Parliament is back in session and so is the BlackBerry roundtable. Andrew Potter twiddled his thumbs while Kady O'Malley and Scott Reid analysed the burgeoning bromance between Stephen and David, the economic dangers (still!) lapping at our shores, and the comings and goings of Peter MacKay, Walt Natynczyk and Bob Dechert. BlackBerrys at the ready ...
AP: So British Prime Minister David Cameron was in town this week to address a joint session of Parliament. It wasn't quite I Love You, Man, but David and Stephen were quite chummy. What's up with that?
SR: With friends like Rebekah Brooks and Jamie Murdoch, I suspect Cameron is only too happy to cross the Atlantic to find a new pal. The reality is that Canada and GB have been very much on the same page on key files — particularly Libya. And he and Harper hunt in the same ideological woods (Nottingham?) although I thought our PM was going to faint when Cameron crowed about tax increases.
KO'M: Notwithstanding the instant Cameronmania that seemed to spring up on the Hill in the — what, week or so? — that led up to his arrival, the whole thing reminded me a little bit of a Speech from the Throne: A lot of "What Will It All Mean?" pre-speech speculation by political excitement-starved pundits, a little sound, a little fury, a whole lot of frantic post-speech analysis, and six months — hell, six weeks — later, nobody can remember a word of it.
AP: Is it true, as some have said, that Cameron's speech signalled that Canada is being brought back into the royal fold after being chilled out by Tony Blair over our refusal to join the Iraq venture?
SR: No. Typical over-analysis borne of extreme insecurity on the part of our foreign affairs illuminati-set. The real hostility (and there was some) came from the Harper administration toward Gordon Brown, who was openly harsh regarding Harper's policies toward Africa and climate change. Even I was surprised by the degree to which Brown was prepared to push Harper on global warming file. But Iraq? Ancient history.
KO'M: Agreed. Let's remember that when addressing a foreign Parliament, it is expected that one should be flattering, warm and complimentary. We shouldn't be marvelled by niceties.
AP: During the election last spring, Stephen Harper repeatedly warned of a sea of troubles "lapping at our shores." This week, Cameron told our Parliament that we were "Not quite staring down the barrel" of a recession. But are our heads indeed peering into the cannon's mouth? Are we screwed? Or are Steve and Dave simply working on their submissions to the Bulwer-Lytton writing competition?
KO'M: Meh. Honestly, at this point, anyone who says they know what's going on with this continuing global economic unpleasantness is either delusional or lying. As far as I can tell, it has simply become an all-purpose excuse for politicians to laud their own foresight and savvy fiscal management and/or savage the counterproposals made by their rivals, and avoid any questions or controversy related to other matters by claiming that Canadians — or Britons or Americans or whoever — aren't interested in X, but want to see their leaders Focusing On The Economy.
SR: We are indeed screwed not to mention blued and tattooed as the fellas down at the Legion like to say. The U.S. is creating zero jobs, Europe is becoming a giant default zone and … wait for it … there are worrying signs that China could be on the brink of a construction boom bubble. If that baby bursts, world demand plunges. The worst thing is that policy-makers simply don't have a way forward. Cut spending? You deter growth prospects and increase unemployment. More stimulus? Just adds to the debt and there's no guarantee of job creation. My advice: stock up on batteries and fresh water. It is going to get ugly.
AP: In that case, there's nothing for it but to focus on domestic scandals. One week into Parliament and we have Walt Natynczyk and Peter MacKay's free flights of fancy and "Backdoor Bob" Dechert's dangerous liaisons with a Chinese journalist. On a scale of zero to Gerda Munsinger, how serious are any of these?
KO'M: "Mr. Speaker, I really can't understand why the opposition keeps dredging up these unfounded claims and unproven allegations when clearly, the Can
adian people want their elected representatives to Focus On The Economy, but that may be why they voted to give us a strong, stable national majority last May."
See? It's the Swiss Army Knife of defensive parliamentary rhetoric. But is it true? It's hard to say.
On a scale of potential damage, do any of the scandals in this latest batch actually beat out Tony Clement's G20 gazebos, the Guergis/Jaffer affair, Bev Oda's 'Not' work or any number of other potential bombshells that turned out to be little more than damp squibs? It's hard to tell, and given the ease with which the government has been able to guilt the opposition parties into dropping the baton, we may never find out.
SR: Let me start by saying I've always thought Kady looks beautiful when she puffs her cheeks. And I know she feels the same way about me. I distinguish between the three. I don't want to beat up on poor Bob Dechert. He's suffered immeasurable humiliation. But he should never have kept his job. It was an indefensible lack of judgment.
On the planes, I'm more generous. You have to guard against people in government thinking they can use the Challenger fleet as a taxi service. But we also hyperventilate over peanuts. One thing I don't get: When I was in PMO no one could use a government jet without our prior knowledge and sign-off. So I'm surprised Harper is surprised by MacKay and the CDS.
KO'M: We always forget that these things can take time to permeate the political consciousness and conversation outside the corridors of Centre Block.
We're still waiting for the auditor general's final report on the stimulus program, for example — which could reignite the aforementioned furore over the Muskoka Gazeborific Action! Plan, which might actually stick if it came from a neutral — by which I mean non-party-aligned source. As for whether Dechert should have lost his job, I suspect most following the saga have already made up their mind, one way or another, and it would take some sort of actual development — an RCMP/CSIS investigation, a tell-all interview with the woman at the centre of the mystery, whatever — to change anyone's mind.
The Flying Ministerial Circus, on the other hand, strikes me as persistent meme fodder, the sort of thing that will be brought up as part of the ever-lengthening background boiler plate whenever there are fresh revelations of cabinet members behaving like, well, those mythical entitlement-entitled Liberals of days gone by.
AP: Which forces us to raise the question of the elephant in the room: Not to get all Jeffrey Simpson on you, but has anyone noticed that Harper rules ... unchallenged? Is democracy in Canada in as bad shape as our economy?
SR: He's got a majority government, not a sceptre and crown. People should take a deep breath. Nature abhors a government that is getting along too easily. Harper will find, as many majority government prime ministers have before him, that challenges, problems and crises have no trouble finding 24 Sussex. And it's precisely when you begin to think you've got it all under control that it all goes to hell.
KO'M: When you come down to it, it really does seem that it is events, not mathematics, that dictate the ultimate fate of a government. The flame that sparked the sponsorship scandal that brought down the Liberal party was lit during the last majority era, after all, and the lack of a non-confidence vote shortcut to the polls didn't seem to hinder the opposition parties once they took the bit in their collective teeth. I'm not quite ready to declare parliamentary democracy dead.
Kady O'Malley writes about Parliament, politics and all points in between for CBC. You can read her musings on the CBC website.
Scott Reid is a principal in the communications firm Feschuk.Reid and is the co-host of CTV's National Affairs.
Andrew Potter is the Managing Editor of the Ottawa Citizen.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario