It looks like history is about to repeat itself.

Mr. Harper has announced that he wants to eliminate government subsidies for political parties. So far he’s only said that he wants to use that as a Conservative plank in the next election, but I’m betting that it will appear in bill form sometime before early March – just before a budget would have to be brought down.

Why? The first time the government tried to eliminate subsidies, the opposition parties freaked out and botched forming a coalition. This time around, instead of proroguing, Harper is going to force the vote and allow the government to fall on this handy dandy wedge issue. In the subsequent election, he can paint the other parties as pigs at a trough, and say “there are already generous credits and incentives in the tax system to encourage people to give to political parties today.” Oh wait. He just did.

I can pretend the move is antidemocratic: the subsidy means that everyone’s vote has value. In a donation-only system, only people who have spare cash can donate, so they’ll donate to parties that pander to their wants meet their needs. Poor folks (who can’t wait until tax time for their tax credits to be returned) won’t be represented as well.

But, in my heart of hearts, my main reason for supporting the subsidy is that it benefits the Green Party. The subsidy forms a substantial part of the our budget, so any reduction of the subsidy would cripple the federal party. I tend to think of that as a bad thing, but others would probably disagree.

A big deciding factor was the fact that Canada’s bid did not have unity because we had Mr. Ignatieff questioning and opposing Canada’s bid.

And according to our Foreign Minister, Lawrence Cannon:

Not being able to speak with one voice as a country had a negative impact on Canada’s bid.

The Conservatives are actually saying that Canada lost its bid to sit on the Security Council because of the Liberals. They apparently think Canadians are stupid enough to believe that a guy less popular than Stephen Harper was able to convince fifty-some governments to vote for Portugal.

1. At some point in the early 2000s, Canada joined the US invasion of Afghanistan. Part of our exit strategy was to say that we wanted the Afghan policy/army to become professional enough that they could handle their own detainees.
   
2. In January of 2006, a Conservative government came into power in Canada after 12 years of Liberal rule. Our Conservatives/Liberals are like a really left wing version of your Republicans/Democrats.
   
3. In early 2006, Richard Colvin (a no-name Canadian diplomat), see was sent to Afghanistan as a diplomat. He was apparently the #2ish Canadian civilian official in the country.
   
4. In a roughly 18 month period between early 2006 and late 2007, Richard Colvin saw evidence that the Afghan authorities regularly tortured prisoners. Under the Geneva conventions, a country cannot knowingly hand enemy combatants over to authorities that will torture them. That’s a war crime. Colvin sent a number of memos back to Ottawa informing them of the situation. At some point in 2007, he was told to stop writing his complaints down, and told to voice them over the phone.
   
5. In late 2006, early 2007, a Globe and Mail reporter broke the story that Afghan authorities were torturing prisoners given to them by Canadian troops. The Canadian government initially dissembled, then eventually decided to improve their procedures to ensure that detainees were being treated fairly.
   
6. At some point in 2009, Richard Colvin was subpoenaed to testify before a Parliamentry committee (like your congressional committees, with equivalent powers) to say that his superiors must have known about the torture going on in 2006-2007, but did nothing to stop it. If his allegations can be shown to be true, then members of the Canadian government may be liable to stand trial for war crimes. Note that Canadian soldiers themselves would not be guilty of war crimes – only the (civilian) policy-setting oversight bodies, since those bodies controlled what happened to detainees.
   
7. This is where things get murky. The Conservative government circled the wagons after Colvin’s testimony. They implied that anyone who cares about Afghan detainees is either woolly headed or a Taliban supporter. They didn’t supply a number of documents requested by the Parliamentry committee (which, if it’s intentional, is illegal). The conservative MPs sitting on the Parliamentry committee didn’t show up to the last meeting in December, which prevented quorum, which prevented the committee from planning its next move. Then our Prime Minister essentially dissolved Parliament on New Years’ eve.

This is where things get partisan. Folks who are generally opposed to the Conservative government are squealing that there’s a cover-up going on. Those who support the Conservatives are saying… well… they’re saying that it’s perfectly legal for a Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament at any time. Which is true.

In the wake of the prorogation (a fancy term for the dissolution of Parliament), a bunch of uppity folks which include a number of Conservative-supporters, turned out for fairly massive protests in late January. Many of the protesters feel that the prorogation served no discernible purpose other than to hit the pause button on the detainee issue until March, when the federal budget may distract the media from embarrassing questions.

Of course, there’s some context here:

• Regarding the military: In the mid 1990s, some Canadian troops were dispatched to Somalia on a peace keeping mission. Sadly, the troops in question had discipline issues and (alleged) white supremacist tendencies. Time passed, and a couple of Somali kids turned up dead in the Canadian camp, and a bunch of photos surfaced showing Canadian soldiers torturing at least one of the boys. More time passed, the government of the day (Liberal, this time) was finally coerced into calling an inquiry. Over the course of the inquiry, it appeared as if the government (or Defence Department) was executing some kind of coverup. Despite that a number of low-ranking soldiers were found guilty guilty, and the unit was disbanded. Canadians view themselves as a nation of peace keepers, so that was like an itty bitty kick to the national gonads.
  
• Regarding our Parliament: Effectively, Canada has a two-party state. Usually, one of those parties (overwhelmingly the Liberal Party) has a majority of seats in Parliament. At the moment, the Conservatives have a minority government. If all of the MPs in the House decide to pass a non-confidence vote against the government, a federal election will be forced. Which means that the Conservative government is walking a knife-edge of governing the way they want to, versus appeasing the rest of the political leaders to prevent a non-confidence vote. If any one of the parties senses political advantage (ie, pulling ahead in the polls), then they will force an election.

4000 people attending the anti-prorogation rally in Ottawa

So what?

Let’s geek out a little bit here. Why hold a protest?

1. To scare the bejesus out of your opposition. Imagine your company pays kids in Sri Lanka to chew asbestos to make iPhones. Everyone likes iPhones, nobody cares about cancer kids overseas. Life is good. Until one day when you show up at work and there are a thousand people burning you in effigy. You may start to consider other ways of making iPhones.
2. To impress the pundits. Media, commentators, bloggers, and other self-declared arbiters of importance will pooh-pooh your cause when they think it’s just you and your mom who care about it. When you and your mom organize a rally that brings a couple of thousand people out, those commentators will change their position. And if they think you’re important, that helps scare your opposition all the more, and draw more folks into your movement.
3. To attract more supporters. It’s really disheartening to feel like you’re the only person who feels something. A rally can help solve that. It’s shows potential supporters that they aren’t alone and they have a group to plug into. Hopefully, it will swell your ranks, and enable future (metaphoric) asskicking on your issue.

Harper effigy beside a protester's sign

In December 2008, Stephen Harper faced a united opposition willing to vote his government down. He prorogued Parliament.

In December 2009, Stephen Harper faced questions about his government’s policies in Afghanistan and an unfriendly Senate. He prorogued Parliament again.

When Parliament is prorogued, all of the government legislation working its way through the House is discarded. Committees are disbanded before they’ve reached a productive resolution. Harper’s action costs taxpayers money and slows down the work of government. Worse, it’s an abuse of the law: Harper appears to be shutting down our legislature for partisan reasons. Instead of taking his lumps, Harper is taking his ball and going home.

Happily, the story seems to be gaining traction. A Facebook group protesting the move has doubled in size in the last 24 hours: it’s now up to over 40,000 members. Comments on CBC seem to universally damn Harper’s decision. There’s talk of a rally on January 25 23 to protest the prorogation.

In some senses, a rally won’t have any effect. Parliament won’t reconvene until March, regardless of how many rallies are held. But it may remind our Prime Minister that he is a public servant, and as such, he should be working on our behalf. To quote Mr. Harper:

When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent … is when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.

UPDATE: I had the wrong date for the rally. As RG mentions in the comments, it’s January 23, not January 25.

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.
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.

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.

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.