And they say that Canadian politics aren’t interesting. For any number of reasons (depending on who you are listening to) it appears that the opposition parties in the Canadian federal House of Commons are preparing to bring down the newly minted Harper government. The Liberals and NDP argue that the recent economic statement from finance minister Jim Flaherty lacked economic stimulus and that there is not time to wait for the upcoming budget given the global economic situation. The Conservatives argue that the opposition are being disingenuous (really? a politician being disingenuous? my!). The economic update of last Thursday announced the removal of subsidies to political parties. This program had been put in place by the Chretien government as a move to reduce the influence of corporations, unions and other third party groups on the political parties. This is what the Conservatives say is the real reason the opposition seem to have a bee in their bonnet. Personally, I support full public funding for election campaigns with firm accounting controls. It makes the system more democratic. But to be sure the opposition parties will work very hard to deny that that is the real issue and the government very hard to say it is. Such is the sad state of democracy today, the politics of point and insult.
So what comes next? The Liberals and NDP are talking coalition. They would still need the support of the Bloc Quebecois in order to govern but the Bloc, at least at this point, will not be a part of the coalition government. The Conservatives are going to argue, if it comes to that, that a coalition is unconstitutional and that the governor-general should call an election instead. Most Canadians are unaware that nothing of our governing system is in the Constitution. The only vague reference in CA1867 (formerly the British North America Act) is in the preamble where is mentions forming a government similar in kind to that of Great Britain. Our current governing system does reflect, in its basic structures, the Westminister model of government. The prime minister was not even mentioned in the Constitution until the 1982 amendment. So what Mr. Harper is hanging his hat on is something called constitutional conventions. These are unwritten bits of the constitution. A constitutional convention is another way of saying tradition. Those practices that have arisen and stood the test of time are understood as constitutional by the courts. It is equal to the precedent concept. While the courts do recognize them, it doesn’t mean that they can’t be overruled if it seems that they have outlived their usefulness or are in some way injurious to the society. They are much easier to change than anything that is actually written into the constitutional documents.
Are there precendents? The closest would be the Liberal-NDP Accord in the Ontario provincial legislature in 1985. This was not a coalition. In exchange for the passage of specific legislation, the NDP committed to not defeat the government on a confidence motion for two years. At the time the Conservatives held the most seats in the legislature but were finding it impossible to govern as a minority. When Frank Miller resigned as premiere, David Peterson, with the Accord in hand, presented the lieutenant-governor with the option of allowing him to form a government, thus avoiding an election so soon on the heels of the last. The other precedent that comes to mind is the Union Government of 1917 but in that case the coalition was arranged prior to the election and ran as such. There are other examples of deals between parties to support a minority government such as the ‘Shopping List’ presented by the NDP to the Conservatives and Liberals in 1972 (for those of you who don’t remember or are too young to remember the Liberals won the bidding). So all in all while there is no direct precedent, a federal coalition government in no way contridicts what has gone before. We have a history of cooperative efforts between parties and a coalition would be just another level up.
It would create a greater constitutional crisis for Canada if the governor-general were to deny the request of the Liberals to form a coalition. Another fact that Canadians don’t fully understand is that we, the people, do not elect the prime minister. We elect a person in our riding. That person belongs to a specific party in most cases (leaving independents aside for the moment). When the seat count is added up the party with the most seats usually forms the government. That’s right, usually. While there is not an actual vote for prime minister the House of Commons nonetheless does make the choice. A prime minister remains in office as long as she/he retains the confidence of the House. At any moment, whether in majority or minority, if a prime minister loses on a confidence vote she/he must resign. Of course this has never happened in a majority situation in Canada and is not likely to. But it is a real possibility in minority. On the other hand, if a party leader can provide proof that they would enjoy the confidence of the House, the governor-general would be hard pressed to deny them the opportunity. This is the situation which appears to be forming up. Therefore, if Stephane Dion (providing he is still leading the Liberal Party) approaches Governor-General Michaëlle Jean and proposes a coalition government with the NDP supported by the Bloc with all parties in agreement, her only answer can be to give him the opportunity.
Is all this hullabaloo necessary? Probably not but it was inevitable. Stephen Harper had shown himself incapable of working in a minority situation in the last parliament when he had even fewer seats. Now with the scent of majority in his nose there would be no dealing with him at all. Stephen is one of those people whose look matches their personality. He really is just as anal as he looks. Hell you couldn’t pull a needle out of his butt with a backhoe. Anal retentive people tend to be control freaks unable to compromise and successful minority governments are all about compromise. And in the end that is what a democracy should be.
We must wait to see how this all plays out. The Conservatives may find a compromise or the opposition parties may get cold feet before the December 8 vote in the House of Commons and all this speculation will be for naught.
