The Conservative Corrosion of Canadian Politics

Harper and his party have spent five years tarnishing our political institutions. Do they really think they can get a majority mandate?

The Harper Conservatives have recently begun warning the populace against the specter of a phantom “opposition coalition” that is bound to destroy civilization and all that we cherish in Canada. We should all be terribly afraid and head for the hills!

Throughout his time in office, Harper has treated Canadians as if we are all imbeciles -- and he’s doing it again. Conservatives are attempting to position their ballot question as a choice between a Conservative majority and a coalition government.

At roughly 33 per cent, and with its demonstrable inability to competently govern this complex country, it is perplexing – and humorous – that Harper thinks he will be taken seriously in asking for a majority mandate. All polls show that the Conservatives have fallen 10 per cent and have not recovered, with most surveys showing them in a statistical dead heat with the Liberals. The half-hearted attempt to instill more fear – something the Conservatives do well – and apprehension amongst Canadians is designed keep the base motivated and aimed at a small number of swing voters.

The very idea that Harper will get a majority is delusional and preposterous. Even the Conservatives don’t believe it, as the majority of people are not happy with the Harper government. They are sick and tired of this minority parliament, and they crave genuine change. The Conservatives know this. That’s why they have been veering far right and scratching the ugly underbelly of their base: their best hope is to cling to a minority.

Any pretense of civility came crashing down on the first day the Commons resumed sitting. On the second day of operation, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty spent his time talking about the scary “opposition-coalition” and the horrific consequences of a rejection of the Harper Conservatives in the next election. Needless to say, the Ottawa audience wasn’t too impressed with what they heard.

Don Martin, who attended the speech, summed up the mood in his column in the National Post: “How a government, which has emptied the public purse far into the future, ratcheted up the deficit to historic highs and bloated the bureaucracy to unprecedented size can stand for re-election as a conservative-friendly government is beyond me. To succeed with that hard sell, they must throw every far-fetched demonization allegation they can dredge from the barrel’s bottom at all three opposition parties and hope some of it sticks before their rivals smudge the government’s record.”

Not to be outdone, Stephen Harper spoke in typical statesmanlike fashion at the conclusion of the divisive gun registry vote: “The people of the regions of this country are never going to accept being treated like criminals, and we will continue our efforts until this registry is finally abolished.”

The registry began as a poorly managed start-up fifteen years ago, but has since been unanimously lauded as an indispensible tool by law enforcement and proven efficient. The attempt to destroy it seems strange from a ‘tough on crime’ government, considering that more than half the country and 75 per cent of Quebec want it. For Harper, it’s all about the votes, and never, ever about the country.

It’s funny that some pundits are feeling smug about a so-called “no-lose” tactical victory for the Conservatives on the gun registry and a “chance to pick-up” some additional rural seats. Someone might want to point out that there are also lots of voters – and a whole lot more seats – in Canada’s metropolitan regions that feel that it isn’t a bad idea to give police officers what they need to do their jobs.

For Harper’s governing style, however, it’s all about how to scrape that very last vote in “target ridings.” To do so, he must by definition create East versus West tensions and throw a wedge between men and women, the educated and the ignorant, and Canadians and those hoping to become citizens.

Harper’s strategy requires that fear be used as a blunt instrument and that misinformation and outright fabrication be carpet-bombed into the consciousness of voters.

After the gun registry vote and an acrimonious beginning to this session of parliament, pundits are again asking why parliament is “dysfunctional.”

There are a few fundamental facts of our parliamentary system. In the House of Commons, the agenda and tone is set by the prime minister, who is the leader of the governing party. His cabinet follows that lead, as do his backbenchers (particularly under Harper). Opposition parties respond to government proposals and legislation. And sometimes in the cut and thrust of what passes for parliamentary debate, common sense is pushed to its limit. But there is no doubt that the tone, style, comportment, debate, and agenda in the Commons is established by the prime minister. Since Harper became prime minister almost five years ago, the environment has been toxic.

Is that an unfortunate coincidence, or does it say something about the conduct, attitude, and agenda of Harper and his Conservative Party?

On the first day of the Harper administration, two incredible flip-flops occurred at Rideau Hall which jarred the political world. The first was the appointment of Michael Fortier, a Harper campaign manager, to the Senate and to the cabinet. The second was the stunning appointment of David Emerson, who days before had promised to be “Stephen Harper’s worst nightmare,” to the cabinet. As these two men (both of whom I know personally, like, and respect) were being sworn in, we caught our first real glimpse of Stephen Harper as prime minister. It was the first of a great many u-turns: in both cases, Harper did something that he promised he would never do. That’s been his consistent and unbending pattern for almost five years now.

In 2008, Harper broke his own election law and called a snap election because he claimed that parliament had become “dysfunctional.” It is now evident that he called the election because he thought he could win a majority.

Our House of Commons has been shamelessly debased by the tactics of Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. For the past five years, this has been a dysfunctional parliament. But who bears the responsibility for that? Minority parliaments have historically worked well in Canada. A precondition was a prime minister who set a constructive tone and who respected the institution that he is sworn to serve with honour.

Sadly for Canada, that key ingredient has been sorely missing since Stephen Harper stepped into 24 Sussex.