What Next For Harper?

By all indications, Stephen Harper will be defeated on December 8th, unless he takes the extraordinary step of proroguing Parliament to protect himself, though the Governor-General would have the option to refuse the request and fire him, which would set off some interesting constitutional issues. But assuming that the Prime Minister is defeated next week, one has to wonder what his future is, as well as that of his party.

Many close to the negotiations between the three opposition parties indicate that any coalition agreement will require safeguards to ensure that it holds together for a minimum of a year, and possibly two. This means that a Conservative caucus that is already divided over Mr. Harper's scorched-earth tactics will be sitting on the other side of the aisle, on the outside of Government, looking in. And all those Conservative frontbenchers who relied on Stephen Harper for all their big offices, staff, chauffers, and other parliamentary perks, will suddenly be free. All of them will be asking how it was that they were so unceremoniously turfed out. Many will direct their ire at their boss, whose massive miscalculation was the straw that broke the opposition's back, but not the way he had hoped.

Can Stephen Harper last two years on the opposition benches without being removed? It seems unlikely. And let's face it: Canadians have never truly loved, or even liked Mr. Harper. They have supported him because they had nobody else to vote for. The fear and uncertainty card, played so deftly by the Tories thus far, will be buried so deep in the deck that it won't be playable anymore. All of a sudden, Conservative fortunes will wane across the country, as people finally take note of the fact that Liberals are indeed capable of running the country perfectly well. A couple years in Government will swell the coffers of the Liberals, finally narrowing the Conservative Party's massive cash advantage. All this will be bad news for the soon to be former Prime Minister, who will likely be pushed aside, as Conservatives realize that their Leader's venom-filled policy of spending more energy on trying to destroy the opposition than actually governing, cost them everything.

But who will lead them? The Conservative Party is much like Iraq. It is a fake entity, divided into three major factions that have virtually nothing in common. Scott Reid characterized those factions as "Reform Party leftovers, Harris refugees and Red Tory desperates." Not altogether attractive, but reasonably accurate. Just like Iraq, it takes a despot to hold together such disparate factions. Just like what happened in Iraq, Stephen Harper's style of leadership has ensured that there is no heir apparent to the leadership, and nobody in that party is strong enough to hold the Conservative coalition together. Without Mr. Harper, it will be all but impossible to hold those factions together. The Reform element will likely take over the party, splitting the old Harris elements, and forcing Red Tories out altogether. Most of those forced out will likely join the Liberals.

Let's be clear: there is nothing wrong with advocating for the disintegration of the Conservative Party. It may not be pretty, but make no mistake: Stephen Harper's goal was never just to beat us; it is and has always been to destroy us. There's no room to respond with half measures. We must respond in kind, and the collateral damage may well be Mr. Harper's party. If that happens, so be it. There's no reason for that to give us any pause, when our adversaries wouldn't hesitate if the roles were reversed.

A Tale Told by an Idiot

So last night, a visibly shaken Stephen Harper addressed the national media. Fighting to hang onto his political life, the Prime Minister did what he always does: he blamed the opposition for the mess he got himself into.

The Prime Minister promised Canadians after the election that the Government would act swiftly to introduce an economic update to restore faith in the Canadian economy. Instead, Mr. Harper, who just days before had promised to consult with and work with the opposition, ordered his Finance Minister to pen a Fiscal Update that had no stimulus of any kind, but that was based instead on attacking those who are not too friendly with the Tories: namely women, unions, and any political opposition they can find. That's right, Stephen Harper's foaming at the mouth desire to destroy the Liberal Party means that nothing is too crass, even if we're talking about a major international crisis. Doing the right thing for all Canadians and putting partisanship aside is simply not something that ever enters into the equation for our Prime Minister.

But our MINORITY Prime Minister forgot himself. He forgot that his vanity-exercise election did not give him the parliamentary majority he so dearly wished for. No, he got another minority. Mr. Harper forgot that in a minority parliament, the only votes you get to take for granted are those of your own party. So when the opposition didn't roll over and play dead, Mr. Harper got quite a jolt. All of a sudden, the house of cards was teetering. Imagine the nerve: the opposition was demanding that the government do its job and introduce the stimulus that we were promised. If the government refused to do its job and actually govern, then the opposition decided that someone needed to act like adults, so they committed to setting aside their differences to resolve this economic crisis.

The Prime Minister found himself in a corner, and fumed at the notion of a coalition government. He ranted and raved how this was not proper, how it amounted to hijacking Parliament, and how it was just not fair. I was prepared to defer to him on the notion of a coalition, about which I admit I remain uneasy. But something was nagging at me, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Finally, this morning, somebody sent me a link to what it was that had been bothering me. It was a letter, signed by then Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper, in 2004. Below is the text of the letter:

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

So back then, Mr. Harper had no problems with the Opposition getting a kick at the can. Stephen Harper was happy to defy the electorate which had rejected him, and enter 24 Sussex through the back door. There's a word for that where I come from: hypocrite.

So here's my message for the Tories: you didn't get your majority. You wasted 300 million dollars of taxpayer dollars on an election campaign that was the result of the breach of your own fixed election date law. That election left you with another minority Government. Stop using the machinery of government to settle scores. It is petty, and not befitting of the power with which you were entrusted. Work with the opposition. It's what Canadians told you to do in the last election. Only a third of the country wanted to see this government re-elected, and it's time for you guys to show a bit of humility. Do the people's business, and if you continue to refuse to, then we the people will ask that the Governor-General exercise her prerogative to send you packing without sending us another $300 million bill for your continued stupidity.

So here's what I think of all this: the Prime Minister has been caught with his pants down. He's running around like a complete fool now, pulling his hairplugs out in dismay and disbelief that his ironclad grip on power might be slipping away. He has lied, schemed, and cheated to try and hang on. It's downright Shakespearean, when you think about it. Funny how the bard had a lovely quote that sums up the Prime Minister's PR strategy quite nicely:

...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

There's a Light at the End of the Tunnel

Too bad it's an oncoming freight train. The so-called economic update that we saw come from Minister of Deficits Jim Flaherty today was a pile of garbage. I can't say that I have ever seen a government attempt in such a brazen manner to use an international crisis to subvert Canadian democracy. Who the hell do these people think they are? For that matter, who the hell do they think we are?

So, Flaherty introduced his plan today, which was a call to save Canada's economy by putting $1.75 in the pockets of each and every Canadian. Well, actually, since only half of the electorate voted, it likely works out closer to 85 cents per person. That's right: in times of economic turmoil, what we need right away is to end the system of public financing of our elections that has kept lobbyists out of the system. That's how Jim Flaherty thinks he's going to fix our economy.

Around the world, the leaders of industrialized nations have stood up, said that they understand the mess global finances are in, and have acted swiftly to head off future misery. Apparently Mr. Flaherty, whose term as Minister of Finance has seen Canada's economic growth fall from top spot in the G8 all the way to the bottom of the pack, thinks that we can afford to wait until next year to do something meaningful. What did we get in the meantime? An attack on women's rights, by attempting to thwart pay equity.

Now, many of those who know me are aware of my lack of fondness for public sector unions. While I respect the right to organize and bargain collectively, public sector strikes invariably hold the public hostage. With that said, I was disgusted today when Jim Flaherty announced plans to rip up collective agreements in a manner already deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Furthermore, the proposal to strip away the right to strike is a measure so draconian that it's something I'd expect from the Russians or the Chinese, but certainly not from Canada. Precisely what is it that we are becoming?

If the Conservatives truly saw this crisis coming, as they keep saying they did when they trumpet the various bits of bullshit policymaking they claim have softened the blow of this economic downturn, then why did they blow over 300 million dollars on an election that everybody knew would return another minority government? Think for a moment where that money could have gone.

If the Government is a ship, then we're adrift, and it's no wonder. When you have Captain Crunch at the helm, you can't expect much. I am proud today that all three opposition parties stood up today, gave this Prime Minister the proverbial middle finger, and if the Government is defeated, there will be no constitutional crisis. This is a new Parliament, and it deserves a chance to be made to work, whether through a Liberal Minority government, or some sort of more formal coalition. There's no crisis here, other than the crisis of confidence that this Government now faces, a crisis which is one of their own making.

This much should be clear: Stephen Harper hates democracy. He doesn't believe in any sort of political opposition. He doesn't believe in accountability, nor any checks on his power to rule Canada with an iron fist. Various Tory insiders have noted that they're thrilled about the current course of action because they want the Liberal Party of Canada to cease to exist. That says it all: most parties in Government just want a permanent majority. They recognize that political opposition is central to keeping people honest, and keeping ideas fresh. Not the Tories. They seek a one-party state, with no checks on their power. That is what they seek, and they are using an international crisis to do it. It is nothing short of disgusting.

Let's look at the Harper attack on democracy and accountability. Last time around, Harper tried to gag the Auditor-General, wrote a playbook on how to disrupt, stymie, and undermine Parliament, had his MP's walk out of committee sessions to stop potentially embarrassing testimony and votes, killed the Court Challenges Program, and declared war on Elections Canada. During the election campaign, he declared war on artists, dismissing their contributions to our public discourse. Now, he's declaring war on unions, women, and any political opposition that remains. Under Stephen Harper, Canada is turning into a Fascist state, and we are letting it happen.

This Government will fall, whether it happens in the coming days, or if it takes longer. It's not enough to say, as Jack Layton did, that the Opposition will not support this pathetic plan, although that was a good start, as were remarks by Scott Brison, who skewered the Government's inept plan, and Gilles Duceppe, who rightly pointed out that the Government was selling out the country. What is needed now is a proverbial line in the sand, and an ultimatum to the Government: put an end to their war on democracy, or be defeated. Put an end to their war on minorities, or be defeated. Restore fiscal sanity to Ottawa, or be defeated. There can be no ambiguity. Michael Ignatieff was right to note that as Liberals, we are tired of sitting down, so it's time to stand up, be counted, and remind Stephen Harper that barely a third of Canadians voted for his ilk. It's high time that he acted accordingly.

The California Tragedy

It's a crying shame. November 4th was supposed to be a step forward. It was supposed to be a day that brought people together instead of pushing them apart. It was supposed to be about making the political system work for all Americans, instead of just some of them. For most of the country, this held true, and Barack Obama's victory on Tuesday night was a massive victory for all Americans.

The passage of California's Proposition 8 cast a shadow over that victory. I don't suggest that it casts any sort of pall over President-Elect Obama's victory. What I mean is that this ballot initiative was a black spot on an otherwise incredible night. While there were a few initiatives seeking to limit gay rights, all of which passed in what has to be regarded as a stunning setback to the gay rights movement, the passage of Proposition 8 overshadowed them all. The passage of Proposition 8, if allowed to stand, will set an incredibly dangerous precedent for California, and make no mistake about it: the gay community was on the receiving end of a massive injustice on Tuesday, but the next time, given a few shifts here and there, it could be a racial minority, it could be the disabled, it could be anybody. It could be you.

Constitutions serve an important purpose in our society. While they lay out a number of ground rules for the operation and structure of government, their most important purpose is the safeguard of minority rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and so many more basic fundamental rights exist and are enforceable because they are constitutionally protected. Imagine if Mormons, a very small religious minority, were told they couldn't practice their religion. The Constitution of the United States doesn't explicitly mention Mormons. So far as I know, the Constitution of the State of California doesn't mention them either. If they were prohibited from practising their faith, the Mormon Church would petition the courts to deal with such an injustice, and the courts in California, I am sure, would rule that their rights had been infringed, and demand that their rights be protected. So imagine now that by a 52% vote, the people of California amended their Constitution to say that all Californians are created equal, except for Mormons. Would anybody, for a moment suggest that such a vote would have an ounce of legitimacy? I doubt it very much.

Here's my point: it is a contradiction at the deepest level to create a system that allows courts to protect minorities, but also allows the rights recognized by the courts to be snuffed out of existence based on a simple majority vote. It's not strong enough language just to suggest that this sort of process doesn't make sense. It's worse than that: it represents a fundamental injustice that erodes the very foundation of a constitutional democracy. Some might call this hyperbole, but it's not. Amending a constitution over an issue such as this simply must not be this simple. The process, due to its far-reaching effects, must be an incredibly arduous one. This process was not.

Cleary, I support gay marriage, but my reason for decrying the decision in California isn't based on my political stance on the issue itself. It's based on what the decision means in the greater scope of democracy in California. Lawsuits have been filed, and while I originally doubted they would succeed, I do have a bit more hope that they will. This initiative was not an amendment. An amendment is nothing more than attaching some new tidbit to a constitution. This initiative was a revision. It changed the substance and the meaning of a fundamental pillar of California's Constiution in a profound manner. If the California Supreme Court is interested in justice and equality, as I believe they are, then they will grant immediate injunctive relief to those who have filed suit in the wake of Proposition 8's passage, and eventually throw it out for its illegal and improper passage. The rights of minorities must never be subject to the whims of a simple majority. To bend on that fundamental principle in even the slightest manner is far too dangerous to our democracy to be left unchallenged.