Bare Naked Politics: The ongoing situation in Canada

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I just wanted to mention that The Guardian asked me to write an article, for it's Comment is Free section, on the turbulent political situation here in Canada (which I initially wrote about here). It was published this morning. You can find it here:

A very Canadian coup.

(Grace has also written about the situation here and here.)

And the situation keeps changing. As I indicate in my Guardian article, Prime Minister Harper, seeking to avoid a no-confidence vote (which he would lose, opening the door either to another election (we just had one less than two months ago) or to the Liberal-NDP coalition being asked to form a government), was probably going to ask the governor general (who is our head of state) to prorogue (that is, end the current session of) Parliament.

Well, he did so this morning, and she granted his request -- meaning that there will be no no-confidence vote until, at the earliest, Parliament resumes sitting late next month. The government may then lose a no-confidence vote on the Throne Speech or the budget, but, in the meantime, both sides (and the Conservatives even more so because they have more money) will campaign aggressively to woo public opinion.

The key for the Conservatives, who are in government, will be to convince Canadians that they are in fact serious about dealing with the economic and financial crisis (and that they therefore ought to remain in power), as well as to seek to break apart the coalition, or at least to undermine support for it by arguing, as they have been already, that it only has a majority of seats in the House of Commons with the support of the separatist Bloc Québécois, a party that, according to Harper today, does not work for the interests of Canada as a whole (even though, I must add, BQ MPs were democratically elected and, whatever their views on sovereignty, represent Canadians in the House -- they, as much as the other MPs, have a mandate, and their votes count just as much).

The key for the Liberals and the New Democrats, as well as for the Bloq (which has signed on to support their coalition into 2010), will be to remain united, not to mention determined, through what promises to be a bitter and contentious campaign for public support over the next month and a half or so. It would look bad for them to split apart or back down now, but I have little to no confidence in Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's ability to keep them united and determined. He pales in comparison to Harper, a vastly more talented politician, and, as he has proven yet again this week, he is simply unable to get his message across effectively. I worry that he will be overwhelmed and that the coalition will fracture.

I hesitate to call the governor general, Michaëlle Jean, a coward, but her decision, I think, was a poor one. Either she should have dissolved Parliament and called an election, or she should have given the coalition, which holds a majority of the seats in the House, the chance to govern. Instead, in granting Harper's request, she has gone along with what the Conservatives want, parliamentary democracy be damned, and given them the upper hand in terms of the campaign to come. Basically, she has saved Harper's sorry bacon, evidently putting his interests before the interests of the country.

It is a sad day for Canada.

Prime Minister... Dion?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

How Canada’s Opposition Parties Have United to Bring Down the Conservative Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper

UPDATED BELOW.

Over the weekend, Grace noted that "there [were] rumblings that two of [Canada's federal] opposition parties, the Liberals and New Democrats, [were] in the process of brokering a deal to throw out the Tories and form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Québécois."

(Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives, or "Tories," won the most seats in October's election, but they only won a minority and so formed, or re-formed, a minority government.)

Well, the deal is done. And, if Harper's government falls (and, then, if Governor General Michaëlle Jean asks the opposition parties to form a government), the new prime minister will be...

Stéphane Dion, whom I supported for the Liberal leadership way back when but whose performance as leader, culminating in October's election (he is currently a lame duck, having announced his resignation and awaiting the selection of a new leader), has been, well, a disaster.

With the Liberals utterly rudderless, though -- the new rudder, er, leader, will likely be either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae -- Dion is pretty much the only suitable compromise. (He leans left and so is suitable to the left-wing NDP and the left-leaning BQ.) Besides, he'd only be the interim PM until a new Liberal leader is selected next spring.

As a Liberal, more or less, I'm all for this. The Conservatives didn't win a majority in the last election (see the full results here), and so this is hardly some sort of coup. If the three opposition parties think they can govern together, and have a deal to that effect, then they should be allowed to do so -- if the Conservatives genuinely lose the confidence of the House. It is unlikely that yet another election would solve anything, and so the only alternative -- and ones hopes that Jean, whom I find rather underwhelming, understands this -- would be to turn to the Lib.-NDP-BQ coalition. And yet, questions abound:

-- Would Dion try to stay in office? (Likely not. The three leadership candidates -- Ignatieff, Rae, and LeBlanc -- all support the coalition but surely want Dion out. What's more, Dion just isn't that popular in the party anymore.)

-- How would the Liberal leadership candidates handle themselves in Cabinet? (Fairly well. After all, they have an interest in making it work.)

-- Would it work? (For a time, probably. It would formally be a Lib.-NDP governing coalition -- the Liberals would get PM, Finance, and most of the other Cabinet spots, though NDP leader Jack Layton would no doubt get a top position (foreign affairs?) -- with the BQ, according to the Globe, "expected to promise to support the coalition to survive for at least a year, which would allow for the passage of two budgets." And the emphasis, at least for now, would be on the economic/financial crisis: "The coalition deal includes a multibillion-dollar stimulus package for the troubled economy." But after that second budget? Who knows? And while there seems now to be agreement between the Liberals and the NDP on the economy, what about other issues like Afghanistan and global warming?)

-- Would Canadians support it? (Probably. Harper is calling it a coup, but it's not, it's just parliamentary politics. And let's not forget that Harper didn't win a majority of seats, let alone a majority of the popular vote. Of course, Conservatives could spin this as an Ontario/Quebec-based plot to seize power from the country's democratically elected government, and some in the West, where alienation and anti-Central Canada bias run amok, may buy it, but it's not like Harper and his party are hugely popular across the country. If anything, Canadians may welcome the change, not to mention the multi-partisan effort to address the economy. The Liberals and NDP may also be accused of cozying up to the BQ, a separatist party, but the Tories have a long history of doing just that, and, at the moment, the economy is a far more pressing issue that independence for Quebec. Basically, many Canadians have had it with Harper and are looking for new leadership in Ottawa.)

I just heard the deal is expected to be signed shortly. Even then, though, there's still the question of a vote of no confidence in the House and of what the GG will do in response.

Stay tuned. Who knew Canadian politics could be so exciting? (Well, it often is. This is just more exciting than usual.)

**********

UPDATE 1: Dion, Layton, and BQ leader Gilles Duceppe signed the deal this afternoon. "We are ready to form a new government that will address the best interests of the people instead of plunging Canadians into another election," said Dion. A confidence vote will likely take place next Monday.

The Canadian Press: "The agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is to last until June 30, 2011. The Bloc has agreed to support the arrangement until June 30, 2010, at which point their support could be extended."

**********

UPDATE 2: The details:

The opposition parties represent just over 54 per of the popular vote in the Oct. 14 federal election.

Duceppe said the Bloc would not join the coalition government nor have any ministers in cabinet.

A 24-member coalition cabinet would have six New Democrats and 18 Liberals, according to the deal.

The Bloc would support all confidence votes until June 30, 2010, but would be free to vote as it wished on all other non-monetary measures.

The Liberal-NDP pact lasts a year longer, until June 30, 2011.

**********

UPDATE 3: The big question, of course, is... Why did they do it? Here are my preliminary answers (which I wrote in response to a commenter but which I'm moving up into the body of the post):

I think the Liberals, with an unpopular and lame-duck leader, were content to go through a leadership contest, settle in, and regroup for the next election. In other words, I don’t think they were looking for this, given their current state of disarray. I think this move was driven by outside forces:

1) It was, apparently, Layton's idea. The NDP must realize that this is finally an opportunity for it to be in government (and boost its governing credibility, which it sorely lacks). Even in the last election, even with an historically weak Liberal Party, it was only able to win just over 18 percent of the vote. In other words, even with everything in its favour, it's still just a distant third party. If this works, it will not only be in government but develop a potentially lasting partnership with the Liberals, not least because it is fairly strong out west, where the Liberals are weak.

2) After the election, Harper, like Bush in '04, claimed that he had been given a stronger mandate to govern (his minority is larger now than it was after the '06 election. The difference is that Bush actually did win a majority of the votes in 2004 (though, of course, his win over Kerry was narrow and voters clearly weren't giving him much of a mandate, and certainly not one to push through a right-wing agenda, including Social Security reform). True, Harper won more seats this year than he did in the previous election, but he still only won a minority. That's not much of a mandate. Certainly not enough of a mandate to push through a radical agenda, which is what he was clearly looking to do.

3) For the opposition parties, this is about their very survival. They had to act in part because the Conservatives were looking to destroy them by eliminating party subsidies. (For more on this, see here.) As much as anything, this was the driving force behind the deal. (The government has since backed down on its plan to eliminate subsidies.)

4) The opposition parties were responding in large part to the government's economic plan. And, of course, we're somewhere in the middle of an economic and financial crisis. I suspect that this wouldn't have happened in more normal times. The opposition parties are evidently putting aside their differences (say, over Afghanistan) in order to work together to stimulate the economy and help Canadians get through this difficult time.

**********

UPDATE 4: As expected, Western Conservatives are grumbling. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, for example. (Alberta is a Conservative stronghold that, unlike much of the rest of the country, has seen its economy boom, mostly the result of high oil prices. Harper is from Calgary, very much the base of the party.)

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.