Canada's Post-Election Conservative Angst

Canada's conservatives just can't grasp the fact that they alienated a significant portion of Canadian voters on October 19th; women, aboriginals, students and immigrants, and are still grasping at straws, still trying to define Prime Minister Elect Justin Trudeau through their own peculiar lenses.  This is quite apparent on "The Rebel", a strongly anti-left online political and social commentary platform for the conservative side of the spectrum, founded in February 2015 by none other than this man:

Yes, you are right, that's none other than Ezra Levant, formerly a host at the failed Sun News Network and a well-known sh!t disturber.  While I have no particular problem with sh!t disturbers, like many of the parliamentary staff in Ottawa who voted him "the talking head you'd most like to silence", I'd much prefer that he would remain silent, however, under the Trudeau-crafted Canadian Constitution, he is free to spew his particular brand of  venom.   Ezra has been joined at The Rebel by fellow Sun hosts Brian Lilley who, apparently has the conservative qualifications necessary to sit in for American television conservative personality Glenn Beck.

Let's take a look at a recent video creation from The Rebel showing their version of Justin Trudeau's acceptance speech on October 19th, 2015:

Apparently, the wounds of the latest election are still a bit too fresh for The Rebel and Ezra Levant.  Unfortunately, four years in the political wilderness is highly unlikely to mellow their vitriol given this post-election summary from The Rebel's Gavin McInnes:

Yes indeed, the word "retard" is really in vogue today, isn't it?   There's nothing like a bit of political correctness when talking about Canadian politics.  And, hey, he may be stupid, but Mr. Trudeau and his team were still smart enough to beat Mr. Harper and his team, weren't they?

Oddly enough, here is a screen capture showing an ad from The Rebel website:

I guess that immigrants are good for at least one thing in the eyes of some conservatives.

The Harper Government, the TPP and the Caretaker Convention

After the announcement of the success of the negotiation process of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I started wondering how the Harper government was able to negotiate this extremely significant trade agreement during an election period when the House of Commons is dissolved and all MPs, including the Prime Minister, are considered to be "candidates".  Well, it seems that the Harper government had their butts covered on this one as you will see in this posting.

First, let's look at the concept of the Caretaker Convention.  The Caretaker Convention provides a detailed outline of what the federal government is allowed and not allowed to do under two situations; during a general election or during a transition when cabinet ministers are shuffled from one portfolio to another.  Under the terms of the Caretaker Convention, the existing Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet retains their full legal authority, a necessary objective since a national crisis or emergency could take place during an election period.  What cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister must do is restrict themselves in terms of policy, expenditures and appointments to activities that are routine, non-controversial, urgent, reversible by a new government without undue cost or disruption and agreed to by opposition parties in cases where consultation is appropriate.

Historically speaking, Canadian governments have been reluctant to release the details of the Caretaker Convention.  Fortunately, an Access to Information request made by fellow blogger James Bowden shed the light of day on this document back in 2011.  Here is a copy of the Caretaker Convention dated 2008 that was released by the Harper government of the day and here are a series of screen captures showing the first few pages of the 2008 document:

As you can see, it is generally quite clear what governments are allowed to do during election periods.

Now that we have that background, let's move to the current election.  In what appears to be unprecedented openness, the Harper government through the Privy Council Office, proactively released the Caretaker Convention document on August 2nd, 2015, the day that Stephen Harper announced the 2015 election and, coincidentally, the Canadian long weekend when the media and Canadians weren't paying attention.  Here is a screen capture of the first part of the document which includes exactly the same elements as the pages attached above:

Do you notice any difference between the two versions?  In case you missed it, at the end of the section under Continuing Government Business, you will find that the following paragraph has been added to the 2015 version of the Caretaker Convention document:

"For greater clarity, there may be compelling reasons for continued participation by Ministers and/or officials in specific activities such as treaty negotiations. For example, when negotiations are at a critical juncture with timelines beyond Canada’s control, the failure to participate in ongoing negotiations during the caretaker period could negatively impact Canada’s interests. Under such conditions, a compelling case may be made for ongoing efforts to protect Canada’s interests. Irreversible steps such as ratification should be avoided during this caretaker period."  (my bold)

The Harper Government basically changed the Caretaker Convention right at the beginning of the 2015 election, giving itself the right to negotiate Canada's participation in an international trade agreement that covers 40 percent of the world's GDP.  As well, if we look at the first section of the Caretaker Convention, it very clearly states that "consultation with the opposition parties may be appropriate, particularly where a major decision could be controversial or difficult for a new government to reverse."  I wonder how often Mr. Harper consulted with Mr. Mulcair, Mr. Trudeau or Ms. May between August 4th and the day of the announcement of Canada's participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership on October 5th?  I think that we all know the answer to that question, don't we?

What are the odds that the Canadian government, under any leader, will back out of the TPP at this point in time?  As well, committing to significant changes in Canada's economic policies during an election period (i.e. changes to patent laws, the farm quota system, access to and patent protection of pharmaceuticals etcetera) even though they have not been ratified, goes well beyond the routine activities of any government.

But, as we've seen in the past, the Harper government is quite willing to change the rules to benefit itself and there has been no exception in the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Issue That Canada's Politicians Are Avoiding

Back on February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada announced its ruling on Carter v. Canada as shown on this document:

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that people with both grievous and irremediable medical conditions should have the right to ask a doctor to help them die as shown in these key paragraphs:

"Insofar as they prohibit physician-assisted dying for competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering, ss. 241 (b) and 14  of the Criminal Code  deprive these adults of their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7  of the Charter . The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly. Here, the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable. The rights to liberty and security of the person, which deal with concerns about autonomy and quality of life, are also engaged. An individual’s response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The prohibition denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on their liberty. And by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person.

The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The object of the prohibition is not, broadly, to preserve life whatever the circumstances, but more specifically to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness. Since a total ban on assisted suicide clearly helps achieve this object, individuals’ rights are not deprived arbitrarily. However, the prohibition catches people outside the class of protected persons. It follows that the limitation on their rights is in at least some cases not connected to the objective and that the prohibition is thus overbroad. It is unnecessary to decide whether the prohibition also violates the principle against gross disproportionality." (my bold)

While I realize that this subject is as divisive as abortion, it is a subject that is of great interest to me, particularly since, in recent years, I have lost both of my parents, one who endured extreme pain from untreatable multiple cancers and another who lost all dignity as a result of dementia.

At the time of the decision, the Supreme Court gave provincial and federal governments 12 months to craft new legislation to deal with their ruling; since then, nearly eight months have passed and there has been a notable lack of progress from Ottawa on this issue.  The Harper government finds itself between a rock and a hard place because the religious base of the Conservative Party of Canada has a very clear opinion on the issue.

Back in 2012, the Quebec National Assembly's Select Committee on Dying with Dignity released a report that examined in great detail what society's answer is to the suffering that some people experience at the end of life or during a degenerative disease.  Quebec was willing to admit that the debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide was something that could no longer be avoided and that the National Assembly and its elected Members had a duty to deal with this issue as stated here:

"It is also clear that the National Assembly must also turn its attention to this issue. MNAs have a responsibility to focus on major societal debates that are ongoing in the population. It is in fact one of their crucial functions as elected representatives. We must also ensure that these discussions are conducted responsibly and under ideal conditions in order to foster calm, respectful debate."

Sadly, this does not appear to be the case with the federal government.  Leadership on this issue is sadly missing.

After having gone through the issue of dying with dignity with my own parents, here is a key paragraph in the report: 

"Getting society to accept that death, like birth, is a natural phase of life is no small task. However, only when we succeed in this regard will palliative care become a genuine part of the continuum of care."


From my personal and very recent experience, a significant part of palliative care is the use of sedation to induce sleep and continuously relieve the patient's awareness that they are suffering, a process that some regard as euthanasia in disguise.  This is particularly important where the use of pain medications like morphine no longer reduce pain and discomfort.  One of the problems occurring from palliative sedation is the cessation of nutrition and hydration.  In my own case, I can recall having feelings that my loved one was being starved to death, however, many physicians feel that the combination of palliative sedation and withdrawal of nutrition hasten death for the sufferer.

Interestingly, in January 2015, Canada Revenue Agency annulled the charitable status of Dying With Dignity Canada effective on February 15, 2015.  Dying With Dignity Canada was  founded in 1982 to promote choice and dignity at the end of life, educating Canadians about patient rights, advance care planning, providing one-on-one support to individuals who are dying and want to do so on their own terms.  CRA determined that "DWD Canada does not conduct any activities that advance education in the charitable sense" and that they are primarily "political".  In case you missed it, Dying with Dignity was an intervener on the Carter v. Canada case.  Why did CRA annul Dying With Dignity Canada's charitable status?  They claimed that the organization was registered in error as a charity way back in 1982.  It just took CRA 23 years to figure that out and annul their status.  I think that this gives us a sense of where the Harper government stood on the issue.

From this, I think that we have some idea of why the Harper government has pretty much chosen to ignore this rather discomforting subject, preferring to deal with it after the October 2015 federal election, just in case their stance on this issue alienates their base.  As well, any response to the Supreme Court decision will require co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments who each have their own provincial colleges of physicians, a prospect that must make Mr. Harper rather uncomfortable since he has shown little interest in federal - provincial policy discussions of any type and around any issue.  In response to this very important and looming issue which is of particular importance as Canada's population ages, voters need to ensure that they hold candidates from all political parties accountable for at least taking a firm stand on the issue, particularly since there will be less than four months to craft legislation after the October election date.

Who Are Stephen Harper's Enemies?

Back in June 2003, Canada's Stephen Harper wrote an essay on Canada as he saw it as leader of the very short-lived Canadian Alliance Party.  This essay was posted on the Christian Coalition International (Canada) website, a conservative religious organization that had a strong anti-gay stance.  This glimpse into the mind of Mr. Harper provides Canadian voters with a true, unvarnished, not quite ready for primetime vision of our current Prime Minister and helps us to better understand his core beliefs.  For my readers from the United States, I appreciate your patience with these postings about Canada, however, with Canada entering yet another election season, there are some points that I feel that I need to make.

As a bit of background, Mr. Harper attends a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, a relatively small Protestant evangelical and fundamentalist denomination that has approximately 440 churches across Canada, many of them in the four western provinces.  They prioritize world evangelism through their missions programs and have a strong belief in the inerrancy of scripture and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

Now, let's take a look at a few key paragraphs from Mr. Harper's 2003 essay.  These paragraphs follow a brief discussion about a potential merger between the Progressive Conservative Party under the leadership of Peter MacKay and the Canadian Alliance (officially the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance) under Stephen Harper, a merger that took place in December 2003:

"What is the “conservative coalition” of ideas? Actually, conservatism and conservative parties, as we’ve known them over the decades, have always been coalitions. Though these coalitions are complex and continually shifting, two distinctive elements have long been identifiable.

"Ted Byfield labelled these factions “neo-con” and “theo-con.” More commonly, they are known simply as economic conservatives and social conservatives. Properly speaking, they are called classical or enlightenment liberalism and classical or Burkean conservatism.

The one called “economic conservatism” does indeed come from classical liberalism. Its primary value is individual freedom, and to that end it stresses private enterprise, free trade, religious toleration, limited government and the rule of law.

The other philosophy is Burkean conservatism. Its primary value is social order. It stresses respect for customs and traditions (religious traditions above all), voluntary association, and personal self-restraint reinforced by moral and legal sanctions on behaviour.

The essence of this conservatism is, according to Russell Kirk, “the preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors: they are dubious of wholesale alteration. They think society is a spiritual reality, possessing an eternal life but a delicate constitution: it cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine.”

In the 19th century, these two political philosophies, classical liberalism and Burkean conservatism, formed the basis for distinct political parties that opposed one another. On the one side was a liberal party in the classical sense – rationalist, anticlerical but not anti-religious, free-trading, often republican and usually internationalist. On the other side was an older conservative party – traditionalist, explicitly or implicitly denominational, economically protectionist, usually monarchist, and nationalistic.

In the 20th century, these opposing forces came together as a result of two different forces: resistance to a common enemy, and commitment to ideas widely shared.

The common enemy was the rise of radical socialism in its various forms. In this context, Burkean conservatives and classical liberals discovered a commitment to a core of common ideas. Both groups favoured private property, small government and reliance on civil society rather than the state to resolve social dilemmas and to create social process. Domestically, both groups resisted those who stood for public ownership, government interventionism, egalitarian redistribution and state sponsorship of secular humanist values. Internationally, they stood unequivocally against external enemies – fascism, communism and socialist totalitarianism in all its forms...." (my bold)

Mr. Harper goes on to explain how conservatives need to respond to the new challenges that the world offers in the post-Cold War era since, according to him, "socialism is dead".

"The real enemy is no longer socialism. Socialism as a true economic program and motivating faith is dead. Yes, there are still lots of statist economic policies and people dependent on big government. But the modern left-liberal economic philosophy has become corporatism. Corporatism is the use of private ownership and markets for state-directed objectives. Its tools are subsidization, public/private partnerships and state investment funds. It is often bad policy, but it is less clearly different from conventional conservative economics than any genuine socialism.

The real challenge is therefore not economic, but the social agenda of the modern Left. Its system of moral relativism, moral neutrality and moral equivalency is beginning to dominate its intellectual debate and public-policy objectives.

The clearest recent evidence of this phenomenon is seen in international affairs in the emerging post-Cold-War world – most obviously in the response of modern liberals to the war on terrorism. There is no doubt about the technical capacity of our society to fight this war. What is evident is the lack of desire of the modern liberals to fight, and even more, the striking hope on the Left that we actually lose.

You can see this if you pay close attention to the response to the war in Iraq from our own federal Liberals and their cheerleaders in the media and the universities. They argue one day that there are no weapons of mass destruction, yet warn that such weapons might be used. They tell us the war was immoral, then moral but impractical, then practical but unjustified. They argue simultaneously that the war can’t be won, that it is too easy for the coalition to win and that victory cannot be sustained anyway. Most striking was their obvious glumness at the fall of Baghdad. But even previous to that were the dark suggestions on the anniversary of September 11 (hinted at even by our own prime minister) that “we deserved it.”

This is particularly striking given the nature of the enemy here, the bin Ladens and the Husseins, individuals who embody in the extreme everything the Left purports to oppose – fundamentalism, fascistic nationalism, misogyny, bigotry..."

Mr. Harper's statement that the political Left actually hopes to lose the war on terrorism is quite striking and goes a long way to explaining his government's introduction of Bill C-51 in the latest Parliament.  His views on backing the United States in Iraq were well known as we can see in this video clip from 2003 showing a much younger looking Stephen Harper:

And, despite the fact that history has shown that American meddling in Iraq has led to the creation of a geopolitical vacuum that has fostered the development of ISIS, Mr. Harper still can't seem to get enough of Middle East politicking.

Let's close with this paragraph that completely sums up Mr. Harper's core beliefs:

"Conservatives need to reassess our understanding of the modern Left. It has moved beyond old socialistic morality or even moral relativism to something much darker. It has become a moral nihilism – the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic western civilization."

That is quite a statement and makes it quite clear why Mr. Harper seems unable to play well with Premiers Wynne and Notley.

Keeping in mind that Mr. Harper and his policies appear, in general, to be appealing to his evangelical base, it is important to remember than only 12 percent of Canadians identify as evangelical.   This would suggest that the current agenda of the CPC represents a relatively small fraction of all Canadians but a significant portion of the 61.1 percent of voters who actually took the time to pick up a stubby pencil and mark an "X", 39.6 percent of whom picked the local candidate from the Conservative Party of Canada as their representative in Ottawa.  This means that the Parliamentary process is being driven by 24.2 percent of Canadians, a significant number who share Mr. Harper's religious leanings, which can hardly be termed a "majority" in any sense of the word.