Pie Palace

And Happy Festivus!

I’m an atheist¹ but I really do enjoy the Christmas season. It has everything I love: snow, time off, parties, a reason to see friends, and an excuse for binge drinking. Given the length of the Ontario winter, I’ve always thought that we should have Christmas sometime in late January, but I’m rarely consulted on these matters.

Here’s the first (and possibly last) Annual Pie Palace Gift List

Canadian Electorate

Over the past year, Canadians have stayed away from the polls in droves, and expressed consternation when opposition parties did their job and opposed poorly considered legislation.

• What they want: A Prime Minister like Barack Obama.
• What they deserve: A remedial civics lesson, explaining why voting is important, and the role of the opposition.
• What they will get: A Prime Minister like George Bush (namely Stephen Harper).

Iraqi Shoe Thrower

Muntadar al-Zaidi threw his shoes at George Bush, yelling “This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq.” An event already immortalized across the intertubes by numerous animated gifs and at least one (crappy) flash game.

• What he wants: Stability in Iraq. (presumably)
• What he deserves: Stability in Iraq, and a new pair of shoes.
• What he will get: A long jail term, likely with abuse. (It looks like the abuse has already started)

Green Party Candidate Jen Hunter

Poor Jen. She ran as Green Party candidate in Ottawa-Centre during the 2008 federal election, getting 9.9% of the vote. If she’d gotten an extra 38 votes, she would have gotten 10%, and Elections Canada would have refunded 50% of her campaign expenses to the party.

• What she wants: A seat in Parliament.
• What she deserves: 39 more votes.
• What she will get: A new iPhone, and possibly a scarf.

OC Transpo’s Bus Drivers

Poor bus drivers. They just want their 7% raise over three years, and a contract that will allow them to set their own hours. Is that too much to ask?²

• What they want: A 7% raise, byzantine scheduling rules that favour drivers with seniority, and a pony for every driver.
• What they deserve: Better public relations.
• What they will get: Back to work legislation.

Stephan Harper

This year has been a bit of a roller coaster for the leader of Canada’s least disliked party. Breaking his own law and calling an election early, getting dissed by the Parliamentary auditor he appointed, almost losing the House when his poorly planned fiscal update backfired, and doing anything necessary to hold onto power.

• What he wants: A majority. And a pony.
• What he deserves: Visits from the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas Future.
• What he will get: A visit from the Ghost of Joe Clarke.

This post is a tardy addition to A&J’s Ottawa Blogger Virtual Christmas Party.

Image credit: AP and AbstractionReaction. Used without permission.

1. Agnostic, to be exact. But “agnostic” sound too noncommittal for my taste. It would probably be more accurate to say that I’m committedly unconvinced of the existence of any higher powers. (back)
2. I’m not sure how I feel about the strike. The union is doing a terrible job at getting their side of the story out. As a bus rider, I want the drivers to be treated fairly, and service to resume – but it’s hard to tell if the drivers’ demands are fair, when I can’t find out what they are. (back)

I’ve always voted for hope. Every time I’ve walked into a polling both, I’ve said to myself: “what do I want the future to look like?” I have a soft spot for sustainability and social justice, so I’ve usually given my vote to the Green Party. But thanks to yesterday’s fiasco at Governor General’s, I don’t want to play nice anymore. I want to punish Stephen Harper.

I feel like voting strategically for the first time in my life. I just want to see Stephen Harper fail.

Democracy can only thrive under the rule of law. In the case of a parliamentary democracy, such as Canada’s, the “rule of law” is a set of polite conventions that every parliamentarian is expected to follow. A party cannot govern without the tacit support of 50%+1 of the sitting MPs. If a party loses that support, the Governor General may either choose to trigger an election, or allow a coalition of other parties to take the reigns of power. This week we’ve seen Harper running scared. Instead of losing his minority government he first delayed a non-confidence vote that would have toppled him, then prorogued the House of Commons.

This is not how our Parliament is intended to work. When a politician knows their time is at an end, they should gracefully step aside, regroup, and attempt a come-back. Not take their ball and go home.

From my perspective, it looks like Harper values power more than anything else. He’s hoping that a two month break will be long enough for him to gather enough popular support (by demonizing Quebec) that he will get a majority in a mid-winter election.

In the background, our economy is slowly grinding to a halt as the Canadian dollar falls, tens of thousands of jobs are lost, and the government hemorrhages money due to fiscal mismanagement.

Photo credit: harperdictatorship.ca.

In 2000 the Conservatives made a deal with the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc agreed to support the Conservatives, if they could pull together a minority government. Thanks to some deep investigative work by the tireless Pie Palace Parliamentary Bureau¹, we are able to bring you, dear reader, a copy of that very agreement.

Here’s are the highlights:

We, the leaders of the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party, have met and agree that Canadians have delivered a clear message in the election held on November 27, 2000: [...]
Canadians also made it clear by their votes that they desired ___ Members of Parliament from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Progressive Conservative Party to govern. [...] we will be required to govern by consensus.

And here’s the original document, from our shadowy parking-lot dwelling informant.

Of course, this wouldn’t be such a big deal, if it weren’t for the bruhaha that the Conservatives are tossing up about the deal.

1. Yes, it was emailed to us out of the blue, but it is from a reliable source. Regardless, please take it with a grain of salt. (back)

So far I’ve heard John Baird and Pierre Poilievre parroting the same lines about the upcoming non-confidence vote: non-confidence votes are back-room deals; nobody voted for a coalition; the opposition parties just care about the subsidies. And now, thanks to a leaked set of talking points (scroll down to the bottom of the story), we can the original source. Just for once I’d like to hear a politician speak and hear something that they had thought of. I’d like to hear them make a coherent and reasoned argument that wasn’t spin.

Dear Michaelle Jean,

As you have likely noticed, our present government is a bunch of wankers. Their recent fiscal update provides no economic stimulus package, makes it illegal for federal workers to strike, and overstates the likelihood of ongoing federal surpluses. All this after the Parliamentary budget officer blamed Tory policies for the evaporation of the 2006 surplus.

For once, the opposition parties are talking about bringing down the government rather than their usual song and dance of tacit support.

On Monday, if the opposition parties really do go through with their threat, please, please, please do everything you can to encourage them to form a coalition government. No, I don’t like them either, but I don’t think that now is the time for another $300 million election.

Sincerely,
esf

The election is over. The NDP and Conservatives gained a few seats. The Liberals lost a few. The Greens doubled their percentage of the popular vote (6%, up from 3%). The only way I can describe the the last 35 days is as a waste of time. The next time Steve-o decides to call an election, Governor General should look to the other parties to form a government.

I recently found this in my inbox. The sender (aside from being my sweetie), used to (a) support the Conservatives, (b) think Harper would do a decent job as PM, and (c) think that Elizabeth May would be terrible for the Greens, and terrible for Canada in general.

for those that watch the debates I think Elizabeth May will destroy Stephen Harper’s crappy record, or at least put a good sized dent in it.

She’s releasing the Green Party platform right now and she’s taking all comers, put them in a head lock then doing pile driver – you should be proud to have the strongest leader of a major political party in Canada.

Elizabeth is a doing a great job in front of the crowds. And I’m sure she’ll do a great job on the debates.

The election has begun. And we’re already being let down by our media and our current Prime Minister. Let’s consider a line of questioning on CTV Newsnet coverage (around the 7:30 mark).

Let’s consider the exchange from two angles:

First, there’s the consistency angle. As much as Harper dislikes the Senate, he happily appointed Conservative insider Michael Fortier to the Senate in 2006, and then appointed the unelected Fortier to his cabinet. If Harper feels so strongly about the Senate, why is he appointing unelected people to the senate?

Second, let’s consider Tom Clark’s response. Instead of calling the Prime Minister to task on his inconsistency, he happily skates over the statement and instead asks Harper about hypotheticals (and later asks Harper to promise that he won’t get personal).

It’s easy to see why voters become cynical. The Prime Minister has ignored the spirit of his 2006 election platform, and isn’t being held to task for it. In a rare interview, a journalist has the opportunity to take him to task, but opts instead to drop the name of his media outlet, and ask an essentially meaningless question. Reporters have a responsibility to their viewers – they shouldn’t let a politician get away with this kind of dishonesty.

This is going to be a long election.
(Update: Fixed spelling mistake in title)

Bother.

Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar…
Unless we’re defeated or prevented from governing, we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years.

Stephen Harper uttered those words less than two years ago. But times have changed. The opposition parties haven’t brought the government down – they’ve cooperatively supported the government on confidence motions. Most importantly, we’re heading into a recession, and voters tend to punish the party in power when a recession hits.

When Steve-O says he is “going to have to make a judgement in the next little while as to whether or not this Parliament can function productively,” he wants you to forget that the opposition parties have tacitly supported his government for the last two years. He’s hoping that you won’t remember that Parliament hasn’t even been sitting for the past few months.

When an election is called later this week, it’s going to be for all the wrong reasons: self-interested politicians making a power grab before the economic shit hits the unemployment fan. We’re going to foot the bill for Steve’s (and Stéphane’s, and Gilles’) power games. At the end of it, we’re going to see a House that looks very similar to our current Parliament (hopefully with a few more Green MPs).