The important news first…
Those of you who have been following the blog closely know that November (and a fair chunk of October) was a nasty month for the family in terms of our health. I still have a lingering, occasional cough from the flu bug that dogged us during that period, and :Erin: spent the last week floored by an acute and viral inner-ear infection (called “acute labyrinthitis”) that made her feel like our house was a ship at sea. During a storm.
Well, this weekend, the bugs finally were blown away by our immune systems, and Erin could walk around without doping herself with anti-vertigo medication, and she was ready to go back to work, feeling fine. Except, the moment — the moment! — she stepped out of the car, she slipped on a patch of ice and hit the back of her head. She doesn’t actually remember the fall or its immediate aftermath, and the doctors and nurses that checked on her noted that she couldn’t remember what day it was, what year she was born, or how to spell her name. So she was sent to the hospital.
There she was diagnosed with a concussion, but fortunately a mild one that she is recovering from. Within a couple of hours, she was far more herself, and right now though she has a splitting headache, she is aware of who she is and what she’s doing. Mostly, she’s furious at the fates, right now.
Erin’s grandmother diagnosed her with “strange luck”, which really describes the situation to a ‘T’. We’ve had a month of exceptionally good, life changing news with the announcement that Arthur A. Levine at Scholastic would be buying her novel Plain Kate, and we’ve been unable to really enjoy that news what with being so sick. And the day that she’s actually feeling good, this happens? It’s almost like some crazy see-saw attempting to make things balance out.
Anyway, I guess we are lucky in that :Erin: wasn’t as badly hurt as she could have been, but I’m sure she’d rather have been lucky enough not to have taken that fall.
And now for the news of the week…
I am amazed at how fast the news has moved over the past five days. If you had told me, just this past Wednesday, that we’d be looking at the serious possibility of a change in government, much less a Liberal-New Democrat-Bloc coalition, I would have thought that you were crazy. But the past five days have provided us with exciting times, and provided me with a lot of fodder to blog about. Indeed, almost too much fodder.
As I’ve been writing fast and furious, the drawback of blogging has manifested itself. Blogging is writing without the presence of editors, and we bloggers are on our own when it comes to fact checking our statements. So it’s only natural that sometimes my readers have to point out points that I’ve gotten wrong. I appreciate the service, and would like to correct the record of the past five days, or at least explain some of my statements.
On Saturday, when I wrote this post on why I felt the Conservative government deserved defeat, I mentioned the Gwen Morgan affair, saying, “Then there was Harper’s political tantrum over the decision of the opposition members on Harper’s long-promised public appointments commission to vote down Harper’s proposed chairman Gwyn Morgan after Morgan’s statements deriding immigrants, low wage workers and the New Democratic Party became public.”
The situation was actually more complicated than that, and Mustafa Hirji called me on this, saying, “I think it fails to show the subtlety in analysis you showed when originally reviewing his comments. He in now way was saying that all immigrants and low wage workers were bad—only that there are some and that this needs to be addressed. Your statement implies that he derided all immigrants and low wage workers.”
That’s a good point. The situation with Gwen Morgan, summarized here, was more partisan. The full text of Morgan’s damning (in the eyes of the opposition) speech can be found here. The comments on immigrants and low income workers are really rather tame, and it’s more the comments against the New Democrats that would make any opposition member question whether Mr. Morgan would be willing to work seriously with members outside of the Conservative government. Indeed, it was Conservative members and supporters who tried to trump up the claims that the opposition was attempting to vote down Mr. Morgan because of his comments on immigration and low income workers, thus attacking his freedom of speech. But, as I noted, Morgan’s position should have been non-partisan, and his comments on the NDP certainly called into question his ability to function in a non-partisan fashion. For example:
The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose and the NDP blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the “root causes” of despair arising from social inequity.
Now, how Canadian is that!!
(link)
Moving on, Mustafa also noted, “You wr[o]te, ‘while [Harper] came from the right wing of the spectrum, he believed in democracy enough that he was going to provide Canadians with the pragmatic, centrist leadership they wanted.’ I’m not sure where this ‘believed in democracy enough’ business comes from. It implies that Harper doesn’t believe in democracy fully.
That was not my intention. What I wanted to convey is that, while Stephen Harper has expressed political views on the record that can be categorized as pretty right wing, particularly the base sentiment of his ‘Alberta Firewall’ letter, it was because he believed in democracy (or said he did) that he was respecting the call of Canadians to provide competent leadership on policies that he himself had spoken out against. That would be believing in democracy more than the average individual. It’s a remarkable individual who can step forward with a particular personal belief and set aside that belief because the people who elect him to office believe in something else, and you believe that their beliefs should take precedence. And if you discount recent events, Harper’s record on this isn’t that bad at all.
Mustafa also believed that my statement that Harper proved to be an opportunist rather than a pragmatist to be an over-generalization. It may well have been, but it depends on your definition of opportunism. Pragmatism and opportunism are so close together in appearance, it’s often hard to tell the two apart. The key criteria, however, is the intent of the action. Pragmatists follow policies which they believe to be right (or of value to the electorate), regardless of whether said policy is popular, or even in their own self interest. Opportunists follow the same (or different) policies based more on self-interest. And Harper has moved heavily in the realm of self interest.
Consider the 2008 election. Harper called this election a year early, breaking his own election law to do this — in spirit if not in letter (it was a pretty meaningless law). He had not yet lost the confidence of the House when he made this move, so why did he do it? It seems likely that he did it because he thought he could put the opposition at a significant disadvantage and run this country in a less encumbered fashion, despite the fact that he’d committed on paper to trying to work with the minority government until October 2009. To me, that’s opportunism, rather than pragmatism.
And that act calls into question his other pragmatic moves. Were his moves to the centre brought about because he respected where a number of voters wanted him to go? Or did he move to the centre in the hopes of bringing the voters to him, so he could achieve his much desired majority and rule without constraint for at least four years? The answers to these questions are subjective, to be sure, but in my opinion, the pattern of behaviour suggests an individual who is looking out for his own aims more than respecting the aspirations of his fellow citizens.
On my point “Government has been a battle for him, and his opponents, be they on the opposition benches or standing in the streets, are not Canadians with legitimate points of view of their own, but enemies to be crushed and humiliated,” Mustafa states, “I think that’s true of opposition parties, but I don’t see how it is necessarily true of the public. You could perhaps point to how he attacked the arts community for the cuts to arts funding, but in this situation, he was also publicly attacked by the arts community making them voluntary players in national political discourse. I don’t see that as the same think as attacking people ‘standing in the streets’.”
Well, it’s true that Harper has no equivalent of a Shawinigan Handshake (although his security cordon has tightened to George W. Bush levels of isolation), but he has taken his partisan attacks well beyond the realm of Question Period. The Linda Keen affair is a case in point. All of the reasons he could have given to override the decision of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Council, all of the steps he could have taken to resolve the problem without controversy, he decided instead to attack the credentials of a public servant based on which government appointed her. The same goes for Elections Canada chief Marc Mayrand. Our public service is supposed to be a-political, its individuals as diverse a group of people as the Canadian public. If they are attacked on political grounds for doing their jobs, how different is that from Stephen Harper attacking Liberal or New Democrat voters standing in the streets?
And what about the case of the Conservative practise of setting up “go-to people” in opposition ridings, encouraging voters to bypass their duly elected members of parliament in accessing services from the government? What is the implication of this policy? To me, it means that if we as voters in a riding choose to vote for a non-Conservative member of parliament, the Conservative government reserves the right to punish said voters by depriving them of access to government services. Similar rhetoric was raised warning Newfoundland voters of the consequences of shutting out the Conservatives from the province. That isn’t too different from attacking voters standing in the streets, in my opinion.
I believe that a government has an obligation to serve all Canadians to the best of its ability, regardless of how individual voters voted, and I’m not alone. It’s why so many of us were incensed at Liberal MP Tom Wappel’s callous and partisan mistreatment of an elderly voter in his riding, and why we were so upset when Bloc MP Andre Bellevance gave the cold shoulder to Legion members in his riding asking for help in obtaining Canadian flags from the Heritage Ministry. It’s your job to serve everyone without favour! How dare these politicians forget this!
We did not see similar actions taken to such a degree during previous changes in government in the latter part of the 20th century. The ability of the Canadian public service to switch gears between the priorities of the Trudeau and Mulroney governments in 1984 was a point of pride for them, and there were no mass firings to make this happen. Similarly, I don’t recall Jean Chretien ever attacking public servants on the basis of who hired them, and this came during a time when Progressive Conservative leader Jean Charest instructed the Conservative majority in the Senate to block Liberal legislation that stripped a couple of private companies of the right to sue (this for the Liberals’ reversal of the Mulroney government’s decision to privatize Pearson Airport). Attacks against “Conservative appointees” were muted, even then.
We only start hearing this type of rhetoric when Paul Martin becomes prime minister and starts sacking people seen as “Chretien loyalists”, and more often than not this activity was seen as highly partisan and politically destructive — not something that Harper should have tried to emulate.
So, to make a long story short, my statement that “Government has been a battle for him, and his opponents, be they on the opposition benches or standing in the streets, are not Canadians with legitimate points of view of their own, but enemies to be crushed and humiliated” is one that I stand by.
Finally, Mustafa notes “You write, ‘Stephen Harper has proven himself to be more partisan, more arrogant and less accountable than any prime minister before him.’ I think that is an exceedingly strong statement, and not one I think can be defended.”
I agree that it is an exceptionally bold statement, and not one I would normally make if I wasn’t this upset at this government. Thinking about this in the cold light of day, I realize that I’m putting Harper up against the antics of Trudeau and Mulroney, and who knows how many other people in history. But Trudeau was able to co-operate with the Clark government in getting American hostages out of Iran. Mulroney expanded the Privy Council to include NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin when the first Gulf War started. Harper, ignoring the advice of his ministers and his Chief of Staff, used the coming economic downturn as an excuse to insert incendiary language and policies designed to “kill” the opposition parties.
The most partisan, most arrogant move? Yes, I agree, that’s way open for debate. But it’s certainly far more partisan and arrogant than Canadians deserve from their prime minister.
P.S.
According to this article, Stephen Harper has accused Stephane Dion of “playing the biggest political game in history.” I guess you could call it that. Though, I’m reminded of some lyrics from Mark Knopfler and Emmylou Harris’ CD, All that Roadrunning, from the song Belle Star
It don’t take a genius, baby
There ain’t no big mystery
You can’t play it safe
And still go down in history
So saddle up the horses
‘Cos we’re headed for the hall of fame
Whatever your opinions about this, we can at least credit Stephane Dion for making history, here. Who’d have thought this was possible last Wednesday?
“To me, it means that if we as voters in a riding choose to vote for a non-Conservative member of parliament, the Conservative government reserves the right to punish said voters by depriving them of access to government services”
Sorry, but as a CPC supporter in one of the lone Liberal ridings in Alberta, I was totally ignored by my MP and “went to” local CPC MPs when I had an issue.
Maybe that’s a “welcome to western Canada” concept or maybe it happens in more ridings than you’d like to believe, but that’s been my experience.
“But Trudeau was able to co-operate with the Clark government in getting American hostages out of Iran.”
Yes, and Trudeau was willing to implement the NEP to keep Broadbent’s support. Hmmmmm… longterm, which was the better choice? Which was more partisan?
Who, in Canada, right now, is contemplating unexpected unemployment? Me. Not you. (and I mean that as Me. In Alberta. Not You (assuming you weren’t self-employed) in Ontario.)
Why? Because I have been there. I have done that. I have, sadly, many friends and colleagues who have been through it.
“Whatever your opinions about this, we can at least credit Stephane Dion for making history, here. “
Right. The guy somewhere around 80% of Canadians felt would be the worst guy to run the country, gets to run the country. But hey, he’s making history, so that’s a good thing?
Let’s talk in 6 months, shall we?
Sorry, but as a CPC supporter in one of the lone Liberal ridings in Alberta, I was totally ignored by my MP and “went to” local CPC MPs when I had an issue.
I’m not agreeing with much of what Candace has been saying these days, but I’m with her here—there is absolutely no way I would have ever gone to my previous MP for anything. Of course, he had a reputation for being really really lazy about helping people, and that was part of it, but since my name was associated with the people who were trying to unseat him (and eventually succeeded), I always figured that if I needed my MP’s help, I’d have to get a go-between.
This is one of the many reasons I think STV would be a lovely voting system, by the way. Multiple MPs in a single riding means a much, much greater likelihood of being able to go to someone you actually voted for.
I’m sorry to hear about Erin—the fates really aren’t smiling on her, are they?
I’m really sorry to hear about Erin. Hopefully this concussion resolves quickly. If she does experience any worsening, be sure she gets checked out again.
Thanks for your clarifications, James. I think I still disagree with your attack about Harper being an opportunist—if being opportunist sometimes for political gain makes one an opportunist, then ever politician is guilty (e.g. the opposition coalition which sent the TSX plunging would make Dion, Layton, and Duceppe opportunist alone). Looking at the Harper record as a whole—and any politician’s record as a whole for that matter—I think we see a mix of opportunism, pragmatism, and ideological moves. I’m sure we’d all like less of the former and latter, so I have no argument with punishing Harper for them. I just don’t think Harper’s opportunism has been so out of league with other politicians in similar situations.
You’ve explained yourself well, however, and I thank you and appreciate your clarifications.
Agreed, although Harper seems to swing more wildly, in my opinion. It’s almost like there’s two, or even three different people in there, and there’s some sort of trigger to bring one out…
I’d like to make four points in answer to criticism of the proposed coalition:
In Canada we do NOT elect a Prime Minister, we elect a Parliament. Parliament then decides which group has the confidence of the House to govern and that group’s leader becomes Prime Minister.
The Bloc ran in the last election NOT as separatist but as an anti CPC (stop Harper) choice. They received more than 50% of the vote in Quebec. Quebec is very much a part of Canada and this Quebec anti CPC vote must be included in the Canadian totals.
Over 60 % of the Canadian electorate all across Canada (yes there are both Liberal and NDP seats west of Ontario and in all of the Western ridings not held by the CPC one or the other ran second). The proposed coalition represents a majority of all Canadians; Harper’s Conservatives do NOT. The House has both a moral and legal right to place its confidence in the proposed coalition. Talk of a coup d’√©tat is nonsense!
In the economic update and the accompanying proposed legislation, Harper showed what the CPC would do if it had a majority. He was behaving very aggressively and uncooperatively. Canada thoroughly rejected this right wing platform in denying him a majority; Canadians wanted a working minority government to hold the CPC’s right wing in check. In a minority government the governing group has to work with the other parties and make compromises. Harper’s tactics last week make it impossible for this House to work with him. He and his PMO have to go! At the very least turn over the CPC to the moderates in the party.
And, Candace, I really do have to take issue with that statement. We’re all contemplating possible unemployment, here, and have been for the past few months as the economy of our major trading partners declined. And this is a problem that has been building since before coalition talk materialized. I note that Alberta is starting to experience fiscal problems now that oil prices have dropped by more than half since July. That’s not Stephane Dion’s fault, nor the fault of any Ontarian.
There’s no need to use such rhetoric; we’re all in the same boat, here.
Glad to hear that your family is on the mend.
You might be interested to read the following articles written by Ish Theilheimer:
1) about the need for a Coalition http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=471
2)how Harper precipitated the drive for a Coalition http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00170
exciting times….
So many blogs I could be posting this on, but this one is not being overwhelmed and has a read by people with diverse views.
The criticism of working with the Bloc is disturbing. Presumably the people unhappy with the Bloc supporting the coalition don’t want Quebec to separate, but nearly 50% of Quebecois do want to separate. How do they to change those people’s minds by treating them and the party that represents them like pariahs.
We should stand up and say, “My Canada includes Quebec separatists”.
If Harper prorogues parliament, he is saying that he doesn’t think he need to show he has the confidence of parliament, so he is rejecting our system of government, the democratic will of the Canadian people and therefore making himself a dictator. Obviously if Harper tries this the Governor General should immediately remove him from power.
It’s sad to see the Conservative MPs pretending they don’t understand our system of government. We should be rid of them for that reason alone.
Hi James,
Long time no see. It’s been quite a whirlwind politically but I think that Stephen Harper has tried the Bush Doctrine of “my way or the highway” and it’s backfired. We’ll see how it turns out. Personally I think this is great for democracy since it tells us to never take anything for granted.
Kevin
PS. Hope the family is better soon.
Things are turning ugly. The Conservatives’ main attack seems directed at the BLOC and implies that Quebec Members of Parliament don’t have the same rights as other MPs. The West seems to be fully behind Harper. Our country is becoming polarized and the attacks are very bitter on both sides. This is not good for either parliamentary democracy or Canada. Where are the moderates on both sides? Where are the cooler heads? Hey we used to be a country of compromise and moderation in all things. The House today was not pleasant to watch. Given the current economic situation, Canada does not need this kind of politics! Please note the TSX was alone today in registering a loss and our dollar also dropped.
James: “…We’re all contemplating possible unemployment, here, and have been for the past few months as the economy of our major trading partners declined…”
Good point. As you’ve likely noted, I’ve been feeling a bit hysterical these past few days but am much calmer. Still hate the idea of a coalition gov’t but am not so hysterical as I think the 3 parties have been too cute by half and may have done themselves more damage in both the short and longer terms, although time will tell.
Darwin: “…We should stand up and say, “My Canada includes Quebec separatists”…”
Fine. But they shouldn’t be in the driver’s seat. And I would say the same of Alberta separatists, or BC separatists or any separatists. THAT is the reason for the attack on the Bloc. If the Bloc were to change their mandate from one of separatism to be that of just a regional party, the issue would go away. The head of the PQ in Quebec isn’t helping, either… People who live in provinces other than Quebec sometimes get tired of all the cash that seems to flow there in order to “stop separatism”.
Eric: “…The West seems to be fully behind Harper. Our country is becoming polarized and the attacks are very bitter on both sides…”
I would argue that many in the west are quite pi$$ed at him but ARE fully behind the CPC, of which he is currently the leader. I’ll put money on him not being the leader much longer, regardless of whether the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition falls apart or ends up running the country for how ever long they can hold it together.
What many in the eastern part of the country may not realize is that the CPC winning the election in 06, and more seats in 08, has gone a very far way to end western alienation. That is not a bad thing. And ask yourself, if you are a Liberal or NDP supporter, how you would have felt had the CPC pulled this off on Martin. Would you have felt robbed? Ripped off? It’s real easy to be calm and rational when you do not have personal skin in the game. Many western Canadians feel, for the first time in a very, very long time, that we actually HAVE some skin in the game with the CPC. It’s personal.
The bitterness on both sides has, I’d argue, always been there. I agree that Harper has not done a hell of a lot to help with his partisan crap. However, members of the CPC do all subscribe, for the most part, to many of the underpinning ideas of the party.
EG: Self-reliance. We all pretty much agree (in the CPC) that this $1.95/vote thing is nonsense. If, in order to lose that, we need to give up the tax credit for donations, you’d probably find agreement. Why on EARTH should political parties by federally funded? If people on the left can get all excited about Obama funding his phenomenal campaign with small donors (and Americans don’t get a tax break for that), why wouldn’t you want Canadian parties to do the same?
To be fair, Harper had no business springing this on the opposition parties with (a) no notice and (b) no reduction over a period of time. I can appreciate that if a large portion of a party’s finances come from the gov’t funding, a year or two to get effective websites & funding initiatives in place would be appropriate. He was being a partisan jerk.
Keep in mind that the current financing scheme was put in place by Chretien, a Liberal, in an effort to screw Paul Martin (and, in the bigger picture, the Liberal party). All the CPoC did was lower the individual donor amount and, if I recall correctly, remove labour union donations from the fray. The fact that the CPC has built, over the past few years, significantly on what the eastern-hated-Reform/Alliance parties had started with a grassroots funding scheme isn’t something to hate the CPC for, it’s something they should emulate. It’s not that hard to do.
Party memberships have always been $10. It’s not hard to convince someone to give $20 instead. You can sign up for monthly donations from your credit card or your bank account. Nobody notices $20/month unless they are in dire financial straits, and nobody is dunned if they can’t contribute.
Why would you want political parties funded by special interest groups, be they unions, big business or … I dunno, pick a poison?
A party funded by supporters has to actually pay attention to them or lose funding. This is a bit of a no-brainer, to me, anyway.
EG #2: Accountability. See above re Harper and leadership. If he doesn’t resign, he’ll get punted (see Mulroney in 93 or 94 or whenever that was).
There are others, but I hope you get the drift.
What basic truths are true for the NDP? the Liberal Party? The Greens (and is there really a Green Party anymore or is Elizabeth May just a Liberal by a different name?)?
Regarding the coalition, come next election, whether in January or next fall or 2010, how exactly do you see the 3 parties participating in the coalition actually running against one another? They will all have to wear the policies as passed by a coalition government.
Is this the uniting of the left? Somehow, I see far too many differences in policies etc for that to be the case, although I guess time will tell.
Reply to Candace: I am neither a Liberal nor a NDPer though I have voted for both. I am a Red Tory and feel betrayed by McKay and just can’t vote for the CPC who seem to have purged itself of Red Tories. I believe the Conservatives no longer subscribe to the philosophy of George Grant (Lament for a Nation). I had great difficulty voting for any party in recent elections. It is easier to say which party I won’t vote for - the CPC. I am not a social conservative and believe it is the duty of the state to care for all its citizens and protect them from unrestrained capitalism. I also believe that if there is no competition in a particular sector then it is the state’s duty to provide it. I believe that there is a public good and public good services should be owned and operated by the state for the benefit of all the people. I am still worried that Harper is making the coalition a unity issue - this is very bad for Canada. It shouldn’t be an east vs west issue nor a Quebec vs Canada issue. My Canada includes both Alberta and Quebec.
I don’t think the Bloc are in the driver’s seat. If the Bloc demands something that goes too far, the other parties can always pull the plug on the thing. Does anyone have any examples of what horrible things that could do? I don’t think driving Canada into the ground would help them get reelected in the next election.
“And ask yourself, if you are a Liberal or NDP supporter, how you would have felt had the CPC pulled this off on Martin. Would you have felt robbed? Ripped off?”
I like to think I would have respected the democratic process, just I have these last few years when the Conservatives has had virtually a free ride, despite being a minority government.
Relying exclusively on fund raise give an advantage to parties whose supports have higher then average incomes.
Darwin: “Relying exclusively on fund raise give an advantage to parties whose supports have higher then average incomes”
That’s a canard. The max is $1,000. Obama got by with average donations of $86. Yes, a larger country by 10, but he also spent far more than 20x what a Canadian election can spend.
That’s why we have spending limits.
And Bay Street? You’re telling me that they have lower than average salaries? Sorry, but when Laurie Hawn’s campaign was calling in Election Canada on voter fraud (i.e. using a work address instead of a home address in order to be able to vote for Anne McClellan) those were LAWYERS, not admin assistants. So double canard on that one.
Eric: “It shouldn’t be an east vs west issue nor a Quebec vs Canada issue. My Canada includes both Alberta and Quebec.”
Yeah? Go read some of the Liberal and NDP blogs - there’s a real anti-west sentiment happening and it’s not unusual, and probably inevitable given the proportion of CPC seats in western Canada (eg. only 7 Liberals elected west of Ontario and I think only 12-13 NDP, the rest all CPC). Which is also why the CPC supporting sites, to a large extent,
Sorry, hit the wrong button before finishing my thought, along the lines of “which is why the CPC-supporting sites may sound, to a large part, anti-eastern. See my comment above re western alienation.”
Me? Honestly? It depends, but I could have been cheering. If we’re talking about a Conservative-Bloc-NDP coalition taking out the arrogant Liberals, I’d cheer, because Martin so richly deserved it, and because if Harper had managed to forge such a coalition, he’d have shown himself to be a lot more pragmatic and a lot less partisan of a politician than he’s shown himself to be now.
A simple Conservative-Bloc coalition (which would have been pretty tenuous in 2004, since the split in parliament was almost Lib-NDP 154, Con-Bloc-IND 154) I might have been less happy about, but I wouldn’t be too upset. At the time, such a coalition seemed a natural fit to me, since both parties appeared to share the same decentralized/provincialist agenda. And it would be something Harper had a right to do, if Martin couldn’t hold it together, and it would still have handed Martin the defeat he so richly deserved in 2004.