A Political All-Star Team

Alex Kovalev is the All-Star MVP (I should get pool points for that), and the East beat the West in a shootout. Don't worry, the West still gets a single point for not losing that badly. This is all in the first All-Star game in Canada in nine years, and on the eve of parliament returning from a hard-earned and extended Christmas break.

With this imminent return to action, talk of last month's highly controversial coalition has been raised again. Smart money would suggest this is simply Liberal posturing to secure a reasonable budget, and prevent an otherwise messy and unappealing political coup. The New Democrats and Bloc, of course, see if differently, and continue to press the issue. Jack Layton is correct when he asserts that it really comes down to Iggy.

And what is Ignatieff to do? He has been notoriously cool to the prospect of forming the coalition, and probably rightly so for the sake of his political future. He was one of the last MPs to sign the proposal when it came out last month, but he has bandied the idea about much more than I expected this past month since his acclamation as Liberal leader. After the generally negative reaction to the proposed coalition; frantic Conservative back-peddling; lies and half-truths; and a prorogation and a new leader, much has changed in a month and a half, most of which would point towards the death of the coalition. However, Ignatieff has kept the door open.

He has done this to keep the Conservatives honest, as all opposition members of parliament must do in a minority government, and especially one playing such high-stakes partisan politics. Einstein defined insanity as ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’, and Ignatieff seems to echo these sentiments, suggesting the ‘country needs another election like it needs a hole in the head.’ An election would result in another long expensive process that would be unlikely to see any significant changes in the House of Commons, and after the public backlash may actually do more harm to the Liberals than any other party. So that would limit the Liberals options should they dislike what they hear from Jim Flaherty tomorrow.
In an interview with CBC this weekend, Jack Layton was asked about the coalition, and he remained staunchly in favour of it. When asked about the reaction it may receive amongst staunch New Democrats opposed to working with the Liberals, he said (paraphrasing) it was okay to like your team (such as Jerry and Elaine), but sometimes it is necessary and positive to create a political All-Star team (I'd give the Liberals the edge with the likes of Frank Mahovlich and Ken Dryden). He went on to say that even if the pending Conservative budget included all of the terms the coalition was looking for, he would be unable to support it because he has lost confidence in the government. Perhaps it’s just me, but it would seem an odd move to vote down a budget, rise to power, and replace it with exactly the same budget. A lot has been made about Jack’s attempt at power, with many believing it to be a self-serving grasp at a dream he is unlikely to realize on his own. With less to lose and less coverage overall, it is difficult to ascertain the direction he and the NDP are headed, but he does seem to remain at least philosophically in favour of a coalition.

So with the (second) Conservative budget dropping tomorrow, we will likely have another few days of constitutional discussion. Michaëlle Jean surely cannot grant another prorogation, so this is Harper’s last chance. If he fails again and relegates his party to opposition status or sends the country into another election, his performance as leader will surely be under review. So with that hanging over him, Ignatieff is smart to keep the coalition door open, with Jack and Jill (err, Gillies) peeking through the crack. There will still be those who argue that they did not vote for a coalition, but I will tell you had I known we were holding Presidential elections I would have voted differently. With an election the equivalent of a hole in the head, an unpopular coalition, Ignatieff’s first big move, and Harper’s political future hanging in the balance, this is sure to lead to an interesting few weeks and months again in Canadian politics. Certainly for his government to go down, this would have to be a thoroughly disagreeable budget, and he wouldn’t make that mistake twice. Would he?

Russel MacDonald

The System Works

The future of this 40th sitting of the Canadian Parliament is unfolding as we speak. The Conservatives unveiled a financial statement last week, believing the leaderless Liberals wouldn't have the gall to defeat it. (This belief was probably justified after the Liberals supported umpteen Conservative motions in the previous sitting, while they HAD a leader.) They were, however, mistaken, as the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois are so miffed they may vote to defeat the 40-day-old government and propose to Governor General Michaëlle Jean that they form a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc. There are always many contentious points in any Conservative statement, but three in particular have raised the ire of the opposition: 1. The statement lacks significant economic stimulus; 2. They would eliminate the $1.95 tax-payer funded subsidy awarded to each party per vote received; 3. They would eliminate the right for federal civil servants to strike through 2011.

So taken-aback by the uproar, the Conservatives have scuttled backwards on the last two points, saying they would instead freeze the subsidy and campaign against it later, and would not disallow civil servants to strike. I suppose they still believe they have provided a significant stimulus... An incredulous John Baird even tried to defend the plan to scrap the subsidy by arguing that as the party that received the most votes, the Conservatives would stand to lose the most. While his math is bang-on, he has, of course, missed the point. While the Conservatives received about one-third of their funding from the subsidy, for the other parties it was a much higher percentage. The effect of losing it would cripple the treasury of smaller parites (Greens, etc.), as well as diminish the incentive to vote for a party you 'knew' wasn't going to win your riding.

But the damage may be too great for the Conservatives to undo. The Liberals and NDP have been meeting all weekend to hammer out details of their coalition proposition, not the least of which would be who would actually be the Prime Minister. If they defeat the government on a confidence vote, they would then need to convince Ms. Jean to allow them to try their hand at running the country. There is precedence for such a decision, dating back to the King-Byng affair of 1926 when Governor General Lord Byng invited Arthur Meighen and his Conservative Party to lead after Liberal Mackenzie King lost the confidence of the house, and Meighen did so gamely for almost three months, before the voters returned King for his second of three turns.

Critics and Conservatives will peg this option as undemocratic, but they would be wrong. Everyone currently sitting as an MP has been elected (remember? It was last month). Since everyone voted for the party they most wanted to win anyways, then this outcome would have had no bearing on their vote. What we would be seeing here is democracy actually working for the majority of Canadians. The reality of a divided left means that only 37.65% actually voted for Stephen Harper. (Since only 59% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots, only 22% of Canadians actually voted for this guy.) It is fair to assume that the majority of the remaining 62% of the votes would have gone to the Liberals, NDP, or Greens before the Conservatives, so such a coalition would actually be representing the views of the majority. (I am sure there are some Liberal voters who would vote Conservative before ever voting for the pinkos, and some Québécers who would never vote for the Bloc.) The minority Conservatives, however, should not be allowed to run rampant their agenda through fearmongering of another election and the misguided belief in Liberal docility.

Most Canadians will agree that they do not want another election. Most Canadians will agree that they do not support Harper or his right-wing agenda. There is historical precedence and constitutional support for coalition governments. Therefore, it seems like a viable option, at least for a little while. Party politics, to a certain degree, is a bastardization of parliamentary government anyways, so parties being forced to work together may be a welcome respite. Many of the problems with minority governments will still exist, and the federal government would only survive with the support of a party whose main purpose is the destruction of that federal government, but such a coalition would still be a positive step for Canada and democracy. The NDP would be afforded 25% of the Cabinet positions, and the Bloc would not receive any, and the Prime Minister would still likely be a member of the Liberal Party. Stéphane Dion may be afforded his day in the sun after all (much to the chagrin of Edward Blake), or perhaps one of Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, or Dominic LeBlanc would hastily be named. My choice may even be Jack Layton, as such a parliament would be destined to be short lived, he is a strong leader of his party, and he would be kept in check by the majority (of the minority) Liberals. Ignatieff seems the inevitable choice in a few years anyways, so why not give Jack a turn.

The outcome of all of this is yet to be seen (this blog will likely be out of date very quickly), but these rumblings represent a chance for democracy in action. The system, apparently, works.

RM