Stumbling and bumbling through 2010

The PM offered his year end assessment today on the occasion of the New Year. According to him, it was a momentous year for Canada: a record medal haul at the Winter Olympics (can’t really claim credit for this, but why not?), the economy didn’t tank as badly as our neighbour’s (can’t really take credit for this either, but why not?), we held the G8/G20 summits, seven law and order bills were passed and we’re still in Afghanistan. Pretty slim pickings for a momentous year. My recollection is that it was indeed a momentous year, but for very different reasons.

One year ago at this time, the PM informed the Governor General by phone that he was proroguing Parliament. No more actually going in person and sweating it out for an hour or so for permission as he had done the year before. As has become abundantly clear, there was absolutely no basis in law, convention or tradition for this unilateral suspension of Canada’s legislative branch by the executive. We have learned that it really was politically motivated, to stall and deflect the opposition from pursuing the Afghan detainee question. This ranks as the most serious assault on Canada’s democratic institutions since Confederation, along with the previous year’s prorogation of Parliament to avoid a confidence motion in the House. It was truly momentous, and not in a good way.

The Afghan detainee question did not go away, however, and led to the brink of another constitutional crisis. The government’s constant rear guard action to delay, stall and deflect Parliament’s legitimate request for access to information on this question finally led to an historic ruling by the Speaker of the House, reaffirming Parliamentary supremacy. It should never have been cast in doubt, and indeed was not by anyone except the current government. This was another momentous occasion, again not in a good way. Even after the ruling, the government continued to stall, bordering on contempt, and finally negotiated a protocol, as ordered by the Speaker, to give Parliamentarians access to sensitive security information. The issue then dropped off the radar as the three-party committee pored over thousands of pages of documents. The NDP, to their credit, refused to sign on to the protocol, fearing it would be used by the government for further obfuscation and delay. They may well have been correct in their assessment as it has been nearly one year since the committee started its review and it has not yet reported.

Michaelle Jean’s term as governor general ended, marked by the two prorogation crises. On the occasion, much was written in the news on the first of the two prorogations. I was struck by the comments of constitutional scholar Peter Russell, who was in the heat of the action, having been summoned by the Governor General to advise her on how to deal with the Prime Minister’s request.

Russell's revelation suggests the meeting that day was a negotiation in which the Governor General wielded considerable power.

"She made it clear these reserve powers of the Governor General may sometimes be used in ways that are contrary to the advice of an incumbent prime minister," Russell said.

"Because if the contrary was the case, any PM could, at any time, for any reason, not only dissolve Parliament, but prorogue it for any length of time for any reason. We wouldn't have parliamentary government. We would have prime ministerial government."

Well, if this was supposed to be a demonstration of the GG’s powers and an object lesson for the Prime Minister, it was clearly lost on him, as, one year later, he demonstrated that he could in fact prorogue Parliament, at any time, for any reason, for any length of time.

This disregard for constitutional restrictions on the power of the state was further evidenced by the security arrangements made for the G8/G20 summits in Toronto. A state of siege, the unannounced invocation of an old statute to suspend civil liberties and increase police powers during the summit, hundreds of unwarranted arrests and detentions, it was an ugly spectacle for the world to see but perhaps a true reflection of the state of the law in our country. It was the single largest mass arrest and “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history” according to Andre Marin, the provincial Ombudsman of Ontario, outstripping even the invocation of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970. Truly momentous.

If the first half of 2010 was a tragedy for constitutional government and civil liberties in Canada, the second half played out as a farce. First, using their usual modus operandi for these types of things - sneaking through changes unannounced under media blackouts - the Conservatives continued their vandalism campaign against time honoured Canadian institutions by cancelling the 2011 long form census. This is a decision so devoid of sense or reason that it borders on the theater of the absurd and would be hilarious if the consequences were not so dire. For the first time since Confederation, basic social and demographic information on which governments at all levels, business and civil society rely will not be available for 2011, breaking a century long time series.

In the second act, the scene moves overseas where we learn that Canada will be kicked out of Camp Mirage by the United Arab Emirates in a dispute over commercial landing rights for Emirates Airways in Canada, a diplomatic blunder of epic proportions really. Not only did it create a totally unnecessary conflict with the most moderate and westernized Arab nation in the world, it directly compromised the main air supply line for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, this government’s top foreign policy priority. In contrast, RIM announced in the very same week that it concluded an agreement with the UAE to avoid the banning of BlackBerries on its territory. Could we get Balsillie as Minister of Foreign Affairs? Or maybe the PM needs to read How to Win Friends and Influence People. Because, he doesn’t seem to get that influencing people is the very essence of diplomacy. Heather Scoffield summarized the PM’s approach to diplomacy brilliantly when she wrote “Prime Minister Stephen Harper will take full advantage of the G20 podium on Friday to poke a finger in the eyes of the other leaders”.

In the climax of our opera buffa, Canada is rebuffed in its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, the first time ever that this founding member and long-time uber-supporter of the UN fails to obtain a place at the Security Council table. This in spite of the charm offensive, or is it the offensive charm, of the Prime Minister and key ministers in New York, which they unfortunately had to interrupt to rush back to Ottawa for a scheduled vote in the House on the long gun registry, (another tragi-comedy, a government policy masquerading as a private member’s bill, which this time had a happy ending), returning just in time for the most humiliating foreign policy failure in Canadian diplomatic history.

Much ink has been spilled analysing the detailed why’s and the wherefore’s of this stunning defeat, but fundamentally, it was a repudiation by the world community of not only the style but of the very substance of our foreign policy under this government. A foreign policy built on hard rather than soft power, Canada as a warrior nation. In the Prime Minister’s own words:

He said if Canada wants to be taken seriously on the world stage, it has to rebuild its military’s ability to act decisively at home and globally. Flanked by Defence Minister Peter MacKay and rank and file members of the Canadian military, Harper said the spending plan will ensure Canada can meet its commitments.

“Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player,” he said. “You are the one chattering on the sidelines that everyone smiles at but nobody listens to.”

I am afraid this is exactly what has become of Canada’s international presence as a result of the foreign policy of the current government.

The year ended like most classic farces, with servants running hither and tither, tripping over themselves, and saying the most outlandish, hilarious things. Like, Dimitri Soudas on ministerial responsibility in the context of the government’s order to bar political aides from testifying before Parliamentary committees:

“We’re not in the United States here, where the American Congress calls people, grills them and does whatever they want,” Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister’s communications director, said Sunday on CTV’s Question Period.

“We are in Canada here, and our constitutional principle is very simple. It is ministerial responsibility. Ministers are the ones who are accountable for the policy, the operation and the decisions made by their staffers.”

Except when the staffers in question have been found to systematically tamper with and impede access to information requests, that is. In such cases, ministerial responsibility somehow stops lower down and the staffer takes a bullet for the boss. Or Senator Michael Fortier’s understanding of ministerial responsibility in the case of irregularities in the disposal of Crown real estate worth $1.5 billion:

"The minister's not the CEO of the department. I'm there sort of like a non-executive chairman. That's always how I viewed my position in the department."
So where does the buck stop?
"The buck stops everywhere, in terms of the responsibility and before Parliament," said Fortier.

Or Minister of Public Safety Toews in the case of the young Chinese man who entered Canada disguised as an old man, complete with life-like full head mask, à la Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible:

He said that aside from the silicone mask, there was nothing unusual about the case, which came to light after CNN obtained a copy of an internal alert by the Canada Border Services Agency.
"In this particular case, as a result of a leak to a news agency it became public knowledge," Toews said.

Or Minister of Defense MacKay, to whose brain power combined with Minister of Public Works and Government Services Rona Ambrose the procurement of the F-35 fighter jet has been entrusted:

"It is the central nervous system of the aircraft itself, while our pilots are the hearts and brains," said MacKay.

Someone should tell Peter that the brain is the most important part of the central nervous system. At least, he’s not the Minister of Health.

Or Minister of Foreign Affairs Cannon, on the UN Security Council debacle:

“Let me clarify that: I don't want to indicate that we did or did not get support from the United States. I want to make that clear,” the minister said.

And finally, the Prime Minister, on the seal hunt:

"It is a disgrace that they're treated this way in some countries based upon no facts or information whatsoever, so we strongly object to the decision," said Harper.

Hahaha, making decisions based upon no facts or information whatsoever. Stop it, that’s too funny. This guy is killing me.

Well, here’s wishing all of you a Happy New Year in 2011. I certainly hope it will be a less momentous year, for all our sakes.