You think you know… But you don’t

I am probably proving my light weight as a political observer with this post, but some of the things I have been hearing and reading are leaving my panties in a bunch.

I am growing increasingly tired of some of the comments made in regards to our Prime Minister. Of course, mud-slinging is to be expected by those who share opposing views to those of the PM or the Conservative Party, but some of the assumptions being made simply blow my mind.

Here are a couple of these statements, which I am becoming allergic to hearing:

1- Stephen Harper does not care about Canada, he is only power hungry and clinging to power.

I could not disagree more. I can’t say I know everything that goes on in the PM’s mind, but neither do most political observers. However, I can say the research and readings I have done about Stephen Harper bring me much closer than these opposition naysayers to understanding the PM’s motivations. Reading such books as Tom Flanagan’s Harper’s Team brings a lot of insight into Harper’s mentality, and if there is one conclusion to be drawn it is definitely that Stephen Harper loves our country and is doing what he judges to be in its best interest, period.

2- Harper is turning his back on what real conservatives want.

This accusation mostly comes from other conservatives who feel the PM is not addressing grassroots concerns in his policy, on subjects ranging from abortion, to gay marriage and even cutting the funding to the CBC. I realize that many conservatives feel very strongly about these issues, but the fact that they remain unaddressed testifies of Harper’s incremental and moderate approach. We cannot forget that the Conservatives are working under a minority government, and that they should not be expected to rule as a majority nor would the opposition let them.

Some may even argue that by remaining neutral on certain issues, Harper is in fact proving his demagogy and power hunger. But I beg to differ. This is larger than having Harper as the Prime Minister, even for him. There is evidence to that in the risks he had to face when trying to unite the right too. He does this to make sure that the conservative voice remains alive and relevant, in the Canadian political ring. By giving in to a vocal yet minority views demanding specific intervention in certain files, Harper would effectively alienate a majority of right-leaning Canadians who share broad conservative values but do not necessarily see the need or the usefulness in acting in these files. As well, by remaining distant from these controversial positions, the Conservatives are getting the chance to be recognized as a valid governing alternative to the “natural governing party” in Canada, i.e. the Liberals.

3- Harper cannot be trusted with his promises.

Again, those who say this are usually ideological opponents to conservatism. They have a short memory, and purposefully remain blind to the real accomplishments which were the fruit of electoral promises made by Harper and the Conservatives. These same opponents usually refer to three items in their “broken promise” spiel: fixed election dates, Senate reform and his partisanship.

He is called a hypocrite, a liar and is demonized left and right. However, one must consider the reasons behind these so-called broken promises before judging them. Again, I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

On the fixed election date, I believe the idea behind this move was to give a defined mandate to a majority government, preventing it from calling an election when the public opinion was favourable. I don’t think it was created to deal with a minority government, since in these circumstances, the opposition would continue to have the power to defeat the government on confidence votes. When Harper called the last election, he felt (and I truly believe this) there was no way forward in the current Parliament. With the opposition intent on stalling government initiatives and the Liberals under Stéphane Dion refusing to bring down the government, despite their clear opposition to most of its measures, this left the PM with few other choices. He gave the opposition many opportunities of defeating him, while standing for what they believed in, yet they preferred abstaining while making it impossible for the government to advance many of its objectives.

The same goes for Senate reform. By nominating 18 senators last month, Harper did not act against his promise to work towards an elected Senate. But again, the opposition left him little choice in governing. He could have maintained his stance, but then would have been put in a position where there would be no chance of ever bringing change to the Senate – and this because, in order for Senate reform to happen, the Senate itself must support it. There is little chance that an “entitled,” mainly Liberal Senate would ever accept to short-change itself, so the only possible solution was to add reform-friendly Senators to the Red Chamber, to shift – however slightly, and with whatever time it does take – its balance of power.

Finally, regarding his partisan politics Harper is being regarded as a liar for vowing that he and his caucus would be civil in the House of Commons. The media rapidly focused their attacks on the Conservatives for breaking this promise. However, we should not forget that the opposition promised the same thing, and from my viewing of Question Period in the House of Commons, I feel they were the first to break this promise – whether the MSM was ever willing to admit or even realize it. And now that Harper is promising again more civility and cooperation, the opposition say they can’t believe him. They are giving him no chance and are proving that they themselves prefer partisan obstructionism over making the effort to collaborate with the government.

All this to say, I realize more and more that people on both side of the divide tend to speak about many things which they know little on. It reminds me of something a friend used to say in high school, when people would gossip… “You think you know… But you don’t.”

Independent senator joins Liberals

Independent Senator Lillian Dyck has joined the Liberal caucus, the Canadian Press reported yesterday. The Saskatchewan senator was appointed in 2005 by then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, to sit as an NDP senator. However, the NDP refused to endorse her, leaving her sitting in the Upper House without party affiliation.

A Liberal spokesman says Dyck's decision to join the party ranks - along with that of Privy Council adviser Kevin Chan this week - shows that "people of great distinction" are gravitating toward Ignatieff.

The current standings have 59 Liberals, 38 Conservatives, five Independents and three Progressive Conservatives sitting in the Senate. Prime Minister Harper is expect to appoint 11 more senators within the end of 2009, due to upcoming retirements.

Harper to Senate: Change or die

According to an article published on Canada.com, despite today's 18 Senate appointments, PM Harper is still committed. Electoral reform, including elected and termed Senate position, better happen or it will be the end of the Canadian red chamber.

Stephen Fletcher, the Minister of State for electoral reform, said that he will introduce legislation to implement eight-year term limits for senators, and a process to elect senators, as soon as the budget and economic issues are dealt with by the House of Commons.

He also issued a warning to any parliamentarians planning to block the reforms:

"If we don't get those reforms in a reasonable amount of time we will look to abolish it,'' said Fletcher.

Some, including the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, argue that such a change to the Senate would require federal and provincial approval (two-thirds of the provincial legislatures, which combined represent at least 50 percent of the national population).

"They cannot in my view even introduce fixed terms without the approval of the provinces,'' said Manitoba Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs . "Both Ontario and Quebec have said they will take them to court over this.''

The Conservatives, however, believe these could be made strictly with federal consent, meaning the Governor General, the House of Commons and the Senate would be the only ones required to vote on the legislation.

The conflict lies in the way we look at the proposed Senate reform. To pass with only federal consent, the changes in the Senate would have to be deemed to only affect the federal government. Some provinces argue that the changes would affect the federal government, but also all of the Canadian provinces.

Senate appointments 'the only option': Harper

In an interview with Steve Murphy on ATV, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his intention to appoint 18 senators to the red chamber.

"It's the only option. There is no prospect for electing these senators in the near term. There's none," Harper said. "So the option is do we appoint them -- the government that people elected -- or do we allow an un-elected coalition to appoint them?"

Harper also said that his decision to appoint senators was never one that we would have dreamed to make. He explains that while he has waited and waited to see Senate reform pass in Parliament, there is now a certain expectation from his party to work within his means.

"In a way, it's a sad day for me," said Harper. "I've waited for three years. We've invited provinces to hold elections. We've put an electoral bill before the House of Commons. But for the most part, neither in Parliament nor in the provinces has there been any willingness to move forward on reform."

When asked if Canadians would see this move as hypocritical or as another example of broken promises, Harper answered confidently:

"Quite frankly, I think the public would prefer to see senators supporting the government they elected."

The PM and his staff have apparently been flooded with applications to become senator since the news broke of his intention. One story mentions that one Conservative staffer says he even received an email from a high-school teacher he never got along with and hadn't heard from in years.

Harper jokingly mentions during his ATV interview that never before now had he received requests of appointment to the Senate.

"Now I'm getting deluged. [...] It's not the favourite thing I've ever done – but at this point it's the right thing."

Opposition to the move has been vocal, calling out the PM for his "hypocritical" decision, which goes against his electoral promises as well as those in the Speech from the Throne.

CTV writes:

Liberal MP Wayne Easter, meanwhile, said that Harper has no right to make patronage appointments when the House of Commons remains locked in a constitutional grey area.

Easter noted that the majority of MPs don't have confidence in the prime minister, and that it is unacceptable that Harper "would turn around and stack the senate with his friends" after proroguing Parliament.

But constitutional experts say that there is nothing illegitimate or wrong in Harper's move:

"Absolutely, unreservedly so, there are no limitations on his appointment powers," said Peter Woolstencroft, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo, in an interview with CTV Newsnet."The opposition will fume ... but he's not doing anything out of line."

NDP Leader Jack Layton also criticized the decision to appoint Conservative senators in a letter, asking the PM to wait until after the House resumes before making the appointment.

"You have often stated ... you would not appoint any new senators until that body becomes truly representative."

"Why then, Prime Minister, would you choose to make 18 costly and undemocratic patronage appointments in this time of unprecedented economic crisis?"

In their current form, Senate appointments pay $130,000 a year. Members can keep other jobs while pulling in their Senate salary until mandatory retirement at age 75.

Harper also discussed Afghanistan, the economy and the current minority government situation. Watch the full clip.