Con Caucus, PC + Reform, Pushing PM to Obey Parliament?

The CPC was born of the fusion of the red-tory institution-loving Progressive Conservatives and the democracy-loving parliament-empowering Reform Party. Con MPs are not Harper-bots, privately, and the more time goes by, as they remain in Opposition and Harper mucks things up, as with culture cuts during 2008 election, or Harper's post-election provoking the Opposition into almost taking power, or the anthem, etc., and they themselves feel more confident vs. Harper & Giorno, through experience in government, and realising they'll never make cabinet as things stand, or if in cabinet, can never rise further with Harper around, the more they are willing to push back against the PMO. For example, Chong had some interesting remarks today. Some may say, well that's just Chong being Chong. But remember on the abortion motion, caucus opposed Harper and pulled him around to its point of view. Now reflect on Toews', Nicholson's, Jay Hill's and others' demeanour, words & body language on respecting the Speaker's Ruling. Reflect on their profiles - attorney generals from PC tradition, and Reform-born House Leaders are not given to overthrowing parliamentary democracy by nature.

For most of the Con caucus, the thought of having an election in which they are arguing AGAINST parliamentary supremacy is pretty much a sickening possibility, given their origins and onetime principles. Nicholson faithfully did his job as a good lawyer, arguing the government's case to the Speaker, but he did not seem overly put out by the decision, far from it, he was happy to have won on a couple of minor points, but almost relieved to not go down in history as the AG who convinced the Speaker to overthrow Parliamentary Supremacy. Nicholson, like the others, felt bound by duty and loyalty to fight the CPC corner. But now the decision has come out as they expected it would, they probably hope an arrangement can be found, more than anyone. As I said at beginning: "I still don't think Day's incoherence is last word on Con respect for democracy - too incredible." And the day before, the night of the Order's passage, in my rather important post, I concluded like so:

I have only recently defended the Cons from what I considered excessive comparisons to one totalitarianism. I cannot credit that they have indeed become such, or are even considering following that path. It would be the most perverse betrayal of Canadian conservatism. From Loyalists to this? Surely not. If any are so misguided as to even consider such a danger, I urge them to reflect well on the traditions of Canadian conservatism and reconsider. But in the still unlikely case, to me, at least, that they indeed pursue an authoritarian logic, they would be declaring war on Canadian democracy, and all democrats would be obliged to make war against them. I urge them not to. But should they, democrats must be as coherent and harsh in response as needed to defend Canadian democracy. Some, like the FLQ, attack democracy from without and are treated accordingly. Should the Cons follow the path of authoritarianism, they would be destroying democracy from within, and would need to be dealt with as harshly. Don't do it Cons, it would be a disaster for everyone and your names would live in infamy. Do the right, normal & established thing, respect our most basic law, and submit to Parliament. Since the advent of responsible government in 1848, no self-described conservative government has ever done otherwise.

As I mentioned, Casson's and others' announced departures were perhaps not unrelated to the issues at hand. I do not think it impossible that a good number of Con MPs agree with my advice: "And if any Con MPs are listening and still believe in the democratic ideals they once enunciated with such passion, this is the time to speak up in caucus and publicly and stand up for Canadian democracy. Why should your party and your country suffer just to protect a couple of selfish lying tossers?"

Now, I'm not saying they won't go to an election on this if they have to. But I suspect that a fairly solid majority of Con MPs are VERY reticent. They will not engage in any overt public dissent re. the PMO, but really, why should they pay for the possible errors of Harper, MacKay & O'Connor, not to mention Liberals like Graham, Pettigrew & Martin?

Obviously, whatever hurts the Leader and the CPC brand hurts them, and they don't want to give the Opposition parties any victories, so they're playing a double game. On the one hand, they are genuine about finding arrangements to obey the Speaker's Ruling, on the other, this apparent reasonableness might also serve them well as ploy to justify an election if it comes to that, as many have supposed is their real agenda. Far from contradictory, these are concurrent tactics. The CPC ministers & caucus are in some ways, for all sorts of motivations, caught between the PMO and the Opposition. In their view, for the good of the party and themselves, they can't defy the PMO. But on the other hand, they want to find an arrangement without giving the Opposition credit, because running against Parliament in an election would be awful on principle, and dangerous electorally. Sooner or later, Manning and the other OG Reformers would speak out. They're holding off in the hope arrangements are found and they don't have to - it may sound like Yogi Berra but it's true, technically, there's no contempt until there's contempt, ie. until House has formally voted contempt.

Any bluster, like Teneycke's, is designed to improve the CPC bargaining position. The Cons, naturally, want arrangements as favourable to themselves as possible. They are not about to walk into negotiations proclaiming their own complete subservience to the Speaker's Ruling. The NDP & Bloc, with their trade union links (Paquette, Duceppe, etc.), understand this as well. The Liberals do too, but know they must bridge the apparent, rather small gap. The LPC would suffer terribly if it was the only one to join CPC on this. On the other hand, they too would prefer to avoid an election. As would the NDP, given Layton's condition. And even the Bloc, as what do they gain from constant elections but exhaustion and possible defeat, one never knows. And on all sides, there is the pension issue too..."Should an election be called before June 24, 2010, 36 Conservatives (including five cabinet ministers), 16 Blocquistes, 14 Liberals and 8 New Democrats (including leader Jack Layton) would fail to qualify for their pension unless they were reelected."

It may be that the PMO is taking such a hard line because they are genuinely worried about "breaking" confidentiality agreements with other countries, or at least wants to be able to show Canada's partners they did all they could to keep things quiet. But I doubt it: every other country has already made most of this stuff public. It is hard not to think, knowing Bloodworth's daily briefings, that the PMO's concerns are more immediate.

Given the Harper-MacKay-O'Connor axis, and the spot that puts the CPC caucus and cabinet in, it is not impossible that the Cons are forced to overplay their hand and force an election, while being sophists and publicly claiming they were being reasonable and law-abiding. But whatever the PMO's agenda, that is not in the CPC's interest, and CPC MPs and ministers know it. And, as noted, it is also not in the Opposition parties' interests to force and election by seeming completely unreasonable. However, they have been excessively reasonable from the beginning, too much, for my taste, and they seem ready to continue to keep playing in good faith. This makes sense, for while I think an election over the Cons' refusal to accept democracy and obey Parliament would lead to the defeat of the CPC, through either an outright LPC plurality or a LPC-NDP plurality, that would only happen if the CPC were genuinely cheating, it was clearly so, and they would pay the price all campaign. When even the National Post editorial board is telling you to do the right thing, that is one awful narrative to fight with a bad conscience every day for six weeks.

The CPC should call an inquiry, allow the MPCC to do its work, and obey our oldest, most sacred law by demonstrating its respect for Parliament and democracy and turning the documents over to the Afghan committee. The first two are optional, the third is obligatory. On all sides the view is, an election if necessary, but not necessarily an election. The CPC has the most to lose. Its MPs are the most queasy, whence the over-compensation by its PMO-approved third-party attack dogs, trying to set the terms of debate and strengthen their negotiating position. Objectively, the Opposition has a very strong position, if they have the wit to use it. If they play fair but true, all will be well, either the documents are released in a satisfactory manner or the CPC shows itself to completely despicably illegitimate and the Opposition wins the subsequent election. But they must be smart, strong, coordinated as well as demonstrably reasonable, as this post advised.

Opposition, don't forget, many CPCers agree with you. Most are honourable men and women who don't see why their political careers should be in jeopardy to protect bad stupid selfish criminals. So play fair and true, and Parliament's victory will be complete. Either the documents are released, or the CPC is defeated. Simple as that.