I’ve been having a recurring dream of Harper winning a minority, and when the GG is presents his decision to form a coalition government, Stevie has a temper tantrum with John Baird, and the two of them  refuse to play by the rules and stomp and kick and pick mean fights and throw mud and sand. They won’t leave the playground until the big mean principal (GG) hauls them off by the ears and takes them to the Principal’s office to give them a lesson on the rules. Yes, Mr. Harper, there are rules. It is those very rules which protect Canada from unsavoury politicians who hold Canada, Canadians, and our Constitution in contempt. Contempt. CONTEMPT!! (Ahhh… that felt good.) I expect that in reality the ending may be somewhat different than in my dream, but I am sure of this – Steven Harper will NOT have a majority, and may not even have a minority. Won’t that be fun?

I’ve already cast my vote, and it was empowering. In my riding there truly is only one party to vote for to unseat the Harper Conservatives, and I refuse to cast a vote which may put a Con back in Ottawa – any Con, but particularly the Con in my riding. It’s encouraging in my riding to have a fantastic candidate who is brilliant, young, energetic, honest, experienced, and gosh darn it…. people like him. I’m going  to take a final kick at the can & observe the count. What fun! I continue to urge voters to vote strategically. That means vote for Linda Duncan in Edmonton Strathcona, and for Elizabeth May in Saanich Gulf Islands (although I would vote for Elizabeth no matter where she was running – she deserves a seat!). If you are in doubt, got to Catch22Campaign.ca and ProjectDemocracy.ca.

I would be remiss if I didn’t congratulate Jack on his current surge. He’s done an amazing job of filling the power vacuum left by Harper’s robotic droning about the evils of a “coalition” and his illegitimate claims of responsibility for economic stability. Should Jack be the one to lead a Coalition, which seems plausable at this point, I only hope that Jack never again decides to make a deal with the devil, as he did with Harper when he & Stevie  brought down Paul Martin, and with him nationalized daycare, the Kelowna Accord, and decriminalization of small amounts of cannabis… and, lest we forget, Stephen Harper as PM. You will be playing for Canada Jack, and listen to Canadians … we don’t take BS from our politicians. We are awake and watching. If by chance the Liberals remain in official opposition, Ignatieff will either have to eat crow and agree to a coalition, or resign and allow a new leader to step forward.

I have never said Canadian politics are boring. Steven Harper wants us to believe that, but at this point things are looking pretty exciting. There is hope for Canada, and hope for a Harperless Canada.

If I am wrong, and the drama takes an unforeseen turn, you can be sure…. I’ll be back. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

That’s certainly true. His connections to the American Tea Party/Religious Right/Republican movement, are vast and well recorded. But this brand of conservatism originated in Canada when Harper was just a lad, pulling wings off butterflies, or whatever he did to pass the time.

And it started with a battle between two little books, both written by Conservatives, in the same era, but with completely different visions.

In 1965, scholar George Grant, wrote Lament for a Nation, fearing that the fall of Diefenbaker, would spell the end of Canada as a sovereign state: “To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state.” George P. Grant (1).

The book was an instant best seller and though written by a conservative, became the new battle cry for the left. And as an expansion of Diefenbaker’s “One Nation” philosophy, it also, in many ways, became a thesis for the Red Tory.

However, at about the same time, another Canadian conservative was writing a little book, called Political Realignment: Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians. It was a bit controversial at the time, because its publication was funded by a group of wealthy businessmen, but Ernest Manning with the help of his son Preston, laid out their vision for a Conservative Canada. It became the framework for a party of the right-wing, that would be based on pure ideology and the ‘will of God’. (2)

Manning’s book caught the attention of Colin Brown, founder of the National Citizens Coalition, that Stephen Harper would eventually head. In fact, it was Manning who suggested that the NCC incorporate, and he would be on the advisory board.

I’ve read both Lament and Realignment, and could find no common ground.

Ron Dart, professor of Political Science, Philosophy and Religious Studies at University College of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, BC, wrote a book The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes.

The recent decision by the Progressive Conservative party [2003] and the Alliance party to fold into and become the Canadian Conservative party does raise some interesting and important questions. What does it mean to be a Canadian conservative? Who defines the term? Why, at this juncture and point in Canadian political life, is the more republican interpretation of the term trumping, censuring out and banishing the older Tory interpretation of what it means to be a conservative?

Those with little or no sense of the Canadian political journey will not even realize there was and is a Tory tradition that has, in many ways, been the backbone of Canadian conservatism. It is this High/Red/Radical Toryism that needs retrieving and remembering at this point in history. The right of centre, republican read of conservatism is before us night and day. This needs little comment or commentary.

And he also saw the clash of the books:

The 1960s in Canada (and in many other parts of the world) were an unsettling and turbulent time. Much was up for redefinition. Two important political tracts for the times were written, in Canada, in the 1960s. Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (1965)and Political Realignment: A Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians (1967). As we briefly unpack and unravel these missives, we will get a feel for how Canadians have, in our history, understood the meaning of conservatism in different ways. It is as these two traditions lived in tension, there was some degree of political health. It is as these two traditions have fragmented, the republican brand of conservatism has redefined Canadian conservatism in a right of centre manner. (3)

Two Conservative visions for Canada. One Republican the other Tory. Why is the Republican version winning?

Money probably. Manning’s movement has been very well financed and never changed direction. Pure ideology. While the Tory tradition was more organic, changing with the times and the needs of Canadians.

In fact, there was often little difference between the PCs and the Liberals, so elections were always about the platform.

Isn’t it funny how things come full circle?

Four decades ago did either man see that their books would do battle, literally and figuratively?

Because you see, George Grant is Michael Ignatieff’s uncle, and of course Stephen Harper not only headed the ‘Realignment’ inspired National Citizens Coalition, but was Preston Manning’s lieutenant in the Reform Party. He also wrote it’s policy:

Harper said that “the agenda of the NCC was a guide to me,” while then NCC President David Somerville crowed that Reform “cribbed probably two-thirds of our policy book.” (4)

So in many ways this election has been about the clash of “conservative values”. Republican or Tory? And the clash of visions. American or Canadian.

And I’m afraid I’m now feeling like one of those authors almost 50 years ago “To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state.” George P. Grant (1).

Republican is winning. Are we going to let it?

Sources:

1. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George Parkin Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1965

2. Political Realignment: Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians, By Hon, E. C. Manning, McClelland & Stewart Limited, 1967, Kingston Public Library call no. 320.971 M31

3. Ernest Manning And George Grant, By Ron Dart, ViveleCanada

4. Stephen Harper vs. Canada, By Scott Piatkowski, August 8, 2005

There was a time in Canada, not so long ago, when voting was simple. For the most part, it was a decision between two political heavyweights: the Liberal Party of Canada, or, the Progressive Conservative Party. The former was slightly left of the political centre; the latter slightly right. This seemed to work reasonably well. After all, we are a people of moderation.

These two old parties were akin to normally well-behaved children. Occasionally, one would step out of line and we’d have to send it to the naughty chair; the other enjoying our favour for a period of time. This didn’t leave the good child alone; it could play with a neighbouring child, the NDP, if and when it chose to do so.

But, a couple decades ago, political family life became more complicated. Our Progressive Conservative child suffered a terrible trauma, resulting in multiple personality disorder. Two new personalities emerged: one called itself “The Bloc”; the other “Reform”.

Progressive Conservative fought valiantly, but it’s personality was over-powered by “Reform”. We didn’t like “Reform” much. That “child” didn’t hold to our moderate views. But, being a clever personality, “Reform” decided to call itself Alliance, thinking it might get more love from the family. That didn’t work, so it changed its name once again, more cleverly, taking the name “Conservative”, hoping we would shower it with the attention and love we previously held for our now lost child, “Progressive Conservative”. This works some of the time. We actually think that “Progressive” is still with us.

But what of that other personality, “The Bloc”. Well that personality is still there. It occasionally peaks its head out yelling “me, me, me”. We give it a treat and its satisfied for a time and some semblance of peace returns to the family.

But, it’s a constant battle. You see, “Conservative” doesn’t get along with its other personality, “The Bloc”. It also doesn’t get along with “Liberal”, it’s sibling, nor with that neighbour child “NDP”. Through it all, “Conservative” has become quite the bully, always wanting to make the rules and going into piques of rage when it can’t have its own way. It’s even taken to locking everyone out of the House on occasion.

Meanwhile, “Liberal” and “NDP” (that neighbour child) have been spending more time together. On occasion, they’ll even play with “Conservative’s” needy personality, “The Bloc”. In fact, “Liberal” and “NDP” have gotten along so well, that a while back two elders of the respective families hinted that perhaps they should marry. Now, some of us thought that might be a good idea. They certainly had a lot in common. The only problem was that “Liberal” felt that “NDP” wasn’t quite attractive enough; didn’t have that certain “popularity” and didn’t seem to have much in the way of future earning power. After all, “Liberal” wanted a marriage of equals.

Well, children do grow up, and, lately it seems that “NDP” has been quite flirtatious, garnering it some of that popularity that “Liberal” was talking about, and, “Liberal” and NDP are even competing for the same job. So, popularity and potential earning power just might make “NDP” a lot more attractive.

Who knows? They may just decide to join one with the other and we can celebrate another chapter in our Canadian, dysfunctional “poli”-amorous family.

Something tells me “Conservative” would not be too pleased with the union. As for “Conservative’s” alter ego, we can just throw “The Bloc” the occasional treat and it will shut up for a while.

At a town-hall meeting in the riding of Okanagan—Shuswap, a large crowd listens patiently to the speeches of the candidates during the federal election in the fall of 1993. Several of the candidates made lengthy presentations about the platforms of their parties and their positions on the major issues of the day. The Reform candidate, Darrel Stinson, stands up for only a few minutes of his allotted time, looking nervous and out of place.

He tells the crowd everything they need to know is in the Reform “Blue Sheet.” “Read it. If you have any questions, we’ll be happy to answer them.” Then he gives them the telephone number of his campaign office. Twice. During the question-and-answer period that follows, several people ask Stinson about his party’s position on specific issues. “I haven’t looked into that one myself but I know we have a position somewhere here in this,” he says, holding up the “Blue Sheet.” It falls to me, the Liberal candidate, to inform the audience of Reform’s position, quoting from the sheet as a furious Stinson looks on. (1)

Telling this story, you might think that this would mean the end of Stinson’s political career.

But on the contrary, not only did he win a seat for the Reform Party that year, but would hold that seat for more than a decade. In 2004, he won with 46.39% of the vote.

Some of his more memorable performances in the House, included the suggestion that “the best way to prevent spousal abuse was to give women handguns“, he challenged a Liberal opponent to a fistfight, asking “Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch?” and he called then PC leader Jean Charest, a “fat little, chubby, little sucker.”

An absolutely charming man.

But he was not, and is not alone, in the redneckery Conservative stable. And even in 1993, the combative style, that now defines Conservative politics, was emerging.

Across British Columbia and Alberta similar scenes of overzealous Reform behaviour unfolded in many ridings. Although Okanagan- Shuswap may have been among the most extreme cases, the dumbing down of politics in the 1993 election was a common phenomenon in Western Canada, as was the emergence of a large group of previous disaffected voters whose only interest was in expressing their negative often prejudiced views. (1)

They knew where to draw support, and most of that support came from what we might now call a “Tea Party” uprising.

Reform was a corporate sponsored movement, in the same way that the American version is. But it knew how to play to a noisy “silent majority”.

And it’s rather sad, because Western Canada is more progressive than their representatives would suggest. The Famous Five were from Alberta, the women involved in the “Person’s case” that finally made women “citizens”.

Yet most Conservative MPs from the West, would prefer that the case was repealed.

So why do they keep sending people like Brad Trost, Maurice Vellacott, Garry Breitkreuz, Rob Anders and Jason Kenney to represent them, when they do not reflect Western values?

And two decades later, the candidates are still using talking points to drive their campaigns, no more aware of the world around them than Stinson was.

David Climenhaga discusses going to an all-candidates meeting in Alberta, where Conservative incumbent Brent Rathgeber was asked about the future of the CBC.

“I don’t know that we need a national broadcaster in 2011,” Rathgeber told about 100 people at a Chamber of Commerce all-candidates’ forum in a local hotel. “…We have to wean them off … of the taxpayer’s dollar…” It is well known, of course, how since Stephen Harper became prime minister of Canada, the Conservative Party has become a tightly disciplined organization, especially during election campaigns.

No Conservative candidate strays far from the official talking points, and if that means repeating the phrase “constant bickering” seven times in an introductory speech to a local all-candidates’ meeting in a Prairie town, as Rathgeber did at another forum last week, you can be confident the same phrase is being repeated a similar number of times at dozens of other meetings across English Canada.

Yet Rathgeber will probably be re-elected, based solely on the fact that he is running under the Conservative banner. In 2009, Lawrence Martin spoke to a party strategist:

Over lunch the other day, a senior Conservative strategist from Calgary mentioned how his party was suffering from Alberta leader fatigue. There’s no way, he said, the next Conservative leader can come from that province. For two decades, he added, Alberta has had the run of the party. (2)

I’m not experiencing Alberta leader fatigue, only Reform-Conservative MP fatigue, especially the most regressive ones coming from the West.

Why do they keep sending us these people?

Enough already. You’re better than this. Take a stand.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 304-306.

2. Alberta leader fatigue is the federal Tories’ next big test, By Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, April 16, 2009

Well, things are different this time. Strategic voting has never had the Internet and social media backing that it does now. Canadians are connected as never before and many of them clearly see the threats that a Harper majority represents.

And some people have been working for months to get ready for this.

A member of one such gang, CRUSH, Michele MacKay, has been on it.

GREAT NEWS FOR STRATEGIC VOTING! I have just finished comparing both Catch 22 and Project Democracy riding by riding, and they have picked the same candidate in every single riding except one (Beauport-Limoilou.) The fact the two sites arrived at the exact same picks completely independently of the other proves they’re solid: We can take them to the polls!

IMPORTANT NOTE: the riding projections are up to date on PD, but they are still in the process of updating their candidate picks. Meantime, look ONLY at the riding projections.

Both sites are recommending we check back in May before we go out to vote because things can still change in the last week.

Also, some are too close to call. Yet.

Other helpful sites include Election Prediction Project, which has 61 ridings too close to call.

ThreeHundredEight is tracking polls.

The CAW is following 50 key ridings.

And the ReformaTories are focussed — when they’re not focussed on the economy of course — on 30 seats.

Two more to round out this strategic voting link-fest: Swing 33 has identified 33 ridings where a financial donation could help tip the scales. And Top 10 Kick-Ass Election Sites, including *ahem* this one.

Final point: if you vote in one of these swinging ridings, wait until eday. Things change.

James Laxer recently wrote a piece Stephen Harper: Now He’s The Champion of National Unity, in which he questions Harper’s new found love of a united Canada. He invoked memories of Harper’s Reform Party under Preston Manning, who had an Abraham Lincoln complex, hoping to invoke “A House Divided” in his handling of Quebec.

With a recent surge of NDP popularity in Quebec, Laxer believes that anything is possible. I still feel that Gilles Duceppe is pretty popular in this province and doubt that the NDP will capture many more seats, but stranger things have happened. It would be wonderful if a federalist party made inroads into the province. And I believe that this election will not be decided by the polls but at the polls.

However, let’s look at Stephen Harper himself. His campaign is being run under the banner ‘Here for Canada’ (while hiding from Canadians). A stark contrast to his former plans for decentralization.

“Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.” - Stephen Harper in a 1994 National Citizens Coalition speech.

However, there was a more direct attempt by Stephen Harper in 2004, to divide Canada, based on the ‘Belgian Model’.

The Conservative leader first floated the idea during a speech in Quebec last Friday. He said there are some areas where Ottawa could hand over some of its powers to linguistic groups, such as francophones or anglophones. “By devolving authority, not solely to a province, but to have an arrangement based on linguistic groups that cross the country,” he said

Then Prime Minister Paul Martin said: “I think the role of the prime minister of Canada is not to build a better Belgium, it’s to build a stronger Canada.

His party immediately went into damage control, because he didn’t explain how this would work for Anglophones in Quebec or Francophones in other parts of the country.

Of course anyone following Stephen Harper’s career, knows that few of his ideas are his own. As chief policy wonk for the Reform Party, he “cribbed” about 2/3 of their platform from the National Citizens Coalition handbook. (1)

And he also stole the idea of the Belgian model to handle Quebec, from Peter Brimelow’s ‘The Patriot Game’. In his book Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, William Johnson said that after reading the book, Stephen Harper was so excited that he went out and bought ten copies to give to friends. (1)

Brimelow lays out the Belgian model on Page 83 of his book. (2)

And after suggesting this model for Canada, André Lecours, from the Department of Political Science at Concordia University, wrote a paper on why Harper’s (Brimelow’s) idea wouldn’t work. In fact it’s not even working in Belgium.

So is Stephen Harper really here FOR Canada, or for what he plans to do TO Canada. Sometimes it’s all in the preposition.

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3

Created during the depression, when desperate people were looking for a saviour, it was both a blessing and a curse. And this is what he discovered in interviewing those who were around at the time of it’s creation. Reports were either glowing or painted a picture of “hooligans, emotion run amok, and a stab of fear.”

And this was actually encouraged by the party. Divisive politics played out well at the ballot box. And so did fear.

Meetings of the opposition were often disrupted by ” a ‘group of big fellows’ who honked car horns, yelled and pounded logs against the walls and doors of their meeting halls. Reporters were barred from [Social Credit] meetings, and often made to feel unsafe upon the streets.” (1)And on his Bible program, then leader William Aberhart regaled against “Henchmen”, “Bigshots” and “those who betrayed Christ“. And if critics phoned into his radio show, they were “threatened with tar and feather, shooting and physical violence“. Religious fervour and politics had created a dangerous climate.

So when this young reporter sat down in 1965 to file his story, he understood the dangers of this kind of political party. His name was Joe Clark and he would go on to become Canada’s youngest prime minister.

Fast Forward

When Stephen Harper delivered his now famous speech to the controversial Council for National Policy, in 1997, he reminded us that: “The predecessor of the Reform party [is] the Social Credit party.”

I’ve written often of this and have actually been researching a small book on it.

You can link Social Credit to Reform/Alliance/Conservative, with just five leaders.

William Aberhart was the first. His lieutenant Ernest Manning followed. Ernest Manning’s son, Preston Manning (Godson of William Aberhart) was the first leader of Reform. Stockwell Day’s father was also Social Credit and Preston Manning’s lieutenant, Stephen Harper, became leader of Alliance after Day and then, of course, leader of the new Conservative Party of Canada.

The chain has been virtually unbroken.

So when in 2004, Joe Clarke came out warning of the movement, they were not empty words. He knew who they were and what they stood for.

He had attended university with Preston Manning and both were members of the Youth Parliament. “He was part of the Youth Parliament’s Social Credit caucus at the same time Joe Clark, Grant Notley (the late, former leader of the New Democratic Party in Alberta), Jim Coutts (who became prominent in the Liberal Party under Pierre Trudeau), and others were representing their respective parties.” (2)

And when he called Stephen Harper “a dangerous choice for voters“, it came from experience. And today we have a growing number of people sounding the same alarm, including Robert Kennedy Jr., son of the late Senator Bobby Kennedy, who wrote recently:

Harper, often referred to as “George W. Bush’s Mini Me,” is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity. Harper’s attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda.

Canada is not an island. People everywhere are paying attention.

Reading today’s headlines, it’s not too difficult to see that what happened in the early days of Social Credit campaigning, is not much different from what we are witnessing today. Slashed tires, shout downs, fear and intimidation.

And the reason for that is divisive politics and religious fervour, that stir emotions best kept checked.

Add to that a ‘Smear and fear’ style of governing, and it’s a recipe for disaster.

So let’s make history by changing the course of history.

The latest Nanos poll, that has a margin of error, ranging from 5.7 to 10.3, suggests either a majority for the Conservatives, or a majority for the Liberals, or a minority for the NDP, or a spaceship swooping down on election day and parachuting in a prime minister.

So forget the polls. Just vote and vote wisely.

Sources:

1. A Desperate People Turn to Social Credit, By Reporter Joe Clark, Calgary Albertan News Perspective, August 1965

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 5

Not because what they were doing was wrong, but because Stephen Harper realized that the only way to save his job was to convince the Canadian people, that what they were doing was wrong.

And not just wrong, but dangerous and illegal. A coup d’état. An overthrow.

But his fear was not based on a perceived clashing of swords, but on the fact that he knew that what the opposition was doing was legal and a well defined process in our Parliamentary system. And he knew this because he himself had engineered just such a coalition to “overthrow” the Martin government.

The only difference was that his 2004 attempt included the “full support of the Bloc” (Tom Flanagan, Harpers Team), where the 2008 coalition was only an agreement whereby the Bloc would support confidence motions for up to 18 months.

But Harper counted on our ignorance of Parliamentary law and we didn’t disappoint. And as he piled one lie on top of another lie, he was able to create a “constitutional crisis” where none should have existed.

According to the 2009 book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis:

The near collapse of a minority government is not a significant event. The circumstances that surround this near collapse, however, signal that there may be further serious repercussions arising from the events of December 2008 to January 2009 … these events reflect a pattern of disregard by Harper of a number of deeply embedded constitutional principles and practices. Each individual element poses cause for concern. The accumulation suggests that Harper is capable of precipitating a serious constitutional crisis to avert responsibility for his own mistakes and miscalculations and to stay in power. (1)

News around the world was that Canada was under some kind of attack from within. Few knew the details but played is as a separatist uprising.

The rhetoric and overcharged campaign launched by the Conservatives, caused Dennis Pilon, a political scientist at the University of Victoria, to state that : “the actions of this prime minister are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule.” (2)

What did come out of it, was an attempted history and civics lesson, though given the fact that Harper is still playing the coalition card, he’s hoping that most of us missed the class. He could be right.

So what happens if he fails to get a majority this time? Will he leave gracefully if he is unable to earn the confidence of the House, his only legitimacy as prime minister?

There are many who believe that he may once again attempt a fabricated crisis. You get a real sense of this when you read comments by his base, or heaven forbid try to challenge them on it. They still refuse to believe that Harper had tried to become prime minister in 2004, in a coalition, despite the mounting evidence.

Instead they continue to raise the “alarm”.

The perceived knock out of Ignatieff this week, through clever poll and headline manipulation, has now become a battle between Harper “Here for Canada” and a “socialist” who will grab power with the help of a “separatist”. Another classic battle.

At the beginning of the campaign it was an “Ignatieff led” coalition, but he was losing that battle. Time to change gears, split the vote and create confusion.

But what if that doesn’t work?

Andrew Coyne says of Harper’s strategy:

…his repeated attempts to impugn this perfectly normal constitutional procedure as “illegitimate,” we assumed, he was simply trying to demonize the opposition as power-hungry conspirators, hoping to scare the electorate into giving him the majority he seeks. It was so clearly contrary to all established constitutional doctrine, not to mention his own public statements and private actions over the years, that he couldn’t possibly be serious. It was just cheap, dishonest demagoguery, playing upon the public’s ignorance of constitutional conventions.

Coyne, however, sees another possibility that might explain Harper’s bizarre behaviour.

What he may have in mind is this: that after losing a vote of non-confidence, he would advise the Governor General to dissolve the House and call new elections, rather than call upon someone else to form a government. He would then dare the Governor General to overrule his first minister’s advice, something that Governors General are quite properly extremely reluctant to do. He would, in short, be doing another King-Byng, provoking a constitutional crisis rather than yield power, hoping to intimidate the Governor General and/or rally public opinion to his side. If so this would be extremely disturbing.

And remember he already set the precedent for this in 2008.

It may take more than an election to wrest power from this man’s hands. Reducing him to a minority will probably not be enough.

Let’s hope the experts are right, that polls should be viewed as mere entertainment, not to be taken seriously. After all, the so-call surge of the NDP, especially in Quebec, had a margin of error at 6.4%, though the headlines never reflected that (seat projection for the NDP remains at 36).

Harper and his media accomplices are getting desperate. Our only hope may be Canada’s youth. Because with them, in this election, the possibilities are endless.

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, Edited by Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Pg. 65-68

2. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710

This election campaign has been one of the most bizarre on record, with incredible displays of democracy, and just as incredible displays of attacks on democracy.

We’ve witnessed hopefulness with unprecedented engagement, especially of youth, and if the polls are correct (which I severely doubt) an unprecedented display of apathy toward serious charges of Contempt of Parliament.

We’ve seen campaign signs having cross hairs drawn on a candidate’s face and a nation rallying with support to replace the vandalized signs.

In another community where tires were slashed on cars parked at houses with Liberal signs, the candidate told those with signs to remove them for their own safety. Yet despite that many have instead opted to simply bring them in at night.

In London, Ontario, NDP candidate Ryan Dolby pulled out of the race to help his Liberal opponent, saying that the area needed a progressive MP and he didn’t want to split the vote. It doesn’t get anymore selfless than that.

Yet at the same time, Stephen Harper is telling the media that he will not cooperate if fails to win a majority. It will be the same contempt that has defined his career.

So divided is the spin from reality, that it appears as though there are two separate elections, held in two different countries.

The Conservative Party has been running one of the most undemocratic campaigns in history. Stephen Harper limits questions to five and even then only answers the ones he’s comfortable with. His rallies are invitation only and his stump speeches delivered against a backdrop of human props. Some in costume.

His candidates are told to avoid debates and escape the media whenever possible.

They are breaking rules, breaking the peace and even breaking the law.

We have a group of self proclaimed gun nuts plotting the demise of an MP who has devoted much of his time and energy to criminal justice. A Tea Party style attack on Planned Parenthood and an aide discussed on tape, who may have taken kickbacks for government favours.

Yet we are graced day in and day out, with the same phony smile on the same arrogant face, of a man who has been the most unCanadian prime minister in our history, standing behind a sign that reads ‘Here for Canada’.

Yet with all of the disparaging headlines and misleading polls, there is a large progressive grassroots movement to replace this government. And it is a movement that did not spring up overnight, but has been working behind the scenes to inform and encourage for over a year. From strategic voting to simply getting out the vote, these people get no money for what they do, and yet they still do it.

Stop the split
Leadnow.ca
Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper
Catch 22 Harper Conservatives
To name just a few.

With daily headlines that appear aimed to discourage, why have they not given up? Because they still believe they can win.

“It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.” Charles Dickens, Tale of Two Cities

While walking down this memory lane, I’ve had to think about what we’ve accomplished as a people, as a nation, over these past 50 years – where we were then and where we are now and what got us from there to here. What are the demarcation points and “eras” that shaped our society and what inspired us to move along the path?

To my mind, there are five eras roughly broken down into the five decades from the 60′s to present. The eras coincide with government headed by “Pearson”, “Trudeau”, “Mulroney”, “Chretien” and “Harper” eras. Clark, Turner, Campbell and Martin I view as inter-regna.

The Pearson Years: With much kicking and screaming, we finally see ourselves as a nation under our own flag and our official national anthem. Window dressing? Perhaps, but, who around the world doesn’t think “Canada” when they see our red maple leaf? We proudly pin it on our lapels as we trot around the globe!! More importantly, this turned out to be an era of social conscience: establishment of universal health care, our Canada pension plan and the world’s first race-free immigration policy. It changed us as a society and gave us an era of “self-recognition and collective care”.

The Trudeau Years: We cannot think “Trudeau” without thinking “The Just Society”. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an end to the discrimination against homosexuals, reproductive freedom for women and linguistic equality. These were sweeping, controversial changes that, like the accomplishments of the Pearson era, indelibly changed who we are and how we see ourselves as a nation.

The Mulroney Years: This era is marked by trade and tax policy and constitutional issues. For a number of reasons, I would call it the “era of political upheaval”, given that it saw the birth of two new political entities on the federal scene and placed the Party of Sir John A. in its death throws. The Constitutional disaster of the Meech Lake Accord gave life to the Bloc Quebecois, while fiscal (crippling debt) and social policy saw the formation of the Reform Party in the west. This profoundly changed the Canadian political landscape.

The Chretien Era: Mired in debt accumulated over the Trudeau and Mulroney years, and referred to as a Banana Republic economy by the Wall Street Journal with threats of a downgrading of the national credit rating, this period had to focus on the financial health of the nation and became the “era of fiscal responsibility”. It was a painful period, with massive cuts to social programs and government services. While many may argue the methods, few can argue the results: from crippling debt to a black ink economy and regaining the ability to reinvest in social programs and provide tax relief.

The Harper Era: This era is like no other in Canadian history. Politically, it has seen the full results of the political upheaval of the Mulroney era with a country deeply divided along regional and ideological lines and impacted by a world-wide economic meltdown. In a very short timeframe, we have found ourselves back in the “red” ink with consequent concerns for the progressive social programs built over the last 50 years. Few would argue that the vast majority of Canadians continue to place immense value in our social programs, but, as Canadians, we also want fiscal prudence. Meanwhile, we have a governing party that to the majority of Canadians represents neither a strong commitment to social programs on the one hand, nor fiscal prudence on the other – a government that is secretive beyond anything we’ve previously known – a government touting a platform of militarism and punishment-focused penal reform that is foreign to the Canadian soul of the past 50 years, and worst of all, a government that shows utter contempt for our democratic principles and conventions to the point of misrepresenting how our democracy is intended to function.

This is the “era of mass dissatisfaction”. Conservatives, who represent approximately 40% of the population, will not be satisfied as this government has convinced them that conservative policies cannot be implemented without the full force of a majority government. They have been convinced that the long-standing Canadian practice of compromise is dead. Progressives, who represent approximately 60% of the population, will not be satisfied as their vote is split among four centre-left parties. The result has been a government that does not represent the Canadian soul.

Quo vadis, Canada? Anima tua ubi est?