Senate attacked by Paper Sign

Well done, Brigette DePape. Your audacious interruption of the Throne Speech today has certainly caught the attention of Canadians. As you pointed out in a later interview, a clear majority of Canadian voters did NOT vote for Mr. Harper. In our system, of course, that's quite normal, but your actions have hilighted just how out of step the Harper government is with what most Canadians value.

It's typical of the current government to label this as a "security threat". An embarrassment, yes. It could even be disrespectful of parliament, as many have called it. But a security breach, as Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella describes it? What danger is there in a paper sign?

Once again, our government is using "security" as a bludgeon to suppress freedom of speech, simply because the actions of an employee did not conform to the party line. At least Ms. DePape isn't (yet) threatened with jail time, as protesters at the G20 summit were when their protests were deemed a "threat to security". (Some quite possibly were, but the vast majority of those arrested were quickly released and few were charged; most were no threat).

Can we expect strip searches of pages in the Senate now? Metal detectors don't work too well for paper. Or, will the senate office need to be (much) stricter in its selection process to weed out any possibility of dissent in the ranks?

It seemed a bit ironic to me that the CBC chose to interview Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment, for his comments on the debacle. He, also, was most concerned about the "security lapse". The lack of action on climate change was one of the failings of the Harper government that Ms. LePape was protesting, and of course Mr. Kent is now the point man for continuing the campaign to avoid actually taking action while communicating to their base that they are doing a good job of it. The CBC sound bite didn't catch any comments on climate change. (It was also not something considered important enough for the throne speech either).

This small protest was, no doubt, disrespectful to our parliamentary institutions. However, it wasn't simply some stunt to gain points with friends; it was an action designed to draw attention to a growing disconnect between our new Conservative government and the needs and desires of many Canadians. Rather than blame their "lax security", the current government should be asking itself what it is about its plans and policies that would so upset the citizenry that one of them would feel that such an audacious act was seen as necessary.

Will he or won't he? It doesn't matter

Stephen Harper still won't clarify what he would do in the hypothetical (but quite possible) situation in which the conservatives are the front-running party in a minority parliament, but he fails to hold the confidence of the house and the Governor General asks the second place party to form a government.

In fact, it doesn't matter what Stephen Harper thinks. The rules are clear. If the leader of the second place party, or an "unacceptable, reckless" coalition, accepts the request from the Governor General then that party or coalition can form the government. These are all valid outcomes, and Stephen Harper cannot veto the Governor General's actions or that of any of the other party leaders should they accept a request to form a government.

Mr. Harper got a lot of mileage out of his assertion that the election "forced" upon him was not one that the citizenry wanted; after all, he could go another two years or more if the opposition would just co-operate (e.g. by supporting all of his legislative agenda, and ignoring anything contemptible e.g. his failure to disclose the costing of his crime legislation). So, it seems a bit hypocritical that he might want to force another election within months of the last.

That seems to be exactly how "Harper's Rules" (that only the party with the most seats can form government) would play out, however. The real rules of Canada's constitutional monarchy permit an orderly transition to a new government without an election in this case. While Mr. Harper wouldn't like the outcome, it certainly seems a better alternative than entering into a new election immediately (or at least it would to anyone who isn't opposed on principal to a non-Conservative government).

Harper Majority or risk separation? Let's remember how the Bloc Québécois came to be

Stephen Harper's latest scare tactic (here reported in the National Post) is that if his alleged Liberal-NDP-Bloc "coalition" comes into play, the country risks separation. Never mind that a "coalition" including the Bloc was never on the books (even in 2008, the Bloc was only proposed to "support" a Liberal-NDP coalition).

It's instructive to remember back to a time when the Conservative party (then the Progressive Conservatives) did quite well in La Belle Province. Brian Mulroney attracted widespread support in Quebec, largely by bring separatist-leaning politicians like his pal Lucien Bouchard into the Progressive Conservative fold. The 1984 election was a landslide victory for Mulroney. While he lost ground in 1988 he still had a solid majority, largely built on still substantial support from Quebec.

This was all to fall apart after Meech Lake, when Bouchard and others decided that the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives weren't the solution to Quebec's desire for nationalism after all. Bouchard left, and in the next election led many of the same politicians to official opposition status as part of the newly formed Bloc Québécois.

If Stephen Harper has his majority, will his Conservatives be any more successful in maintaining the kind of relationship with Quebec that will dampen its nationalist element? His record to date points to the same sort of duplicity that led to the explosive falling out between Mulroney and Bouchard. Harper and Gilles Duceppe were willing to put differences aside to replace Martin's Liberal government. In the current election, though, Duceppe is treated as satan by Harper, who misses no opportunity to warn against any possible association with the Bloc Quebecois.

Far from protecting Canada from possible Quebec separation, Harper's political opportunism is likely to push us closer to that event if he succeeds in getting the majority he is salivating over.

Another Prorogation in the works?

Stephen Harper is using the threat of "coalition" to sway voters to give him his much coveted majority. The tactic might actually work, though his own words from 2004 are coming back to haunt him. If the Conservatives do come back in with a minority again, though, his predictions might be fairly close to what actually unfolds.

First, I think we can assume that if the Conservatives get the plurality of votes, that Stephen Harper will take the helm once again. Even though his aids have occasionally left the impression that Harper is interested in a majority or nothing at all, when push comes to shove it's inconceivable that he would pass up the invitation from the Governor General to head up the country once again if he falls short of that mark.

If we are to believe Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, though, what will happen shortly after is that a budget just like the last will be brought in. This will put the opposition parties in a bit of a pickle. Having all declared that they could not support Flaherty's budget before the election, will any party now turn around and support it? I don't think so. A Conservative minority government therefore seems to be a short-lived one if all parties stand by their commitments (never a sure thing in politics, of course).

This would provide an opportunity for Michael Ignatieff to step in and form a minority government (one that Stephen Harper would denounce as illegitimate, of course, but there are precedents, and it's exactly what he was advising Adrienne Clarkson to do as Governor General in 2004 if the Martin government failed to maintain confidence in the house). I doubt this would be a formal coalition given the denials by Ignatieff in recent days and the effectiveness of Harper's campaign against the concept recently. It would instead be a minority government supported by the other opposition parties, as seems to be the norm in Canadian politics.

The other possibility, though, is that Harper might once again prorogue parliament and work out some sort of deal. Could it work for a third time? Possibly. As Harper's designate, David Johnston might co-operate. I suspect the opposition parties would be wary of co-operating once again. Much will likely come down to how effective Harper's rhetoric against a "coalition" (even an informal one) is. So far, it has worked surprising well.

Federal election is Harper's to call - no matter what he says

We're likely days away from another Federal election campaign. Jim Flaherty's budget was not to the liking of any of the opposition parties, making it a good bet that it won't pass the house of commons. In Canada's parliamentary system, that makes it nearly automatic that we'll be going to the polls.

Mr. Harper and his Conservatives are trying very hard to lay the blame for the failure of parliament on the opposition, and in particular the NDP since the Liberals and Bloc have been emphatic in their disapproval before even seeing the text.

The Conservatives seem to be of the belief that the opposition has some sort of "duty" to support Conservative party policy by voting with the Government. In fact, the opposition's duty is to support the voters who put their respective representatives into parliament.

It's Mr. Harper that has taken on the responsibility to maintain the confidence of the house, by requesting and accepting the office of Prime Minister at the start of the session. So, if we are going to the polls, it is Mr Harper's government that has lost confidence. Trying to shift "blame" to the opposition is simply complaining that the opposition isn't Conservative. That's because Mr Harper is leading a minority government, a small fact that he seems to have trouble coming to terms with.