"Harpocricy 2: Elected Senate Unless an Unelected Senate Helps Me Keep My Job"

Consider the following statement made by Stephen Harper:

"Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia remain ashamed of Canada`s senior legislative body. They are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation."*

On the other hand, Stephen Harper has no problem with the digraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Conservatives to the undemocratic Senate...

Perhaps Stephen Harper said it best himself:

"As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform - on their way to the top. But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government's agenda. Nothing ever gets done."**

It seems Harper has learned the lesson learned by every previous Prime Minister: Senate reform doesn't go over well with Senators who like their jobs. Therefore, you might as well just appoint friendly Senators who can help you get things done.

And boy did Harper learn his lesson! He appointed 18 new Senators (Senate breakdown is now 58 Liberal-ish and 38 Conservative-ish, and some others).*** Looking at the Globe and Mail list of new appointees, I can see that at least 12 are Conservatives, at least one is a provincial Liberal (BC), and the other 5 seem to be overtly neutral politically.

I'm not going to be a Liberal without hindsight - I'm not going to decry Harper's partisan Senate appointments. Every Prime Minister in history, including every Liberal PM, has made overtly partisan appointments.

I am, however, going to duly note Harper's hypocricy on this issue. As shown by the above quotes, Harper has, over and over, spoke out against appointing Senators. He has, over and over, made it clear that he would reform the Senate and make Senators elected. But alas, like balanced budgets and fixed election dates, Stephen Harper has broken his promise.

*****
* Hansard (March 7, 1996)
** Speech on Senate Reform before Senate Committee, September 7, 2006
*** The "-ish" is thrown in because, technically, there are no party affiliations in the Senate.

A Liberal's Manifesto

 I’ve been asked many times before, often by my former co-blogger Mr. McIver, why I support the Liberal Party of Canada.  My explanations range from legitimate politics, to historical alignment, to convenience.  Here follows some of my reasoning.

I have always seen myself as a Liberal.  My first political memory is probably Jean Chretien’s electoral victory in 1993 (when I was 11).  I vaguely remember hearing about the GST and NAFTA before that, but I didn’t have any understanding of what they meant.  It wasn’t until well into the Chretien years that I started to understand and admire how the Liberals rationalized government spending.  But more than how the Liberals governed, I think I was made a Liberal simply because they governed.  At that time the Liberals dominated federal politics.  The PC Party had been destroyed and the only viable opposition was the Bloc.  Who could I have supported at the time?  From 1993 until the new millennium there was no legitimate alternative for a political neophyte.

Then came the resurgence of the Conservatives.  I remember watching as Preston Manning, whom I quietly supported, lost the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party.  I decided I couldn’t support Stockwell Day.  Then I watched Peter MacKay hand the PC Party over to Stephen Harper.  Those two events have kept me from considering a shift to the political right.

The other primary reason I originally aligned myself with the Liberals was a job.  After two years studying political science at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo I got a summer job at then-MP Roger Gallaway’s constituency office.  I was recruited by the many local Liberals who passed through the office.  My respect for these people (and, secondarily, my own selfish reasons) made me want to join the party and I haven’t wanted to leave since.

But more than coincidence and timing, I consider myself a Liberal for many concrete reasons.

I believe in fiscal prudence.  While some might point to Martin’s liberal spending increases during the latter years of his reign, I prefer to point to how he and Chretien gave the government a surplus and how he left the government with a surplus.  Martin's spending increases came when the economy was growing.  To do otherwise would have been irrational.

I believe in a strong national government.  I believe that Canadians need national standards.  I understand that there are federal and provincial jurisdictions, but they too often lead to varying standards and inconsistencies.  What good will BC’s carbon tax do when Alberta’s tar sands industry is ravaging our environment?  How can we have Ontario’s manufacturing base and Alberta’s energy base fighting tooth-and-nail?

I believe in giving Canadians a level playing field.  Tax cuts shouldn’t be for the wealthy, but for the poor.  Social programs are necessary.  War can be justified in extreme circumstances.  Policy isn’t good or bad based on the public’s ability to understand it.  It is a party’s and a politician’s obligation to educate the public about policy.  Elections should be fought on policy and principle, not vague concepts, lies, and libel.

Ultimately, I support the Liberal Party because I have, over my seven years as a member, felt a part of the party’s decision making.  I have drafted policy proposals, and voted for leaders and candidates.  I have supported fundraising and profile-raising events.  I have been intimately involved in election campaigning.  I have seen discussion and disagreement within the party.

Could I ever switch allegiances?  Perhaps.  Crowning Ignatieff instead of insisting on a vote is just one example of where I’ve disagreed with the party.  But for now, I respect the tradition and believe in the future of the party.

Do I always support the Liberal Party?  No.  If you’ve read my blogging you know I have a mind of my own.  When conceiving the Political Polarity blog, Pat had suggested names that included the words “Grit” and “Tory”, but I suggested something more non-partisan (thus we had www.politicalpolarity.com).  I believe I am slightly left of center on many issues, but surprisingly right on others.  I believe the Liberal Party best represents my political philosophy - more often than any other party.  Perhaps Pat put it best: the Liberal Party “stands up for my freedoms and my rights as a citizen, respects my pocket book whenever possible and has clearly defined positions, regardless of other people’s opinions, on the major issues of the day.”

And that’s what matters to me.

Here Come the Deficits

Granted, Canadians didn't vote for a coalition Prime Minister, but they also didn't vote for 4 years of deficit. In fact, you can still go the the Conservative Party website and see Tory campaign pledges to maintain a balanced budget (here's one, here's another).

Of course, being a Conservative campaign promise of real significance, the Tories are now officially admitting it will be a broken promise. According to CBC (citing a Department of Finance report), the Canadian government will run a $5 billion deficit for 2009-2010 and a $5.5 billion deficit for 2010-2011. The CBC is also reporting that the report, if extrapolated for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, tells Canadians we can expect 4 years of spending more than we make.

The Tories, who apparently knew and planned for the current fiscal crisis, told us they would give us balanced budgets. Now they're practically guaranteeing that won't be the case for at least the next 4 years.

The list of Tory lies just keeps getting longer. Maybe you didn't vote for the Liberals or the NDP, but you also didn't vote for more economic mismanagement. The Harper government has to go. Flaherty did this to Ontario and now refers to his home province as "a bad place to invest." When he's done with Canada, will Canada be "a bad place to invest?" It is starting to look that way.

Vote Liberal and get budget surplus with social programs. Vote Conservative and get budget deficit with tax breaks for the wealthy. Seems like an easy choice unless you own RIM or your last name is Thompson...

What About Me?

It seems the Liberal Party had decided to select its new leader via a vote by 800 high-ranking Liberals. While Bob Rae has rendered that vote moot by stepping aside, the outcome essentially remains the same: Liberals didn't choose their leader.

Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian professor in Boston, has ascended to the leadership of Canada's traditional ruling party (fact, not arrogance). A man who has been in federal politics for less time than I have (only since 2006...though at a much higher level) is now our Leader. A man who had spent much of his adult life in another country is now our leader. A man who was never elected as leader by Liberals is now our leader.

As if there wasn't enough fodder for the Tory media machine to counter Ignatieff, now he's been appointed the leader. Why did the Liberal executive drag their feet so long on a permanent leadership convention that could have been held before January 26, 2009?

Ignatieff's eloquently forceful media acumen may not be enough to win a probable March election. Perhaps, as a friend noted, his centre-right political bias might be able to save the party in the long-run, but will he have that opportunity? What happens if the Liberals get trounced in a March election? If Ignatieff delivers even fewer seats than did Dion (which I fear is probable), will Liberals give him an extended mandate in May? Likely not.

That will leave Liberals with a meaningful leadership convention in May. At which point, Dominic LeBlanc will likely challenge Rae and Ignatieff for the leadership. Perhaps, if we're lucky, Justin Trudeau will join the race and we'll get a sneak preview of another Chretien-Martin regime.

Our Media Betrays Us (Except for this Guy...and Maybe a Few Others...)

At least one journalist can see through the lies:

Our Robert Mugabe moment, and other unpleasant memories, by Lawrence Martin:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcomartin08/EmailBNStory/politics/

On a somewhat related note, I'd like to ask Harper if he ever intends on allowing Canadians to choose their government based on real issues like the economy, the environment, and foreign policy. Another election based on vague concepts such as "leadership" might make me sick. More importantly, it certainly won't help Canada rediscover the principle of "good government".

Finally, and I've always been against this in the past, but does anybody else out there think maybe our Head of State should be elected? Is it time to finally replace the last remaining remnants of our monarchical past? Maybe I'm being rash.

Spin the Top (You are the Top) and Our House of Hostages

Are you getting dizzy? Stephen Harper is trying desperately to save his job and he's intent on doing it with nothing more powerful than political spin.

He's telling you that the coalition is outrageous and detrimental to national unity. He's telling you that the Liberals and NDP have abandoned Canada. Nevermind that the Bloc isn't a full member of the coalition (they've merely agreed not to bring down a coalition government). Nevermind that in 2004 Stephen Harper was actively trying to broker a coalition with the Bloc to replace Paul Martin's government.

He's trying to tell you that the coalition is disrupting Parliament and that he wants to keep working to move Canada forward. Nevermind that he's asked the Governor General to shut down Parliament until the end of January.

If a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc is good for Canada, why is a coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc bad for Canada? If Harper wants Parliament to work for Canada, why has he shut it down?

Harper caused this turmoil by losing the confidence of the House. He showed the inability or unwillingness to support Canadians. He even tried to destroy democracy in Canada! He tried to pull the funding of political parties in Canada knowing fully that this would bankrupt his competitors leaving him to run alone in the next election (which he likely would have called in 2009) . A one-party election is not a democracy. That was Harper's hope and all other members of the House of Commons recognized this as an assault on democracy akin to Germany's Enabling Act.

On another note, shame on the Governor General. She has virtually guaranteed that Canadians will weather the global economic storm without help from their own government. She has essentially left Canada without a government. How can Harper justify spending Canadians' money knowing full well that he has no legitimate claim to the Prime Ministership? He knows his government is walking dead. The Governor General has hung Canadians out to dry. She's simply delayed the inevitable and given a dead government another few weeks of air.

The Governor General, knowing that Harper does not have the confidence of the House, should have refused his request for prorogation and allowed Canada's elected officials to lead Canada through the economic maelstrom. Stephen Harper has lost the support of Canada's elected officials and, with the help of an unelected official, is stopping our representatives from representing us.

I've never trusted Stephen Harper. I've long known his only goal was power, but I never thought he'd take it so far as to shackle our elected representatives. And he did it with the assistance of a witless neophyte out of place in her job.

Did I wake up in Haiti?

Reading the Rhetoric

The rise of the coalition has thrown the House of Commons into the spotlight. People who've never before been interested in Canadian politics are stopping me at work asking what the heck is going on in Ottawa. Therefore, I've decided to try to put aside my blatantly Liberal views in order to sort through the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa. Nevermind the ads coming from Conservative headquarters, even the media seems to be running wild. So here is the reality, the issues and the facts straight up. People are calling this a coup d'etat. They're saying the coalition is holding the House hostage. This is pure hyperbole, pure sensationalism.

After an election, the leader with the most support in the House of Commons is asked by the Governor General to form the government. That leader then forms the government and becomes Prime Minister. After the October election, Stephen Harper had the support of 143 Members of Parliament, more than any other leader. He was therefore asked to form the government and became Prime Minister.

While Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister must maintain the confidence (or support) of the House of Commons. Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of the House. The coalition, lead by Stephane Dion, now has more support in the Hosue than do the Conservatives. The coalition has committed to defeating the government because the government has lost the confidence of the House.

When a government loses the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister must go to the Governor General and ask her (or him) to dissolve the government. At this point the Governor General must ask if any other leaders can form a government (i.e. if any other leader has the confidence of the House). If there is no such leader, the writ is dropped and we have an election. However, if another leader can form the government, that leader becomes Prime Minister. The government will (either on December 8 or January 27) lose a confidence vote and the Prime Minister will be forced to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. At this point, the Governor General must ask Stephane Dion if he can form a government. He will say yes and will become Prime Minister.

However, the Governor General's duties in this case are not well defined. There really is no precident to tell her how to act. Traditionally, because the Governor General is not elected, she must take the advice of her top advisor (the Prime Minister). Stephen Harper will advise her to call an election. While there is no precedent for her to ignore this advice, her normal duty is to ask other leaders if they can form a government. Which decision the Governor General will make is unknown. She will have to consider the ramifications of: (1) having another election so soon, and (2) having a seperatist party as part of a coalition government. She must also decide if the coalition can reasonably form a stable government. We have a signed document showing that the coalition can form a stable government for at least 18 months, but the other two questions are still looking for answers.

The other issue that has arisen is the issue of proroguement. The Prime Minister may ask the Governor General to "prorogue" Parliament. To prorogue Parliament is to end the current session early. Stephen Harper wants to prorogue Parliament in order to buy his government time by avoiding a vote of confidence. The Governor General may refuse this request, but doing so would be unprecedented. The coalition is (as I write this) trying to convince the Governor General that, since Stephen Harper does not have the confidence of the House, she does not need to heed his advice. This is also completely unprecedented...

11:38am ET - Members of the Prime Minister's Office are telling the CBC that proroguation has been granted.

If this is correct, we will see the House of Commons shut down until January 26, 2009 and the government will fall on January 27, 2009. At that time, the Governor General will either allow the coalition to form the government or call an election for early March.

I hope this post, while long and boring, has helped clarify what has and may happen.

Harper Enlists KGB Tactics in Desperate Attempt to Hold on to Power

As you may have read already, the Liberals, currently under the leadership of Stephane Dion, will form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc with the intention of usurping the Tory government and making M. Dion the next Prime Minister of Canada. This is almost entirely unprecedented.

Dion, Layton and Duceppe have decided that the Harper government has dropped the ball. The Tories had previously denied the economy was in trouble and now have neglected to introduce a meaningful economic package to help Canadians weather the storm. They have also, through past mismanagement, virtually assured that our government will run its first deficit in more than a decade.

The much-maligned Stephane Dion may have done it again. He looked defeated at the last Liberal leadership convention only to win on the strength of compromise and coalition. Then, in the last election, he looked embarrassed and defeated, but now seems to have again found a way to rise from the ashes. It looks like he will become the next Prime Minister.

Some very intelligent people, most importantly Patrick McIver, have decried this coalition as hypocricy, accused Dion of making a deal with the devil (aka Duceppe), and called the opposition poor losers. McIver says 74% of Canadians told Dion they didn't want him. However, I will remind him of two facts: 1) 64% of Canadians rejected Harper, and 2) only 36% of Canadians chose Harper while 54% of Canadians voted for the coalition parties. Fact is, this would be one of the strongest majorities in Canadian history, and one of the few true majorities (perhaps only, I don't know).

What a most exciting time for politicos like myself!

Update:
It occured to me after first posting this article that I didn't reference Harper's KGB tactics anywhere after the title. The Harper Tories taped a conference call between the NDP and the Bloc in a desperate attempt to save the Harper government. These tactics are frightening and entirely inappropriate in a modern, democratic, free country. Harper sank to a new low, giving Canadians yet another reason to support the coalition.