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

A Political All-Star Team

Alex Kovalev is the All-Star MVP (I should get pool points for that), and the East beat the West in a shootout. Don't worry, the West still gets a single point for not losing that badly. This is all in the first All-Star game in Canada in nine years, and on the eve of parliament returning from a hard-earned and extended Christmas break.

With this imminent return to action, talk of last month's highly controversial coalition has been raised again. Smart money would suggest this is simply Liberal posturing to secure a reasonable budget, and prevent an otherwise messy and unappealing political coup. The New Democrats and Bloc, of course, see if differently, and continue to press the issue. Jack Layton is correct when he asserts that it really comes down to Iggy.

And what is Ignatieff to do? He has been notoriously cool to the prospect of forming the coalition, and probably rightly so for the sake of his political future. He was one of the last MPs to sign the proposal when it came out last month, but he has bandied the idea about much more than I expected this past month since his acclamation as Liberal leader. After the generally negative reaction to the proposed coalition; frantic Conservative back-peddling; lies and half-truths; and a prorogation and a new leader, much has changed in a month and a half, most of which would point towards the death of the coalition. However, Ignatieff has kept the door open.

He has done this to keep the Conservatives honest, as all opposition members of parliament must do in a minority government, and especially one playing such high-stakes partisan politics. Einstein defined insanity as ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’, and Ignatieff seems to echo these sentiments, suggesting the ‘country needs another election like it needs a hole in the head.’ An election would result in another long expensive process that would be unlikely to see any significant changes in the House of Commons, and after the public backlash may actually do more harm to the Liberals than any other party. So that would limit the Liberals options should they dislike what they hear from Jim Flaherty tomorrow.
In an interview with CBC this weekend, Jack Layton was asked about the coalition, and he remained staunchly in favour of it. When asked about the reaction it may receive amongst staunch New Democrats opposed to working with the Liberals, he said (paraphrasing) it was okay to like your team (such as Jerry and Elaine), but sometimes it is necessary and positive to create a political All-Star team (I'd give the Liberals the edge with the likes of Frank Mahovlich and Ken Dryden). He went on to say that even if the pending Conservative budget included all of the terms the coalition was looking for, he would be unable to support it because he has lost confidence in the government. Perhaps it’s just me, but it would seem an odd move to vote down a budget, rise to power, and replace it with exactly the same budget. A lot has been made about Jack’s attempt at power, with many believing it to be a self-serving grasp at a dream he is unlikely to realize on his own. With less to lose and less coverage overall, it is difficult to ascertain the direction he and the NDP are headed, but he does seem to remain at least philosophically in favour of a coalition.

So with the (second) Conservative budget dropping tomorrow, we will likely have another few days of constitutional discussion. Michaëlle Jean surely cannot grant another prorogation, so this is Harper’s last chance. If he fails again and relegates his party to opposition status or sends the country into another election, his performance as leader will surely be under review. So with that hanging over him, Ignatieff is smart to keep the coalition door open, with Jack and Jill (err, Gillies) peeking through the crack. There will still be those who argue that they did not vote for a coalition, but I will tell you had I known we were holding Presidential elections I would have voted differently. With an election the equivalent of a hole in the head, an unpopular coalition, Ignatieff’s first big move, and Harper’s political future hanging in the balance, this is sure to lead to an interesting few weeks and months again in Canadian politics. Certainly for his government to go down, this would have to be a thoroughly disagreeable budget, and he wouldn’t make that mistake twice. Would he?

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

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

Spoiler Alert

Elizabeth May and Ralph Nader have a lot in common. They're both from Connecticut, they've both run for leader of their respective countries on the Green Party ticket, and they've both been accused of stealing votes from their liberal counterparts. Their opinion of these 'stolen' votes, however, apparently differs.

A refresher for anyone who fell alseep in Grade 10 Career Studies and forgot to wake up before Civics started: Canada has 308 Electoral Districts spread out across the country, each with a weight of 1 in parliament. These districts are sized by population, so some (like my riding of Ottawa Centre) are only 35km², while others, such as Kenora (321 716km²), are bigger than the United Kingdom. Whichever party wins the most ridings forms the government. If no party gathers a majority of the ridings, then they must contend with a minority government and seek the support of the Members of Parliament sitting from other parties lest their government fall.

Things become dicey when you look at the number of candidates in each riding. There can be as many as five, six, seven or more candidates, often four or five from a 'legitimate' party (sorry, NeoRhinos). A party can win a riding with less than 25% of the vote if it is evenly divided. (If you consider that only 59% of Canadians voted, this equates to less than 15% of the population needed to get your 1/308th share of the Canadian government.) Under these circumstances, the issue of vote splitting will invariably arise. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister with only 37.65% of the popular vote. Multiply this by the 59% voter turnout, and less than one quarter of our population actually supported him. So the questions arise: Should I vote for the party I actually want to win? Or should I vote for the party most likely to stop the Conservatives? These questions are not new, and are not unique to Canada.

The American system, so I gather, is slightly different. Each state has a ballot with Presidential candidates, and whichever candidate gets the most votes wins that state. Each state is worth points based on population, and whichever candidate gets the most points overall, wins (kind of like basketball). This scenario again leave the door open for vote stealing. Looking at the infamous butterfly ballots from Florida's 2000 debacle, there are ten Presidential candidates, and even a Write-In spot (...if I get enough of my buddies to vote for me, then just maybe...). With ten candidates to contend with, the vote can be well split again, but the difference being that there are only two 'legitimate' parties (sorry, Boston Tea).

In the 2008 Canadian Federal Election the Green party garnered 937 613 votes, but no MPs. Some would argue that this represents almost 1 million wasted votes, of which the majority theoretically would have gone to the Liberals (they were in cahoots, after all). This scenario likely cost the Liberals seats, and therefore sway in parliament. Elizabeth May was heavily criticized near the end of the campaign for appearing to suggest that in some ridings Green supporters would be better to vote Liberal to defeat the Conservatives. This suggestion may have cost the Greens votes, government funds, and David Chernushenko.

Ralph Nader has faced similar circumstances in drawing support away from the Democrats. Due to its 25 Electoral Votes (points), whoever won Florida in the 2000 American Federal Election would become the President. It clearly didn't matter who got more overall votes or anything like that. After numerous debacles including shoddy reporting, ambiguous ballots, and hanging chad, the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush had won Florida, edging out Al Gore by less than the number of people who voted for Nader. (The same is true about New Hampshire.) Theoretically Nader supporters would have supported Gore, and some Republicans even ran pro-Nader campaigns in an attempt to split the vote. Nader, however, has continued to rebuke suggestions of strategic voting, maintaining in his differences from and opposition to the Democrats.

So whose strategy is the best use of your vote? The problem with the debate is that there's no concensus. If nobody voted strategically, and instead voted for the party they wanted to win most, then the Greens and New Democrats would undoubtedly pick up votes and perhaps even seats at the expense of the Liberals. At the same time, if everybody voted strategically, and voted for the party most likely to defeat the Conservatives, then the Liberals would invariably gain votes, and likely even seats, with enough new votes to topple some Conservative candidates (They Conservatives won Kitchener-Waterloo by 17 votes). As it stands now, nobody is really sure which option is best, so everybody does their own thing. This only does the one thing that everybody can agree they don't want, which is benefit the Conservatives.

But there can really only be one answer, and that is to vote for the party that you want to win the election. If Ralph Nader were a Democrat, he wouldn't run against them. If you support Nader, why would you vote for his opponent? He even gave John Kerry the chance to encorporate some of his key issues into Kerry's failed 2004 Presidential campaign. When Kerry failed to do this, Nader went electioneering. By even garnering votes, these candidates are bringing the issues important to them into the spotlight. Elizabeth May participated in, and some argue won, the leaders debates this year. If nobody have voted Green in 2006, then Green issues would not have been represented this way. The Reform Party didn't win a seat in 1988, but increased their votes tenfold by 1993, claimed 52 seats in parliament, and in an ironic twist split the Right-Wing vote and vaulted Jean Chretien to a staggering majority. Without the third and fourth party options, our politics would be a bland choice between the lesser of two evils, and small party supporters would end up voting for parties who didn't represent them. That is no way to see democracy in action.

RM