Canadian Political History

Due to the unprecedented nature of the current political situation in Canada I have decided to turn my attention away from my usual international column to comment on Canadian politics. Seeing as I am currently in Sweden, I suppose this article could still be considered an international perspective.

To quickly recap the current state of affairs, the three opposition parties (Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois) have signed off on a agreement that, if passed by the Governor General (the Queen’s representative within Canada) next Monday, would see a coalition government taking over for the only seven week old Conservative government.
This move was sparked by a controversial economic proposal by Harper’s conservatives that according to the Toronto Star “contained little in the way of economic stimulus but proposed to take away the rights of federal workers to strike, clamp down on pay equity and, critically, eliminate public subsidies for political parties.”

Despite a last minute ad-blitz by the Conservative party to try and swing national opinion in their favour, it appears the best the Conservatives can hope for is for Governor General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve parliament and send Canadians back to polls instead of handing power over to the coalition. Jean has said she will not comment on the situation until she discusses things with the Prime Minister and that her door is open once she arrives back in Canada today from an abbreviated ambassadorial trip to Central Europe. Prime-Minister Harper will no doubt be waiting on her door-step asking if he can put a Conservative sign on her lawn.

What I would really like to focus on in this blog however is what became the most prevalent glob of muck in the mud-slinging affair that was the Canadian House of Commons yesterday; that being the suddenly essential Bloc Québécois.

The maybe soon-to-be former Prime Minister Harper and his possible back from the political dead successor Stéphane Dion went back in forth in the House yesterday with Harper accusing Dion of being in bed with the separatists and Dion defending himself saying that he has always believed in a united Canada.

The quote of the day was made however by the long time leader of the separatist Bloc Québécois party, Gilles Duceppe, when, referring to Harper’s past reliance on the Bloc to pass multiple budgets, he said “Let's say he had a lot less fear of the nasty separatists back then.”

One can see both sides of this situation and, in a way, both sides are right. Due to the relative number of seats the Bloc hold, the leader of any minority government has to rely on the Bloc for support in order to accomplish anything. In this sense Harper’s argument is moot because he is essentially saying that no matter what evil doings the ruling party is up to, it is worse to deal with the separatists. This is of course ridiculous, especially coming from a man who has also gone for a whirl with the Québec nationalists. At the same time, most Canadian’s would agree in maintaining a united Canada. The question is, at what point do you draw the line and say better the separatists than this guy?

Judging by the exceptional nature of the current economic situation and the partisan, hackneyed efforts of the Conservative government to address them, the coalition has performed the necessary duty of, regardless of the outcome of this situation, letting the Conservatives know they are not asleep.

I think it is also pertinent to note the irony of the Bloc Québécois in Canadian politics. If one did not know they were a separatist party it would be very easy to see them as the best suited party to lead the country. (Bare with me here…) They have the longest standing leader of any of the political parties in Gilles Duceppe, a man who is both charismatic and more bi-lingual than any of the other leaders. His party backed the Kyoto Accord, uncovered the Liberal sponsorship scandal and opposed the Iraq war. It seems the only reason Canadians have to dislike the Bloc is the fact that they don’t want to be part of Canada. I am not in any way a separatist, but with the way the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government have staggered through their terms, I really wonder if you can blame Québec and the Bloc for thinking Québec might be better off alone.

On a final note, if one were to ignore everything else that has happened, Stephen Harper will show his true colours tonight when he most likely will tell the nation that the best solution is to go back to the polls in order to establish a Conservative majority. If Mr. Harper were truly concerned with the Canadian economy do you really think he would put another $30 million election on the top of his agenda? Mr. Harper, you’ve already had your chance.

Will Grassby

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