I don’t wish to panic any US citizens living near the northern border, but the Canadian government has collapsed. This is only a temporary condition; a new government is expected to be in place in about six weeks. Still, one hopes the immediate prospect of anarchy doesn’t cause widespread panic — or, Heaven forbid, require immediate US military airstrikes to ensure Canadian “democracy” remains intact.
All kidding aside, today’s collapse, prompted by a 156-145 vote of no-confidence in the House of Commons, brings about the fourth Canadian general election in the last seven years. The past three elections (2004, 2006, and 2008) failed to produce a majority in the House for any political party. Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper formed the last two minority governments, and early polling data suggests he has a chance to win a majority this time around.
The three opposition parties teamed up to defeat Harper’s minority government after claiming “that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history.” This refers to an earlier report from a House of Commons committee detailing the government’s failure to answer a number of requests for information about government spending and revenue projections. Among other items, the House wanted the estimated costs of 65 new warplanes, the estimated and final costs of last year’s G-8/G-20 summits; and projections of corporate profits and effective tax rates for the next five years. The Harper government refused to provide all of the requested information, citing “cabinet confidence” — the Canadian equivalent of “executive privilege.” The House Speaker disagreed — citing parliament’s right to receive any information it deems necessary to conduct legislative business — and a majority of the House’s internal procedures committee agreed.
Obviously, the Conservatives disagree. John Baird, the government’s floor leader, defiantly told the House that the contempt report was the product of “an opposition-stacked committee, who used the tyranny of the majority to get the predetermined outcome they wanted.” Baird added that it was the three opposition parties “who demonstrated real contempt for Parliament” by bringing down the government and “forcing an unnecessary election.”
Baird’s complaint about “the tyranny of the majority” emphasizes just how much this was a minority government. As I noted after the 2008 federal election, the “victorious” Conservative candidates only received about 38% of the total vote in an election where only 60% of eligible electors participated. That means 62% of participating voters — and almost 85% of the total Canadian population — never consented to the “tyranny of the minority” represented by Harper and the Conservatives. Yet now Baird complains about being blindsided for his own government’s failure to be held accountable by the majority.
While I have little doubt the opposition parties used the “contempt” issue as a pretext for forcing an early election, it does expose the ongoing problem for all “democratic” governments in the age of open information. “Transparency” is a buzzword associated with all sorts of good-government movements. But it’s something of a libertarian Trojan horse. No government can ever be transparent, for that would rob of it of its very substance. All monopoly government is predicated on the ability to actively mislead and misdirect the majority — the public — away from the truth, whether it’s political truth, economic truth, or personal truth. Even government attempts at transparency are themselves usually little more than misdirection by another name. One can be transparent in such a way as to satisfy most inquisitors while revealing nothing that compromises the basic pillars of the state.
Even the forthcoming Canadian election is a sham. One of three things will likely happen: The Conservatives get a slight majority and reform the government, the Conservatives finish first but are forced to firm the country’s fourth consecutive minority government, or the Conservatives finish first but the three opposition parties form a “coalition” to wrest control of the government. None of these outcomes alter the basic truth: The Canadian political system is heavily fractured between various rent-seeking factions that wish to control the state’s machinery for their own benefit.
Of course, the election will be presented as some great clash of ideas. John Ibbitson of the establishment Globe and Mail is already spinning the contest as a battle of “ideas” pitting the compassionate Liberal Party against the minimalist — and yes, “libertarian” — Harper Conservatives:
Mr. Harper is, in his bones, a libertarian: educated at the University of Calgary, where those minimalist principles are warmly viewed; first elected to Parliament as a Reformer; once the head of the National Citizens’ Coalition. He comes as close as any prime minister ever has to embracing the concept of the night-watchman state.
The term refers to those who believe that the duty of government is to guard the borders, patrol the streets and enforce contracts. In all other matters, the individual should be free to pursue his own ends, unfettered by government restraint. Mr. Harper does not believe those are the only priorities of government, but he does believe they should be its first priorities.
“The first duty of a national government, everywhere and always, is to protect its people, and its territory, from external threats,” he often says.
That is why the Conservatives have spent so much money on rebuilding the military, why they want to acquire the F-35 fighter jets, why they focus so heavily on toughening crime legislation, why they are so keen to eliminate the long-gun registry.
Libertarian readers of this website may be surprised to learn that their philosophy is associated with lavish military spending — especially for a country with a peaceful border and no specific enemies. Harper wouldn’t even qualify as a minarchist/Objectivist; Ibbitson himself notes the Conservatives have increased all types of government spending during its five years in power.
The F-35 issue seems to be a focal point — and not just in Canada. Bob Cox reported today in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that US House Republicans are battling with the Pentagon over the new plane’s development. The Pentagon, backed by noted warmongerer Joe Lieberman, want to award a sole-source contract for the F-35′s engines to Pratt & Whitney. House Republican leaders want the Pentagon to continue considering a rival engine design from General Electric. The prospect of higher costs due to a sole-source contract apparently prompted Canadian legislators to question their government’s commitment to the F-35 in the first place:
[P]olitical opponents of Harper have for months questioned his administration’s plans to buy 65 F-35s beginning as early as 2012. Prodded at least in part by Boeing, they have said a formal competition should have been held to select Canada’s next warplane.
Canada’s F-35 critics received potent new ammunition two weeks ago in a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The report projects that Canada’s costs for buying, maintaining and operating 65 of the aircraft would be $29.3 billion, 66 percent more than the Department of National Defense estimate of $17 billion.
So Harper wants some expensive new toys while making friends with US defense contractors and he wouldn’t answer parliamentary questions about the actual costs. That’s not a libertarian or minimalist government position.
Of course, if the Liberal Party regains power, they’ll just take the money that Harper would have wasted on warplanes and waste it on something to satisfy one of their constituencies. Elections for monopoly governments are not battles of ideas; they’re battles over spoils. Ideally there are only two parties of record, so one side has to “win” a majority and thus manufacture legitimacy. It’s a lot trickier when you have four parties like Canada.
{ 13 comments }
A government collapse does not bring anarchy as the state is still perfectly able to continue sovereignty over the land.
I believe Oliva was being sarcastic…
“The first duty of a national government, everywhere and always, is to protect its people, and its territory, from external threats,” he often says.
Hahahaha, is Ibbitson really trying to spin this as some controversial opinion? What person of any political consequence would disagree that this is the “first duty” or “first principle” of the state?
Jesus, Canadian politics sounds boring. And I live here.
Ibbitson must be the dumbest political pundit in the world if he thinks that Stephen Harper is even slightly libertarian. That was just some rhetorical posing that Harper did years ago when he was in the political wilderness and was trying to establish a brand name for himself among the right-wing crowd. But that’s the press for you, a bunch of mindless hacks with their brains stuck in old, worn intellectual ruts.
I stopped following Canadian politics quite a while ago but I suspect that the timing of this election has nothing to do with any political ideas or shift in public opinion, but because the opposition parties have finally paid off their debts from the last election and secured lines of credit to fund a new campaign.
Not dumb. Corrupt.
“The Pentagon, backed by noted warmongerer Joe Lieberman, want to award a sole-source contract for the F-35′s engines to Pratt & Whitney. House Republican leaders want the Pentagon to continue considering a rival engine design from General Electric.”
That’s misrepresentation. Admiral Mullen declares that the F-35 doesn’t need a second engine design because one is sufficient thank you very much. Porkmasters insist on handing a second contract for the unwanted second engine design to GE. It’s not a “rival” because it’s not even sure that it will end up in operational plane, ever.
There’s still the problem of the engine being sole sourced out. One of the things when I noticed in that stage of my life when I audited government contracts (forgive me, I wasn’t quite libertarian at the time) is that a sole source contract is a one-way ticket to out of control pricing.
Well if anything would make anybody a libertarian, auditing government contracts would do it.
This is the biggest trigger:
One of the rules on the book states that contracts are to be competitive or will require gruelling on-site audit practices. One such contractor attempted to get around this by, get this, calling themselves a subcontractor and letting small, local businesses compete for the contract then subcontracting out to the sole source guy for nearly all the work. The contracting officers apparently had no cause to think this was a problem. When I pointed out that this subcontractor was the one actually doing the work and it wasn’t a competitive bid, the response was, “It’s competitive because they agreed to charge everyone the same price and we got more than one bid, so it’s competitive.”
Wow. A major defense contractor got whatever it wanted just because of that arrangement. The contracting officer had no clue what was going on. The best estimate of what I could pull out of them record-wise showed me they were pulling down 30%+ profits. I did my best to try and put a stop to that nonsense, but I got this talking to about “diplomacy” and “working with the contractors to keep them happy”. The last time I checked, it doesn’t matter if the business is happy or not, the customer happiness is what matters.
Your tax dollars at work, folks.
Parliament was dissolved this morning. This is done by spraying it with sulfuric acid from high pressure hoses. Politicians and bureaucrats are given advance notice so they can coat themselves
with a thick layer of vaseline. After a few minutes the doors are unlocked and they are permitted to escape, none the worse for wear, but with their clothing completely eaten away. Mobs of people line the streets in anticipation, hooting derisively at the tiny size of the honorable members’ boy parts.Yes we do things a bit different up here.
I don’t know, I’ve heard that Hedy Fry has some pretty sizable man parts.
I’ve critiqued most of the political party “ideas” on my blog. They’re all socialists…. except the NDP. They are full fledged communists.
Actually they would probably continue with the purchase after “ensuring” that it was “right for Canadians” make some noise about the CF-18s being old and out of date, and then they would waste additional money.
Comments on this entry are closed.