Everything old is new again?

Shades of December 2008 - Harper prorogues Parliament again!

Conventional wisdom today is that PM Harper has prorogued Parliament for the second time since the 2008 Federal election because he's worried that the committee investigating the Afghan detainee/torture issue is costing the Conservatives too much political capital. That the issue will disappear once the afterglow of the Vancouver Olympics erases it from our collective consciousness like a MiB Neuralyzer.

However, Dimitri Soudas, the PMO's press secretary, doesn't think so. It's "old news" he noted in a conference call to reporters, according to the G&M's John Ibbitson. And, I tend to believe him.

Not with Soudas' statement, but rather that this is an accurate reflection of the government's attitude towards the detainee issue: they don't think they'll lose an election over it, and, as uncomfortable as the issue has become, it will eventually go away.

Besides, defence has never been this government's preference for action. They like aggressiveness. They like to squash the enemy.

They like to consolidate power.

The second piece of conventional wisdom circulating among the pundits is that prorogation is doubly advantageous to the Conservatives because it allows Harper to further stack Senate vacancies with partisan loyalists, effectively giving him a governing minority in the Upper House. This seems to be a little bit more in character...

But then, Harper didn't need to lock up the HoC and kill 37 pieces of legislation just to fill Senate vacancies. He could fill them while the House sits. Yes, prorogation effectively resets the make-up of Senate committees: without it, the Liberals could keep a majority in each committee until each one had finished its business, regardless of the overall make up of the Senate. But, again, going through with prorogation just to obtain a "governing minority" in a legislative wing of government that the Conservatives are (supposedly) ideologically opposed seems like overkill for much too little in return. Even for this government.

Last year at this time (more or less a couple of weeks), Harper was forced to prorogue Parliament to save his government's skin. As you may recall, the government had just won another minority in a Federal election that broke the government's own law regarding fixed election dates, on a platform of economic stability and no deficits. It's first act of business: to introduce a fiercely partisan economic update that virtually ignored the world-wide economic crisis in favour of financially crippling the opposition parties. The opposition parties reacted, and Harper found himself in a long discussion with the Governor General over the merits of using an obscure parliamentary procedure to avoid losing the confidence of the House.

Fast forward to now, after the largest deficit in Canadian history (by far), a couple of lily-livered attempts by the Opposition to knock the Conservatives out of power, and a relatively stable year of polling showing that Canadians are not comfortable with anything more than a minority of blue on the government's side of the aisle, and Mr. Harper decides to give the GG a ring. "One more time," he asks, "after all, everything worked out for the best last time round, eh?"

This is a strategic move, yes, but I believe it's only the first step and not the endgame.

See, if the government learned anything from its last year in power, it understands that it does indeed have a lot of power. None more than when the House isn't sitting. Mr. Harper is never so popular than when he's not defending his government and its policies (or lack thereof) in the House. Rather, he looks better when he's on trade missions, or announcing money for projects via stimulus funds, or even (strangely enough) singing.

Through prorogation, the government effectively buys 2 months of time in which they can set the publicity agenda through vehicles like "Canada's Economic Action Plan" in which taxpayer's money is used to promote the government, while the opposition parties must use their own money to get any airtime. And if (and when) they do, this conveniently allows for the PMO to send out one if its infamous "Alerte-Info-Alert" emails to Tory MPs and supporters which outlines talking points to defend/dismiss any criticism. And, of course, to fundraise for more money into the Conservative's election war chest.

Ibbitson, in the article linked to above, refers to a statement made by an anonymous government official, who notes:

"... the government wanted to give itself time and breathing room to think through how to manage the economy as it emerges from recession and to put in place a long-term strategy for balancing the budget."

I believe him/her.

But only because I've seen this before. In essence, s/he is saying:

"The government has learned its lesson from last year: the 2008 economic update was much too hasty a policy-cum-political document to be (at all) effective. We had just barely recovered from fighting an election campaign and we didn't realize how seriously the economic crisis was going to affect Canada. We were rash; we didn't think things through.

This time will be different.

This time we can design a budget that much more discretely aligns our political motives with one more year of stimulus spending, while beginning to cut programs under a facade of fiscal responsibility. This time we can create a document that much more effectively traps the opposition parties into either supporting us or being woefully embarrassed. This time, if they don't support us, it will be they who loses the public support, they who cause a $300 million election, and ultimately they who provide us with the means to finally win a majority government. And they won't have that pesky coalition option to fall back on.

This time, we can take the time to get it right."

Whoa. Cynical much?

Maybe. But yet I keep seeing in the media that the government intends to continue spending stimulus funds through 2011, and yet introduce a leaner budget in 2010. That the government has no intention of increasing taxes but rather intends to freeze or cut spending in order to get the deficit under control.

Something has got to give.

Even though we've seen this before... WTF!!!

So blatant, so appalling, so... typical

I haven't really been inspired with righteous political anger on this blog since parliament was prorogued last winter. Time to fire it up again.

Montreal's Divers/Cité festival was denied a $155,000 grant from the federal government's Marquee Tourism Events Program (MTEP), part of the economic stimulus plan.

Divers/Cité features international performers that are homosexual. This year, the festival is scheduled to run July 26 - August 2. Festival organizers found out about losing out on the stimulus money on Tuesday. Yeah... this Tuesday.

This, after festival organizers were assured by federal civil servants at Industry Canada that the Divers/Cité application had met all the MTEP criteria, and was only waiting for final approval from Industry Minister Tony Clement's office.

Clement, who just recently took over the reigns of this program from Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy, claims that issues of "regional fairness" were the reason why the festival lost out. Since approximately $42M has already been awarded to festivals based in Quebec, he felt he needed to spread the money around.

Couple of things:

1) MTEP is a $100 Million program. The 150K that Divers/Cité requested was just a drop in the bucket. Even if nearly half of the kitty had already been spent in Quebec (about the same amount that has been allocated in Ontario, BTW), would funding Divers/Cité really have made all that much of a difference? But, like I've written before, insignificant amounts of money seem to make no difference to this government when comes to matters of ideology.

2) Clement took over the MTEP file in a flurry of controversy when it was suggested by a Conservative backbencher that the PMO wanted to punish Ablonczy for allocating $400K to Toronto's Pride Week. Conservative MPs vehemently denied it. Even Suzanne Girard, director of Divers/Cité, sprung to the defense of the PMO, saying that right wing elements of the Conservative Party were trying to undermine the government. She said, “It could do exactly what the right wing does, which is block the whole thing and it stops.” Then, Clement confirms everyone's worst fears by yanking funding 4 days before the festival is set to begin.

3) Regional allocation for funding is nowhere to be found in the eligibility criteria for the MTEP. Criteria outlines that only events or festivals that can prove that they attract large numbers of tourists could apply for funding. By the government's own regulations, most of that funding would be streamlined to Ontario and Quebec... which shouldn't be an issue since the demise of these provinces' manufacturing sectors are at the core of the recession, they need the most help.

To me, Clement's claims for trying to check stimulus funds earmarked for Quebec under the guise of "regional fairness" reads like CPC code for "we're just trying to avoid another sponsorship scandal." Which is a sad cover for a blatant appeasement of the Conservative base. Not only does it financially slewfoot an openly homosexual festival, it also addresses other key CPC base points: less public funds for the arts and less money for Quebec.

But really, $150K is nothing. It's really hardly anything to the government's stimulus budget. The stimulus program for infrastructure alone is $12 Billion. GM's Canadian division got a $10.5 Billion bailout.

To me, this is just another sad attempt to appease those in the CPC who have been alienated by the government's... well, governance. But pulling $150K away from one gay festival, when a much larger, more prolific gay festival in Toronto got nearly triple that amount just a few weeks before... seems to me a pretty weak gesture.

That... and a totally disgusting and shameful way to conduct business.

Budget Hangover

Why has the furor over arts funding fizzled?

It's been about a week since Budget ’09, and all is quiet on the Culture front. At least… it’s been quiet online.

There’s a smattering of righteous anger about the $25M set aside for Luminato’s Canada Prizes for the Arts and Creativity over at Praxis. But, mind you, at the time of this writing, only 9 comments have been posted. And The Art of the Business’s round-up of the budget’s art funding hasn’t generated a lot of discussion either.

In fact, comments have been down across the board. In the G&M’s story about arts funding, only 49 people have voiced their opinions. Which could be construed as a good number, but it’s nothing compared to the hundreds of comments the G&M was generating when the Liberal/NDP coalition was a near reality.

Blogs that I expected to hear from – Department of Culture, One Big Umbrella, The Wrecking Ball – have been mum on the Budget. And yes, I realize that I’m a big ol’ Mr. Pot pointing fingers at a bunch of Mr. Kettles: the first time this blog actually started to get some attention was when I was all about political activism.

So, what gives? What happened to our united front? Why are have we retreated into the dark corner like a pimply tween that snuck into a high school dance?

Did we get what we wanted after all?

---

Update: Oops, didn't mean to leave you out Starving Artist. Nice read and responses.

Spite seems to work for the Arts

Budget Day 2009

So, on top of the $160 million in new Arts & Culture funding already announced, there might be additional funds hidden in the rest of Budget 2009, to be read later today.

Pretty amazing turnaround from a few months ago, hey? Maybe you're like me and you're asking, "What gives?".

This might help. I was digging around the webbernet and found this little tidbit buried in the G&M's "Spector-Vision" blog:

Today, on the front page of La Presse, the newly-minted minister of cultural heritage, James Moore, is promising $160 million for culture. Recall, that it was a $45 million reduction in funding that many observers believe was the reason the Conservatives were denied a majority in October. Asked what he had to say to the Bloc which has been demanding the restoration of those funds, Mr. Moore lets the cat out of the bag:

"They've been demanding $45 million? We're talking $160 million. If the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the NDP vote against the budget, they'll prove they're liars about being the great defenders of artists."

Kinda sounds like the new Conservative Culture policy basically amounts to: "So THERE!"

In any case... works for me!

Let's see what other tidbits they announce later this afternoon...

Et tu, Ignatieff?

It’s the fashion these days for directors to set a new production of Shakespeare in an alternate historical timeline. I’m sure I’m not the only one who is a little tired of these productions, especially as each new interpretation seems to be more and more of a stretch. So please don’t read the rest of this post as a ringing endorsement of the style (…er, fad).

However, for argument’s sake… and because my little art blog seems to be all wrapped up in politics right now, anyway… if you were to apply Shakespeare’s political tragedy to our own Canadian one, who would you cast in the titular role: Stephen Harper or Stephane Dion?

The answer, of course, depends on your point of view – pro-coalition or not. I imagine if you are a Conservative supporter, then your pick would be Harper. The idea of the greatest leader of the Roman Empire assassinated by his own government via multiple stab wounds to the back is probably more than fitting to your view of Canada’s current political crisis. This would probably also serve to keep your blood boiling hot.

However, considering the Conservative party’s current stance on culture, I’m tempted to assume that an ardent Harper supporter has neither read nor seen Julius Caesar. As such, s/he wouldn’t know how minor a role Caesar actually has in the play. (I do: I’ve played him.)

Stephane Dion is a more apt choice – especially if you replace the Roman Empire with the Liberal Party of Canada. (Considering how many years the Liberals have governed the country since confederation, this is actually not that much of a stretch.)

The real question then becomes how to cast the true main characters in the piece: Brutus and Marc Antony? Does Michael Ignatieff become Brutus – the man who ended up leading the assassination plot (albeit reluctantly) for the good of the Empire, and takes power? And does Bob Rae become Antony – the well spoken orator who rallies against Brutus, and ends up defeating him by setting up a triumvirate government with Octavius and Lepidus (read coalition government with Layton and Duceppe).

Hm. This is kinda fun. I can see why directors can be lured to this approach… However, my focus is not in producing Shakespeare, so I won’t be looking to produce this any time soon. Feel free to use, if you like.

I’d buy a ticket.

Prorogation official

Harper gets his wish.

On the National Post's live blog of the event, this comment basically sums it up:

12:02 Kenny Yum: In the House, Speaker has adjourned the sitting. Some cheers, some jeeers. CPAC goes blank.

"They blew it"

... is what my wife said to me as the grainy, Youtube quality video of Stephane Dion was broadcast over some national stations. I sighed, and then agreed.

Hard to disagree. While this whole battle for hearts and minds of the Canadian public may not make a whole hooey of difference to what's happening now over at Rideau Hall, but if the GG does grant prorogation to Harper, then this video will haunt the coalition's quest for legitimacy.

Harper's an idiot. While he stokes the fires of his man-made political crisis into a national unity crisis, he would have a helluva an easier time convincing the nation that the coalition is unstable due to incompetence more than anything else.

Mr. Dion, if you want to quell fears that you're not staging a coup d'etat, then it might help if you avoided making your video look like it was filmed by Al Qaida. For goodness sake: you have the ENTIRE CULTURAL COMMUNITY BACKING THIS COALITION... you could've probably gotten one of us to help you.

Well... I should probably calm myself down. All is not lost, of course. As an artist, I know what's like to occasionally fail miserably (scroll down, you'll find me). However, like Andy Field sez, "don't fear failure."

Here's an excerpt:

So what do you do when the dust settles on a show like that? After the polite and slightly pained smiles and thank-yous? What did (Orson)Welles think, standing there in the darkened theatre, after the acrobats and the stagehands and the chorus line had gone home? Did he agonise over what could have worked better, what he could have changed, how he might have worked harder? More likely, he was already charging blindly on to the next project; the songs and the dances and the collapsing scenery already a forgotten memory.

Onward friends. Onward.

Executive Power

In one of my previous blog post, It's in the Governor General's hands now..., I wrote that the GG has to act in the best interests of Canadians.

Whoops! Scratch that, I'm totally wrong.

The GG is not (supposed to be) a political office, just an exectutive one, and a highly symbolic one at that. She's supposed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, except in only very very very VERY rare circumstances.

However, now that Harper will ask the GG to prorogue Parliament (as early as this afternoon), he has basically brought politics to the office, where none should exist. He is asking her to make a political decision -- either prorogue Parliament, which favours the Conservative agenda, or let the vote of confidence proceed, which favours the Coalition.

Under the guise of democracy, he's basically giving the British Crown a legitimate hand in governing our nation again.

This is a lose-lose situation for the GG. She cannot help but take sides in this mess.

She has a third option: to prorogue Parliament but restrict the powers of government to the most mundane daily operations. By doing this, she still follows the advice the of the first minister, who still hasn't officially lost the confidence of the House, but refuses Harper's governence until he actually earns that confidence. She also manages to keep the powers of her own office -- an unelected position -- at minimum.

While this would probably be a wiser move on the GG's part to retain some semblance of sanity within our constitutional monarchy governance system, it will also be the absolute WORST decision for the country because it handcuffs the government from taking any action on the economic crisis until the House resumes.

So, while politics are not supposed to be a part of her decision, nor are the interests of the nation (beyond those that apply to constitutional law) supposed to be part of her decision... how can they not be? She's only human.

I don't envy her decision at all. But I will be watching...

---

Nice little Q&A over at the G&M about the GG and constitutional procedure.

Here's an interesting and intriguing tidbit:

David Mordecai from Toronto Canada writes: Given the editorial in The Globe and Mail yesterday, I was wondering if the Governor-General can suggest to the Prime Minister that he step down in favour of a different leader of the Conservative Party?

Bob Beal: Hi David: You asked a question that I have not seen raised in the miles of copy on this story, and it is a good question.

The answer is most definitely yes. The Governor-General has a right, and a duty, to advise her prime ministers. I don't know how often it happens today in Canada, but something the public is not aware of is that prime ministers usually meet often with governor-generals, or in Britain, prime ministers with the Queen. This, of course, used to happen much more frequently. Queen Victoria was regarded as a bit meddlesome, and she played favorites between prime ministers.

But as the great British constitutionalist Walter Bagehot wrote: "The sovereign has ... three rights -- the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."

More constitutional info...

Courtesy of the Globe & Mail.

Still don't know whether or not the government will fall. Very tricky indeed...

---

UPDATE:

A very detailed analysis of all of the government's options to avoid falling can be found here at the G&M (Andrew Steele again).

While all the talk has been about proroguing the House, if I were a betting man, I would go with Option #1 as being the Conservatives "nuclear option," conveniently also the most fitting with their typical playbook.

It's in the Governor General's hands now...

Uh-oh, did someone say "prorogue"???

A lot can happen in a week. Unlike the Department of Culture, I'm not quite ready to bestow victory on the coalition government yet. Look at all that has happened in the last week, hell, the last 3 days. December 8th is still a long way away.

However, despite the Conservatives' best efforts, it looks like the Liberals-NDP-Bloc coalition is ready to go, for at least 18 months and at least two federal budgets. It's really quite remarkable that these parties managed to shelve their differences (at least for the last week) in order to get this thing together. No matter what anybody says (secret deal or not), this was a HUGE mountain to climb for all involved.

But. The government has yet to fall. Harper does have one procedural 'out'. He could try to prorogue the House. In short, this essentially means that he ends this session of Parliament before a vote of non-confidence can be made, until January 27th. If he does try this (highly unlikely) procedural tactic, it will be difficult to maintain his argument that the proposed L/N/B coalition government is undemocratic.

As unlikely as this scenario might be, well, this seems to be the week for unlikely political scenarios. In any case, whether the government falls or Harper attempts to prorogue the House, the end result is that the final decision about the future of our government will be the Governor General's responsibility.

(For a detailed description why proroguing the House still means that the GG has final say, check out Andrew Steele's blog over at the Globe & Mail.)

But let's assume that the government falls on December 8th. If so, Harper must go the GG and tell her that he has lost the confidence of the House. He will then, presumably, ask her to hold another election.

The Conservatives are not going to roll over on this one. They are fighting, and will continue to fight, tooth-and-nail to get public opinion on their side. This is important because the GG is obliged to act in the best interest of Canadians. If she feels that the Canadian public is not being represented properly by the coalition government, she will call for another election.

Alot of the material I've read so far has noted that the GG will be facing a lot of pressure to let the coalition take a shot at governing because the current Parliament has barely lasted two months, and it's too soon for Canadians to go to the polls again. However, if the Conservatives can persuade her that more Canadians believe that the government has been "stolen" by the coalition, or that it's somehow undemocratic that coalition should govern, then the writ shall fall.

And again, let's consider also the tools the Conservatives have to wage this war:
1) Stephane Dion: Not only was he the least popular leader in the last election, but he's also stepping down in May. The Conservatives will argue that Liberals' leadership problems are not only destabilizing, but even less democratic because Canadians will not have had an opportunity to vote for the next PM of our country.
2) The economy: Again, let's talk optics. The stock market fell more that 9% (the worst since "Black Monday") on the same day the terms of the coalition were announced. This had more to do with the United States admitting that they're already in recession, and some ridiculous commodity fluctuations, but that's not going to stop the Conservatives from using this story to their own advantage.
3) Michaelle Jean: (This one is dirty, but I've already seen it start to surface on forums and comments sections.) Remember back when Ms. Jean was appointed as the new GG after Ms. Clarkson, and ugly rumors about her husbands separatist past began to surface? Well, they're coming back up again, and the spin this time is that the GG will only let this coalition government fly because of her sympathies for Quebec separatism.

My personal opinion is that all of these arguments are somewhat desperate. At the same time, it matters more what the rest of Canada thinks... or to be more specific, what the GG percieves what Canada thinks. It's really all in her hands.

And she's currently in Europe. Her information is coming from her advisers and from the media. So, really, no one really knows what her state of mind is at the moment.

What do we do about it?

The DofC asked us to write our MPs. Great (please continue) but maybe we need to take it one step further. Write the Governor General. If you want this coalition to happen, let her know how you feel about it. Here's how:

Comments, questions and suggestions may be sent by e-mail at: info@gg.ca.

The full title of the Governor General is:

Her Excellency
the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada

The title of the Governor General's spouse is:

His Excellency Jean-Daniel Lafond, C.C.

If you are writing to the Governor General, address the letter to:

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
Governor General of Canada
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1

(no postage necessary)

You can write to His Excellency at the same address.

In either case, the salutation is: Excellency

If you want to write to both of them, address the letter to:

Their Excellencies
The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
Governor General of Canada
and
Mr. Jean-Daniel Lafond

The salutation is: Excellencies

One more thing. According to the National Post, the GG does have one other option. She could just say "no." As in no coalition and no election. As in, go back and figure it out. Make it work.

Again, I think this is a stretch. What the NP seems to be arguing for is an end to our political party system, and have each member be allowed to have a free vote on an issue by issue basis, so that the PM doesn't need the confidence of the House.

A free-vote system is an interesting way of doing things... but it's not the way our parliamentary democracy has been built. That's more in line with the American system and, unless I'm mistaken, no Canadian really wants any part of that.

Whoa...

Trouble in paradise... looks like the Liberals are not the only party with internal problems.

Check it out.

Thanks to Department of Culture for pointing it out.

---

UPDATE:
Here's another one...