TravisWall.net

Stephen Harper is an economist. As a qualified professional, he states that the economic foundations of this country are strong and more than enough to insulate us from any sort of slowdown. The recent economic update presented by Jim Flaherty even projected surpluses ahead. There was no need for any real stimulus because, according to Harper’s economic theory, the crisis that we are in is impossible. The crisis that we are currently experiencing, right now, is not actually happening, simply because Harper declares it so.

Let me start again.

Stephen Harper is a bad economist. Rather than supporting this country with the economic stimulus it needs, he has chosen to make partisan attacks and settle old grudges. He acts as a dictator, running on tactics and deception, rather than the leader of a minority government who relies on the support of Parliament. So, having again failed to receive a majority government, he devised a plan to destroy the opposition by proposing the elimination of public subsidies for political parties. While saving the government a measly $27 million dollars, this would effectively cripple the opposition parties. The Conservatives, receiving a large portion of their funds from the private sector, would be the only party financially able to run a strong campaign and otherwise support themselves. Talk about cartoonish villainy.

Consequently, as the already broken Liberals lay in the corner, about to receive the final blow, they did the only thing they could: band together with everyone else.

coalition-protest---3 by preciouskhyatt on Flickr / used with permission

The proposed coalition has sparked a great deal of controversy among Canadians, many of whom mistakenly believe it to be a “coup d’état” or somehow “unconstitutional”. The Conservatives are well aware that few Canadians understand how their own government works and have encouraged myths such as that the Prime Minister was elected directly by the people, that this is an affront to democracy, and that the country will be torn apart by separatists and fly into chaos. Stephen Harper went on television and declared as much, demonizing the Bloc and escalating this situation into a national unity crisis.

In perfect spin-journalism fashion, CTV, among others, has taken to repeating the rhetoric spouted by the Conservative propaganda machine, rather than reporting the news from an objective standpoint. It’s no wonder people are confused.

While the coalition is between the Liberals and the NDP, the Bloc is agreeing to offer support for at least 18 months, so as to create the 163 seats needed to maintain the confidence of the House. Does the Bloc’s involvement pose any sort of threat? Not likely. No allowances for the status of Quebec were made while negotiating the terms, and it is unlikely that such demands will be made. Should the Bloc suddenly go berserk, as Harper claims, the coalition would be dissolved and an election would be called. Many people forget that the Bloc Quebecois are not solely a separatist party; they are a social democratic party and receive votes for a multitude of reasons. Not only has separatism had little support as of late, the Bloc Quebecois didn’t even campaign on it in the last election.

In 2004, during the Martin government, Harper signed a similar agreement with the NDP and the Bloc, hoping to take power as a coalition. He didn’t seem very worried back then.

As for being somehow “unconstitutional”, the Canadian Constitution does not even make reference to a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is chosen when a single member of Parliament, usually the leader of the party with the most seats, has the confidence of the House. Canadians vote for nothing more than the member of Parliament in their local constituency. The members of Parliament are not changing; this is merely a shuffling of seats.

Could a coalition government be stable? Though typical in many countries such as Australia and New Zealand, federal coalition governments are uncommon in Canada; the only one to ever exist was between the Liberals and Conservatives from 1917 to 1921. As an article from the Toronto Star points out, however, a number of successful provincial coalition governments have been carried out as recently as five years ago.

A coalition government does not appear appear fraught with peril, as many believe. It may very well be the stable co-operation of political parties this country needs to effectively prepare for the economic onslaught ahead–something we will not receive from the Conservatives as long as Harper is in charge.

Regardless of whether you want to see a coalition, there is no denying that the situation does not look good for anyone.

Harper has overstepped his bounds a time too many, re-ignited flames of the separatist movement, lost the support that had been gained in Quebec, and many of his own Conservatives have turned against him. He’s demonstrated that he cares not for the welfare of the people of Canada, but rather about his own petty partisan agenda.

The Liberals have bungled their way through the process, consistently being outclassed by the NDP, until finally ousting Dion in favour of a more popular, yet noncommittal, leader.

The NDP look guilty of attempting a power-grab, stating that they would be voting against the budget, regardless of what it was.

The only one without egg on his face is perhaps Gilles Duceppe. The Bloc have now gained additional support from Quebecois who feel alienated or downright offended by Harper’s attacks.

All in all, a coalition sounds like a substantial improvement over our current dictator-style arrangement. But what is the heart of the issue that people have woefully overlooked? Well, Rick said it best, so you may as well hear it from him: