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

Special Edition: The Speech Heard Around the World

Due to the extraordinary happenings in Washington today The Blog Journalists are publishing in advance of their ordinary Wednesday slot in order to provide up-to-the-minute coverage of President Barack Obama's inaugural speech. Enjoy!

The Speech Heard Around the World

Just having listened to Barack Obama’s inaugural speech I felt the need to put in writing the feelings roused during the roughly 20 minutes where the world stood still to listen this afternoon. I left the room before any analysis came on or talking to anyone else in order to give my own impressions without the influence of any outside sources.

Addressing a wide variety of issues, Obama had the undivided attention of millions and did not disappoint. His slip during the oath was soon forgotten as he dazzled with unrivalled charisma and poise. Highlights for myself were the moments where he reached out to the nations of the world and addressed both subtly and explicitly America’s adversaries saying “We will reach out our hand to you if you will unclench your fist.”

Without naming any names (Bush, Bush, Bush) Obama sounded at times apologetic for America’s recent behaviour and urged Americans and the world to look forward to a future of change but change based on the beliefs of the American forefathers such as honesty, integrity, hard-work and determination. This sense of moving forward while relying on traditional and enduring virtues was a powerful one, especially in the face of the present economic, environmental and international turmoil.

Most powerful was the way Obama chose to incorporate equality into his time at the podium. His assertion that it is only because of “the giving our all to a difficult task… why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath...” was extremely significant but perhaps surpassed by the way he took that notion forward and extended it to the world citing “the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

Whether one attributes the virtue of equality to a God, a moral code or a simple sense of justice, the sentiment expressed by Obama is both clear and needed. The dream of Martin Luther King Jr. lives on; a dream not just of equality for African-Americans but for humanity as a whole. That, in Obama’s words “…men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration.” This unifying image of hope and equality gives purpose to the struggle of both Americans and the human race as a whole.

Obama even touched on the metaphysical, acknowledging that “God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.” Despite potentially alienating a meaningful group of population, Obama touches on something that even the non-believer can agree to; this being the mystery of life and the uncertainty we experience each and everyday. Obama did his best on this day to address these uncertainties and inject hope into the American society in a time where it is most needed. His message? “With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end…”

Now it is up to Obama to follow his own advice and steer both America and the world through those icy currents; a task many see as being the most difficult any president has ever faced.

After seeing Obama today and hearing him speak I don’t know anyone better for the job.

Will Grassby

Heathrow Expansion: What About the Climate?

After spending the last couple days wandering through airports on an overseas journey from Toronto to Stockholm I decided that tackling a spicy issue out of England invovling the further expansion of London Heathrow airport would be a fitting post-holiday return to the blogosphere.

The plan is to construct a third runway at London Heathrow which, proponents say, would be an economic boon for the Brits, and would allow the airport to increase the number of flights using Heathrow from 480 000 anually to 702 000 by 2030.

Ministers are expected to pass the strongly protested bill tomorrow all but ensuring the construction of the third runway, which Friends of the Earth director Andy Atkins is saying “…would shatter the government's international reputation on climate change.”
What Atkins is referring to is Britain’s goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80% before 2050; a goal which will likely be impossible of reaching if the plan for the third runway goes ahead.

Ultimately it comes down to a battle between politicians who see the economic positives of jobs being created as well as maintaining Britain’s image as a world hub and environmentalists who see Britain re-neging on their commitment to fighting climate change.

In this argument one only needs to go as far as looking at the stances the opposing sides are taking to see who has a better grip on reality.

The politicians are saying things like “We sincerely believe that Heathrow’s modernization is the only way to reduce aircraft emissions and cut disruption” and “Heathrow’s status as a global hub is at stake.” I think if these statements were re-worded to say something like “We sincerely believe that the only way we’ll get approval for this plan is by somehow making it appear green” or “We’re losing money fast” they would give a more accurate description of what is really going on.

Environmentalists are calling attention to the political propaganda that uses the current economic situation to overplay the benefits such as the creation of jobs while almost completely ignoring the environmental risks as well as the construction the new runway will require the demolishing of over 700 homes.

This technique, a common one in advertising, is playing off the emotions of people that are facing job-loss or struggling to make ends meet and points to a major problem, one that I discussed in the blog “How We are All Destroying the Rainforest in Borneo.”

The problem is that environmental concerns clash with the sustainability of the economy. If we are to slow progress, people will lose jobs, but if we don’t slow progress, we will destroy the planet. This is a paradox however that must be solved. We need a long term solution that helps people meet their daily needs while maintaining quality of life for both ourselves and the planet.

In this case, the truth is that expanding Heathrow airport is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Building a new runway will create new jobs under the period it is being built but does little to help the economy long term while blatantly ignoring the environmental side of the equation.

It seems that when a problem arises that conflicts with environmental concerns it is rarely the environment that wins (and this project will almost certainly be approved tomorrow.)

I don’t want to be one of those doomdayers but Sir Issac Newton once said: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction” and I maintain the politicians that continuously sacrifice the environment on the insatiable altar of economics are catalysts pushing us towards a great collapse.

Will Grassby

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