Canada’s Political Crisis
Admittedly, I haven’t been paying attention to much going on outside the borders of the U.S. recently (except the terrorist attacks in Mumbai), so I didn’t know this was going on. Still, much has happened in Canada in the last week or so.
Apparently up-in-arms over the announcement of upcoming budget items that didn’t include what was considered by the opposition to be a sufficient stimulus package, but did include heavy cuts in subsidies for the political parties, the Liberal Party, in coalition with the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois tried to take power from the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper. Now the crisis is averted for the time being after governor general Michaelle Jean agreed to prorogue the parliament until January 26.
After taking time to read all the details about this crisis, and reading up on how Canada passes its budget, I have come a conclusion about the whole thing: somebody is a sore loser.
It seems the crisis can be traced back to the loss of the Liberals in the October 14th election. Despite their attempts to win back Parliament, the Conservatives actually won more seats than they had before, though not enough to give them a majority.
Jump forward a month and a half and the fiscal update has come forward. The opposition wanted a decent stimulus package, but only a small one was in the budget. More so, civil servants were to be banned from striking until 2011, some public land would be sold off, and probably most importantly, the cuts to the political party subsidies.
Well, these things caused the Liberals to try and form a coalition with the NDP and BQ. The idea was that a vote against the update would be the same as a vote of no confidence in the government, and it would evenutally end in Harper resigning and the Liberals forming a coalition government with the NDP.
Well, now Jean has put the suspension on Paliament in place, and the coalition is starting to fall apart. Rather than them pointing fingers at Harper, they’re now pointing fingers at each other, and it looks like Liberal leader Stéphane Dion will resign at the party’s meeting in March.
So, why go to all the trouble of trying to topple the Harper government? Well, it seems to me that the Liberals were looking for any reason to take power since losing the election. Minority governments are unstable as it is, so a vote against Harper could have been devestating.
While researching how Canada passes its government, it doesn’t seem much different than how the U.S. does. The government introduces it to the lower chamber, the opposition votes against it, and then they all work together to address the problems the opposition had with it.
Maybe it’s my lack of understanding of Canadian politics, but shouldn’t this have been the better way? Or can the opposition not add new elements to the budget, such as increasing the stimulus package? And what about those party subsidies? I didn’t know that all the Canadian parties received them, and it looks like the opposition parties receive the lion share of their budgets from them, especially the Liberals and BQ.
It makes me wonder: why not fundraise? The Conservatives receive the least of the subsidies, meaning that they must do this in order to stay relevant, and that’s largely how it’s done here. And it works.
I think it’s kind of clear the parties didn’t want to lose their subsidies, as it would actually mean having to ask for donations. The reports seem to suggest this was the straw that broke the camel’s back for them.
But, unless they are unable to do so, instead of trying to negotiate less heavy cuts, they tried to go after Harper, who just received a larger mandate by the voters.
I don’t know, but it sounds like one party hasn’t gotten over their loss yet.
This is a poorly researched piece. Some problems:
I’m not sure why you think the coalition is falling apart. Dion announced his resignation as Liberal leader weeks ago, and a leadership vote is scheduled for early 2009. The coalition agreement said he would serve as PM only until the next liberal leader is chosen.
You make some fair criticisms of how Canadian political parties are funded, but you miss the main points. The public subsidies exist so that parties wouldn’t be dependent on special interest groups, unions, etc. Harper decided to remove this funding, which would disproportionately harm the opposition parties, while he controls only a minority of parliament. His apparent belief was the other parties would be too weak and divided after the election to stand up to him. Even if the proposed coalition fails, it has at least done the job of showing Harper that he has an obligation to work with the other parties in parliament, not against them.
@Mike
Mike
December 7th, 2008 at 09:55Reply | Quote | #1 This is a poorly researched piece. Some problems:
I’m not sure why you think the coalition is falling apart. Dion announced his resignation as Liberal leader weeks ago, and a leadership vote is scheduled for early 2009. The coalition agreement said he would serve as PM only until the next liberal leader is chosen.
In fact, the coalition IS in deep trouble. The Liberal party is a bus headed downhill and no one is driving the bus; instead they are fighting to see who will drive. The knives are out for Stephane Dion (current leader) and he will be gone as early as next week. Former deputy prime minister John Manley publicly called for the removal of Dion this weekend. And he is not the only one calling for Dion to go away. Reportedly, former Liberal New Brunswick premier and former ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna has also called for his ouster.
Mr Merritt, thank you for a well researched piece. Even Canadians are a bit perplexed by the recent events.
The Canadian “Confederation” (in contrast to “federation”) is a de-centralized form of government with a so-called “Westminster” UK style parliamentary democracy. The voters vote for a local rep (typically associated with a “Party”), choosing their rep from a list of perhaps half-a-dozen candidates. The rep with the mostest votes wins that “riding” (District), even if they do not have a majority of the popular vote. They (MPs) take an Oath before taking his/her seat as a Member of Parliament. No Oath—No Sit. No Sit— No Vote on legislation.
The Party with the most seats—though not necessarily the majority of Seats— forms the government—but actually they ask the Head of State if they can and he/she goes along.
Due to fractures in Canadian politics with more than two parties and regional differences it is now commonplace for no single federal party to hold a majority of SEATS. Hence, “minority government” which requires give and take with the opposition partieS. Underline plural.
The government’s Cabinet is chosen from elected members of the Parliament–typically from one’s own party but can include a member from the upper chamber, our Unelected Senate (that is why Green party head leaked that she *wanted* a Senate appointment so she could be made a Cabinet member). The Cabinet convention is Cabinet solidarity, cabinet deliberative secrecy, Cabinet votes with the government (in US Cabinet, members are usually appointees from outside Congress).
Some legislation is presented in Parliament and the various opposition
parties are more or less free to oppose it or propose amendments without triggering the “fall of the government”. In contrast, other legislation, specifically Tax/Spend/Budget Bills are ALWAYS proxies for Parliament’s “confidence” in the government. If the government cannot pass a Bill on matters of confidence then it falls.
But all this is transpiring during a global financial crisis, an emerging global economic recession, and a federal election that occurred
in October 2008.The MPs just took their seats in Parliament weeks ago.
If a minority government falls then the head of government (the Prime Minister) of the falling government goes to the Head of State and usually asks that the HoS dissolve parliament and order a new general election. It is also possible that the HoS can ask another party (the LIBs are the second largest by seats) to try and form a government which by implication means that the LIBs would *at that time* be induced to canvass around for voting support (like in the Israeli Knesset).
What seems to be unusual here this time is that the LIB-NDP coalition relying on their BQ accord, has attempted a preemptive strike by writing to the HoS *before* the government actually/officially falls to say, essentially, it WILL fall if you don’t take active measures and so we request that you pass us the reigns WHEN IT DOES fall.
The Liberal party led by Dion won fewer seats in October, 2008 than Harper’s Conservatives so the liberals were forced to take an unfamiliar position as the “Loyal Opposition”. The “New Democrats” (NDP) led by Layton are Canada’s Labour party (i.e. Tony Blair) but Layton is no Blair.
These are the two opposition parties that formed, or are trying to form,
a coalition. Note the term: Coalition. Both parties would elevate certain numbers of reps to form Cabinet ministers (secretarys of this and that) IF they were passed the reigns of government by the HoS.
But there are some major gotchas:
-the sum of LIB plus NDP is still not a majority of seats and falls short of that magic number required to BE a majority. Doooh!
-the LIB leader Dion, though an honourable and proud Canadian who is doing his best, had already announced after his election drubbing that he would step down (lame duck) in May, 2009 at which point his LIB party would have elected their next party leader. Or, cynically, “selected” is the operative word because anointing party leader is the very weak link in Canadian-style party poli-tricks.
-the LIB-NDP Coalition has last week introduced itself to the public by stating that Dion would be the new Prime Minister if the Head of State were to accede to their request that he/she pass the reigns to the Coalition.
-the Coalition signed a side deal (an “accord” being a weaker bond than a coalition) with the secessionists known as the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) in order secure a degree of voting support to put the “coalition” over the top–a voting majority of parliament.
-While it is hugely under-reported by *OUR* convergent corporate media the BQ posture is plain as can be, in English and in French, that their goal remains secession, and most importantly, that they agreed to an accord while refusing a coalition (with Cabinet Ministers) so that they are free to advocate for Quebec interests alone.
(Sidebar to Cousins: The term Quebec is NOT synonymous with the term Quebecois. Quebec is a province of Canada. Quebecois is a anthropological/sociological grouping of francophone (French Speaking)
Founding People residing in Quebec (400th anniversary) numbering approximately 80% of Quebec but 23% of Canada. These Quebecois people within Quebec province, although comprising ~80% of Quebec’s recent population (i.e. “Francophone” — French as mother tongue) are often bilingual french/english anyway. Therefore approx 54% of Quebec the province is uni-lingual french. This means that the Quebec question turns on roughly half the Quebec population of 4million out of 8million;
a francophone population with one of the lowest birth rates in the Western world— a reverse demographic time-b0mb.The BQ only runs candidates within the one province, Quebec. Their base is the francophone voter.)
-the BQ could therefore hold the coalition in a full nelson for two or three years extracting concessions that may not be in Canada’s interest as a whole.
-since LIB leader Dion (and PM-designate if the coalition is installed)
is stepping down in May, 2009 there is now great gnashing of teeth within the Liberal caucus–days after their purported Dear Leader embrace of the concept—that the new LIB leader will inherit a mess, be the PM in a coalition with the NDP and beholden to the BQ for life support.
-there *is* now talk that Dion should step down almost immediately, by Christmas, and let a caretaker–urr interim leader take over the LIBs.
-if Dion is *pushed* out now, rather than in May, then it seems almost certain that the backroom boys of the Liberal party (no US-style cross-country/multi-month campaigning—pity) will jettison this coalition immediately OR that the new “permanent” LIB leader (post Dion/post interim) will initiate/force an election in the Spring and run WITHOUT A coalition.
There are many scenarios.
One that is unreported is what if PM Harper of the Conservatives loses the confidence vote now scheduled for January 27, 2009. Rather than choosing
a) dissolve and general election
OR
b) pass the reigns to the coalition of LIB-NDP with BQ reach-arounds
there may be a third option:
c) Harper steps down and the Conservatives pick a new party leader, Prentice as PM. This is actually how PM Margaret Thatcher was done and John Major was installed.
this (c) has the beauty of changing the tone of discord, avoids another general election, attenuates the BQ influence, saves the LIBs from the
Layton (Layton wants the LIBs to be annihilated so that there will be just Conservatives and NDP; UK has CON and Labour).
The public subsidy of $1.95 per popular vote received is intended to take monied interests out of the political state. The alternative is canvassing for donations which has its own disadvantages.
(Sidenote to cousins: Imagine if McCain had unrestricted donations totalling ~$500M and Obama had a public subsidy of, say, ~$80M and then McCain won because of his vastly superior resources for air-time. Some people would be peeved that money overpowered and won.)
The BQ influence is disproportionate because they do not run candidates in districts outside Quebec province. They run only in, and Concentrate their funding and spending in Quebec. Even though they captured only 38% of the popular vote inside Quebec (62% voted AGAINST the bloc) they grabbed 50 of 75 districts (seats). It would be like a Super-State of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas was the home of a regional party that captured enough Electoral College votes to make it very difficult to win the presidency without the Southern Bloc.
The following may or may not be allowed by poligazette commenting policy. I am unclear what link spam is; if this link violates that policy then please remove the link with my apologies.
The BQ leader’s speech addressing the whole country after Mr. Harper’s address was briefly carried on CTVnewsnet and then pooofff–they cut him off and switched us to another politician.
The converged corporate media did not bother to produce an english transcript of BQ leader Duceppe but the following link to a Canadian “national” magazine provides an UNofficial translation.
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/12/03/text-of-remarks-by-gilles-duceppe/
Do a find/search on: “Here’s the English text:”
OR find/search on: “is a party dedicated to serving Quebeckers only”
I’ve been blogging on this non-stop for more than a week now…like many Canadians I do not want to vote again, 4 times in 4 years is enough…even for a political junkie like me. The problem is that likely 50% + of the Canadian population does not favour a coalition according to all the polling data out there…I’d love to see Harper leave, but his leadership style suggests that’s highly unlikely.
Jacques: that was an illuminating primer guide to the Canadian political system. Thank you.
At least it makes me understand why voting down a budget could make the government fall and why they can’t just fix the quibbles the opposition has.
Mike: I didn’t know that before. The way I had read it, it seemed like he fell into trouble following the prorogue. Larry and Jacques are suggesting he’s in even deeper now, so I don’t know how the coalition isn’t in trouble.
It isn’t to say they couldn’t get their act together by January 27th. They could. Happens all the time.
Thanks for the explanations. They help a bunch in understanding what the northern cousins are going through. Hope things work out for the best. This is not a good time of year to be feuding.