The Coalition: Tory Manna from Heaven

So it's on. 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has historically been found in contempt of Parliament, and the House of Commons voted no confidence in his government by a margin of 156 to 145. This outcome will plunge the country into a campaign to elect the 41st Parliament in a vote most likely to take place on May 2. Harper will formally meet with Governor-General David Johnston in the morning to request the dissolution of Parliament, the election writ will be dropped, and away we will go.

“We are the people’s representatives. When the government spends money, the people have a right to know what it is to be spent on. Parliament does not issue blank cheques.”
- Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff

“We find ourselves here today faced with the most partisan of attacks from an opposition coalition bent on defeating this government at all costs.”
- Government House Leader John Baird

The contempt finding comes from the Harper government not thinking it necessary to bother to inform MPs how much they intend to spend on their jet fighters and jail plans. Not unreasonably, the House of Commons requested the full and accurate accounting of those expenses be tabled. The government did not comply. Hence, the government is no more. There will be a lot of propaganda from the Tories about this election being "unnecessary" because stability in the economy is paramount in Conservative minds. Never mind that economists think that's hogwash, they will keep spitting that line in the hope it sticks.

They also hope the line about the Liberals wanting a "coalition" to stick as well. The ham-handed handling of the Coalition Crisis by all parties helped to transform the c-word into a dirty utterance, a development the Tories are enlisting with gusto in their attempt to remain in power. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff keeps dodging it, saying the clear choice is to vote either for a change of government by voting Liberal or for more of the same contemptuous crap by voting for anyone else. Nice try, Iggy.

Though today's answer was better than the "red door, blue door" Matrix reference of yesterday, it won't make the questions go away. As Andrew Coyne wrote in his article, the Grits better come up with a plausible response, and quickly. The Tories threaten to hijack the entire debate by repeating the word "coalition" ad naseum. If they are permitted to do that, then attacking the Tories on the economy and their ethics becomes a moot point.

Because make no mistake, the Tories are also vulnerable on the economic file. When they came to power in early 2006, the Martin Liberals were in surplus with adequate cash flows to deal with unexpected eventualities. The Tories immediately set about eliminating our government's fiscal cushion through a number of measures, most famously cutting the GST to 5% in a move most economists argued made no fiscal sense. When the country was heading for recession, the Tories pretended to party like it was still 1999. Then when stimulus spending became a financial necessity, Ottawa ended up deeper in deficit than we would have had they maintained the fiscal prudence of the previous Liberal government. The current Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, has presided over the most profligate period of federal spending in our history. The Tories have expanded the federal public service, eliminated contingencies for future financial shocks and doled out boutique tax breaks that further strain federal coffers. Yet they are the default "best stewards of the national economy?" Someone needs to take them to task, because their record screams otherwise.

I'm no fan of the Liberal Party of Canada, but why is it that Tories, who entered elections in 1993 and 2011 with historic deficits, are considered better financial stewards than the Liberals, who left the country's books in a surplus position? It continues to defy logic.

And since the government has fallen on issues of transparency, ethics and clean government, it will be easy for the other parties to put these questions to the public during the campaign. How can you re-elect a government that continues to so blatantly disrespect you, that believes they can do anything in your name and you'll take it, they will ask the public. How can you re-elect a government that won't tell you how much their planned military and correctional expenditures will cost, yet claim they can balance the nation's books by 2015, they will ask taxpayers. How can you re-elect a government that got elected in the first place by promising open and accountable government, while at the same time orchestrating a huge electoral fraud, they will ask voters.

How indeed?

Well, they can if they think a coalition of bumbling fools will replace the current batch of corrupt, contemptuous fools.

Mr. Ignatieff, for the love of all that's good and holy, answer the bloody question so we can get on with the real issues of the election. Please!

What is the True Cost of Government?

It now appears the opposition may be maneuvering to bring down the "Harper Government" on ethics before the federal budget is introduced in the House of Commons on March 22. The triple-bill of: allegations of improper conduct against Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, the ongoing issues surrounding Bev Oda and her handling of the CIDA Kairos affair, and the charges from Elections Canada in the "in-and-out" scheme the Conservative national campaign conducted during the 2006 campaign have made the Tories vulnerable on one of their major bread and butter issues.

The opposition smells blood and the Harperites are in full damage control mode. If the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are looking at the political landscape, they must be thinking this might be their last, best chance to take down the Tories.

For some weird reason, the Conservatives have the economy issue locked up (despite running the country into a record deficit situation, which may not have been necessary had they not chopped corporate taxes and the GST at the exact moment we went into a recession they denied was on the horizon, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Taking the government down on a budget vote would necessarily make the election about the budget, and the opposition has had little luck standing toe-to-toe with Harper on policy.  They've landed a few body blows that hurt a bit, but nothing that would take out the champ.

The issue of ethics is different, though. The Tories claimed the mantle of accountability and transparency when they beat Paul Martin in 2006. Five years later, the Liberals (even with the sponsorship scandal) look no better or worse than these guys on ethics. If the government is vulnerable to having anything stick to them, it's anything that calls their integrity into question.

Worse for them, should there be continuing negative publicity from the court case associated with the in and out scandal, it will likely come out during the campaign. The sight of Tories walking into a courthouse to face charges they made illegal claims to get money from taxpayers in excess of campaign spending limits must be too juicy for the opposition parties to easily dismiss.

What I want the opposition to do, though, is link the economy and the ethics issues together by asking a basic question - even if you, Everyday Canadian, accept that the Tories are the best stewards of the economy, what is the cost to democracy to continue Conservative rule? At what cost to our morals, values and ethics do we re-elect Harper and Co. to office?

Line up all the questionable activities, the arrogant dismissals of criticism (and critics), the ministerial indiscretions, the prorogations and the like, and have a tally sheet that looks like a financial spreadsheet. Attack the Tories on their financial record (which, despite John Ibbitson's musings, isn't all that great) and graphically increase the fiscal deficit shown to Canadians when you add in the democratic deficit. 

Make the case that Canada is poorer today than it was five years ago, but not in ways Canadians had expected. Remind Canadians again and again they elected the Tories to clean up government, not to make it MORE secretive, MORE control-obsessed or MORE corrupt than the Liberals. And yet on the issue of ethics, what have the Tories done for us lately?

The biggest problem, of course, is the party best situated to try and topple the Tories are the very Liberals who gave us the sponsorship scandal. Have five years in the electoral wilderness been enough to purge that party of its worst instincts? Perhaps, perhaps not. That's for the electorate to decide. 

But there probably will be no other glorious moments of weakness for the Tories after this one. They are bloodied by this issue, not floored, and are still quite capable of staging an effective counter-offensive. Plus, they start with the advantage in the poll numbers that gives many Liberals pause. 

But I think honestly that this is as good as it's going to get. Find your moment, put forward the non-confidence motion of your choosing, and force the issue, Liberal Party of Canada. Fail to do so now, and we'll be talking about a Harper majority in six months.

In and Out ... of Office?

I swear to every thinking person who reads this blog -- the "in and out" scheme the federal Tories used for its national advertising during the 2006 election campaign is going to be the undoing of the Harper government.

They are pretending not to take the risk very seriously in public specifically because the issue is potentially fatal to their cause. The recent appellate court defeat on their civil suit takes away their crowing point about the courts being on their side.  And the charges laid against four party members (including two sitting Senators) puts a lie to this being an insignificant "administrative dispute."

Now, let me be clear -- as other bloggers and writers have already posted on the internet, this issue is not always the simplest to explain to people, is it the kind of thing cynical voters would not be shocked to hear about, given that it's politicians involved in this scandal, and it is likely to be forgotten in the heat of an election campaign. It's not likely this issue in isolation will bring down the government.

The reason this one will sting is because it's a definitive straw on the pile already perched on Canadians' collective camel-like back.

This is a party that campaigned in 2006 on being the party of accountability and transparency. How can they ever make that claim again if Elections Canada proves its charges in court? I mean, these charges stem from how they conducted themselves in the campaign that originally brought them to power. That would be the same election campaign when the Tories were beating the Liberals over the head with their copy of the Gomery inquiry report on the sponsorship scandal. They were going to change the culture of government, they said, and make sure this kind of thing could never happen again.

All while acting illegally in their own campaign advertising campaign. The hypocrisy and irony run thick and rich.

The Tories have collected a small stack of ethics-defying mini brouhahas over the course the past five years. They have created an almost militaristic environment for government MPs and Senators who are expected to toe the line or find another place of employment. The Prime Minister's Office could have taught Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien a thing or two about how to be top dog -- the centralized control of the government by the current PMO is unparalleled in Canadian history.  

The scandalous Afghan detainee imbroglio that led to a prorogation of Parliament feeds into the party's reputation as serial skirters of ultimate political responsibility. The earlier prorogation during the Coalition Crisis was another example of Harper's obsessive need for control and his party's willingness to do whatever is necessary to retain power, no matter the cost to our sense of fairness and our faith in democratic principles. The uproar over Bev Oda's handling of CIDA's Kairos funding decision is another instance where Tory pre-government rhetoric and the five-years-of-Tory-government reality don't line up. The examples of Conservative misconduct, arrogance and outright disdain for Parliament and other key institutions are numerous.

Add it all up, and it becomes obvious that taking a strong line of attack by lining all these examples up could be a powerful argument for opposition to Harper's government to make in any upcoming election campaign.

Will it happen? Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will have its moment sometime relatively soon. But given the current plight of the Liberal party, it's tough to see them pulling it together enough to do the necessary damage. A physically weakened Jack Layton may not be the best messenger on the hustings if the electoral writ is dropped this year. And Gilles Duceppe will do what he always does -- win a majority of Quebec seats while having a minimal impact on the cross-Canada debate.

But if the Liberals and NDP can sharpen their knives just enough to inflict enough damage from both sides, it might be enough to deny a renewed mandate for the Tories. Sadly, the knives in opposition will be used mostly to try and take out each other for short-term advantage amongst the votes they already collectively command.

I wish I was optimistic that they can remove Harper from government. I'm not. But this agglomeration of greasy, sticky, grimy, slimy dealings from the Tories means any renewed mandate they earn in the future will be weighed down by the malfeasance clogging their engine of government. Moving ahead with a believable air of confidence and integrity will be extremely difficult to muster.

So will the in and out scandal undo Harper? Yes, sooner or later. But maybe not in 2011.

On the Kirpan & Canadian Multiculturalism

I have been thinking about the best way to respond to the news of Quebec's provincial legislature passing a resolution banning the kirpan from the building. I've shared links on the subject with friends through my Twitter and Facebook accounts, but I also have been dedicating some deeper thinking to the larger issue.

The Globe and Mail published an article today that says we in Canada may be heading for a debate on multiculturalism no one really wants to have. But let's review some of the issues that arise from this kirpan ban and think about broader implications.

A kirpan worn at the Supreme Court
(courtesy of globeandmail.com)

First, the offensive Louise Beaudoin, secularism critic for the Parti Quebecois who provocatively stated "Multiculturalism may be a Canadian value but it's not a Quebec one." This is typical hair-splitting predicated on a separatist agenda, designed to offend and therefore provoke a reaction that hopefully reinvigorates a flagging cause. For surely she must know that people who live in Quebec carry Canadian passports and are Canadian citizens. As such, our laws apply, and our values are their values. There will always be those in any society who rail against the predominant view -- I do so all the time as a poet. But this is still a place built (at least ostensibly) on the rule of law.

Values are shaped by the laws, customs, practices and desires of the population, not the wishful thinking of a small group of politicians and nationalist rabblerousers.

Beaudoin claims multiculturalism, which was enshrined in our Constitution when it came home from England in the early 1980s, does not apply to Quebec. True, the province did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. But keep in mind an analogous situation -- in the world of labour, a group of employees continue to work for an employer, and continue to be paid, even in a situation where the collective bargaining agreement has expired. There are only two ways to end that situation. Either the parties agree to a new contract or a strike/lockout ensues.

Applying this to Quebec, they are still part of Canada, and are still subject to all its laws even though they haven't signed the new "collective agreement" under our repatriated Constitution. So until we kick them out of Confederation (lockout) or they declare independence (strike), they're still part of Canada and responsible to uphold all the laws of the land.

For once in my life I find myself agreeing with John Snobelen, the former Ontario education minister under Mike Harris, who wrote "throwing people out of the National Assembly because of their religious garb has everything to do with a growing xenophobia in Quebec." He goes on to say that "the banning of kirpans from the Quebec National Assembly is nothing more or less than the latest example of systemic prejudice in a province that has grown famous for official intolerance." The trend dans la belle province of doing everything possible to protect the French language, even if it means running roughshod over minority rights, flies in the face of liberal democratic principles.

If there ever was a place where de Tocqueville's warning about the tyranny of the majority has not been heeded, it's the Quebec National Assembly.

The other aspect of Snobelen's argument that rings true for me is the way security has come to trump all other considerations in our society. When it was suggested to Beaudoin that a kirpan was no more or less deadly than the steak knives readily available in the National Assembly's restaurant, she laughed: "Knives and kirpan are not exactly the same thing." No, they are not. You eat with a knife, and therefore it's not a security threat (even though people openly brandish them on a daily basis and they are used to cut meat). A kirpan is to remain under clothing and in its sheath at all times, and is a necessary article of a religious faith. No, they are not the same thing at all, Madame Beaudoin.

The response from the government was almost comical. Quoting from the CTV.ca article: "Essentially it's focusing on security, and we support the decision made by the security agents of L'Assemblée Nationale," said Liberal Cultural Communities Minister Kathleen Weil. "Security agents have to make those kinds of decisions on a daily basis, whether it's in courthouses or in airports or here." This is a failure of leadership on an unforgivable scale. Last time I checked, it wasn't the security agents who voted with the other parties to officially ban the kirpan, it was government MNAs. Not a single member of the governing Liberals present that day had the intestinal fortitude to stand against the bigotry emanating from opposition benches and vote against this offensive PQ-sponsored motion. If I still lived in Montreal I'd be working tirelessly to defeat my local MNA, regardless of political stripe, for voting for this. And if my MNA wasn't present for the vote because they were dodging it, I'd still work for their ouster for not having the courage to have their convictions recorded for posterity.

Let's face the facts -- trumped-up security concerns are the roots of many current evils.  This is just the latest manifestation of our acquiescence to diminished rights and protections in the name of protecting elites from the street.  Because ultimately, concerns about security by powerful people are less about protecting you and me and more about upholding various forms of hegemony.

In this case, the power structure being protected is one predicated on race and religion. It cannot, and should not, go unchallenged. As Balpreet Singh, legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada said, "when you get this message from the National Assembly that the kirpan - and by extension Sikhs - are not welcomed here, it does leave you scratching your head. I find it objectionable."

I find it objectionable that people entrusted with upholding the public good can so regularly trample minority rights. I find it objectionable that the bigots are coming out, writing obtuse, inflammatory, xenophobic and racist statements at the ends of these articles and finding a repugnant wellspring of support for their hate. I find it objectionable that not enough people are angered by this creeping clawback of our rights protected in our Constitution. I find it objectionable that Quebec continues to spit on that document without a throaty retort from Ottawa.

Multiculturalism is indeed a Canadian value, and Canada stretches from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, from Peelee Point to the North Pole, and everything in between. It encompasses the cliff over the St. Lawrence River where French explorers established a settlement centuries ago, and the building in the modern city at that location that now boasts the ignominious distinction of "Canada's most xenophobic legislature."

Vive le Québec? Je pense que non. 

Regarding Poetry and Slam in Ottawa

I am thankful for the work of Ottawa Citizen arts journalist/blogger Peter Simpson. I had a chance to have a conversation with him at the 2010 Canadian Festival of Spoken Word, held in Ottawa. He was sitting directly behind me in the second row at Finals Night inside the Dominion-Chalmers United Church. When he wrote about the ten best things he saw all year, he listed the Ottawa Capital Slam team's performance of their poem Wizard of Love at #10. In the lead-up to the festival he posted three videos of local slam artists to help promote the show. Over the years he has written about our scene, and the exposure in the capital's largest newspaper has always been appreciated.

But the year-end What was hot (or not) list published by the Citizen on Christmas Eve has struck a discordant note locally, as the occasional sniping between local "page" and "stage" poets got a sugar shot of journalistic energy from Simpson. He lists "slam poetry" as HOT and "other poetry readings" as NOT. In explaining this choice, he says of the non-slam events:

 

"Traditional poetry readings bring to mind the Rolling Stones' phrase 'dismal, dull affairs.' The atmosphere doesn't have to be so raucous that it distracts from the verse, but do they so often have to be funereal?"

As you can probably imagine, this has not gone over well with the page set. Amanda Earl, editor of Bywords.ca, posted her thoughts on her blog, as well as through her Facebook account. There is some slam-bashing in the FB comments (not from Amanda, but from others). This is unsurprising to me, because there are some out there who think slam is terrible poetry. And some of it is. But there's lots of page poetry that's unreadable tripe too, so I'm not sure what those comments are trying to prove.

I think it basically boils down to what's good. As Amanda has said, there are some forms of poetry (i.e. sound poetry) that cannot be translated both on the page and on the stage, and there will always be some forms of expression that are unclassifiable. But in general, great poetry sounds great when recited aloud and looks fantastic on the page, all at the same time. I live for poetry like that. 

I'm also not a slam artist, and even though I've participated in and organized many slams in the past I've never considered myself a "slam poet".  I am a spoken word artist who occasionally attends slams (rarely to compete, but to watch and learn). Every exposure I have to poetry that I didn't write is a learning opportunity, whether it's from an amazing poet reading work of extraordinary polish or the brand-new slammer sharing their poetry on stage for the very first time. Approaching poetry from this perspective enriches my life and my art. It also allows me to understand that no one has all the answers in poetry. It's the diversity of voices and forms that makes literary expression so powerful.

I just wish those who are too snobbish to even try listening to the lyricism and beauty of spoken word with open ears, or the slam lover who disparages the craft of highly skilled "page" poets, would get over themselves already. People are watching, they are forming opinions, and those perspectives based on stereotypes and B.S. reflect poorly on all of us poets.

Get over yourselves already, and support Ottawa poetry -- in all its forms!