I agree.
- In late March, early April, the government, seeing that the Conservatives were ahead in the polls, feared the Conservatives might use this opportunity to bring down the government -- the Bloc and the NDP were against the budget so the only thing preventing a non-confidence vote was the Conservative decision to abstain. Paul knew he'd be facing an election with Gomery still big and the opposition leading in the polls. Clever Paul decided to do what any megalomanic would do -- the government yanked 'Opposition Days' --- thereby removing any threat that the opposition could bring business to the House. He began to filibuster his own budget to prevent it coming to a vote. No one really noticed. Success.
- The three opposition parties were justifiably outraged at their parliamentary rights being arbitrarily revoked. Harper, as the leader of the official opposition decided to call Martin's bluff. The government wasn't going to allow them to bring business to the House so the Conservatives would now vote against the budget rather than abstaining. Bloc and the NDP were already against the budget, if the Conservatives were to vote against rather than abstain this would bring the government down. Paul Martin wasn't about to be outdone. Martin took to the airwaves and whinged, giving rise to the infamous statements: 'Let Gomery do his work!' and Canadians don't want an election! The media came away parroting those lines. Instead of focussing on the government actions that had thwarted democracy and created the acrimony in the House, the media reported that Harper was 'angry' without out hammering the issue of why. The absence of this sort of commentary suggested he was unjustified. Success.
- Not to be left out of the 'movers and shakers' lane, Jack Layton got up that same night and pulled a rabbit out of his hat. He offered that rabbit to Martin and the gang in exchange for being allowed at the big people's table. Jack started the now ritualistically recited mantra that he was committed to 'making this parliament work' . Paul Martin took the bait. Between the two of them, and Union activist Buzz Hargrove they cooked up a deal in a hotel room. The deal would provide vague outlines of where the NDP wanted money directed, but had none of the specifics of a 'real' budget. Layton called for $4.6 billion in new spending after the removal of corporate tax cuts from the original budget. The NDP could lay claim to influence. The Liberals were saved by a hair. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives could be painted as being against post secondary education, against the environment, against foreign aid, against cities, against affordable housing -- all on the back of a budget which will never come into fruition due to conditions of deficit reduction etc. (which can't possibly be known during this mandate). Canadians would be duped into believing that this budget was necessary. Business received a nudge and wink that their tax cuts would stay, and the socialists convinced their constituency that money would begin to flow immediately. For the price of a lie, the Liberals bought 19 votes. Success.
- At the first opportunity (May 10) the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois indicated their lack of confidence in the government by passing a motion in the House, adding an amendment to a bill which called on a parliamentary committee to request the government's resignation. The motion passed, 153-150. Despite the fact that this motion clearly indicated the government did not have the confidence of the majority of MPs, the government ignored it declaring that the motion was a procedural one (without benefit of Opposition Days -- removed in #1 above-- no business could be brought forward by the opposition in the usual manner, the government refused to bring the budget to a vote -- so this route was taken as the only route available). The opposition points out that according to parliamentary conventions, the government is obligated to quickly introduce a formal confidence vote which, if passed, would necessitate the dissolution of Parliament. The government came out the next day with the following statement: On May 17, voters in British Columbia will be going to the polls in a provincial election.Next Tuesday and Wednesday, I will be in Regina to welcome the Queen to Canada. On Thursday, May 19, I will be in Ottawa. And I am proposing that there be, on that day, a vote on the budget bill. This vote will be a matter of confidence. . . By scheduling this vote, I am respecting my obligations to our Parliamentary tradition.I call on Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe to respect their obligations – to demonstrate respect for Parliament and for Canadians by ensuring this House is able to function between now and the day of the vote, and by committing to Canadians that they will honour and recognize the outcome of the confidence vote. People didn't take to the streets decrying the assault on democracy. There were no rallies, no protests and very few suggestions that this was in fact wrong. The Liberals used Paul Martin's itinerary, and unrelated events in the country, to grant themselves a full week in which to shore up it's shaky grasp on power. Success.
- May 17 Conservative MP Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and joined the government. Her principled stand included accepting a plum Cabinet role. Stronach, considered by many to be a 'moderate voice' within the Conservative Party, used this opportunity to slag Stephen Harper, saying: "I do not believe the party leader is truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is." She suggested she was uncomfortable with the Conservatives 'working with the Bloc' to bring down the government because it threatened national unity. This confirms Jack Layton's 'in bed with the separatists' suggestion, so the media runs with it (ignoring the fact that without the that the role of the opposition parties is to hold the government to account -- without co-operation on issues of confidence the government could never be toppled). Harper's leadership was questioned by pundits and conservatives. The shadiness of the deal proved less interesting to the media than the subsequent remarks of some provincial Conservative MLAs and the broken heart of her ex-boyfriend Peter MacKay. The one week delay in the confidence vote has benefitted the governing party -- hence the reason behind the unheeded calls for a quick confidence vote. Success.
- Then there were the Grewal tapes, where the borderline criminal behaviour of the natural governing party was dismissed because of questions of 'who approached whom' and whether the taping was 'entrapment'. The charge of tape doctoring put out there by the Liberals was echoed by the media, and 'confirmed' through tests to copies of the tapes. There is still no word as to whether the RCMP will investigate, and they are in possession of the real tapes. This episode caused the Toronto Star to accuse Harper of having provoked the Prime Minister's "seedy vote-buying". At worst, the parties appear to have engaged in criminal behaviour, at best their behaviour had the appearance of being unethical. Only Grewal came away from this scandal bruised. Success.
The Liberals were undoubtedly successful this year. They clung to power at the expense of Parliamentary convention. They muddied the concepts of right and wrong. They made lies into the truth, and truth irrelevant.
Some blame the Conservatives for 'not communicating the message'. Blame Harper, his communications staff, blame anyone you want, but it was you and me. We acquiesced as we watched a government ignore the will of the majority of the House, and decide to stay on anyway. There were mild protestations of a few, familiar with parliamentary custom and procedure. Their observations barely sparked debate beyond conservative blogs.
There was no country-wide outrage. There were no protests. There were no riots in the street. There was public questioning of the Conservative leadership. There were admonitions about the 'angry Stephen Harper' and the 'impatience' of the opposition, and 'power hungry Conservatives.'
The Liberals stole parliament, and most people seem to have decided it belonged to them anyway.
These stories are part of our national heritage now. They are part of what it means to be Canadian.
Happy Dominion Day.
canadianna
15 comments:
7. The Liberals bushwhacked the CPC passing a confidence motion in the dead of night to solidify the same sex marriage bill quashing debate in the house (why would you want to debate such a contentious issue and confidence matter?) It's not like the general public protested...
8. Same Sex Marriage passes due to an alliance of the extreme leftist parties (one of which previously opposed the budget - but would rather push their own SSM agenda).
Good Post! Success for Liberals, over the past 30 years has been to maintain the status quo; and, as you point out, they did.
The Power Corp., Central Canadian, gazillionaire Cabel, is still in control and those wacky CPC from the West who actually have "ideals" that they stick to, are still out. The last thing this country needs is people motivated by ideals instead of pragmatic politics.
Best of all though, is that most Central Canadians sleep on.... zzzzzzz.... just the way it's supposed to be.
Canada is still a fine lady when compared to the many other tramps though, and as long as she decides one of these days to take the path less trodden, she'll be just fine. If she keeps to the highway though, I'm not so sure she's going to see the cliff at the end of the road.
Cheers All!
Excellent post, if depressing.
It was a success only if you consideer degenerate agendas, crass bribery and unconstitutional behaviour the sign of a successful parliament...then again the herd animals that support the Librano cartel care little for playing by the rules.
Bottom line is anyone can win if they cheat. Is cheating success? it is if you keep your value system tucked next to the local urinal.
A very insiteful post!
There's another way to interpret the stream of events - that Harper didn't want to bring down the government, nor win the SSM vote. He didn't want an election once he saw how polls quickly peaked around the Gomery revelations and then slid down. Perhaps Stronach picked up on this. The Budget vote with the absent Tories really looked like a strategic capitulatoin, now didn't it?
On the SSM vote, the ideas of Harper's "alternative" proposal were so weak, that only the screechy old Bishops came thru, with Harper as their make-do minion. The Fundies were unbearably dogmatic and foggy-minded in their anti-pluralism. I've written about this at length on my own blog, refWrite.
Still, Canadianna, you make a lot of sense in looking at how everything played out from PM PM's pm perspective. At the end of the day, he won.
Yours, Owlb
Thanks for sharing this Ruth.
Peter displays the typical dim understanding of the parliamentary system. His simplistic analysis of events suggests that one's prefered party or ideology should be a factor in recognising the legitamacy of the government.
Peter -- should you visit -- whether the majority of people voted Conservative or Liberal is irrelevant. The Conservative representatives, combined with the Bloc representatives voted for a motion that indicated they had lost confidence in the government. That, in a parliamentary democracy is supposed to bring down the government, and force an election.
The government called the vote 'procedural' and refused to recognise it as a 'real' confidence vote. Under out system of government, it was then their obligation, to immediately call a 'real' confidence vote.
They didn't. Why? Because they knew they still wouldn't have the numbers.
That extra 9 days they alloted themselves gave them the time to buy the extra vote needed to keep their grip on power.
In a world where we can simulcast, webcast, podcast etc. please don't try to defend the 9 day delay. In our world, 35 minutes for a pizza is too long -- 9 days for a confidence vote is out and out fraud.
Just because the majority of the people are willing to accept the result doesn't make it democratic. Their failure to react is more an indication of apathy, rather than approval. A quote that really sums up Canada's situation to me is:
"As night does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight
when everything remains unchanged. And it is in that twilight that we must be most aware of the change in
the air, however slight; lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
We are headed towards darkness, Peter. You can suck it up if you want; I prefer to flick on the light.
Thanks Ruth. I hate when I type in a hurry though, my spelling bites.
I didn't proof-read that one as you might have guessed.
Cheers.
Extremely comprehensive post, and a compelling rebuttal, too, Canadi-anna.
At this stage of the human condition on this continent we have enormous numbers of citizens in at least two countries voting 'against' a candidate, rather than 'for', without really knowing why - just that they've been taught to hate that person. What a sad state of affairs.
Justice Douglas was right. Too few people care enough to switch on the light!
Sleep, sleep, sleep......
If it were only so, Jason.
This is a really great, comprehensive post.
Thanks for writing it.
Toronto Tory
I think the problem is that the Conservatives and Liberals don't appreciate how they spur each other on. Doesn't any Conservative consider that their approach only reinforces things? After all, how does a governing party continue except by outwitting and outlasting the other parties, especially in a minority situation? The Conservatives just seem to display a disconnect here. (That's what it seems like, anyways.)
Both major parties seem to polarize the electorate, which may be why some people have grown apathetic or cynical about the whole process.
Excellent post. Curious about Peter's comment that Canadians wanted to leave the Liberals in power to do what they were elected to do. When did they plan to start doing that? Aren't they still on the book before the Red book?
Jadon -- unfortunately, politics plays out like a game of survivor. Platitudes and appearance are put above substance. In an age where so much information is readily available the optics should matter less than the actual.
In my opinion, the public is not polarized, they are just as you say, apathetic. You can blame politicians for that, but really, in democracies it is incumbent on the voter to be engaged. The choice to be lazy and not pay attention is our own choice. The goings on in parliament this session should have made people angry. It should have provoked outrage and action. It didn't. In fact it is the lack of accountability of the current regime that is more responsible for the disconnect of the public than the Conservative Party's approach to anything.
Paul -- Peter is amongst that group of people that believe a minority government is the choice of the people. No one goes to the polls 'voting for' a minority. When a minority happens it is an indicator that the populace is skittish.
While Peter believes the public gave the Liberals a mandate to get something done, if you look at the positioning of the parties prior to the last election -- in terms of economics, the Liberals lined up more closely with the Conservatives. It seems bizarre that anyone would then assume that the public would have expected anything like the NDP budget, or that they would actually approve it.
"These stories are part of our national heritage now. They are part of what it means to be Canadian."
That's exactly what I came to see over this time period. These are not values I want to be part of my identity. These Liberal - Canadian - values are disgusting, and an embarassment.
More discouraging is the fact that Canadians have not turned from the Liberals in vast numbers - rather the Libefal vote has been unchanged or increased.
As far as I am concerned, Canada is now a third world corrupt banana republic. We should rank right along with Zimbabwe or some other African joke of a nation.
How can Canada be saved? I don't that it can be saved.
Were I a Quebecer, I would certainly want an immediate "yes" on a final referendum
anonymous -- I'm surprised all the other provinces don't push for Ontario to separate.
Post a Comment