Photo: flickr/Jennifer C.

You can change the conversation. Chip in to rabble’s donation drive today!

For years now, since I first glommed onto what the Neo Cons were up to, it has been glaringly obvious to me that the Harper regime has one overwhelming determination; that is not to govern. Choose any area of Canadian legislation you like and it will instantly reveal another piece of the scheme to dismantle Canadian safety, security, research, heritage, arts, social planning. The Omnibus budget bills are designed to hide government intentions and avoid House of Commons debate, for without debate, governance cannot take place.

The Senate Scandal reveals bad management, but it shows no sign of orderly government. The very idea of policy is anathema to this Neo Con government. The word is never used. But this government’s refusal to name any policy or endorse policy initiative spells out clearly an anti-government dedication.

The Harper regime wants to rule but it loathes, hates and fears the idea of governing. The Harper brand of Neo Conservatism is fiercely loyal to the goal of making sure that government provides the friendly legislative tools for resource extraction. The Harper government vigorously drives a kind of legal snowplow that clears the roads, pipelines, sea lanes, rail lines of obstacles that might stand in the way of Canadian resource wealth and exploitation, be these obstacles in the form of laws or rules, safeguards, protections that are environmental, jurisdictional, treaty, social, health and safety; be these resources oil, minerals, gold, water, wood, etc., There is an alliance between the Mega Resource Corporations and the “Snowplow” Harper  government elected, appointed, robocalled or otherwise authorized to get opponents or Rules OUT OF THE WAY of quick, cheap, reckless exploitation. This is an exercise in massive deregulation.

Since Canada is a Sovereign State, a Confederation, meeting with the provinces would indicate some interest or obligation in governing. The present government has no intention of sending out any such message, a message that would suggest that they recognize or concede any role in national policy making to Provincial jurisdiction.

Destroying research facilities, libraries, postal services or public institutions all add up to indifference to public interest. The same is true for federal government indifference to infrastructure, to our veterans, to CPP, to Military procurement, national health care, great lakes water quality and on and on. The Harper determination to bring about the final solution to the settler problem with Aboriginal people has lost almost any trace of disguise that it might have had and is now taking on aspects of hostile indifference that ought be a source of National shame.  

Now Peggy Nash, when I told my wife that you said on TV,  “they won’t come to the table” she said “they have removed the table.” Maybe this was the table that the elephant sat on, the elephant we must never talk about but everyone knows is there, this Harper government loves power but hates governing. The table may have been taken away, but the elephant is more in evidence that ever.

So here is my question: I do not understand why the Opposition declines to expose the true Harper agenda, why won’t the Official Opposition talk about this elephant? Why is the opposition determined to be silent, on all sides and in all five parties, refusing to say a word about the Harper hatred of a governing role?

Take for instance that I just finished watching Thomas Mulcair criticize the Harper government for its record on rail and food safety. But to me Mulcair missed a stunning opportunity to score a telling political blow by explaining that every such government failure signals one more example of a refusal to govern, not rule mind you, but to govern.

Why don’t they get it? What makes it taboo to talk about this? Can you help me out here?  

Where is the MP who will point out that a PM who won’t govern and won’t answer policy questions is an emperor with no clothes?

In the field of general semantics this would be described as a failure to create an “abstraction”, a term or description that would make it possible to describe what is happening politically in Canada. To put it in a nutshell and help the electorate understand. Government of, for and by oil, not the people. Oil in Rail cars; not people in towns en route. Can we talk about this?

Like this article? Chip in to keep stories like these coming!

Joseph Gold PhD is Professor Emeritus University of Waterloo and Clinical Member American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.

Photo: flickr/Jennifer C.