When Prime Minister Stephen Harper ignored his own fixed election date and dropped the writ for the October 14, 2008 election, he said it was because parliament had become "dysfunctional.

During the election, the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister repeatedly denied that Canada was facing a raft of economic challenges.

After securing a stronger minority government in the election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promptly announced a six-point plan to deal with the stormy financial waters threatening Canada's economy including:

• a first ministers meeting to discuss the global financial crisis;
• continued work with the other G7 nations to take "appropriate actions" to support Canada's financial system;
• a fall recall of Parliament;
• a meeting with European Union leaders to discuss the economic crisis and strengthen Canada's economic partnership with the European Union;
• attendance at a summit of G-20 finance ministers in Brazil; and,
• a review of departmental spending.

All of this was followed by an “economic update” in November that promised to do away with government financing of political parties and remove the right of public servants to strike. He also promised a small budget surplus.

Last week, the Prime Minister tossed his promise aside when he and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced a $5 billion aid package for the auto industry and began the trek towards a thirty billion deficit.

In addition to his post-election economic promises, Mr. Harper also told supporters his party would continue to push for Senate reform. A couple of weeks ago, his Minister of Democratic Reform, Steven Fletcher boasted that if the Government can’t get its Senate reform package passed, it will move to abolish the chamber.

As Manitoba Senator Sharon Carstairs reminds us, “that's a lot of hot air”, because constitutional change (required to abolish the Senate) requires the approval of seven provinces representing at least fifty percent of the population of Canada.

Earlier this week, just three days before Christmas, the Prime Minister announced his first step on the road to Senate reform. He appointed 18 people to the Senate.

Among his appointments were former television broadcaster Pamela Wallin, 1960s Olympic gold medalist (downhill skier) Nancy Greene-Raine, CTV news personality Mike Duffy (payback for embarrassing Stéphane Dion during the election), former New Brunswick cabinet minister Percy Mockler and New Brunswick lawyer John. D. Wallace. Most of the others are former MLAs and prominent business people.

The 105-member Senate still includes 59 Liberals. "I do not believe it is justified that the Senate continue to be dominated by a party that did not win two consecutive elections." said Mr. Harper.

The Prime Minister’s appointment of senators marks a significant departure from his long-held position that Senate members should be elected. The Tories had named only Quebec lawyer Michael Fortier and Albertan Bert Brown to the Senate since coming to power. Following the January 2006 election, he gave Fortier a seat in the Senate and then appointed him to cabinet, a decision he said was to ensure representation for Montreal. Mr. Fortier resigned from the Senate to run and lose in the October election.

Harper has put the Senate back to the centre of debate after years away from the spotlight. The heyday of western agitation for a new kind of Senate, elected, effective and with an equal number from each province is long past. It faded after Canadians rejected the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, which would have overhauled the Senate, along triple-e lines.

When Harper promised during the election that a Conservative government would create "a new national process for choosing elected senators from each province and territory," the pledge sounded almost nostalgic, a nod to his party's Reform wing.

In early December, Mr. Harper asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until January 26th to avoid a confidence vote and the possibility of defeat by the opposition parties. They criticize Mr. Harper's decision to make Senate appointments when Parliament is prorogued, saying he does not have the confidence of the House.

Desmond Morton, a constitutional scholar and professor emeritus at McGill University, calls the 18 Senate appointments a scandal, given that Harper’s minority government is hanging on by a thread. Morton acknowledges that Mr. Harper has the power to do it but he shouldn’t have the gall.

The Prime Minister’s actions clearly indicate that he doesn’t get it. Canadians are in the midst of a global economic crisis. They are concerned about their jobs, lost savings and declining real estate values, not the makeup of their Senate.

As with his earlier economic update, Mr. Harper has allowed his personal ideology to get in the way of urgent economic considerations. It’s a role of the dice that may prove dire in its consequences.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

Conventional wisdom suggests that Canada’s economic challenges are the exclusive result of external forces originating in the United States and exacerbated by global complicity in the mortgage financing crisis.

Such postulation implies that Canada is an economic island; that it is blameless, that it may only be brushed by the U.S. housing crisis and a global meltdown of financial markets (as often suggested by our national government).

The truth is that the Government of Canada was complicit in behaviors that encouraged the delivery of under-secured, mortgage financing arrangements in this country which in turn have undermined our own financial system.

Canada’s economic crisis is partly self-inflicted. The Government of Canada allowed the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a Crown Corporation of the Government of Canada to insure high-risk mortgages such as forty year financings with zero percent down payments.

It allowed, perhaps encouraged high risk mortgage lenders from the United States like American International Group (AIG), the world's largest insurance company and Triad Guarantee Inc. of Winston-Salem, N.C. to invade the Canadian market with high-risk mortgage products.

Proliferation of high-risk mortgages might well have been mitigated in Canada if Ottawa had been more watchful. The Government’s non-policy exposed home-buyers to the risks of downturns in property values, income loss and circumstances that made it extremely difficult or impossible for them to service personal debt.

When the subprime mortgage crisis was exploding in the United States, a contagion of U.S. style lending practices quietly crossed the border and infected Canada's previously prudent mortgage regime. New mortgage borrowers signed up for an estimated $56 billion of risky 40-year mortgages, more than half of the total mortgages approved by banks, trust companies and other lenders during that time.

Escalation of the Canadian version of subprime mortgage-lending went largely unnoticed until the Conservative government banned the practice in the summer of 2008, after repeated warnings from senior officials and bankers. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty then claimed that the government acted early to get rid of risky mortgages. What he failed to explain was that expansion of zero-down, 40-year mortgages began with measures contained in the first Conservative budget in May of 2006. At the time, Mr. Flaherty announced that his Government was opening up the market to more private insurers.

Earlier this week, on Thursday to be precise, Minister Flaherty announced that he will establish an 11-member economic advisory council to consult with him as he works up his next budget, scheduled for delivery when Parliament resumes in late January.

The council will include prominent Canadians such as: British Columbian businessman, James A. Pattison; former Provincial Finance Minister from British Columbia, Carole Taylor; New Brunswick’s James Irving; and University of Calgary professor Jack Mintz. It’s not clear whether the panel will include anyone from Ontario, Quebec or Newfoundland. More interesting is the fact Mr. Flaherty will not be bound by any recommendations he receives from the council.

In the next few weeks or months, Canadian governments could be staring at an auto industry bailout of between $15-billion (U.S.) and $25-billion, based on some estimates of the cost of keeping the three Detroit-based car makers out of bankruptcy protection in the United States.

An Ontario Manufacturing Council study released this week says 517,000 jobs in Canada would disappear within five years if the American automakers go out of business. That dire prediction could make it easier to sell a multibillion-dollar bailout to Canadian taxpayers.

I’m not an economist or an accountant but I have some experience in business and business management. I understand the difference between profit and loss. One or the other is created by a combination of revenue in and expenses out. If one generates revenue in excess of expenses, a profit is generated. If one spends more than revenue generated, a loss (or deficit) is generated.

In the context of responsible fiscal management and global recession, it’s difficult to understand the Times and Transcript’s advocacy (in its Thursday editorial this week) for New Brunswick tax cuts, even as it highlights the notion of investment in a downtown Metro Centre.

It strikes me that the two positions meet the definition of “oxymoron” i.e. a figure of speech that combines two apparently contradictory terms.

In simple terms, tax cuts reduce government revenue. Spending increases add to the expense column. The combination of reduced revenue and increased expenditure will move the government to deficit (overdraft). In today’s environment, that may not be considered a bad thing. Our kids might think differently.

The notion that now is the time to build a Metro Centre may be valid in terms of economic stimulus and longer term economic growth but it may be quite expensive in terms of near-term payback.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

One of my broadcast colleagues suggested this week that we talk about “leadership” what does it mean, what defines a leader, what enables a leader, what are the visual cues that create elite leadership candidates, what is the role of media in defining leadership, etc.

I thought it was a great idea so I’ll give it a shot.

In my opinion, leadership is about vision and showing the way forward. Leadership is about the ability to influence behavior. Leadership is about the ability to make decisions and to defend those decisions. Leadership is about personality and the ability to communicate. Some lead by force of personality. Others are unable to lead because their vision and ideas are blindsided by their external persona.

Television has become a maker and breaker of leadership potentials. Physical appearance, voice, mannerisms and other influence how we react to leaders.

In recent decades, we’ve had a plethora of good and bad political leaders in Canada. Some have led with the benefit of majority. Others have managed to push forward progressive programs and legislation without the luxury of majority.

War and crisis produces great leaders. Hitler settled on the wrong side of reality and morality but he was able to mobilize a huge population of people to his will. Churchill was able to convince the people of Great Britain that there was hope in defiance.

Kennedy was able to convince Americans that religion was not an impediment to leadership and more importantly, that Americans could lead the world by example, whether it be landing a man on the moon or resolving the issue of racial equality.

Pearson was a great leader moving forward some of the most progressive legislation in Canadian history from a position of minority government. During his five years in office he oversaw introduction of the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, Medicare, the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and the Maple Leaf Flag. And, he did it all without ever winning a majority government.

Pierre Trudeau was a leader who ruled by mystique. He was intellectual, contemptuous of ordinary convention and independent of normal human needs. People loved him or hated him. Rene Levesque was a great leader and Lucien Bouchard was a great leader, not because they represented goals that I would share but because they were able to mobilize great numbers of people to their cause.

Louis Robichaud was a great leader because he was able to turn New Brunswick towards a more inclusive and embracive form of governance. His Equal Opportunity Program popularized taxation and opened the doors of education and healthcare to everyone.

Mulroney was a reaction to John Turner and the perceived end-of-office patronage abuses of the Trudeau era. In the days before Airbus, he was perceived as a strong leader, able to drive the North American Free Trade Agreement on the back of a weakened John Turner.

Chretien followed Mulroney and ruled for years because the conservatives were divided and Canada was wary of the Quebec separatists. He best demonstrated leadership when he announced that Canada would not send troops to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He was also a near-failed leader in the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Paul Martin rode to office as a potential leader. He forfeited his potential by over-reacting to the Quebec sponsorship scandal and vengefully targeting Chretien people who were perceived as close to the scandal.

Barack Obama proved himself a leader by winning both the Democratic primaries and the U.S. presidency but more importantly, by quickly offering a way forward for Americans struck by the circumstance of economic decline.

Stephen Harper had the potential to be a great leader. He had forged the merger of the old Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservatives. Sadly, he could not get beyond his partisan distaste for traditional Canada and his love affair with Bushian conservatism.

Events of the last few weeks are unprecedented in Canadian history. It started with Harper’s “economic update” flawed by financial projections, an attack on government funding of political parties, an attack on the public service’s right to strike and an attack on the notion of pay equity, the idea that women's work is just as valuable as men's.

This week, the Federal Liberal Caucus, supported by riding presidents across Canada declared Michael Ignatieff, interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and potentially, the next Prime Minister of this country. His election as leader is a reaction to Stéphane Dion’s failed leadership, failed in the sense of his ability to communicate and failed in the sense that he was unable to influence those who might have subscribed to his vision of the future.

The next few months should be very interesting.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

There is no circumstance that I can envision that would justify the swearing in of Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister of Canada and Leader of a Coalition Government.

A few days ago, I might have supported that option but his screeching performance in the House of Commons this week and his taped video presentation on Wednesday evening convinced me that he is not the man or the person to reassure Canadians, lead its economic recovery or provide leadership in times of crisis.

There is also no circumstance that I can envision that would justify the sustainability of Stephen Harper’s government and/or his re-election. He has irrevocably tarnished the office of Prime Minister. His rhetoric and the rhetoric of his Cabinet attack-dogs over the last few days and weeks have divided the Country, alienated Quebec and alienated the West. Shame on him!

The only thing that might sustain his government would be his personal resignation from the Office of Prime Minister.

Somehow, Mr. Harper convinced the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until he delivers his Budget on January 26, 2009. Without benefit of the Governor General’s counsel or rationale, I cannot comment on the merits of her decision but I can say that it sets an unfortunate precedent for the future. Next generation prime ministers will be able to avoid “confidence votes” by referring to the Governor General’s 2008 decision.

That said, I have to agree with and support the Governor General’s decision in today’s context because (a) it gives time for our elected politicians to cool out (b) it provides time for the Liberal Party to elect a new leader before Parliament reconvenes January 26th.

Here is why I feel so strongly.

Mr. Harper takes no responsibility for any of the shenanigans of the last few weeks. He is not contrite.

He offers nothing new by way of change or conciliation.

His inflammatory portrait of the Bloc Quebecois as separatists with no right to participate in the affairs of Canada is offensive. The forty nine members of the Bloc were elected by Canadians, albeit residents of Quebec.

We may not like it but they have every right to participate in the affairs of this country until such time as they prove or decide otherwise.

The Coalition is a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The relationship of the Coalition with the Bloc Quebecois is a voting arrangement whereby the Bloc would vote with the Coalition on matters of ‘confidence”. There was no inclusion of the Bloc in the Coalition or in a government that might be formed by the Coalition, notwithstanding the misrepresentations put forward by our Prime Minister.

To provide perspective, it’s useful to recall that in the last election (October 14, 2008) the Conservatives received 37.6% of the vote. The combined vote of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc was 54.4%.

Clearly, the opposition parties had a majority of the vote. The notion that a Liberal/NDP coalition, combined with a voting arrangement with the Bloc is somehow not democratic or legal is false. Under the “Westminster” model of government that Canada has employed for the last 151 years, a governing party requires the confidence of a majority of members in the House of Commons.

Clearly, Mr. Harper lost the confidence of the House over the last few weeks His earlier deferral of a confidence vote and the Governor General’s extended deferral of such vote does not preempt requirement for the vote.

Given the state of economic turbulence in the world and given the fact that the world’s leading economies are in a state of recession or near-recession, the timing of Canada’s political crisis is most unfortunate. Harper created this crisis. His mean-spirited “economic update”, his demonization of the Bloc Quebecois and by extension Quebec is not the stuff of a legitimate prime minister.

The time-out provided by the Governor General is a good thing, not because it provides opportunity for the Government or Stephen Harper to restore itself/himself but because it provides opportunity for the opposition parties to rebuild their own houses, to generate new and meaningful ideas that could spark recovery of the Canadian economy.

In my opinion, there are three things that have to happen in the next seven weeks:
(i) the Liberals have to replace their leader;
(ii) the Liberals have to demonstrate that they have the wherewithal to finance and win an election; and,
(iii) they have to develop a stimulus plan that Canadians can judge against a Conservative “deliverance” plan.

It’s not clear to me whether the Party Constitution of the Liberal Party would permit a leadership convention before January 26th but in the interests of Canada, they better figure out a way to make it happen.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com