Lawrence Martin’s 275-page account of the political life of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is useful reading for those who want to more fully understand how Canadian politics reached the arrangement it is now in, as well as those who wish to speculate more effectively about what the years ahead will involve. While Martin’s account is fairly hostile to Harper, the claims included within it are generally quite focused and backed by evidence. It is definitely written in the style of a journalist: opinionated, but with an awareness that everything will be fact checked. The book is packed with illuminating little details, from the way former Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion first arrived to work in Ottawa by bus to how the election-prompting decision to cut per-vote funding to political parties arrived was conveyed by unexpected BlackBerry message.
At times, Martin is sharply critical of Harper and the decisions of the Harper government. For instance, he objects strongly to the treatment of underage terrorist suspect Omar Khadr, the suppression of information on the torture of detainees in Afghanistan, as well as the fiscal record of the Conservative government. Martin argues that on many different policy files, the Harper government is driven by ideology and actively hostile to evidence. These include minimum sentences, drug policy, the long-form census, and others. The Harper government is also portrayed as obsessed with power for its own sake, rather than for the advancement of a well-articulated philosophy, as well as irrationally hostile to their political adversaries and those who disagree on policy grounds. In addition, the Harper government is portrayed as ignoring Canada’s constitutional conventions on matters like the supremacy of parliament, weakening government overall while strengthening the executive.
At many points, the book touches upon climate change and environmental topics. It probably won’t be too illuminating for people who have been following the file, but the details included strengthen the argument that the Harper government has largely seen climate change as a public relations problem to be managed, rather than a real-world issue of any importance to Canadians.
Written by someone who obviously has a great deal of personal experience with the various recent eras of Canadian politics, Harperland may be an especially worthwhile read for younger citizens who dimly remember the Chretien era that took place when they were children and who do not have any personal basis for comparing the recent Conservative governments to those earlier in Canadian history. The book also provides some personal details and character insights on Harper himself and those closely associated with him. It is interesting to read about how despair often precedes the re-emergence of resolution for him after a setback, or to have some examples of his documented vindictive streak provided. Matin quotes Charlie Angus in describing Harper’s “fundamental flaw” as “a mean streak, a level of viciousness that comes out”.
The book contains many references to the interactions between the political and bureaucratic sides of government, particularly on issues like access to information. There are also detailed accounts of the fates of various ministers and high-level advisors.
At times, Martin’s account is rather passionate – particularly concerning the near-emergence of a Liberal-NDP coalition. Particularly when describing this time period, the author seems to be shouting after-the-fact advice to journalists and the opposition. I haven’t been keeping track of his journalistic contributions elsewhere, so it is possible that he is simply re-asserting claims of his own that he feels have been vindicated by future events.
One thing that annoyed me a bit about the book is Martin’s habit of using ‘the West’ as a synonym for ‘Alberta’. It may look that way to someone who sees Ontario and Quebec as the centre of the political universe, but it looks awfully different from British Columbia.
Harperland does praise some successes of the Conservative government. In the ‘achievement log’ he places “the granting of nation status to the Quebecois, the apology to the Native peoples on residential schools, corporate tax reductions, the softwood lumber accord, and the Haitian earthquake rescue effort”. In the end, however, Martin’s verdict is fairly strongly negative:
As a strongman prime minister, [Harper] was beyond compare. He made previous alleged dictators like Jean Chretien look like welterweights. It was no small wonder that Canadians feared what he might do with a majority government. With that kind of power he could establish a hegemony the likes of which Canadians could not imagine.
Martin will have to provide an update in four years or so.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
This sounds like a very interesting book.
In June our book club read a book “Best Laid Plans” . It is quite a light read, but good. It is also about Ottawa. In particular it deals with the elections and politics in Ottawa. It won the Stephen Leacock Award as it is a humorous book. I can receommend it for political junkies who are looking for something light to read at the beach.
I studied/taught the Khadr case while TAing philosophy of law these past two years. Legally, Harper’s behaviour is disgusting and frightening – he’s acknowledged that the government acted illegally, but maintained the right of the executive to act illegally in matters of foreign affairs – exposing a space where Canada is not a democracy where power is checked by a rule of law, but an absolute monarchy where the word of the chief is above any written law.
However, morally, I see little difference between condoning the torture of Khadr and the support of states which use torture and administrative detention of children as a normal method of “counter-terrorism”. Canada’s unconditional support for Israeli imperialism in the occupied territories is the moral approval of the imprisonment, torture, and killing in the streets of children as young as twelve – sometimes younger.
‘Conservative values are Canadian values.” Thus spoke Stephen Harper in front of 900 hootin’ and hollerin’ supporters at the Calgary Stampede. The Liberal era is basically gone, he claimed, like “disco balls and bell bottoms.” The citizens of this great land have moved into the Tory temple and “Canada is more united than ever.” The Prime Minister was feeling his pancakes, you might say. His declarations got a lot of earthlings from the other side of the spectrum worked up. Safe to say that the 60 per cent of Canadians who didn’t vote Conservative didn’t like their values being described as such. Liberal interim leader Bob Rae was quick to pounce, trashing the Harper effusions as being divisive and reeking of triumphalist arrogance.
The aging Grit had a point of sorts. Wouldn’t Mr. Harper be better advised at this point in time to reach out to all camps rather than display his relentlessly partisan side? It’s that side that prevents him from ever being considered a statesman.
“In the case of the Prime Minister, it’s hard to avoid arrogance when you have just had your lifelong ambition realized. Mr. Harper’s ambition was to see the Liberals replaced by the Conservatives as the national party. This superseded any policy objective. In the election, with the brutal Liberal collapse, it happened.
That creates what might be called a nice problem for the Prime Minister. Having already achieved his principal political mission in life, what does he do now? The vanquishing of the Grits was supposed to take much longer. The Harper strategy, we recall, was one of incrementalism.”
Canada’s opposition
Harper and the void
The death of Jack Layton leaves the opposition leaderless. How the gap is filled may reshape Canadian politics
STATE funerals are a rare honour in Canada, usually restricted to former prime ministers, governors-general and prominent cabinet ministers. Yet on August 27th Jack Layton, leader of the opposition New Democratic Party (NDP), who died of cancer on August 22nd at the age of 61, will be laid to rest in Toronto with all the pomp and solemn ceremony that official Canada can muster. The decision to offer a state funeral, made by Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, and accepted by the Layton family, is a tribute to Mr Layton’s personal appeal and to his achievement in re-drawing Canada’s political map. It is also an acknowledgment of the void he leaves behind.
At the federal election in May Mr Layton led the NDP, a perennial left-of-centre fringe party, to a triumph that in its way was more remarkable than Mr Harper’s winning of a parliamentary majority after five years as a minority prime minister. The NDP took 103 seats (up from 37) in the 308-seat House of Commons, becoming the official opposition and humiliating the Liberal Party and the separatist Bloc Québécois, whose leaders both resigned. So Mr Harper now bestrides Canada’s political stage, bereft of rivals. But it will be what the NDP does next that determines when, and above all how, Mr Harper’s dominance might end.
Canada’s ruling party is remarkably incompetent and only capable of staying in power because their opponents are weak (Liberals) and divided (left split between Libs, NDP, Bloc, and Greens).
If the Canadian public had a choice and there was a credible alternative, Harper would be out in a second. That’s why the Tories are obsessed with controlling the media, and so quick to punish anyone who disagrees with them.
The word “powerful” does not fit comfortably alongside “member of Parliament.” But May is right. All MPs are powerful. She is proof of what even the most disadvantaged MP can do — if they are not muzzled and leashed by a party leader.
But almost every MP is muzzled and leashed. They are told how to vote. They are told what to say. And most obey, because obedience is rewarded and independence punished. Even cabinet ministers have been reduced to ventriloquist’s dummies, mouthing words chosen by the prime minister’s office.
May finds it astonishing. “I worked for (Mulroney-era environment minister) Tom McMillan, who was a very red Tory. I wrote speeches for him. We never checked his speeches with the PMO. He’d get up to answer in Question Period. He didn’t have a script for how to answer. Brian Mulroney was not telling his cabinet members what to say, syllable by syllable,” she says. “I look at Peter Kent and I think my God man you had a great reputation. You were a great journalist. You won the Robert Kennedy Prize for journalism. And you’re going to stand up in the House and read the lines?”
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Column/6771246/story.html