LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

Ottawa's Constitutional Crisis May Be Good News For Hamilton

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted December 1, 2008)

Many a world leader has been brought down by hubris and arrogance. According to his critics, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has demonstrated more than his share of both qualities with his recent political gambit in the nation's capital.

If the government falls next week, the Conservatives will have no one to blame but their own leader. After wearing calming sweaters during the election; and after making conciliatory statements at Parliament's opening, it was the Prime Minister who reversed this friendlier persona the first substantive chance he got: at the finance minister's economic update.

How Harper managed the nearly impossible feat of uniting the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the strident NDP and the leaderless Liberals will be a discussion topic in many political science classes for years to come. Should his government fall, which is very likely, my prediction is that after the Liberals finally select a leader, it will be the Conservatives who will do the same once the party's sheathed knives emerge looking for scapegoats. They won't have to look far.

As has been pointed out, Harper committed three errors which surprised Hill watchers and irked all opposition parties. The most important of these is his shoulder-shrug at the economic storm clouds gathering over our country. The Flaherty economic 'update' was a complete disaster according to most pundits. Rather than providing a needed stimulus, the finance minister, on the insistence of the PM apparently, provided an un-inspiring 'wait-and-see' approach. As workers across the country are losing their jobs, Flaherty and Harper announced a 'technical' recession for the country. Even conservative observers criticized the update for its lack of direction at a time when economic leadership is being demonstrated elsewhere and needed locally. The second and most galling thing Mr. Harper did, according to informed sources, is to attempt the removal of a funding mechanism brought in by Jean Chretien whereby tax dollars contribute to political parties based on the votes they earn during an election. This was originally done to wean parties away from big corporate and union donations. Mr. Flaherty tried to sell the country on this move by insisting that it was part of a fiscal reduction strategy designed to take away 'free rides' from political parties. This was only half the story, however. What the media has been reporting is that the Conservatives are reputedly the best party at having adapted to the new rules and gain many private dollars for their coffers between elections. They don't need the tax-payer contributions as much as the other parties who have been slower at adapting need that tax money. It is also easier to raise money when in power than when not in power, although, not impossible. I was a Liberal candidate in the last Federal election and had no problems obtaining contributions under the new rules. In fact, I liked these rules far better than I did the confusing municipal rules, but that is a topic for another article.
My sources tell me that it wasn't so much the change in funding proposed by Harper that galled the opposition parties; it was his brazen attempt to kick these democratically elected parties while the PM perceived them to be down. It was the sheer political nastiness that bothered the opposition more than the actions themselves.

The third political mortal sin committed by the PM during the budget update was his return to ideological, neo-conservative roots after he pledged a more co-operative form of government. His determination to deny the right to strike to civil servants was a call-to-arms for any of the NDP, Liberal and Bloc sensibilities. He must have known that. His watering-down of the 'Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value' processes was similar to waving a flag in front of an angered bull for all the social-democratic souls on the opposition benches. The PM must have known that too. Yet he did it any way.

The question to ask, of course is why? Why would Harper, a bright, up-to-now, master-tactician inflict such wounds on his government and party? The answer may be found in a comment Stephane Dion made to me during the election campaign when we were talking about some of Mr. Harper's tactics. M. Dion said, "He can't help himself." In other words, try as he might, some feel the PM is a right wing ideologue and his deep conservative instincts will always get the better of him. I don't know about this, but the evidence certainly seems to be there.

The only time I met Mr. Harper was when he was leader of the opposition the summer before the 2006 election. I was then Mayor and was on my way to the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Hamilton for a meeting. I noticed that the Mr. Harper's tour bus was parked outside the hotel. I knocked on the door and gave a gentleman my Mayor's card and asked if I could meet the leader. At the time, the Conservatives were surging in the polls; the Liberals were deeply ensconced in the Sponsorship scandal and most pundits felt Harper had a shot at winning government. I thought why not meet the man who could become Prime Minister. Mr. Harper actually came out. He and I chatted for about 15 minutes outside the hotel beside his bus. I found him to be charming, intelligent and interested in Hamilton's issues. We talked, among other things, about infrastructure as well as criminal justice issues, especially our downtown half way house. He seemed more interested in criminal justice than infrastructure, telling me, "We'll do something about that." I felt that we, municipal leaders, could work with this man should he ascend to the corner office. How ironic that I would exit the Mayor's chair and end up running against him federally.

So, why would a change in government assist Hamilton? As we know, the talented and decent David Sweet did not get into cabinet. That is too bad. Hamilton is once again shut out from the halls of power and this can only hurt us. If there is a Liberal-NDP coalition; and if the Dippers do get one third of the cabinet positions, as they are asking for, then it stands to reason that one or possibly two of Hamilton's NDP members will make the cut. Who will these people be? My money would be on the hard-working and bright Chris Charlton and the seasoned, if much too loud, David Christopherson. David, after all, has cabinet experience at the provincial level and that will be recognized. And Chris has been given the plum position of deputy finance critic with the NDP's leader-in-waiting, Thomas Mulcair. She would stand a good chance. Left on the sidelines will be the weak sister of our local NDP troika, Wayne Marston, who by his own admission, wasn't going to Ottawa to light any fires. Wayne won't be disappointed; he'll be happy to keep collecting his paycheque as a low-key operative riding the coat-tails of his colleagues. As far as Hamilton is concerned, as the song from Meatloaf says, "Two out of three ain't Bad!" I'd add that even one out of three would not be too bad!

What will this mean for Hamilton should all this really happen? It will mean that once again we will have power where it counts, around the cabinet table. It will mean that because of the Liberal and NDP platforms, focus will be given to environmental protection and Light Rail transit funding. It will mean that manufacturing will be given a boost. It will mean that jobs will be protected and enhanced. These are reasonable expectations to have of our future, potential cabinet minister(s). What it will also mean for them personally, however, is that now these two members cannot just rant about do-nothing governments; the duo will actually have to produce for the city. And, as David found out the last time he was in government, it is easier to rant than it is to deliver. However, our city, should all this come to pass, deserves no less than their best try. And I, for one, would be cheering them on in their efforts.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME