The Hijacking of the Canadian Parliament – Reflections on the Week that Was

By now, even the least politically aware in Canada know all about the formation of a coalition of opposition parties for the purpose of taking down the government. Until the Prime Minister emerged from a morning meeting with the Governor General on Thursday, December 4, the possibility that the government would change just six weeks after a federal election was a distinct reality. It still remains a possibility when Parliament reconvenes at the end of January.

Illustration by Adrian Steeves

The tensest moments came during the Prime Minister's television address the night before. In his speech, Stephen Harper stated the next budget would take opposition concerns into consideration, concerns that prompted the coalition’s formation. At the time, it may have been too late and the Conservative government may not have even been able to table a budget. It all began with the government’s economic statement that threatened to kill public subsidies to political parties, which would have devastated all opposition parties, particularly the Bloc Quebecois. Also, there was no immediate bailout package for the slumping economy, as in the United States. It is debatable whether this information was more damaging to the economy than the announcement of the coalition on Monday, Dec. 1, but the Toronto Stock Exchange dropped 10 % that day.

The fact of the matter is that the opposition parties had banded together to bring down the government just weeks after a general election. In this coalition, the New Democrats would back the Liberals for 30 months and the Bloc Quebecois for 18 months. In this space two months ago, I predicted that successive minority governments would result in European-style coalition governments, but never could I have predicted the events of early December.

The situation is reminiscent of the early days of the French Revolution; in the face of a looming crisis, the decision-makers are too busy playing politics to do anything. Rather than accept the results of the last election, the opposition is attempting to hijack Parliament. Opposition leader Stephane Dion, all but left for dead, went all in with the short stack in an attempt to become Prime Minister. Jack Layton manoeuvred his way into a position to govern and for his party to receive six cabinet positions. Gilles Duceppe, still playing the Quebec card, stands to have unprecedented influence for a sovereignist politician at a time when the whole Quebec issue is dead and needs to be buried. Even Green Party leader Elizabeth May got into the news by publicly supporting the coalition, and reportedly was "smiling like a canary" according to one prominent journalist. There was talk that, in exchange for her support, she would be appointed to the Senate (along with a few Bloc supporters).

I am going to use this space to voice my opinions on the matter. Let me preface this by saying that I have no personal involvement with any particular political party. I have actually voted for 4 different parties at the provincial and national levels since reaching  voting age. I have always respected the practical long-term policies of the Conservatives, the tactical expertise of the Liberals, the NDP's progressive approach to social issues and even the passion of Bloc members.  However, I feel that this move is a slap in the face to all Canadian voters. Yes, the coalition takeover would be within the rules of Parliament, but I would submit that opposition parties should either run as a coalition before an election or at least give the government a few months to govern before taking it down on a non-confidence vote. The coalition leaders are saying that 62% of Canadians voted against the Conservatives, so that gives them a 'mandate' to govern. Well, the first-past-the-post system rarely sees any single party receive more than 50% of the vote. Using this logic, we could say that 74% of the public voted against the Liberals, 82% against the NDP and 90% against the BQ; hardly the case for a mandate if you ask me. So, we could have ended up with a Prime Minister in whose own party was not confident, a party who received 37 out of 308 seats and 18% of the vote in cabinet, and a sovereigntist party holding the balance of power for at least 18 months.

The main point of contention was that the Conservatives failed to act in the face of the current economic crisis. I find this ironic. On one hand, the Conservatives have long been criticized for following American policy too closely. In the days preceding the announcement of the coalition, federal finance minister Jim Flaherty announced that the next budget would indeed include some sort of package for the auto industry, but added, "we are not going to take the American approach." Now they are being criticized for not following lock-step with the U.S. proposal of a financial bail-out for the auto industry. So, the government is demonized for waiting to come up with a Canadian solution to a Canadian problem? Undoubtedly, the economic situation in the United States has reached the point of recession, and Canada is sure to follow, especially in the wake of falling oil prices. However, Canada has not found itself in the same situation as the Americans with their banks and mortgage companies. Perhaps the reason we are not in as bad shape is the Conservative-implemented stimuli in the form of cuts to the GST and reductions in corporate and business taxes, for example. The next budget could see more investing in infrastructure and the reforming of Employment Insurance and social assistance. The coalition's idea of a bailout package is to throw money at the problem, such as when the Liberals in 2001 sent out cheques to low-income families to offset the costs of energy (and maybe to win votes?).

I really don't know how anyone can support this coalition if it takes power in Parliament’s next sitting. It was not democratically elected and completely disrespects the results of the last election. I will never have faith in any of these parties again as long as they are being led by these same men. Even though Stephane Dion is stepping down as leader, I do not really have faith in "Count" Michael Ignatieff, his successor as Liberal leader, simply for the way in which he capitalized on Dion's weak position like a vulture pouncing on a corpse. This show is far from over, folks, and only time will tell what the outcome will be . . .

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

Email Name		Title Comment smaller | bigger
		I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage. Write the displayed characters Add Comment