By The People

It's an indication of just how far we have strayed that Michael Chong's bill merely seeks to put centuries old parliamentary conventions in writing.  Not surprisingly, Andrew Coyne writes, there are a chorus of naysayers:

The bill, it was said, would never pass. Or if it did, would make no difference. Worse, it might. Parliament would be destabilized, said some, by a series of democratic “palace coups” against party leaders by their faithless caucuses — the same caucuses who, others maintained, had shown no interest in using their existing power to do the same, and thus had demonstrated it was unwanted. Or rather they had, many times — and thus had proved its superfluity.

Remove the power of the leader to decide who may run under the party banner, warned some, and it would lead to a wave of neo-Nazis hijacking nomination meetings. At best, it would empower tiny parliamentary factions to divide and disrupt the party’s business. No, claimed others: giving a majority of caucus the power to expel a member would inevitably give rise to mob rule, and the suppression of unpopular opinions.

Some claim the bill will not pass. But, Coyne writes, "more and more MPs and other influential voices, from James Rajotte to Bob Rae to Hugh Segal, have come out in its favour. "It is people like Pierre Poilievre, with the Orwellian title of Minister for Democratic Reform, who are against the bill.

Others claim the bill would legalize coup d'etats. We should fear the unknown they say. That's a red herring:

It is easy, of course, to conjure up all manner of devils from the unknown. But in this case the unknown is well known. The proposal before us is merely to replicate the model already in place in the other Westminster democracies: the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. It is, indeed, the model on which this country was founded, and under which it grew to maturity, but from which we have strayed in recent decades. It is to that system — the system of Macdonald and Laurier — that the bill would return us, nothing more.

Chong's bill would reinstate responsible government. We used to believe in it -- government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Mankind Is The Business Of Foreign Affairs

Trade Minister Ed Fast announced last week that, under the Harper government, the Foreign Affairs Department would focus on "economic diplomacy." Michael Harris writes that Preston Manning understood Stephen Harper's limitations:

Former mentor and Conservative guru Preston Manning remembered this of Harper’s time as a Reform MP: “One thing that did surprise me about Stephen … He had no interest in international stuff. We simply couldn’t get him to travel.”

Harper, Manning said, had a one track mind:

“The economy, the economy, the economy … The way into his head is the economy. It is the most open door.”

Harper's narrow focus helps explain his monumentally stupid approach to foreign affairs:

Harper has made thunderingly ill-informed judgements on many countries and international issues, none more egregious than in the Middle East. At a time when the rest of the world is moving towards peace with Iran, Canada closes its embassy, slanders the new government in Tehran, and contributes nothing to the negotiations but immature cynicism.

Then there is the Harper stand — virtual silence — on illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, and the ongoing siege of Gaza, “all of which violate the Geneva Conventions that Canada signed and ratified.” Those are the words of Canada’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Paul Heinebecker, in his recent book, Getting Back in the Game.

And that narrow focus explains why we will be sharing the rent with British diplomats, where a more mature leader would choose another tact:

Won’t that be image-building for Canada: bunk-mates in Myanmar with the same country that gave the indigenous population all those fond memories … annexation with India, the looting of oil, teak and rubies and three brutal Anglo-Burmese wars stretching over 60 years.

Mr. Harper is all about business. This Christmas, he could use a ghostly visit from Jacob Marley, who would remind him that, "Mankind was my business!'

Too Late?

Michael Warren writes that Stephen Harper is rapidly approaching the moment where he will have to choose between himself and his party:

The events that unfold in front of him in the months ahead hold little hope of vindication. His unlikely version of the Senate scandal will either completely collapse or remain in haunting limbo.

Harper’s defence is that he didn’t know about the political scheming that’s swirled around him for a year. If he had, he would have stopped it.

But for many Canadians that’s not an acceptable ethical standard.

Even if he didn’t know, he should have. It’s his office. It’s his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who is accused of bribery, fraud and breach of trust by the RCMP. It’s his appointed Senators, Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau who disgraced themselves and were removed from the Upper House.

If he acts only for himself, he'll drag his party down with him:

He thinks he can cling to his narrow ethical standard of “I didn’t know” and continue to stonewall his way through this crisis. He can’t. He and his party are being judged by a much broader standard of behaviour.

And, even if he resigns, there are many legal battles ahead:

If charges are laid against Wright and any of the named Senators — which seems probable — it could mean years of criminal trials.

They will be media spectacles. Those accused and the witnesses called (possibly even Harper), will have to give their account of events under oath — for the first time. The resulting revelations will serve to reactivate the current atmosphere of clear and present danger for the Conservatives up to and including the next election.

That said, Harper's resignation may be too little too late. The Privy Council Office reports that they have discovered Benjamin Perrin's deleted emails. The worst is yet to come.

The Surveillance State

Stephen Harper claims that Bill C-13 is the bane of cyber-bullies. That's true. But, Michael Spratt writes, the bill is much more than that:

The government’s talking points notwithstanding, only a small portion of C-13 deals with cyber-bullying. Most of the bill is devoted to expanding police powers to search and seize personal Internet data. 

Bill C-13 is the successor to Bill C-30, which the Conservatives said was aimed at child pornographers:

The main criticism of Bill-30 related to the expansion of warrantless search powers for Internet data that would allow the police to build a detailed profile of a person and their history through their digital footprint. C-13 would allow police to do the same thing, with the same type of data.

Many experts have commented on the serious privacy implications of collecting and disclosing such information. It was in response to these privacy concerns that then-Justice minister Rob Nicholson announced that the government would not be proceeding with C-30.

But a careful reading of C-13 makes clear that what the government couldn't accomplish with C-30 it is trying to accomplish with C-13. And, even though the Harperites now say they favour warrants before searches are approved, the standard to obtain those warrants is "reasonable suspicion."

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that standard:

In most cases, the state’s interest in detecting and preventing crime begins to prevail over the individual’s interest in being left alone at the point where credibly-based probability replaces suspicion.

This balancing of interests can justify searches on a lower standard where privacy interests are reduced, or where state objectives of public importance are predominant.

In other words, the Supreme Court has already rejected the standard the bill imposes. Never ones to pay attention to legalities, the Harperites are charging full speed ahead, wilfully ignorant as usual. That is the standard they live by.

Their aim is to establish a surveillance state.

"I Could Care Less"

That was Stephen Harper's message to the Conservatives Halloween convention. This week -- after watching their western numbers drop, after refusing to call witnesses to testify to the Senate Committee looking into Mike Duffy's expenses, and after listening to Paul Calandra's absurd answers in question period -- it's obvious that the Harper Party could care less about the truth or parliamentary democracy.

Chantal Hebert writes in this morning's Toronto Star:

How else to describe a strategy that systematically involves the government maniacally digging itself deeper in what is fast becoming a bottomless credibility hole?

With every innuendo-laced answer, Calandra leads the House of Commons — and his government along with it — further into La La Land.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is an approach that (understandably) inspires little confidence and even less enthusiasm within the ranks of the Conservative caucus.

It can’t just be the burden of having to sign hundreds of Christmas cards before the House rises for the holidays that accounts for the dejected body language of so many Conservative MPs as Calandra does his PMO-orchestrated song-and-dance.

Stephen Harper was found in contempt of parliament in 2011. Since then, there has been no change in his approach.  The man is contemptuous of everything and everybody. But the situation may change  -- and the impetus for that change may come from his own party. Conservative Michael Chong -- who resigned from Harper's cabinet when the prime minister declared that Quebec was "a nation within a nation"  -- is about to introduce a private members bill which would enable MP's to vote out their leader:

In the big picture of parliamentary democracy, that would be a positive development, for it is only by taking matters in their own hands that MPs will restore some much needed meaningfulness (and dignity) to their roles in the Commons.

It will be interesting to see how far Chong's bill gets -- and whether the Conservative caucus cares more than their leader does.

A Matter Of Self Respect

The Senate scandal has shredded Stephen Harper's credibility. You would think that would cause a caucus revolt. But, Michael Den Tandt writes, it isn't happening:

I caught nary a whisper of this turning into open revolt or even a long-term subterranean assault along the lines of former prime minister Paul Martin’s multi-year campaign to supplant Jean Chretien in the late 1990s. The reason is simply that Harper’s hold on his party is too powerful. For many Conservative MPs, he is the only leader they’ve known. “There’s no talk of leadership revolt,” said one. “People are nervous and concerned. That’s a long stretch from a leadership challenge.”

That's not surprising. The party is full of members who can't speak without a script. And the scandal has taught us that the PMO provides the script. That said, things could change:

There’s the possibility that Wright and Duffy will be charged criminally; and that other actors in the saga, including senior sitting Conservative senators, will be caught up in the investigation. No one can predict how any of that will play out.

Harper's strategy is to ride it out. He's done it before -- and he's thrown a lot of people under the bus. The prime minister is assuming that Wright will lie down quietly as he grinds his former chief of staff into the dust.

The question confronting Mr. Wright is the same question which confronts every member of Stephen Harper's caucus. How much self respect does he have?

Much To Hide

This morning the CBC reports that, during the G8 and G20 summits three years ago, the Harper government was a "partner" with the National Security Agency. Together, they spied on our allies. The American whistle blower Edward Snowden has released another batch of documents:

The briefing notes, stamped "Top Secret," show the U.S. turned its Ottawa embassy into a security command post during a six-day spying operation by the National Security Agency while U.S. President Barack Obama and 25 other foreign heads of government were on Canadian soil in June of 2010.

The covert U.S. operation was no secret to Canadian authorities.

An NSA briefing note describes the American agency's operational plans at the Toronto summit meeting and notes they were "closely co-ordinated with the Canadian partner."

The operation was not just about protecting foreign leaders from terrorist threats. Rather,

the spying at the Toronto summit in 2010 fits a pattern of economic and political espionage by the powerful U.S. intelligence agency and its partners such as Canada.

That espionage was conducted to secure meeting sites and protect leaders against terrorist threats posed by al-Qaeda but also to forward the policy goals of the United States and Canada.

The G20 summit in Toronto had a lot on its agenda that would have been of acute interest to the NSA and Canada.

The secret NSA documents list all the main agenda items for the G20 in Toronto — international development, banking reform, countering trade protectionism, and so on — with the U.S. snooping agency promising to support "U.S. policy goals."

Security experts warn that the espionage was very likely illegal. But, then, legalities have never impressed the Harperites -- perhaps because they have so much to hide.