Hats off to (Stephen) Harper

Full disclosure: I am not a Conservative. While I can perhaps understand and appreciate the philosophy behind smaller-government neo-liberalism and personal responsibility, any affinity I may have for right-wing ideology ends there. I do not believe in bigger jails and longer sentences, nor do I support increased military budgets, especially at the expense of education, healthcare, or other socially beneficial programs. I am even more so opposed to any brand of social conservatism, preaching vague moral standards to which everybody must adhere. With that in mind, my thesis may seem like a logical extension of that train of thought, but: I do not like Stephen Harper. I believe him to be as self-interested and power-hungry as his fellow parliamentarians he denounces so quickly, and he intentionally spreads misinformation to further his objectives. He seems to hold little interest in inclusiveness or genuine debate, and instead treats the Canadian people like dupes.

I am sure Stephen Harper is an intelligent man, and a man of some convictions (he apparently favours overtime to shootouts). In 1997 he left the Reform Party and joined the libertarian think-tank National Citizens Coalition, accusing Preston Manning and the rest of the Reformers of drifting towards social conservatism. He only returned to the national political scene in 2002 replacing Stockwell Day as the leader of the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance (CCRAP), err, Canadian Alliance, and went about uniting the right, in order to solidify the opposition forces and present a consolidated opposition to the majority Liberals, in much the same scenario presenting today’s left-leaning parties against the Conservatives.

Here Harper’s ascent has largely mirrored the fate of the Liberal party in the past decade, often with Harper critical of the similar moves when made by the Liberals. As mentioned he faced a divided right which he sought to unify to defeat the Liberals. He has also faced a minority parliament as leader of the opposition, when Paul Martin held a minority in 2004. When Martin’s government put forward its budget, Harper sided with the (gasp) separatists in an attempt to bring down the government. It was only through floor-crossing, independents, and all-‘round shenanigans that the Liberals managed to cling to power for a little while longer. The Liberals have since faced a divided left; Bloc support; and Conservative shenanigans that have allowed them to cling to power (for a little while longer).

But what displeases me most about Mr. Harper is his apparent disregard for the intelligence of the Canadian public (what displeased me about the Canadian public is their propensity to prove him right). Conservative seagulls have been pooping on Stéphane Dion from the day he was elected. While perhaps much of the blame should lie with Dion for failing to create his own identity for himself and his Green Shift, the Harper attack machine had been running in high-gear from day one. He was never interested in engaging Dion, but rather focused on the ‘tax increase’ and Dion’s language deficiencies.

But even more appalling is the way he has handled the ‘constitutional crisis’ we faced after his November 2008 fiscal update. Just seven weeks after an election in which he failed once again to secure a majority government, he presented a budget to the House of Commons that was riddled with divisive partisanship that he arrogantly assumed the opposition parties would be too weak to oppose. When they did stand up to him he was in full back-peddle mode, dropping epithets wherever he could and intentionally misleading Canadians. He immediately dismissed the Bloc Québécois as separatists (the same separatists he was looking for support from when looking to defeat the minority Liberals), and he derided the Liberals and NDP for seeking their support, even though I’m certain he would have welcomed their support of his budget had it been there. He even went so far as to suggest that the coalition was signed without the presence of a Canadian flag, which was either a bad metaphor gone awry or the first of many lies to come.

In the coming days, Harper derided the coalition as unconstitutional and without merit, and gained much public support for this view, and yet this is completely untrue, and the leader of our democratic country should not stoop to these levels. Whatever your thoughts on the coalition, it was completely constitutional and represented the proper functioning of a Westminster parliament under a minority government, and for the leader of the country to suggest otherwise is an intentional attempt to mislead the public. He did not merely express dissatisfaction with the coalition and implore Canadians and their elected officials to reconsider, but he directly said, in an address to the nation: “the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists”, and further suggested that “the opposition wants to overturn the results of (the recent) election.” A coalition would not be overturning the results of any election, as all elected MPs would remain, and the opposition is well within its democratic right to form a coalition with the consent of the Governor General, and these are both facts which the Prime Minister is fully aware of.

In fact, the most questionable constitutional manoeuvre was performed by Harper himself when he asked Michaëlle Jean for a prorogation of government in order to avoid a vote he was certain to lose. (I still haven’t made up my mind on her decision yet: I believe it was unprecedented and against the letter of the constitution, but at the same time it was probably the best move for the country at the moment. Whether that makes it a good move or a bad move, I’m still not sure.) He was a desperate man attempting to cling to power, just as he accused Dion of being a desperate man attempting to obtain power.

So for his actions alone in the face of this crisis which he brought upon himself, I oppose Mr Harper. That is to say nothing of his various discrepancies, such as an opposition statement of not offering special status for Québec, only to declare them a nation once in power; or appointing eighteen unelected senators when it appeared his government may fall, despite promising not to do this and instead rally for senate reform; or passing a law enacting fixed-date elections to prevent sitting Prime Ministers from calling snap elections to their own benefit, and then promptly calling a snap election to his own benefit. (There was actually a challenge brought forth by a legal group contending the 2008 election was illegal based on Harper breaking this law.)

So more than anything else I dislike Stephen Harper for the way he handled the coalition crisis. He brought it on himself with his partisan politics, and then attempted to worm his way out of it by intentionally misleading the public. He showed that he not only believes the opposition parties are weak, but that he believes the Canadian people are gullible and unintelligent. These are in no way actions befitting of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Russel MacDonald

Politics, Again...

I was hesitant to post again about the Canadian political 'crisis' after the two previous posts, but it's just been so dominant in the news and has been developing so rapidly. There have also been some people who have made me really mad. So, let's call it a Canadian Politics theme-week here with the Blog Journalists, and hope that with this prorogation we can get back to talking about other things next week.

On Monday I posted about the legitimacy of a Liberal-NDP coalition, and how that would represent democracy in action for Canadians. I attempted to give a fairly balanced look early in the whole process without masking that I am, in fact, a (small-L) liberal. After following this story for the past week, and listening to the response from people, I can't tell if those opposed are wilfully blind, ignorant, or just plain stupid. I understand supporting the Conservative Party (I mean, I understand that people do support the Conservative Party), and I then understand that in supporting this party you would like to see them to continue governing. That makes sense. What angers me, though, is some of the comments these people have posted (Ottawa Citizen, cbc.ca, etc). A number of people are sobbing that: the people elected Harper so we should give him a chance (umm, we did. He blew it.); nobody voted for a coalition so it's undemocratic (we voted for all the members of the coalition. It's how the Westminster System works); the coalition includes and is pandering to separatists (this is just untrue).

Harper and the Conservatives were not returned with a majority government, so they are not allowed to govern as if they had one. One might even question the democratic principles behind wilfully crippling your opponents' finances even if you had a majority. Theoretically all members of parliament should at least attempt to gain bipartisan support for motions in the interest of national unity. Harper didn't have a majority, and he didn't even try. I have actually heard the argument that he should get his chance to lead. Well he did, and he blew it spectacularly. Give someone else a turn who has the confidence of the house.

The argument has been made that people did not vote for the coalition; therefore it has no right to lead. I will grant the very valid point that people seemed to resoundingly reject Stéphane Dion, so perhaps a different leadership option would have been better, but that doesn't really change the fact that Dion won just as many ridings as Harper did. I will concede that this is somewhat of a hollow argument, and in reality people do vote with a party/leader in mind. However, there is nothing undemocratic about what the coalition has attempted. In Canada, people never really vote for the Prime Minister or even for the government. The Governor General invites the party to lead who they feel has the confidence of the house. If this is lost, the Governor General has every right to name another party/group if they feel they have a reasonable chance of maintaining that confidence. Some people would favour another election, which would only cost time and money, and it is unlikely it would return vastly different results from what we have now. There has even been the suggestion that the Liberals and NDP would agree to not run candidates against each other in certain ridings in an attempt to unite that divided vote and topple Conservative candidates. They would continue, however, to be two separate parties. A coalition would never amount to an amalgamation of parties, but rather an agreement by two groups to co-operate (isn't that what democracy should be all about?). Ideally every single issue ever would be decided by referenda, but this is not reasonable, so we elect officials to vote for us. Democracy.

The coalition has always been between the Liberals and the NDP. What this means is the two parties would together form a government and share the cabinet positions. However, they would still not have enough seats to form a majority government, so they require the support of the Bloc Québécois. They refuse to recognize Québec as a nation, so the Bloc refuses to join the coalition. They agreed to support the coalition, however, because they are ideologically similar on many issues (for a great look at this, read Will's post from Wednesday: Canadian Political History). I'm sure Harper would have no issue accepting their 'sovereigntist' support if they offered it. He has instead been intentionally misleading the public to believe the Bloc to be part of the coalition.

There have been allegations from Conservatives of the undemocratic actions of the opposition, when in fact the closest thing anyone has done to subvert Canadian democracy is Harper's prorogation of parliament to avoid a lost vote. Not to mention his spying on the NDP and intentionally misleading the people. They have even resorted to name-calling (separatists) and rousing nationalism (members of the House chanted Harper! Harper! before breaking into the national anthem). (I am not kidding.) The opposition parties have done nothing wrong, and in fact have done what they are supposed to do as opposition parties in a minority government. Some will argue that by raising the prospect of defeat and forcing Harper to back off they have done their job, and perhaps that's what we will see happen with the prorogation. This may even be in the best interest of the Liberal Party, as they have a lot on the line in this coalition, and no strong leader or funds to fight an election. Perhaps some months with Harper on his guard will allow the Liberals to rebuild and become stronger, sooner. For now, we'll have to wait and see.

RM

Canadian Political History

Due to the unprecedented nature of the current political situation in Canada I have decided to turn my attention away from my usual international column to comment on Canadian politics. Seeing as I am currently in Sweden, I suppose this article could still be considered an international perspective.

To quickly recap the current state of affairs, the three opposition parties (Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois) have signed off on a agreement that, if passed by the Governor General (the Queen’s representative within Canada) next Monday, would see a coalition government taking over for the only seven week old Conservative government.
This move was sparked by a controversial economic proposal by Harper’s conservatives that according to the Toronto Star “contained little in the way of economic stimulus but proposed to take away the rights of federal workers to strike, clamp down on pay equity and, critically, eliminate public subsidies for political parties.”

Despite a last minute ad-blitz by the Conservative party to try and swing national opinion in their favour, it appears the best the Conservatives can hope for is for Governor General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve parliament and send Canadians back to polls instead of handing power over to the coalition. Jean has said she will not comment on the situation until she discusses things with the Prime Minister and that her door is open once she arrives back in Canada today from an abbreviated ambassadorial trip to Central Europe. Prime-Minister Harper will no doubt be waiting on her door-step asking if he can put a Conservative sign on her lawn.

What I would really like to focus on in this blog however is what became the most prevalent glob of muck in the mud-slinging affair that was the Canadian House of Commons yesterday; that being the suddenly essential Bloc Québécois.

The maybe soon-to-be former Prime Minister Harper and his possible back from the political dead successor Stéphane Dion went back in forth in the House yesterday with Harper accusing Dion of being in bed with the separatists and Dion defending himself saying that he has always believed in a united Canada.

The quote of the day was made however by the long time leader of the separatist Bloc Québécois party, Gilles Duceppe, when, referring to Harper’s past reliance on the Bloc to pass multiple budgets, he said “Let's say he had a lot less fear of the nasty separatists back then.”

One can see both sides of this situation and, in a way, both sides are right. Due to the relative number of seats the Bloc hold, the leader of any minority government has to rely on the Bloc for support in order to accomplish anything. In this sense Harper’s argument is moot because he is essentially saying that no matter what evil doings the ruling party is up to, it is worse to deal with the separatists. This is of course ridiculous, especially coming from a man who has also gone for a whirl with the Québec nationalists. At the same time, most Canadian’s would agree in maintaining a united Canada. The question is, at what point do you draw the line and say better the separatists than this guy?

Judging by the exceptional nature of the current economic situation and the partisan, hackneyed efforts of the Conservative government to address them, the coalition has performed the necessary duty of, regardless of the outcome of this situation, letting the Conservatives know they are not asleep.

I think it is also pertinent to note the irony of the Bloc Québécois in Canadian politics. If one did not know they were a separatist party it would be very easy to see them as the best suited party to lead the country. (Bare with me here…) They have the longest standing leader of any of the political parties in Gilles Duceppe, a man who is both charismatic and more bi-lingual than any of the other leaders. His party backed the Kyoto Accord, uncovered the Liberal sponsorship scandal and opposed the Iraq war. It seems the only reason Canadians have to dislike the Bloc is the fact that they don’t want to be part of Canada. I am not in any way a separatist, but with the way the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government have staggered through their terms, I really wonder if you can blame Québec and the Bloc for thinking Québec might be better off alone.

On a final note, if one were to ignore everything else that has happened, Stephen Harper will show his true colours tonight when he most likely will tell the nation that the best solution is to go back to the polls in order to establish a Conservative majority. If Mr. Harper were truly concerned with the Canadian economy do you really think he would put another $30 million election on the top of his agenda? Mr. Harper, you’ve already had your chance.

Will Grassby

The System Works

The future of this 40th sitting of the Canadian Parliament is unfolding as we speak. The Conservatives unveiled a financial statement last week, believing the leaderless Liberals wouldn't have the gall to defeat it. (This belief was probably justified after the Liberals supported umpteen Conservative motions in the previous sitting, while they HAD a leader.) They were, however, mistaken, as the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois are so miffed they may vote to defeat the 40-day-old government and propose to Governor General Michaëlle Jean that they form a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc. There are always many contentious points in any Conservative statement, but three in particular have raised the ire of the opposition: 1. The statement lacks significant economic stimulus; 2. They would eliminate the $1.95 tax-payer funded subsidy awarded to each party per vote received; 3. They would eliminate the right for federal civil servants to strike through 2011.

So taken-aback by the uproar, the Conservatives have scuttled backwards on the last two points, saying they would instead freeze the subsidy and campaign against it later, and would not disallow civil servants to strike. I suppose they still believe they have provided a significant stimulus... An incredulous John Baird even tried to defend the plan to scrap the subsidy by arguing that as the party that received the most votes, the Conservatives would stand to lose the most. While his math is bang-on, he has, of course, missed the point. While the Conservatives received about one-third of their funding from the subsidy, for the other parties it was a much higher percentage. The effect of losing it would cripple the treasury of smaller parites (Greens, etc.), as well as diminish the incentive to vote for a party you 'knew' wasn't going to win your riding.

But the damage may be too great for the Conservatives to undo. The Liberals and NDP have been meeting all weekend to hammer out details of their coalition proposition, not the least of which would be who would actually be the Prime Minister. If they defeat the government on a confidence vote, they would then need to convince Ms. Jean to allow them to try their hand at running the country. There is precedence for such a decision, dating back to the King-Byng affair of 1926 when Governor General Lord Byng invited Arthur Meighen and his Conservative Party to lead after Liberal Mackenzie King lost the confidence of the house, and Meighen did so gamely for almost three months, before the voters returned King for his second of three turns.

Critics and Conservatives will peg this option as undemocratic, but they would be wrong. Everyone currently sitting as an MP has been elected (remember? It was last month). Since everyone voted for the party they most wanted to win anyways, then this outcome would have had no bearing on their vote. What we would be seeing here is democracy actually working for the majority of Canadians. The reality of a divided left means that only 37.65% actually voted for Stephen Harper. (Since only 59% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots, only 22% of Canadians actually voted for this guy.) It is fair to assume that the majority of the remaining 62% of the votes would have gone to the Liberals, NDP, or Greens before the Conservatives, so such a coalition would actually be representing the views of the majority. (I am sure there are some Liberal voters who would vote Conservative before ever voting for the pinkos, and some Québécers who would never vote for the Bloc.) The minority Conservatives, however, should not be allowed to run rampant their agenda through fearmongering of another election and the misguided belief in Liberal docility.

Most Canadians will agree that they do not want another election. Most Canadians will agree that they do not support Harper or his right-wing agenda. There is historical precedence and constitutional support for coalition governments. Therefore, it seems like a viable option, at least for a little while. Party politics, to a certain degree, is a bastardization of parliamentary government anyways, so parties being forced to work together may be a welcome respite. Many of the problems with minority governments will still exist, and the federal government would only survive with the support of a party whose main purpose is the destruction of that federal government, but such a coalition would still be a positive step for Canada and democracy. The NDP would be afforded 25% of the Cabinet positions, and the Bloc would not receive any, and the Prime Minister would still likely be a member of the Liberal Party. Stéphane Dion may be afforded his day in the sun after all (much to the chagrin of Edward Blake), or perhaps one of Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, or Dominic LeBlanc would hastily be named. My choice may even be Jack Layton, as such a parliament would be destined to be short lived, he is a strong leader of his party, and he would be kept in check by the majority (of the minority) Liberals. Ignatieff seems the inevitable choice in a few years anyways, so why not give Jack a turn.

The outcome of all of this is yet to be seen (this blog will likely be out of date very quickly), but these rumblings represent a chance for democracy in action. The system, apparently, works.

RM