, used to be head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. He isn’t any more. In November 2009 the Harper Government told Mr. Kennedy that it no longer needed his services.

This came about after Mr. Kennedy’s many calls for more teeth for the complaints commission, and after he had completed an investigation into RCMP actions that resulted in the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski. The investigation was somewhat troublesome for the government. The report on the investigation had not yet been submitted at the time Mr. Kennedy was told that he would not be reappointed to the position.

According to the Toronto Star, Don Davies, the NDP critic and vice chair of the committee on public safety and national security, made the following comment at the time, “It smacks of political cowardice. The Harper government has proved it cannot handle criticism. They are trying to damage control and avoid policies that would make the RCMP more transparent and accountable. Mr. Kennedy has done a solid and courageous job.”

Marty Cheliak

RCMP Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak was the head of the Canadian Firearms Program, which oversees the administration of the Firearms Act and regulations. When it came to the issue of the long-gun registry, the view of this long-serving, senior officer of the RCMP, our national police force—the people we depend on to help fight crime across Canada—differed from that of the Harper Government.

As the pattern documented on this page makes clear, dissenting from the Harper Government's ideology is not a healthy career move. In August, 2010, Chief Supt. Cheliak was quietly removed from his position with the Canadian Firearms Program.

The government suggested that the move was not political, but their arguments were not widely believed. In an August 18, 2010 article in the National Post, columnist Don Martin heaped scorn on the government's spin. In that article, Mr. Martin wrote, "Who is he [Stephen Harper] kidding? When the top cop for a firearms program leads the charge to support a registry the government aims to abolish suddenly disappears for language training and reassignment, that's no easy sale as a coincidence."

If the case of Chief Supt. Cheliak were an isolated one, you might be willing to give the Harper Government the benefit of the doubt and accept its spin. However, it's hard to do so when seen in the context of an ongoing, entrenched pattern of actions that have the effect of cancelling and/or avoiding dissent.

Statistics Canada

One way to avoid dissent is to lie about it and say it doesn’t exist. That was one of the routes that the Harper Government took when it cancelled the mandatory long-form census. According to Tony Clement, the Minister responsible, Statistics Canada told him that the change would not seriously impact the quality of the census results. “We’ve come up with a way that is statistically valid, that StatsCan feels can work,” Clement said.

Not only was that not true, but the head of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, resigned in protest rather than let that misstatement stand. In a media release issued on July 21, 2010, Dr. Sheikh said: “I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion. This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census. It can not.”

Dr. Sheikh did the honorable and courageous thing when he resigned rather than allow his dissent to be cancelled. He is highly qualified and had no problem finding another opportunity. He is now a distinguished fellow at Queen's University and a distinguished visiting scholar at Carleton University. How many other civil servants had their dissent cancelled by the Harper Government but, for whatever reason, couldn’t afford to be as bold as Dr. Sheikh?

Kevin Page

The Harper Government created the Parliamentary Budget Office, allegedly to improve government accountability. And the Harper Government hired the first head of the PBO, Kevin Page.

After having created the office and appointed its head, one would have thought that Mr. Page would have the full support of the Harper Government. And he did—that is until he issued some reports that made the Harper Government uncomfortable.

How was Mr. Page rewarded for doing the job he was hired to do—i.e., not obediently promoting the Harper Government, but rather bringing to light potential government spending and accountability issues? The Harper Government did its best to cancel or avoid Mr. Page’s dissent. That’s how.

In response to Mr. Page’s reports disputing the Harper Government’s accounting and accountability for some of its programs, the Harper Government attacked Mr. Page’s integrity. And, interestingly, they attacked his competence. That’s curious because it was the Harper Government that hired him.

Court Challenges Program

Our Constitution enshrines a number of rights for all Canadians. Unfortunately, just having the Constitution is not enough to guarantee that those rights will be upheld. Sometimes, whether for the best or worst of intentions, those rights are violated and it is up to the courts to restore them.

When you think your rights have been infringed on by the government or others it can cost a lot of money to defend those rights in court, particularly if the case is appealed up to the Supreme Court. That’s why the government’s Court Challenges Program was so valuable. Unfortunately, the tense of the verb “was” is not a typo.

In 2006 the Harper Government cancelled the Court Challenges Program. What was Mr. Harper’s rationale for this? At the time, he said in the House of Commons, “We do not intend to pay Liberal lawyers to challenge unconstitutional laws.”

So, it would appear that in Mr. Harper’s world our rights are what he says they are. If you feel that the government or anyone else has infringed upon your rights you are free to defend yourself, but only if you are rich enough to do so. If you can’t afford it then you are expected to just accept it and shut up about it.

Postscript: The Harper Government restored a portion of the court challenges program in June of 2008. However, the only people who qualify to receive funds under the partially revived program are members of Canada's linguistic minorities.

Other Grant Attacks

Events suggest that a non-governmental organization (NGO) or agency that offers dissent from the Harper Government’s ideology risks its financial health if it dares to do so. Dennis Gruending, an Ottawa-based author and consultant and a former Member of Parliament, lists more than 70 such funding cuts. Click here to see the full list.

We’ll repeat Mr. Harper’s 2005 words here because they bear repeating: "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.” He was right then. And he has lost his moral authority to govern now.

Follow us on: