On travel plans

I didn't think any CBC commentaries this week would manage to be more painful to read than Larry Zolf's "defence" of Buzz Hargrove. (Shorter Zolf: I like labour, therefore we should ignore everything everybody else involved in labour has to say and put our faith in Buzz Hargrove.) But Tom Velk goes several steps beyond in setting out his road map for the Con government.

Velk starts off with his policy suggestions, which (for a professor who supposedly has some legal training) demonstrate a surprising lack of knowledge of constitutional law even for a Bush/Harper apologist:

Harper should permanently diminish the centralizing and homogenizing power of the PM's office. Let Ottawa shed social power as well as giving up tax dollars. Give provinces and even municipalities authority over "values" legislation concerning marital status, gun ownership and social mores. Gay marriage might be OK in Quebec, but not in Alberta.

Now, there are enough problems with this suggestion from a policy standpoint. But is Velk completely unfamiliar with The Constitution Act, 1867? Last I checked, Canada's Constitution wasn't susceptible to amendment by Parliament alone, and there's no real doubt that federal government has the responsibility for the definition of marriage in particular (s. 91(26)) and "social mores" generally (which have generally been included under the criminal law power, s. 91(27)). Whatever Harper's strategy in power, surely focussing on things which can't be done isn't a winning course of action.

But then, it doesn't take long for Velk to manage to underestimate the well-established powers of the PM's office as well:

(D)on't fear an early election. Stable deals can be made. Not all sovereigntists are socialists. There are enough independent votes in Parliament to pass gun-crime laws, ethics in government rules, and to devise de facto Senate elections, for those provinces that want it.

Now, technically the power to make Senate appointments lies with the Governor General, but it shouldn't be news that it's the Prime Minister who already nominates Senators. So why would Velk see any need for Harper to seek out "independent votes" to enable him to do what's already within his authority?

Sadly, Velk's wishful thinking doesn't stop at the nature of Canada's division of powers. While his "hard followup issues" are apparently supposed to present a set of difficult challenges, they really sound far more like Bushco's fondest wish:

Mr. Harper has already said he will not support the Hamas government unless it renounces terrorism and withdraws its threat to destroy Israel. It's a beginning, but an easy one. Consider some hard followup issues: Benjamin Netanyahu becomes the leader of Israel, eliminates Iran's nuclear equipment, and then looks for help in fighting off increased terror attacks.

Surgically invaded, its atom plants bombed out, Iran cuts oil production, and Canada is asked to meet North American energy needs at below market prices. Terrorists pass through soft Canadian security on their way to a successful attack on a major U.S. target. The Americans threaten border closures if we don't raise our standards.

These and other international challenges will occupy the world's headlines for the next couple of years.

Needless to say, Velk's solution to these "challenges" is for Harper to "co-operate" with the U.S...which in context, apparently means granting a request to have Canada subsidize oil exports to the U.S. while allowing Bush to dictate our defence policy. I'll grant that Velk is right that the opposition parties would be awfully tempted to force an election at that point...but that action would be based purely on a rational response to the lack of any competence in power which Harper would show by following Velk's path, and not on some "short-sighted" political calculation.

In sum, Velk's road map suggests that the big question for some on the right is whether Harper can do no more than run into brick walls, or whether global events will allow him to go off a cliff. We can only hope that those making decisions in Harper's regime have a somewhat more realistic idea about the terrain that we're actually faced with.