Jim Mallory reports from Canada on the Prime Minister’s sidelining of Parliament
It’s 19 below zero centigrade outside as I write from Canada’s capital, Ottawa, much colder than when I arrived several days ago. The subsequent drop in temperature more or less coincided with what should have been a resumption of Parliament.
Canadian MPs have had their own big freeze following Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision over the Christmas holidays – when nobody was presumed to be looking – to “prorogue” or suspend Parliament until March 3.
This means 36 government bills, including several anti-crime schemes dear to Harper’s Conservatives, will die. All will have to be restarted on resumption.
He claims he needs to focus on the economy, coming up with solutions to the Budget deficit, and to provide Canadians with time and space to watch the Winter Olympics, being held in Canada this month, without any disconcerting political yah-boo among MPs.
His critics are more sceptical, citing the Tories’ wish to avoid a parliamentary committee’s scrutiny of claims the government knew of the torture of Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian forces.
The delay has also enabled him to appoint five party supporters to Canada’s upper house, the Senate, giving the Tories control of Senate committees that had previously been holding up legislation.
This appalling disdain for democracy has even found opponents in Britain. The Economist accused the Canadian PM of being anti-democratic and acting in “naked self-interest”. This sent a frisson through the Canadian commentariat, recalling that the magazine’s nickname for former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin – “Mr Dithers” – stuck and he developed a reputation for indecisiveness.
Harper’s gamble is risky as he leads a minority government. But divided opposition parties fear another election and fed-up voters who’ve been subjected to three inconclusive elections in the last five years.
Moreover, the Liberals lack direction. Fourteen years in power have left them bankrupt of ideas and with a hollowed out membership. They fear the voters haven’t had long enough to forget the final years of arrogance and complacency.
All this should find resonance in Britain. The long Liberal rule, during which they tackled a big deficit and boosted funding for public services, featured internecine wars between supporters of a thrice-successful Prime Minister (Jean Chrétien) and a jealous Finance Minister (Paul Martin). The only difference here being Chrétien kept Canada out of the Iraq war.
When Martin ultimately succeeded, he lived up to the Economist’s sobriquet and lost first the Liberals’ majority in 2005 and then outright power in 2006 to Harper’s Tories.
The change in the political landscape is more profound than many realise, according to political commentator Chantal Hébert, who in a recent lecture said it was the Tories who were making all the intellectual running. They would disguise their “small state” agenda through the recession. On the key welfare agenda, they would wait until health subsidy agreements with the provinces end, avoiding the blame for the spending cuts.
This week marks the anniversary of Harper’s first challenge to democracy, when he persuaded the Governor General – the Queen’s representative and Canada’s de facto head of state – to grant suspension to avoid a no-confidence vote over his handling of the recession. The opposition coalition broke up during the recess and the Tories reversed their “do-nothing” policy with the financial stimulus package opposition parties had rallied around.
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was dumped in favour of Michael Ignatieff, known
in Britain as a media intellectual, but in reality a right-winger whose lack of experience
is showing in his response to Harper’s manoeuvrings.
This prorogue has again galvanised the Liberals and the left-wing New Democrats into singing from the same hymn sheet, accusing the Tories of trying to cover up
the Afghan issue and running away from Canadians’ concerns over jobs and the economy.
Meanwhile, Harper is a beneficiary of the Haiti disaster. Canadians have characteristically given generously to the relief funds – in part as recognition of the large Haitian immigrant population living in French-speaking Quebec.
The Prime Minister is being credited with overseeing a relatively effective relief effort, but some suggest he is trying to maintain the support of Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General, who is Haitian by birth.
Harper has also been trying to strut on the world stage with ideas for a new role for the G8 – just when it’s lost its status to the G20 – in supporting health programmes in the developing world. Whether this sudden interest in international action does him any good remains to be seen. People traditionally don’t vote on foreign reputations.
Perhaps he’s got it right and they’ll be more interested in the Winter Olympics. However, it may all backfire if heavily-favoured Team Canada fails to win gold in hockey. Honour in the national sport is almost a matter of life-and-death for many.
If disappointed Canadians revert their gaze to politics, they may not like what they see. Then Harper, in attempting to govern without Parliament, will well and truly have scored an own goal.
About The Author
