Rattling the cage: Instability on Canada's political and economic scenes

By Grace

On October 14, 2008, Canadians gave Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper a minority government. Six weeks later, there are rumblings that two of the opposition parties, the Liberals and New Democrats, are in the process of brokering a deal to throw out the Tories and form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Conservatives ran on a platform of avoiding running a federal budget deficit, and even went to so far as to claim that under their guidance, Canada would not slide into a recession. Since returning to Parliament, the Tories have reassessed their previous stance and are admitting that a budget deficit may be on the horizon (the great irony being that Stephen Harper himself is an economist), and that a recession is indeed coming. But despite the current auto industry crisis and economic forecasting, Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have yet to craft an economic stimulus package.

The trigger, however, for all the whisperings to oust the current government was a proposal by Flaherty to cut public funding for political parties in a fiscal update bill without putting a stimulus package together. Parties currently get $1.95-per-vote after an election; removing it would "would cement the financial supremacy of the Conservative party and its state-of-the-art fundraising machine." The opposition decries this as a self-serving political and ideological move in a time where efforts should be concentrated on the financial crisis.

Despite winning 37% of the popular vote, a clear minority, Harper has chosen to run Parliament as though he had won a majority: without compromise, on which the longevity of such governments, not to mention good governance, depends. In the face of this new development, rather than, well, compromise, he appeared at a press conference to denounce this move as "undemocratic" and that the parties would rather "take power, not earn it." Well – that's not an entirely fair accusation – the Liberals and NDP together have 44% of the popular vote, and this deal couldn’t be made if there wasn’t a provision for it in the constitution.

What Harper’s press conference has proven is that the opposition has finally made a move, both large and serious enough, to rattle him. It's also clear that he's concerned about whether he can hold onto power or not.

Yesterday, an announcement was made that they would kill the plan to remove public subsidies for political parties. This is all brinksmanship, and this time the Tories blinked first (which may be a first in and of itself). But it appears that the opposition has not been appeased – they still take issue with the absence of a stimulus package and the fact that Conservatives are dragging their feet when calculated but swift action is needed.

Forming a coalition would involve a vote of non-confidence, which would topple the existing government. The Prime Minister would have to approach Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, to request a new election – something she could refuse if she believed that a coalition government would be viable for a sufficient period of time.

It's a huge gamble. If the Governor General doesn't believe that the coalition government would work, Canadians would have to revisit the polls – possibly for the second time in three or four months. It's an expensive proposition when we can't afford needless spending.

Also in question is who would lead the coalition. The Liberals will be at the forefront, but leader Stephane Dion stepped down after the previous election and the party will not choose a new one until May 2009. He remains there as the interim head. The leadership candidates are not good options at this time (it will have an impact on the selection process).

It's all very interesting, but there are too many variables in play. It's a little bit frightening to have instability both in the economy and political arena at the same time – especially now.

Buckle your seat belts, Canucks: It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Canada Votes 2008

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED BELOW.

For reasons related to my work, I generally don't blog about Canadian politics. I don't even think I've mentioned the 2008 federal election at all.

But today, October 14, Canadians went or are going to the polls to vote for their representatives to the federal House of Commons, the lower house of our federal Parliament. Again. For the fourth time in less than eight years. And for the 40th time in our history.

I voted a few hours ago in my suburban Toronto riding. For the record, I voted Liberal.

At the time of dissolution, the Conservative Party of Prime Minister Stephen Harper held the most seats, but not a majority of them, in the House of Commons. In the 2006 election, it won 124 of 308 seats. The Liberals were second with 103, the Bloc Quebecois (a separatist party that only runs candidates in Quebec) third with 51, and the left-wing New Democrats third with 29. One independent won a seat. The numbers have changed a bit since then, with the Liberals losing a handful of seats, but the Conservatives have governed with a minority since the 2006 election.

Although there is fixed-date election legislation in place that requires elections to be held every four years, Prime Minister Harper was able, not without some controversy, to force the dissolution of Parliament. Needless to say, what he wants is to win a majority of seats and so to be able to govern (i.e., pass legislation, etc.) without having to rely on the support of any of the other parties, or individual MPs, in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives have been well ahead in the polls throughout the election campaign, which has lasted for just over a month, but the gap has narrowed. It no longer looks like they will secure a majority. They need 155, but they will likely end up in the 130s. The Liberals, performing weakly under a fairly weak leader (Stephane Dion, whom I supported for the party leadership in 2006), will finish second, but the NDP, led by Toronto-based Jack Layton, should finish a strong third outside of Quebec and the Greens (which have never won a seat) look to do well, for them, at least in terms of the overall popular vote (Elizabeth May, the party leader, is trying to unseat a well-known Conservative in Nova Scotia, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, but she will finish second at best in her riding). The BQ could see a reduction in its seat total.

For more on the election, see the Wikipedia entry here.

CBC will have all the results here. Polls closed here in Ontario at 9:30 pm. Polls in B.C. and the Yukon remain open until 10:00 pm. Results are already slowly trickling in.

It looks to be a long, long night.

**********

10:14 pm - It's still very early, but the numbers don't look good for the Liberals. The Conservatives are currently up 121 to 75, even winning a seat in Prince Edward Island, usually a Liberal stronghold. The BQ is leading in 40 ridings, the NDP in 27. A majority may still be unattainable for the Tories, but they could reach the 140s.

I'll be back with updates throughout the evening.

10:20 pm - The Conservatives have reached 126, which is the number of seats they held at dissolution. I keep thinking there's no way they can pull off a majority, but...

I'm getting more and more worried.

10:27 pm - The NDP, as expected, is doing really well, elected or leading in 30 ridings. Much of this has to do with Liberal weakness, but Layton has also emerged as an especially strong leader. Meanwhile, the BQ seems to be underperforming in Quebec.

The CBC has a fun interactive map here.

10:35 pm - Obviously, the major party leaders have all won their individual seats. Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae, once a New Democrat and now a Liberal MP from Toronto-Centre, has won, too. One key question will be whether Dion holds on to the Liberal leadership or not. He's been extremely ineffectual. He's smart, and has a solid environmental record and platform, but he's a terrible communicator, more awkward university professor than dynamic political leader. Should he step down, or be forced out, the two top candidates to replace him would likely be Rae on the left of the party and, on the right, noted author, professor, and international relations theorist Michael Ignatieff, who holds a seat in the southwest area of Toronto -- or, rather, has held one and will hold it still after tonight.

10:43 pm - The Conservatives are up to 142 (leading and elected).

10:45 pm - Remember, this is all about single member ("first-past-the-post") ridings, not the popular vote. It is generally the party with the most seats in the House of Commons that forms the government. And even leading and elected in 142 ridings, fairly close to a majority, the Conservatives have only won just over a third of the vote, currently 36.64 percent. The Liberals are second with 28.49 percent, the NDP third with 19.48 percent. The BQ only has 7.46 percent of the vote nationally, but of course its vote is concentrated in Quebec, where it is currently leading or elected in 47 ridings.

10:48 pm - The CBC has just predicted a minority Conservative government. It will be a larger minority, but, still, at least not a majority. I had hoped for a somewhat stronger performance from the Liberals, but, overall, I can't be too unhappy with this result.

12:08 am - Alright, well, it's all been predictably anti-climactic. The Conservatives won a few more seats than expected, the Liberals collapsed into an even more distant second, and the NDP made some solid gains. What happens now is unclear: Will Harper be able to govern effectively with his new minority? Will there be pressure on Dion to step down? If so, will he? Will the three opposition parties be able to unite on ad hoc bases to repel some of Harper's more adventurous Conservative plans? How will all four parties respond to the financial crisis, one that has deepened over the course of the campaign? Is consensus, or at least majority consensus, possible with respect to the issues that are now front and center for Canadians, including the economy, Afghanistan, and the global warming?

12:12 am - The Globe has more here.

12:14 am - One thing to keep in mind. Although the seat totals favour the Conservatives -- now at 143, with the Liberals trailing at 77, then the BQ at 49, and the NDP at 37 -- popular support for Harper's party remains well below 40 percent. Which means that the overwhelming majority of Canadians continues to prefer the liberal-to-moderate parties (the centrist Liberals, center-left NDP, and center-left (for the most part) BQ) over the Tories. Canada remains, in essence, a liberal-progressive country. What is different now is that for the second straight election the Conservative have beaten a weak Liberal Party, traditionally Canada's major governing party, and a divided liberal-progressive opposition. Once again, the Conservatives won even though most Canadians are against them.

To me, the NDP and the BQ have reached, or almost reached, their respective ceilings. If the Conservatives are eventually to be beaten, then -- perhaps in four years, perhaps sooner -- it will take a re-energized, rejuvenated Liberal Party. And I'm just not sure Dion is the right man for the job. He had his chance, he disappointed, and it may now, or soon, be time to move on, to Rae or Ignatieff. (I'll take Rae.)

For now, though, we must accept what was, going in, the likeliest of outcomes, another Conservative minority. I don't see any point in wallowing in defeat. It's over. And the effort must now be, for the Liberals, on being again the loyal but determined opposition in the House of Commons, and on rebuilding. The next federal election, after all, may be upon us before we know it.

Stephen Harper vs. The Arts

By Grace

This is not what I wanted to see the day after I arrived home from culture-rich London, England. Yesterday, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this of government arts funding while on the campaign trail: "I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people,"

This in response to the $45 million he cut from arts programs in Canada.

It has sparked remarks about a new "culture war", but whether it gains enough momentum to become a real election issue, or makes any impact on the Canadian electorate, remains to be seen.

Anyone with any respect for and connection with the arts community in this country understands that the majority of artists are not monetarily "rich" by any means. In fact, in order to do what we love, we either have to resign ourselves to doing it during off-hours from our day jobs or live lives where, financially, we barely scrape by. It's insulting and unfair to portray them as a bunch of "elite" money-grubbing whiners.

Harper's remarks also come after his attempt to limit tax funding for Canadian film productions by denying credits to those with so-called objectionable content.

Don't give me any nonsense about the practicality of art and culture. It's a way to express our identity - both as Canadians and as people. It has its practical applications, sure, but art's emotional resonance is what makes it so important. It's boundless in scope, encompassing all kinds of mediums - film, music, performance, fine arts, poetry and literature, among many others; its influence cannot be measured. The best can inspire us, change our entire philosophies and outlooks on life, and even the smallest can make us smile.

Art is not "elite" nor "niche" as Harper calls it. While I was wandering through the Tate, I was chatting with one of my father's friends about surrealism. She said that it was sometimes hard for her to "get it". I told her that pieces that can only be grasped by certain people are completely ineffective because the message gets lost. If you have a favourite singer, a painting on your wall, or a photograph on your desk, art has touched you - it's really that simple.

While it cannot be quantified, we as human beings, as Canadians, need the arts. And the artists who produce it will occasionally need government subsidies.

The true wealth of the arts community is our talent and enthusiasm for sharing it - by trying to stifle it, Harper has proven himself to be a cultural pauper.