CPC schism not imminent

Scott and Mark both blogged about a Hill Times article that muses a CPC schism following the stepping down of Stephen Harper.

First of all, it's telling of the political climate on the Hill that there are CPC supporters who are actually speaking openly about the day Harper is no longer the leader of the Conservative party. This kind of talk would never have been uttered a few months ago.

Secondly, while there is no clear successor (which is usually the case in political parties with such a cult personality) that does not mean that to two "wings" of the party - former Progressive Conservatives and Reformer/CA - won't play nice. Sure, each side has their candidates - Prentice and MacKay on the PC side, Day and Kenney on the CA bench, but that doesn't mean that any of them will get the job. What about Baird? Strahl? Or an low-profile candidate to come up the middle Stelmach-style?

The Progressive Conservatives were absorbed by the CA in 2003 because MacKay believed that he would never govern the country as a PC given the political climate of the day. The CA seemed to be the only viable political alternative to the Liberals in English Canada and with a little PC support in Atlantic Canada and disgruntled Quebec Liberals abandoning their party, a united front could beat Martin. And they did. Now what?

Harper's next election will probably be his last - he won't hang on as leader of the opposition in a minority Liberal situation, let alone a Liberal majority. Ignatieff could take a lot of Conservative support in Ontario, Quebec and BC back - and this will worry former Progressive Conservatives about their party's image with another Reformer/CA MP at the helm. But will it break the party apart?

I'm not convinced. Maybe the knives will come out during the next CPC leadership race, but as I see it right now no one is going to take a stand and jeopardize their standing as the government. A united face is being painted onto every CPC MP - backbenchers and all. But it will take more than a couple of Rob Anders' and Stockwell Day's to make the PC "wing" (what's left of it in the CPC) feel like they can go it alone and take 20-or-so seats to make a real impact in a Liberal minority situation. PC's will only break off if they think that by doing so they'll be Kingmaker in a Liberal minority and wield power from the opposition.

The problem with Human Rights language

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 Articles covering an array of political and economic rights that everyone on earth is (or ought to be) entitled to, as per the United Nations. Here are a few of them:

• Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery.
• Article 13 (1): Everyone has the right to free movement and residence within the borders of their state.
• Article 17: Everyone has a right to own property.
• Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
• Article 25 (1): Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Some of your rights are pretty fundamental to life: liberty, freedom, adequate health and well-being, vacay-pay. But water? Clean, drinking water? No. That's a human need. Unlike vacation time. That's a right.

Hey. Hey United States, Brazil, and Egypt: try going four days without getting vacation pay. Then try going four days without water. Now which one should be enshrined as a right to all citizens, protected by international law and binding by signatories of the UN UDHR? Surely the answer is obvious.

If we're going to include food, clothing, housing, etc. as a part of an adequate standard of living then water should be there too. How is housing a right but water isn't? Seems to me, they are both rights since they are essential to life. But is that exactly what rights are supposed to protect - life essentials? What is the difference between a human need and right? How can the freedom of association, something not essential to sustaining life, be deemed a right when water is not?

If a billion people were being bought and sold as slaves, we'd be calling it a violation of their human rights. However, the billion people without clean drinking water we'll just describe as going through a human need shortage.

Ministerial bias: Gary Goodyear & Science

I understand the stir among secularists over Science Minister Gary Goodyear's beliefs. Indeed, I take his non-answer to the question, "do you believe in evolution?" and a reference to his faith (Christianity), to reveal a belief in creationism without him actually saying it.

Of course, a flurry of speculation and concern has risen over Goodyear's capability to run the Ministry of Science should he believe in a creation myth over scientific fact. The analogy has been made that we cannot have the head of the Canadian Space Agency believe that the world is flat. True enough. However, I'd like to point out that all Ministers have a bias when they assume a post in cabinet.

Would we be concerned if the Minister of Defense was a veteran? Or if they were had been a member of green peace? What if the Minister of Health was a cancer survivor? Or a smoker?

My point is that religious belief is only one bias out of many that we all implicitly have. Oh, and not having a belief in organized religion (atheism) is a bias that is just as dangerous.

If Goodyear is not going to discriminate what kinds of research get funding from the government, whether it be stem-cell or evolutionary biology, then prodding him to reveal his opinion on human evolution is ridiculous and tantamount to a witch-hunt. If he had said that he did not believe in evolution and he was not a Christian, would the topic have been as controversial?

Let me be clear: I am not a creationist. In fact, I'm not in the business of defending the creationist myth as fact or something that Christians should accept as truth. I think that the creation myth is exactly that: a myth. And while I believe that God is capable of doing anything, including creating the earth in 6 days, there is quite simply overwhelming evidence to the contrary: that the earth, and human life, was a result of an evolutionary process. Which, I believe, is heavenly ordained. Faith and science are not contradictory.

But that is not the position we speculate Gary Goodyear to hold. Which says something more of the Conservative government as a whole rather than his competence as Minister of Science. It sends a message that this government, knowing the bias of their parliamentarians, puts people in ministerial positions whose biases may negatively affect their decision making.

What I want to know is: what made Gary Goodyear the best candidate for Minister of Science given his bias? Was it more a symbol of party patronage? Or are the suspicions of anti-Christian secularists correct, that Goodyear was put in that position to undermine science funding that juxtaposes his religious convictions?

I am not about to make that accusation, but I do wonder how capable is Goodyear at separating his faith-bias from his duties as Minister of Science? All parliamentarians come onto Parliament Hill with inherent bias' that they may not be aware of, but nonetheless, effects their work. It is acknowledgment of this bias that ought to put the public at ease should a Minister be open about setting his bias aside and doing his duty to Canadians.

But that is not what Gary Goodyear did. He dodged the question and did it poorly. Ultimately if every research proposal goes through a fair revue process, then Goodyear's beliefs should not be a matter of public inquiry. (Although, the implicit message Harper has sent the public by putting a creationist in charge of the Ministry is telling - who will go where should he get an uncontested majority government? What will the agenda in the Ministry of Science be then?)

I'm willing to keep an eye on what gets funded and what does not - and I'm sure the public will be doing that too.

Go ahead! Take your ball and go home.

Michael Ignatieff says he won't give the Harper government a blank cheque to get $3 billion in stimulus spending flowing quickly, despite an election threat from the prime minister. Harper warned that opposition refusal to approve creation of the fund would constitute defeat of his minority government.

How is this not surprising? The Liberals, I repeat: the Liberals, want fiscal accountability in parliament on 3 billion dollars in spending, and the Prime Minister says that he'll take us into an election if he doesn't get the cash at his request.

Ignatieff is right: it would be irresponsible for him to simply sign off on 3 billion dollars without an action-plan. Without knowing where the money is going to be spent. Without accountability to Canadians. Harper's response? Let's have an election!

Iganteiff calls this "aggressive partisanship," I call it being an asshole. Harper's lust for a majority government is going to be his downfall. Whether or not Ignatieff can keep up this kind of transparency and high regard for accountability and due-process if he becomes Prime Minister, is another story.

But like the confidence motion Harper so desperately wants, Ignateiff will have to cross that moral bridge when he comes to it.