December 1, 2008, may well go down in history as the day on which Canadian constitutional democracy, as we know it, died. Or, to be more accurate, was murdered by a group of self-centered, power-seeking politicians. Watching the ’gang of three’, as they smugly explained in their press conference that they were taking this action to save the country, was nauseating.
The cast of characters would be appropriate for a tragicomedy:
-A lame-duck leader, whose party had their knives out to stab him in the back, before he decided to resign, suddenly finding his political ambitions within arms’ reach. While not the result he had hoped for during the election, being Prime Minister for five months is better than nothing.
-A separatist leader, prepared to work with his ideological opponents in order to further Quebec sovereignty, not to keep the country together. As if $8 billion in equalization payments to Quebec are not enough, there are reports that another $1.3 billion, has been promised for participation in the coalition, and possibly other, as yet unspecified, benefits. Clearly motivated by concern about Canada’s future!
-Last, but not least, the leader of the fourth-placed party, by all appearances the chief instigator of the coalition. Slighted because his advice was not being sought by the Prime Minister, hoping to become the tail that wags the coalition dog.
Add to this mix the vision of Jean Chretien, the man who brought us ’Shawinigate’ and the sponsorship scandal among others, being called upon, as a sort of ’elder stateman’, to help broker the deal and the tragicomedy becomes a nightmare.
A depressing scenario, to say the least. No wonder Canadians have become cynical about their politicians. Personal ambition has clearly trumped the nation’s best interests, despite protestations to the contrary. The fact that the agreement was signed, sealed and delivered barely one hundred hours after the fiscal update, with its controversial proposal to cut federal funding to political parties, was introduced, indicates that the plan was very likely in the works for some time. Jack Layton had raised the possibility of a Liberal-NDP coalition during the elections, a suggestion that was promptly rejected by Stephane Dion at that time. The latter clearly stated that he was running to become Prime Minister, not to join a coalition. Having been defeated in his quest, it did not take long for him to change his position on the matter.
Similarly, promises to raise the tone of conduct in Parliament were made by various party leaders immediately following the elections. This promise was just as quickly discarded.
While many Canadians are shocked at the turn of events, barely weeks after the recent election, a few have greeted this development with the comment: ’Great we want change.’ The people making these comments seem to forget that the time to change the government was during the election. If they were so eager to bring about a change, they should have supported their parties to a greater degree. However, many Liberal party supporters did not think enough of Dion and his platform to come out and vote for him in the recent election. As a result, he won the lowest number of seats of any Liberal leader. Yet both Dion and Layton, and their partisan supporters, believe that, they somehow have a mandate to usurp control of the government.
Other Canadians assert that because the coalition parties have a larger percentage of the popular vote, they should be the ones to govern this country. This is not the first time that a party won power with a smaller percentage of the popular vote. Years ago, when the Reform, Progressive Conservative and other right-of-centre parties vied for votes, their combined support in many ridings was greater than that of either the Liberals or NDP who won. Yet despite this, none of these parties suggested a coalition to remove the winning Liberals.
Population distribution in Canada is such, that the MPs representing the rural areas and the West will always have a smaller percentage of the popular vote. However, if we were to give power, based on the popular vote, only to the populated regions of Quebec and Ontario, the alienation of the rest of the country would be even greater than it is at present.
It would not be surprising if Canadians west of Ontario believed that a conspiracy, of sorts, was at work here. Having finally gotten a leader, after nearly forty years, who was not from Quebec [not counting Turner and Campbell, whose terms were so brief most people would be forgiven if they forgot about them, or Clark whose minority government was defeated because he could not count], this coalition is headed by a triumvirate from Quebec. While Jack Layton is technically from Toronto, he was born and raised in Quebec! If one believed in conspiracies, one could ask why it is that the only political leaders to survive in government, irrespective of their political stripes, are those who hailed from Quebec.
It is a sad day for democracy when three failed politicians, in their blind rush to power, can potentially overturn a duly elected, even if minority, government. Liberal claims, that coalition governments have been good for Canada, may be true. But trying to equate this coalition with previous ones is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Former coalitions were made by minority governments and a third party. This one, on the other hand, is made up of three failed parties usurping power from the duly elected government.
The present coalition of Canada’s left is a dangerous precedent. If successful in their quest to become the next government, it could mean that we are condemned to a future in which any subsequent Conservative minority government could simply be replaced by a coalition of Liberal, socialist and separatist parties, or combination thereof. Since the present Conservative party is conservative, as opposed to ’progressive’ conservative, a majority government would be difficult to achieve. A depressing prospect for anyone whose political views are right-of-centre, and a process which would disenfranchise a large portion of the population.
Rather than vying for power, the various parties should cease this charade and cooperate with the present Harper government to solve Canada’s economic crisis. We need responsible fiscal policies and not the tax and spend policies that the ’gang of three’ is famous for.
With the decision of the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament until January, Stephen Harper’s government received a much-needed reprieve. It is very likely that the unstable Liberal-NDP alliance, which is shaky at best, may not survive the next month.With only 114 seats between them, they cannot possibly promise any kind of stable government, dependent as they would be on the Bloc’s 49 seats to stay in power. The Bloc has already put its coalition partners on notice that it will oppose or veto any decisions contrary to what it considers to be in Quebec’s best interests. Yet this is probably the least of the coalition’s problems. With two ambitious, stubborn politicians like Dion and Layton, battling to be in the driver’s seat, it is only a matter of time before the coalition bus will be derailed.
Historian, genealogist, political observer / commentator and researcher, as well as photographer, Branka Lapaine received her BA from the University of Toronto; PH.D. from University of London, England. Publisher of The Phoenix, a political publication which ran from 1986 to 1991, she is the author of several booklets (CUSO and Radicalism, etc.) and numerous articles. Branka is also the author of a genealogical guidebook.
