Read a Pacific Northwest, liberal perspective on world, national, and local politics. From majestic Redmond, Washington - the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Canadian opposition parties announce deal to oust Conservatives from power

Some surprising news broke yesterday from north of the border: Three of Canada's opposition parties - the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, and New Democrats (NDP) - have struck a deal to form a coalition government that would oust Canada's ruling Conservative Party and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, its leader, from power.

The opposition says that the economy is in trouble and Harper's government (we Americans would say his administration) hasn't stopped things from getting worse.

Because Canada has a parliamentary system, ousting Harper from power simply requires a vote of no confidence from the members of the newly-allied opposition parties, which collectively form a majority.

If the deal announced yesterday holds and Harper loses the vote, Canada's Governor General would either ask the opposition parties to form a government or call an unscheduled, early election (known as a "snap poll"). News reports from the BBC and the Globe and Mail have suggested that the Governor General is unlikely to call a snap poll because Canada held federal elections just a few weeks ago.

The BBC has more details on the deal:
The opposition Liberals and New Democrats signed a formal agreement to form a coalition that would govern until 30 June 2010 and have the tacit support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

The new prime minister would be the Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, who led his party to a serious defeat in the 14 October polls and had already announced plans to step down next May.

The opposition parties say they were spurred to action by the failure of the government to deal with the financial crisis and boost the country's economy, and that they are set to introduce a stimulus package.
The Conservatives are already trying to torch the deal by launching an ad campaign protesting the agreement as undemocratic.

Meanwhile, the Green Party's Leader, Elizabeth May, is endorsing the deal and entering the public relations battle by announcing her intent to create a website that would encourage Canadians to support the proposed coalition government.

On her blog yesterday evening, Ms. May detailed what the Conservatives are trying to do to avoid being ousted from power.
We have from now until December 8th to make it clear that the majority of Canadians want Mr. Harper to leave 24 Sussex Drive. We may need to make the case to the Governor General that Mr. Harper must not be allowed to cling to power by prorogation. He delayed the confidence motions by one week until December 8th in order to throw all the Conservative fire power - back-tracking, attack ads, illegal tape recording of phone calls, spinning on steroids -- at forcing the Opposition Parties to blink. If it doesn't work, he is threatening to shut down the House to buy more time. He may seek to dissolve the House (prorogation).
Here's a quick summary of the balance of power in the House:
The Liberals, NDP and Bloc together outnumber the Tories in the Commons. The Liberals have 77 seats, the New Democrats 37 and the Bloc 49, giving them 163 votes versus the Conservatives' 143.
As Elizabeth explained in the excerpt above, the Conservatives have delayed the vote on the confidence motions until December 8th at the earliest. That's next Monday. If the vote occurs then and goes against Harper, Canada will either hold new elections or the coalition government will assume power.

This is all rather fascinating to watch.

We at NPI extend our best wishes to the opposition parties and hope they succeed in sweeping Harper and his Conservatives out of power.

Comments:

Blogger Patrick Ross said...

You're overlooking two key issues that complicate this matter:

First off, one of the Coalition members, the Bloc Quebecois, is a separatist party. Furthermore, they're a separatist party with a known racial ideology -- although a great number of Canadians are too polite to call it what it is.

As such, there is no guarantee that this Coalition government would remain stable. Indeed, there's little to suggest that it even could.

Second, one has to question the legitimacy of such a government. The individual who would become Prime Minister if this coalition comes to power is doing so under fundamentally dishonest means -- insisting that he's doing so because of a lack of an economic stimulus package after he already voted for a Throne Speech containing no promise of an immediate stimulus package.

No. Stephane Dion is actually doing this in defense of his party's $1.97 per vote subsidy that the government had proposed cutting.

Which is an awfully curious priority during a time of recession.

Furthermore, the presence of an avowed separatist party within this Coalition further undermines the legitimacy of this government. There are very few things less legitimate than a governing coalition in which one of the members wants to separate one of the country's largest regions.

If cross-border partisan parochialism is all that really matters to you, a person could almost respect that. (Almost.) But at least take a good look at what you're advocating for someone else's country before you jump head-long into it.

December 2, 2008 3:09 PM  
Blogger Politicol News Staff said...

Glad you covered this story as Canadians are subject to a Prime Minister who is playing dictator and cutting off political funds for his opposition parties. Harper brings this on himself as he chose this stance to block his opponents, and in deference to your other commentator the separtist are playing a supportive role, they will not govern the country. He is fear mongering just like the Bush look-a-like Stephen Harper. It is not dishonest for the opposition to have no faith and give no support to the Conservative minority govt., it is totally legal and within the constitution. Harper has so divided this country that allowing him to continue would be a disaster. Harper had no economic policy when dozens of other world countries are have stimulus packages to help their countries -Harper like Bush does not believe in helping the common people, only the rich oil companies that donate to his campaign funds, and he has plenty of money. As a dictator Harper also destroys the pay equity laws for equal pay for women, and minorities, he must really hate women, and non-whites.
I totally support a coalition of New Democrats and Liberals and the Bloc because they do have an economic plan, which includes the loss of jobs from the big 3 automakers who will cut jobs in Canada first, then their own.
The world is in an economic crisis, and we need positive leadership, not a dictator who's first order of business is to do away with women's pay equality and his opposition parties. Obama will not do that when he gets into office, because he is an intelligent leader, who knows that people are suffering, we wish we had an Obama President in Canada, but we have a Bush look-a-like and we can't afford to sit by and watch him destroy Canada.
This is the truth, not the Conservative lies you are hearing in the press. All of the world is watching this man self destruct over his own arrogant, stupidity and greed which is only for hanging onto power.

December 2, 2008 4:29 PM  
Blogger lph said...

Prime Minister Harper's government was duly elected just six weeks ago. Stephane Dion, Liberal party leader, would be the new prime minister. He announced his resignation as party leader after the recent election due to his party's worst electoral showing in over 140 years of existence. He would be replaced as prime minister after a party convention in May. This would ensure 3 different prime ministers in 6 months. This is a great way to ensure stability in uncertain economic times! Mr. Dion has abandoned one of the main planks of his campaign platform - a carbon tax. His coalition partner, leader of the socialist New Democratic Party has abandoned his promise to reverse Conservative government tax cuts. Their main promise now is to spend 30 billion dollars on unspecified stimulus programs. Much of this defïcit-based money would undoubtedly be used in payoffs to union cronies and Quebec separatists. Which brings us to the third member of this unholy alliance. The Bloc Quebecois, dedicated to the dysfunctionality and eventual demise of the Canadian federation, would hold the balance of power. Their main goal promises to be draining the federal treasury while Quebec remains part of the country. The government has already reversed two of the main proposals on which the opposition has based their planned coalition: plans to eliminate taxpayer subsidies of political parties and a moratorium on civil service strikes. But the opposition presses on in a legal but unprecedented and decidely undemocratic threat to usurp power "in the interests of the country." Their ostensible reason is the government's supposed refusal to stimulate the economy. The government has promised a new budget in Januray. This ragtag collection of disparate characters could hardly produce an intelligible budget sooner. In a situation so crucial to Canada's future, it is highly irresponsible of this website to advocate the removal of a foreign government supported by a plurality of its citizens. Ironic that you call yourselves "progressive.

December 2, 2008 6:24 PM  
Blogger Politicol News Staff said...

Bla bla bla...stop hiding behind the flag, if you Cons cared about canada you would be concentrating on the economy instead of trying to squelch your rivals.

Harper has lost all credibility and no amount of PR that your money buys, will change that.
This is a revolution for democracy, and it will succeed, it is a Parliamentary system, get used to it...its worked for hundreds of years.

December 2, 2008 7:05 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

Sounds an awful lot like the big bailout package the US recently ran through -- a lot of money set to be spent with little or no accountability.

December 2, 2008 7:17 PM  
Blogger rob said...

Glad you picked this story up. I would like to try and give some context to how we have ended up in this mess and how we might get ourselves out. However, I would like first to address the issue of the Bloc.

Indeed, the Bloc is a separatist party, there is no question. However, the reality is that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have relied on the Bloc in many confidence issues before. Their participation in the continuation of government confidence has been a hallmark of both parties in recent years. It must also be made clear that the sentiment in Quebec towards separation is not currently very strong. Provincially the Liberals have held power in Quebec for some time and are expected to win a majority in the upcoming election. In fact, the provincial wing of the Bloc would not even bring the question of succession to a referendum were they unexpectedly to emerge victorious in this election. This is an excellent opportunity for a national government to co-opt Quebeckers into a position of greater belief in the benefit of remaining in the union. It is not a time to go shouting, as the Finance minister has done, that the elected leader of this region is "the devil." What sense does it make to purposely draw ourselves into another unity crisis. Overall, the current support for the Bloc is not drawn along the question of separation, but is rather drawn from remnant anger of their betrayal in the Sponsorship Scandal and directed towards Liberals. It is also anger at mean spirited cuts to cultural funding by the Conservatives in the last election. If Mr Harper had been more tactful in dealing with their concerns during the last campaign, perhaps he might have them as a prop for his government today. This is a time to engage Quebec on issues which interest them not a time to alienate them with empty rhetoric.

With regard to how we ended up in this mess, it must be made clear that the Conservative Party has shot itself in the foot. The economic stimulus package was nothing more than a power grab which has instead transformed itself into an entirely unexpected and unprecedented power grab by the opposition.

The Liberals are broke and struggling to find leadership in the aftermath of the Sponsorship scandal while simultaneously undergoing multiple electoral defeats. They have struggled through several leaders in quick succession and indeed find themselves headed to convention in May to appoint a new one. This has created an erosion of the campaign financing capacity of the Liberal party because internal divisions have caused the party to look inwards. The money which is flowing into the party has been earmarked in support of one leadership candidate or another and donors are beginning to run short of cash and patience. As a party they have begun to depend more and more on election financing from the government because their donation network has crumbled in the wake of this massive restructuring.

In Canada, election finance rules were recently changed so that all personal, private and union campaign donations were put under strict limits. These donations were replaced with a system whereby every vote is worth $1.95 to the party it is cast for. In the last election this amounted to aproximately 30 million dollars. Their portion of this money is the means by which the Liberal party will be able to launch its next election campaign. To eliminate this money is to condemn the Liberals to lose the next election and it is in this context that their radical response must be considered.

At a time of economic crisis the Conservatives decided to unveil their stimulus as a most partisan and antidemocratic jab. At a time when the G20 suggests a targeted stimulus of around 2% GDP the government of Canada suggests cutting the political funding of its opponents in the order of 30 million. On top of that, they also target pay equity for women and remove the right to strike for federal civil servants. None of these ideologically driven cuts come close to comprising a stimulus in the order of magnitude suggested by the G20. This package was designed above all to eliminate the political opponents of the Conservative party by removing the source of their rivals political financing. Furthermore, it was done in a humiliating way, coming six weeks after a federal election in which the Conservative party had suggested and then seemed to adopt a more conciliatory approach to negotiating their agenda through parliament, what we call 'the house'. In a recent and surprising change of heart they have gambled that broke and defeated, the opposition parties would do as they always have before, lay down and allow the bill to pass.

What a miscalculation.

In Canada, the government of the day depends on the confidence of the house. Which means, the Prime Minister needs to garner a majority of the votes in the house on certain issues, usually of a budgetary nature, but the Prime Minister can declare any vote to be one of confidence. In this case, the Prime Minister does not currently control the majority of votes in the house and looks set to lose the confidence of the house once a vote of confidence reaches the floor. In the event that a Prime Minister should lose a vote of confidence, they must then go to the Governor General and ask for the dissolution of parliament.

The Governor General is our head of state, the representative of the Queen, and technically has veto control over government though the role is understood as ceremonial. However, the Governor General does hold power on constitutional issues. In particular, if a government falls they can decide either to call an election or to querry the parliament to see if another leader can attain the confidence of the house. This has happened once in our history, ninety years ago and there is a real possibility that it may happen again today.

The three parties which form the opposition currently control more votes than the ruling Conservatives. This has been common through much of the recent past, but tensions between parties were such that the potential to cooperate was politically impossible. For most Canadians it is unimaginable that the Bloc and Liberal parties could unite, for some it could be described as 'unholy' and hence references to 'the devil' begin to emerge in populist rhetoric. Add the 'socialist' NDP and you really do have what seem to be strange bedfellows. However, if we strip away some of the superficial differences between the parties it is evident that there is more difference within the parties than between them. They have much common ground from which they can cooperate and govern and there is a strong possibility that these three parties would be able to maintain confidence in a Prime Minister. The Governor General will be forced to take this into serious consideration when deciding between an election and the formation of a new government.

The idea that a Prime Minister who comes to power without an election is somehow illegitimate is incorrect and dangerous. In our system of democracy we do not directly vote for the leader of our government. We elect a member of a party and the leader of the party which controls the majority of the votes is the Prime Minister. True, this is an unprecedented transfer of this office, but it is constitutionally and procedurally correct. We all knew the rules of the game before we started playing, this is just one of those rules which doesn't get used very often. The problem as I remember it from my childhood is that often once invoked, these types of rules have the effect of ending the game.

The dangerously inflated rhetoric, finger pointing and shouting has already begun and the regionalism which is beginning to divide this country is something we need to begin to examine in a serious way. How is it that people from all areas of the federation feel alienated from their government. People from every region in this country will tell you that they are sick of Ottawa dictating the terms of their lives. Our response has been to try and eliminate government not try to change the nature of it. How else can Albertans and Ontarians blame each other while at the same time feel as if they both stand outside of decisions made in Ottawa. Perhaps instead of imagining ourselves as enemies in a zero sum contest for the financial love of Ottawa, it is time to ask Ottawa to listen far more carefully to the concerns of its regions. Each of us has constructed the other as the enemy, but the sad truth is that none of us is winning. Until we learn to talk to each other and not at each other we will continue to struggle without positive results.

In this regard I do not think this current coalition represents an ideal way forwards. What I do hope is that it creates an opening for the ideals of a far more participatory type of democracy in Canada, one in which coalitions are seen as a legitimate means of attaining political power. Legitimacy as attained through thoughtful and sustained discussion.

December 2, 2008 9:43 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

"Indeed, the Bloc is a separatist party, there is no question. However, the reality is that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have relied on the Bloc in many confidence issues before."

This is true, but they have never relied on the Bloc on any kind of formalized basis, as the Liberals and NDP seem set to do.

"It must also be made clear that the sentiment in Quebec towards separation is not currently very strong."

And the goal of the Bloc Quebecois is to reverse that.

"This is an excellent opportunity for a national government to co-opt Quebeckers into a position of greater belief in the benefit of remaining in the union. It is not a time to go shouting, as the Finance minister has done, that the elected leader of this region is "the devil." What sense does it make to purposely draw ourselves into another unity crisis."

Please. This coalition can only lead to a unity crisis. The Bloc will not have it any other way.

Do you really mean to tell me that we can trust Stephane Dion to stand by legislation like the Clarity Act while he relies on the Bloc Quebecois in order to remain in power?

It's incredibly naive to think that Gilles Duceppe isn't about to hold the Clarity Act over the fire in order to preserve his government.

"This is a time to engage Quebec on issues which interest them not a time to alienate them with empty rhetoric."

Do you mean to tell me that you honestly believe that the Liberal party cavorting with a separatist party isn't going to alienate federalist Quebeckers?

Furthermore, you simply cannot credibly accuse the Conservatives of alienating separatist Quebeckers. For one thing, they're already alienated. And the goal of the BQ is to render that alienation permanent!

"At a time of economic crisis the Conservatives decided to unveil their stimulus as a most partisan and antidemocratic jab. At a time when the G20 suggests a targeted stimulus of around 2% GDP the government of Canada suggests cutting the political funding of its opponents in the order of 30 million. On top of that, they also target pay equity for women and remove the right to strike for federal civil servants. None of these ideologically driven cuts come close to comprising a stimulus in the order of magnitude suggested by the G20. This package was designed above all to eliminate the political opponents of the Conservative party by removing the source of their rivals political financing. Furthermore, it was done in a humiliating way, coming six weeks after a federal election in which the Conservative party had suggested and then seemed to adopt a more conciliatory approach to negotiating their agenda through parliament, what we call 'the house'. In a recent and surprising change of heart they have gambled that broke and defeated, the opposition parties would do as they always have before, lay down and allow the bill to pass."

You can see it this way if you wish, and I certainly don't epect to be able to disabuse you of this opinion.

But this statement is wrought with its own issues.

For one thing, the economic stimulus packages being called for by the G20 are far from guaranteed to succeed. As a matter of fact, these programs have tended to fail in the post-70s period.

Secondly, if being forced to raise their own funds will "destroy" Canada's opposition parties than they frankly don't deserve to survive.

You can call that "undemocratic" if you like. Those of us living in the real world call it tough luck, but call it life.

"In Canada, election finance rules were recently changed so that all personal, private and union campaign donations were put under strict limits. These donations were replaced with a system whereby every vote is worth $1.95 to the party it is cast for. In the last election this amounted to aproximately 30 million dollars. Their portion of this money is the means by which the Liberal party will be able to launch its next election campaign. To eliminate this money is to condemn the Liberals to lose the next election and it is in this context that their radical response must be considered."

Or condemn the Liberals to raise their own funds.

Frankly, any party that expects to govern -- especially a party like the Liberals, that seems to expect to govern on a permanent basis -- should be expected to raise its own funds.

To insist that these partisan subsidies must be maintained at a time of fiscal crisis demonstrates a very curious set of priorities.

"However, if we strip away some of the superficial differences between the parties it is evident that there is more difference within the parties than between them."

A great many Canadians didn't know that wanting to keep the country together and wanting to tear the country apart are "superficial" differences.

"The idea that a Prime Minister who comes to power without an election is somehow illegitimate is incorrect and dangerous."

Not so at all. Frankly, Canadians choose the Prime Minister through the process of electing their MPs.

Dion isn't being made Prime Minister by the Canadian electorate -- he's being named Prime Minister via a backroom deal between the Liberals, NDP and BQ.

December 3, 2008 11:05 PM  
Blogger rob said...

Patrick, let us be clear. The formalized agreement between the parties is such. The coalition is made of the Liberals and NDP. The Liberals stand to gain 18 cabinet seats and the NDP will have 6. The Bloc has formally agreed to vote on matters of confidence motions like budgets and Throne speeches - a 'speech from the throne' is a document read by the Governor General to the house which lays out the agenda of the government of the day in the coming session - they are not formally part of the coalition, but will support it.

I appeal for you to remember your history. For instance, it was revealed in the house Tuesday that in 2005 Stephen Harper, then leader of the opposition, sought an agreement with the Bloc to form a new government. In addition, yesterday it was revealed by the leader of the Bloc that the former leader of the Conservatives, Stockwell Day, tried to engage the Bloc in a formal coalition in 2000. We can go on all day and back and forth with this type of finger pointing, but it clouds a greater political reality. This is a crisis of our constitution with regards to the way it distributes regional political power and the access of federal funds.

I will begin by reviewing recent political history in the formation of the Bloc and the present incarnation of the Conservative party before examining how this relates to a broader problem of the distribution of power in our country.

The Conservative party has been part of the Canadian political tradition for longer than we have been a country. They have undergone a number of recent transitions though. At the end of the 1980's Canadians had become fed up with what was then called the Progressive Conservative party which then faced heavy losses at the polls. They went from 151 to 2 seats in the 1993 federal election at the expense of the Liberal party which gained a powerful majority. At the same time, Albertans were being organized by a protest party called the Reform party. Reform was a socially and fiscally conservative party formed in 1987 which used ideological politics and populist rhetoric against central Canada to build a power base. The ideological wing of the Reform party and the progressive wing of the Progressive Conservatives would bash each others heads in over the next few elections. In 2000, the Reform party recognized that it could not go national and would languish in opposition. So, it redesigned itself in a way that would allow former Progressive Conservatives to join. To this end they became the Alliance Party in 2000. In 2003, what remained of the Progressive Conservatives and the more powerful Canadian Alliance then became the Conservative Party of Canada, electing Stephen Harper its leader.

The period 1993 to 2003 was one of strong Liberal Majority in which the focus of the government was trying to keep Quebec satisfied, and this is why

The roots of the problem go back to colonial times when English and French soldiers fought each other from wooden forts and I do not have the deep historic knowledge to give this proper attention. However, in more recent times the antagonism was brought to the surface in a constitutional scuffle.

The federal Bloc Quebecois party was not formed very long ago, only in 1990. It was born of concerns by Quebec members of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties to defend the Meech Lake Accord. The Accord was an effort to reconfigure the constitution and itself negotiated by a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister. Its signing would have afforded a special constitutional status to Quebec. They were to be called a 'distinct society' and be given a constitutional veto, among other things. The only party to oppose this arrangement - not to say that there was not deep disagreement within all the parties - was the Reform party. The Reform party was just as concerned about the treatment of Albertans by the federal government as the Bloc was about the treatment of Quebec. They felt, legitimately I would argue, that the concerns of Alberta were always ignored once the French started asking for things. The difference is that 350 years of antagonism between French and English Canada had led governments to easily recognize how and why Quebeckers were annoyed. It also meant that Quebeckers could be easily organized politically in ways which echo a long history of defending the 'French way of life.' The federal government has never really listened to the west and did not understand the roots of their discontent because there was not a long history of violent confrontation with them. The west was expected to simply to fall into line and follow central Canada. On the other hand, the rising oil wealth of Alberta convinced them, legitimately I believe, that they deserved more of a voice in Ottawa. However, the leader of the Reform party did not help to break down this communication barrier as his populist leadership depended on populist rhetoric to maintain itself.

Very simply, central Canada did not understand what Reform was talking about, they were focused only on Quebec. In trying to negotiate a new constitutional power sharing agreement with the province of Quebec, the failure of Meech would lead to the establishment of the Bloc and come mostly at the expense of the Progressive Conservatives. The battle the Bloc would wage with Ottawa in the years to follow would continue to occupy the imagination of a Liberal government and overshadow the concerns of western Canada.

English speaking federal governments have a long history of tough battles with French speaking Quebec, but the 1995 referendum in Quebec would be their biggest. In 1995 the Bloc led a campaign inside Quebec in pursuit of sovereignty, their goal was to separate Quebec from Canada and become a nation. The vote was won by the federalists, but only by the slimmest of margins, 50.58%. It must be said that the American Army had massed forces along the southern border of Quebec and Canadian forces were also poised to retake Quebec should the federalists have lost, the result was close, too close and very real threat to Canada as a federation. Now, westerners tend to construe the relationship between 'lefty liberals' and the Bloc as one of shoveling money into a black hole and to some degree this is an accurate portrayal, but it lacks any context. I would defy you to imagine that under such severe conditions and in the face of the potential consequence that any panicked government of any political stripe would not have done the same. For their part, the Bloc has been only too happy to use their position to suck dollars and favor out of Ottawa. And frankly, good for them. They have brilliantly exploited this tactic to make positive gains for Quebec, which it should also be noted, has historically suffered to some degree under the English speaking governments of central Canada.

There is a strong parallel in the way that Albertans and Quebeckers both feel that they have suffered from alienation or interference at the hands of Ottawa. I would argue a common constitutional issue is the cause for both cases. There is plenty of blame to spread around and fingers to point, but he reality is that both the Bloc and todays incarnation of the Conservative party were born out of similar circumstances. Their quarrel is of a constitutional nature and involves the way in which Ottawa addresses the concerns of its citizens by region.

Historically, this problem stems from the fact that the majority of people who have lived in Canada resided in Quebec and Ontario, which means these two provinces come close to occupying half the seats in the house. Guess who's concerns they continually found most relevant, certainly not the west's. Traditionally, power has been passed between the Liberals and Conservatives, but the base of their power had, until around 1987, shifted back and forth inside of Ontario and Quebec. After this date the Bloc claimed Quebec in its own interest and Reform claimed Alberta in its own interest, while the Liberals cobbled together a string of national victories with votes from Ontario and pieces of other regions. 12 years in power demanded, as is normal in functioning democracies, a cleaning of Liberals from the house.
I will not defend things they have done, only agree that they were not always in the interest of Canada and certainly often appeared to be against the interests of Alberta. The effect of this cleansing has been for a once regional party to claim power through a minority government.

The anger within the current Conservative party towards the Liberal treatment of Quebec during the dangerous period of the 1990's has clouded their judgement of what is best for Canada as a federalist state today. I would give Patrick's rhetoric as a small example. The Conservatives have governed over central Canada with as much mean spirited ideology as the Liberals formerly governed over them and with no small measure of smug satisfaction. Patrick, you cannot tell me that in a state with a GDP of 1 4 Trillion dollars, that the removal of 30 Million for political financing amounts to nothing but an open declaration of war against the opposition and has nothing to do with balancing the budget. See, the real problem facing political parties now is that the traditional balance of political power in Canada has been fundamentally disrupted and the construction of majority governments has been usurped by four strongly regional power bases, the Bloc in Quebec, the Conservatives in the west and while the Liberals continue to occupy urban centers and other fragments of the country, the NDP has begun to take the north. The party which inherits the next parliament must find a way to overcome this division in order to maintain the confidence of the house through a majority of the votes. The Conservative answer was to eliminate the competition. The coalition answer has become to co-opt your former enemy.

I fully agree that the Bloc will twist the arm of the Liberal led coalition government to the point of breaking, but they have always maintained that they are after what is in the best interests of Quebec and if Canada can provide that great, otherwise they will leave. Their strategy is not necessarily separation, it is to ensure that their constituents are happy. They have proved successful at this and good for them. Their strategy has worked and it is the success of their strategy more that its substance which infuriates you. The Bloc is only too happy to continue to muse about leaving the federation and then stick out their hands if that strategy will bring federal dollars into Quebec.

In fact, what I am arguing for is more of this type of strategy, a series of stronger regional parties which argue for what is best for their particular region in the context of a larger federation of Canada and through cooperative participation in the formation of politically relevant coalitions. Let me be clear, I fully support hearing the opinions of Albertans in Ottawa, but no less than I support hearing opinions from Nova Scotia or Nunavut. Also, I do not want to legitimize separation as political blackmail. I think we need to understand the Bloc as using this in desperation as a means to secure power in a fundamentally different political environment than today. Reform and the Bloc represented the leading edge of this realignment and their rhetoric was born of extreme antagonism. We can deflate the rhetoric and do much better with future regional parties if we understand the context which gave birth to these parties. What I suggest is the development of new parties which have at their heart, the concerns of their region, but in a context where these decisions must be balanced in cooperation with voices from the greater federation. Until we can overcome this idea that a slim majority in parliament entitles a party to rule in a dictatorial way over all of the regions, then we will continue to go nowhere. The actions of majority government have sowed the seeds of our current discontent by continually creating a situation where the government acts without the consultation of other parties. Canada is too diverse to be governed in perpetuity by alternations of Liberal and Conservative governments.

Before you shout me down, remember that people change. The Conservative party of today is far different from its previous configuration and shares a common heritage with the Bloc, in that they were both born of discontent in the majority rules decisions of a minority of Canada's regions. Both parties were born of a constitutional crisis which began at confederation, came to a head at Meech Lake in 1987 and has not since been resolved. We need to address the root of this crisis by creating a means whereby regions can find representation in Ottawa through sustained political cooperation and not thin majority rules.

I must say I am most pleased to engage you on these issues Patrick, but on one issue you are dead wrong. The legitimacy of the Prime Minister is derived from the confidence of the house. Check your ballot next time, you didn't vote for Stephen Harper, you voted for a Conservative member of Parliament. If there are not enough members of the Conservative party to maintain the confidence in a Prime Minister, then the rules say that anyone from any party can attempt to capture the confidence of the house and continue the business of governing. To shut down parliament and end the business of democratic decision making is the worst choice of all. I would much rather see the Conservatives toss Harper and put forth another plan that actually involved consulting the other parties in order to establish confidence in a new Conservative Prime Minister. I would be happy with a Conservative led coalition, but as I wrote before, they have shot themselves in the foot and now red faced they have turned to people like you to spew poisonous lies about how our parliament actually functions in order to cloud the depth of this crisis and what it means for the shape of future governments in our country. We all need to begin to reflect far more deeply than the superficial rhetoric which is flying today and I have personally decided to do this by beginning to examine our political history a little more closely.

December 4, 2008 12:12 PM  
Blogger lph said...

Political News Staff said...Bla bla bla...stop hiding behind the flag,


Fortunately, Madame Jean, the Governor General saw though the "bla, bla, bla" of the coalition and its misguided supporters. She wisely consented today to the prorogation of parliament. The rightfully elected goernment remains in office. If the Conservatives lose a vote of confidence in January, as is quite likely, at least it will be on issues of substance and not a lame attempt at a premature power grab on the part of a losing cabal. Perhaps if the Liberals could get their act together they could acutally provide a credible alternative to the government without relying on the support of a group of starry-eyed separatists who live on the teat of the country they claim to despise.

December 4, 2008 4:51 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

"Patrick, let us be clear. The formalized agreement between the parties is such. The coalition is made of the Liberals and NDP. The Liberals stand to gain 18 cabinet seats and the NDP will have 6. The Bloc has formally agreed to vote on matters of confidence motions like budgets and Throne speeches - a 'speech from the throne' is a document read by the Governor General to the house which lays out the agenda of the government of the day in the coming session - they are not formally part of the coalition, but will support it."

Absolutely, let us be clear.

The Bloc Quebecois pledged their support the Liberal/NDP coalition in the same agreement in which that Coalition was established.

The Bloc's support is the one and only thing that makes this Coalition workable, and was necessary to promote the Coalition as viable.

As such, whether you're honest enough to admit it or not, the Bloc is part of and party to this agreement. They're an ad hoc member of this Coalition, and to insist otherwise you have to be either ignorant of the political realities underlying the coalition, dishonest, obtuse, or a combination of the three.

"I appeal for you to remember your history. For instance, it was revealed in the house Tuesday that in 2005 Stephen Harper, then leader of the opposition, sought an agreement with the Bloc to form a new government. In addition, yesterday it was revealed by the leader of the Bloc that the former leader of the Conservatives, Stockwell Day, tried to engage the Bloc in a formal coalition in 2000. We can go on all day and back and forth with this type of finger pointing, but it clouds a greater political reality. This is a crisis of our constitution with regards to the way it distributes regional political power and the access of federal funds."

First off, there's a difference between talking about forming a Coalition and actually doing it.

Harper talked about it -- he was wrong to do so -- but he didn't actually do it. Dion and Layton have.

Futhermore, if you actually take a close look at the allegations against Stockwell Day (who led the Canadian Alliance, not the Conservative Party) they're extremely dubious. The news coverage shows a group of backroom dealers acting largely without the knowledge of their leaders.

"I must say I am most pleased to engage you on these issues Patrick, but on one issue you are dead wrong. The legitimacy of the Prime Minister is derived from the confidence of the house. Check your ballot next time, you didn't vote for Stephen Harper, you voted for a Conservative member of Parliament. If there are not enough members of the Conservative party to maintain the confidence in a Prime Minister, then the rules say that anyone from any party can attempt to capture the confidence of the house and continue the business of governing. To shut down parliament and end the business of democratic decision making is the worst choice of all. I would much rather see the Conservatives toss Harper and put forth another plan that actually involved consulting the other parties in order to establish confidence in a new Conservative Prime Minister. I would be happy with a Conservative led coalition, but as I wrote before, they have shot themselves in the foot and now red faced they have turned to people like you to spew poisonous lies about how our parliament actually functions in order to cloud the depth of this crisis and what it means for the shape of future governments in our country. We all need to begin to reflect far more deeply than the superficial rhetoric which is flying today and I have personally decided to do this by beginning to examine our political history a little more closely."

No. You are wrong about this.

When Canadians cast their ballots, they expect that they are choosing their government via the selection of their members of Parliament. Traditionally, this is the way that governments in Canada have been established.

Whether you like it or not, Canadians have the right to choose their leaders, rather than having them imposed upon them through backroom deals.

When we vote for an MP we know full well that we are contributing toward a larger picture in Parliament. We vote for the Prime Minister through our vote for an MP. A vote for a Conservative MP is a vote for a Conservative Prime Minister. A vote for a Liberal MP is a vote for a Liberal Prime Minister. A vote for an Independent Candidate is tends to be vote of non-confidence in the parties, their candidates and their leadership.

The fact is that more Canadians voted for a Conservative government -- more Canadians voted for the leadership of Stephen Harper -- than voted for the leadership of either Stephane Dion or Jack Layton.

Two individuals who are willing to mortgage their government to a separatist party in order to get power.

Not only is this an absolute betrayal of national unity, but for Stephane Dion it's actually a betrayal of himself, and of his own separatist-fighting legacy.

Sadly, there are all too many Canadians who are unwilling to look at the bigger picture and put the country before their narrow partisan concerns, and unwilling to put the country before their particular ideology.

But history will remember them -- history will remember this. Those Canadians who are wise enough and care enough to put the country first will make them famous. History will know their names.

December 6, 2008 12:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home