It’s important to be patient when it comes to politics. As Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty recently pointed out, democracy is a muddy affair, but it eventually produces results. Still, looking back on the columns I’ve written this year, most of them end on a sour note, or more occasionally, with a tone of defiant (and usually misplaced) optimism. Though it’s fair to say I have a taste for all things political, I find almost all the news coming out of Ottawa these days unpalatable.
Parliament, that ancient institution, that powerful symbol of peace, order, and good government, is almost entirely dysfunctional. Maintaining optimism in the face of this simple, virtually incontestable fact has been a challenging exercise. Crosby’s goal helped for a couple of days, but just as getting drunk temporarily relieves the anguish of a break up, the Olympics provided a few weeks’ shelter from the juvenile rhetorical melee of Question Period. Ultimately, I found myself right back where I’d been in January (except I had a splitting headache). Reality has a nasty way of creeping back in.
It hasn’t been like this forever, though. Even during Paul Martin’s short-lived and tumultuous tenure, there were major developments on economic and social issues: the right of same-sex couples to marry was recognized under the law; Ottawa tranfered major investments in health care; and Canada removed itself from participation in the apocalyptic American “Star Wars” adventure.
I don’t wish to suggest that the Martin era was an idyllic liberal Camelot. Like its predecessor government, it was riddled with scandals and used legislative loopholes to stifle dissent, cancel opposition days, and avoid confidence votes (something few Liberals today will acknowledge, even as they moralize and weep for the sanctity of Parliament).
These trends continue under the current regime, albeit with a much more sinister undertone. With each passing session, Canada has spiralled further into an effective minority dictatorship. When the House becomes inconvenient, it can be disposed of on a prime ministerial whim. In the subsequent legislative purgatory, “President” Harper rules by decree.
If this seems like hyperbole, consider the amount of executive power the Conservative leader currently wields. He muzzles his cabinet. Even his most senior ministers must seek the approval of his office before they speak. Cancerous rogue MPs like Bill Casey (who rejected a budget because it shafted his constituents) are cut from the government’s flesh altogether. Serious decisions like shutting down Parliament or refusing executive orders from a majority of MPs fall to Harper alone.
If only it ended there. The concentration of executive power (and its rampant abuse) in the Prime Minister’s Office is only the tip of the iceberg. The small, regionally specific Reform Party base from which the Conservative Party was built needs the same constant reassurance demanded by a jealous lover. For example, when funding was cut for KAIROS (a widely respected faith-based ecumenical NGO), Development Minister Bev Oda announced it was because the organization “wasn’t meeting government priorities.” Weeks later, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney revised the pretext for the move at the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, saying, “We have defunded organizations…like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott [of Israel].”
There were accolades within the reactionary Conservative base. Ezra Levant wrote, “It is sometimes difficult to support the federal Conservatives, usually when they are not being very conservative. But stories like this one remind me why I like this government.” Minister Kenney later wrote in the Toronto Star that the cuts had nothing to do with the organization’s stance on Israel. With brazen insincerity, the Harper Conservatives arbitrarily cut funding for a major NGO and then lied about it, all in an effort to stroke the sensibilities of a narrow portion of their base.
But the Conservative strategy goes deeper than this. Fundamentally, it seeks to realign political discourse, shifting Canada along with it. One only has to watch a few minutes of Question Period to see how far the Conservatives have taken this strategy. Take the issue of Afghan detainees. Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to ask, given the testimony that’s been presented, about the nature of detainee transfers by our troops? Apparently not. If only the opposition cared as much for the welfare of our soldiers than for Taliban prisoners! Polls have revealed that many Canadians aren’t concerned about the abuse of Afghan prisoners. By sticking to their guns, the Conservatives have successfully re-shaped the debate into one about patriotism. Torture be damned!
What about the government’s “law and order” agenda, most of which has nothing to do with either? Crime rates have been dropping steadily for 10 years, and yet the legislation the Conservatives brag about the most concerns “getting tough on crime.” Forget that such an approach has led to crowded jails and soaring crime rates south of the border. Yet a new study shows that a majority of Canadians are, once again, in favour of the death penalty and support harsher punishments for convicts.
On each issue, the government crafts a simple, “common sense” position and then repeats it ad nauseam. Those who care about the abuse of Afghan detainees hate the troops. Those who care about judicial autonomy are “soft on pedophiles.” The list goes on. Prorogation during an inquiry of critical public importance is “recalibration” and shutting down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote is “patriotic.” Yet with each issue, the framework in which reasonable discussion can occur shrinks further. Meanwhile, the opposition parties shriek beneath the fray of Question Period, struggling to be heard.
