It is no exaggeration that I am not a fan of either Conservative politics or their leaders. I was born into a family that was both liberal and Liberal. I have no doubt that excessive behaviour by politicians are not confined to either conservatives or Conservatives. I remember well the governments headed by Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney--although the latter prime minister was found to be either disingenuous or outright crooked. The Liberals, too have had their scandals not the least of which involved spurious payments to Quebecers that were, to say the least, just short of criminal. My rant goes to a rather fundamental issue that seems to occur and reoccur in current Canadian politics.
It is now a well proven fact that, at best, Parliament was misled about the purchase of a modern jet aircraft. My military friends assure me that the purchase of a modern jet aircraft is absolutely necessary if Canada is to participate in NATO functions. Our current airplanes can't carry the armament that is being used by other, more current and sophisticated, airplanes. Whether Canada should participate in these diversions is yet another question. But, assuming that the answer is 'yes" we need a more up to date fighter jet. So, why the kafuffel? It appears that the best jet to buy was not an open and shut question. The candidate for purchase was rife with problems. The price was a moving target. There was a serious question as to whether the performance deficiencies could ever by remedied. And yet we Canadians were told that all was well and that the cost of the airplanes would not exceed a number that everyone knew was fictitious. It has taken the Auditor General to tell us that the king has no clothes.
In any ordinary government the resignation of the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff of the armed forces would be a foregone conclusion. Such incompetence reflects badly on the Prime Minister so that, in some countries like Japan, the prime minister would also be a casualty. Not in Canada. The Prime Minister is going to tough it out. To date the Minister of Defence (of pick me up in a government helicopter at my fishing camp fame) is still at his desk. The Prime Minister, with a straight face, says that the Auditor General has done his job well and that the purchase of the plane is now being thoroughly investigated by Public Works--a department that has had its own measure of political interference. What about all those statements made during the election? Who misspoke? Who lied?
It is the style of this government to face down any criticism of how it does business with answers that do not accept responsibility and deflect the problem on the questioner. For example, what appears to be egregious tampering with a riding election by directing voters to a non existent voting station is said to be "smear tactics" by the questioner. When asked if the Minister of Defence should step down the Prime Minister (and not the minister in question) answers that the matter is now properly sent to Public Works. What is everyone yammering about? See, we didn't buy the airplanes. Forged changes in documents did not claim yet another minister. These answers are worthy of Vladimir Putin. This is the government that has sold off the Wheat Board without consultation of farmers. This is the government that has dismantled Katimivik, Canada's organization closest to the Peace Corp in the United States. The arts have been pilloried. The CBC has been gutted (because, I hear, that the Prime Minister does not like its liberal bent). In my years of following politics I have never seen such a blatant exercise of power by a Prime Minister.
Many forms of government force collaboration between the administrative and legislative arms. Neither the US congress nor any of its arms such as the House of Representatives or the Senate can pass legislation without the concurrence of the other house and the President. The President can propose but can't pass legislation and can only veto bills that he does not like. While such a system can produce stalemate--particularly when there are serious divergences of political philosophies between the parties, there can be no tyranny of any one party except where, in the unlikely circumstances, all three bodies are of the same party. Even then, there is a wide range of political philosophies within each party so that no one can be assured that any measure can make it into law without significant compromise.
In the parliamentary system of government there can be a tyranny of the majority party. That tyranny is deflected by the fact that voters vote for their constituency representative rather than for a party leader. The party leader must have the confidence of his own caucus and of the house. There have been circumstances where strong leaders wreaked havoc with the system. Diefenbaker single handedly denuded Canada of its aeronautics industry with cancellation of the Avro Arrow. Trudeau bludgeoned the country into bilingualism and the national energy party. Both paid with defeat at the polls. However, almost any other leader that I can think of has at least played the game of being politically sensitive to how the rest of the country perceives government action: until Harper. With the exception of the Minister of Finance and possibly the Foreign Minister he has surrounded himself with weak ministers. He has, in fact, taken charge of government on a unprecedentedl level. Senior civil servants with whom I have spoken tell me that the very essence of Canada's civil service as unbiased advisors is a serious risk.
So, the hidden agenda is not so hidden. Harper has become the autocratic leader of Canada. For ill or for good. Those who criticize him are pilloried. He intends to lead Canada well to the right of any Conservative leader. And watch out when he does.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment