A Parliamentary polemic

The presidents of three campus political clubs come together in support of a Liberal-NDP coalition

On Dec. 4
Image supplied by: Supplied
On Dec. 4

Since the signing of a coalition agreement on Dec. 1, words have been thrown around to mislead the public and distract Canadians from what really matters. Although unusual under a first-past-the-post electoral system, coalition governments are neither undemocratic nor unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Conservative braying about the coalition tries to play off of misunderstanding and confusion during a groundbreaking period in Canada’s political history. Whatever the future of the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, it served to remind Mr. Harper that most Canadians did not vote for him.

The Globe and Mail reported on Dec. 14 that an astounding 51 per cent of Canadians think we directly elect the Prime Minister. The truth is, the only citizens who voted directly for the Prime Minister were 38,545 people in Calgary Southwest—Harper’s home riding. The rest of the House was also elected democratically, on a riding-by-riding basis.

Contrary to popular belief, the Prime Minister’s legitimacy is derived directly from the House of Commons, not from his or her party’s seat count. After an election, it is the duty of the Governor General to ask the leader of the party most likely to command the confidence of the House to form a government, but, strictly speaking, this does not have to be the party with the most seats. It is only

through maintaining the confidence of the House that a cabinet many govern in the Westminster Parliamentary tradition.

Minority governments are particularly precarious in this regard because the largest party controls less than half the seats. In the current session, rather than working with his political rivals in light of the looming recession, Harper made the now infamous decision–much to the chagrin of his top-advisors—to try to cripple the opposition by cutting the $1.95 per-vote public subsidies to all political parties. With a flagrant disregard for the spirit of democracy, he tried to axe a paltry $26 million (out of a $240 billion federal budget) to undermine the campaigning, staffing and research capabilities of his opponents against the backdrop of his own party’s private-funding windfall.

But looking past the familiar Harper mean-streak, the opposition’s main contention was the fumbled fiscal update. This document reflected Harper’s oft-cited disconnect with the economic situation facing most Canadians—one can still hear the echoes of his recent gaff suggesting that people should take this opportunity to snag some stock market bargains. The government offered no stimulus package despite recent moves by governments in the U.S., U.K., Germany and Japan to jumpstart their G8 economies to the tune of $1.5 trillion, $418 billion, $213 billion and $275 billion, respectively. In a crisis Harper reverted to his ideological roots, trying to decimate his opponents and curtail the labour rights of civil servants. Harper tried to govern as if he had a majority, a move akin to—in the words of Bob Rae—“trying to skydive as if he had a parachute.”

In fact, the coalition, with the legislative support of the Bloc and backed by an extra-parliamentary Green Party which garnered its highest ever vote count in 2008, represents the democratic will of 62 per cent of the Canadian electorate. While Harper seethes at the idea of “governing with the separatists,” it is important to remind him that the agreement excludes the Bloc from government. If what is truly reprehensible is simply relying on the Bloc, then the Conservatives should overturn the 140 votes in which the Bloc voted with their government since April of 2006—including the 2006 and 2007 federal budgets and Stephen Harper’s motion recognizing the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada.

Rather than confronting the demands of democracy, Harper is conflating political disagreement with political illegitimacy—a conflation characteristic of autocratic regimes. Abandoning his putatively populist roots, Harper has—in the face of a democratic majority—declared “it’s not fair” and prorogued his own Parliament. He pulled the fire alarm on his exam and denied MPs their right to vote against his agenda. He upped the ante at a time when Canadians needed government, not gambles, and Parliament called him with a full house in hand. Governments have a responsibility to lead and inform, especially when it comes to institutions. Combined with its outlandish claims of a Canadian coup, the Conservatives have now flip-flopped on an elected Senate, appointing 17 new members of the Upper House. The coalition is the democratic answer to the crisis Harper himself precipitated—a crisis powerful enough to unite four opponents against the Prime Minister. Whatever the resolution to this political standoff may be, it is our hope that it hinges on policy, substance and fact, because combined, these forces spell the demise of Stephen Harper faster than any coalition ever could.

Sarah Jacobs is the co-chair of the Queen’s Greens, Brandin O’Connor is president of the Queen’s New Democrats and Sam Yorke is president of the Queen’s University Liberal Association.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content