Canadian Coalition "Coup"

by: Daniel De Groot

Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 20:55


Canada's three Opposition parties have united to replace the governing Conservative Party with a Liberal/NDP formal coalition just six weeks after voters returned the CPC to power with a near parliamentary majority.  This is a stunning turn of events.  
Daniel De Groot :: Canadian Coalition "Coup"
First off, it isn't a fait accompli just yet, because there is the technical but vital minor detail that Stephen Harper is still Prime Minister, and until the Governor General fires him, or Parliament passes a vote of non-confidence, this historic agreement between three opposition parties is just so much paper and could fall apart in a flash.

What Happened?

Harper started this by overreaching.  In the weeks prior, his government has been sticking to a Hooverism line on maintaining the federal budget surpluses, including the finance minister speculating about selling off some major federal assets.  

His government proposed an "economic statement", a type of budget bill.  Mixed in there were a few rather contentious items including restrictions on federal civil service unions striking and an end to a $1.95 per-vote public election funding program for political parties.

Killing the per-vote public funding program was a blatant partisan electoral move by the Conservatives, who have the best fund raising apparatus (big surprise, the party of the rich has an easier time garnering donations).  The program costs about C$30M a year, so it clearly was not large enough to have anything to do with the government belt-tightening supposedly needed in this crisis (Canada's Federal government budget runs about C$200B).  

After the election, pretty much all observers expected that Harper and the Conservatives would have a free hand to govern as they saw fit, since the last thing the Liberals would do is bring down the government and go into another election under the now discredited leadership of Dion.

Well they miscalculated.  Badly.  The latter part was true, but in a parliamentary system, holding elections after the government falls is not technically required.  Harper went for the brass ring, trying to gut the funding of all his opposition under the cover of the crisis (disaster electioneering), when the Liberals supposedly wouldn't stop him and an amazing thing happened: the cornered prey turned to fight.  

Once launched, the idea took a life of its own, initially fed by the increasingly desperate flailing of the government as they blustered and then backed down on their proposals.  All of which only fed the confidence of the opposition.

The Deal

Read it here.  The Prime Minister and Finance Minister will be Liberals, there will be 24 cabinet ministers, and the NDP get 6.  The NDP and Liberals will sit side by side on the Government benches in the House, and will still caucus separately.  It will expire in 2011.

As for the separatist party, the Bloc Quebecois, they will not be part of the government, though they have signed an accord agreeing to support the government for 18 months.

What happens Next

This can go two ways.  The three opposition leaders have now sent this letter to the Governor General, asking her to dismiss PM Harper and ask Dion to form a government.  Formally, she doesn't actually have to wait for the no-confidence vote in Parliament.  

There is some fear Harper will "prorogue" Parliament (which means suspend it without dissolving it), so he can remain as PM until the next session in the new year.  It turns out though that it is the Governor General who really does this when the PM asks.  Now that she has a letter in hand from leaders representing a majority in Parliament saying they have lost faith in the current government, I don't think she can agree to prorogue.  She may wait for the formal vote of no-confidence this Monday though.

She also has the option of just calling a new election, but no one seems to think she will do that.  Normally this decision isn't an issue because if a Government has fallen, there is never another party that could conceivably claim the support of parliament anyway to form a viable government.  Since she has a signed accord representing a majority, she has no formal reason to call an election.  So will she wait for Monday's vote, or dismiss Harper sooner and give Dion the nod?  This is one of those rare instances where the normally ceremonial GG has some real decision making power.  The Conservatives are in panic-mode, apparently they have arranged for protests across the country tomorrow, and if given a few more days to influence public opinion and otherwise ratfuck, they may find a way to squeak out of this.  Or not.  I don't see how any opposition leader backs down with any self-respect at this point.

Fallout

Anyone's guess.  Canada has not seen this sort of coalition at the Federal level, and very rarely at the Provincial.  We had what was called the "Unity" government during WWI, but apparently that was more a bunch of Liberals defecting to the Conservatives for the duration of the War.  At other points, the NDP have propped up Liberal minority governments, but never in a true coalition with NDP holding cabinet seats.

This is a tremendous gamble, because the public might decide they despise it and reward the Conservatives with that majority they want so badly.  A million things can go wrong, as this is really a three way coalition despite the Bloc not being formally in the government, it will be very complicated to keep it together.  

Meanwhile as wags are saying, Harper will go down as one of Canada's most successful politicians - first having united the right to become Prime Minister, and now having united the left to depose him.  Dion gets his chance to be Prime Minister, and the Liberal leadership race takes on a new vitality as the winner will in some likelihood become PM as well as party leader (assuming this government is still standing in 6 months).

For Harper, it may mean his eventual ruin because apparently the decision to kill the public party funding was his, and against the advice of his cabinet.  Already some members of his party were noticed not applauding when he stood up first during Question Period today.  Not a great sign for him.

Oh, he may also be in some trouble for releasing a recording of an NDP confidential conference call that a Conservative MP phoned into and secretly recorded.  This might have been a crime, but it certainly added a flavour of Watergate to the whole thing.  

So that's Canada.  Boring old Canada.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Looks like a done deal (0.00 / 0)
Any ideas on who will win the Liberal leadership election?

And what will happen to Layton. Perhaps Foreign Affairs Minister?  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


honestly no idea (0.00 / 0)
Ignatieff is the favourite, but I hope it's not him.  If not him, then Rae is the next best pick but this is just so much CW.

Layton should have his pick of the available slots.  I doubt he picks Foreign Affairs, it's actually something of a dark-horse position in Canada - you're out of the limelight when out of the country.  He'll want a big domestic one.  Health, Labour or Industry perhaps.  


[ Parent ]
Grit Leadership Racce (0.00 / 0)
Michael Ignatieff seems to be the front runner at this point.  Bob Rae  is a former NDP'er and might gain support from left wing liberals and Dominic LeBlanc is a legacy pick but I don't think that he has widespread supprt at this time

[ Parent ]
Must be nice. (4.00 / 4)
The Democrats have a majority here and they're still afraid of conservatives.

Thanks for the update Daniel... (0.00 / 0)
Any chance this will lead to a proportional representation system?  That would be the best outcome by far as any such system would essentially make it impossible for the Conservatives to ever take power.  Plus it would also lead to the Liberals frequently, if not always (at least while the BQ is taking large parts of QC), needing to include the NDP in a coalition government - definitely a good thing in my opinion.  

not sure (4.00 / 1)
That's a big bite to take.  Ontario held a referendum on a PR-like system (Mixed Member Proportional) in its last general election and it didn't do well, but then it was set up to fail and only the NDP were campaigning for it.

But I never thought a coalition would come about like this, so maybe they will attempt some really bold things.  

It will probably take a national referendum to do it.


[ Parent ]
you never know (4.00 / 1)
It seems the opposition is in a real mood to punish the conservatives.  Nothing would punish them more than some type of proportional representation system.  Eternal irrelevance.  If the liberals campaigned for it, along with the ndp, it might stand a chance.  Especially if it were sold as a means to always have a center/left government (obviously how center and how left would vary depending on election outcomes).  The biggest problem would be getting the bq to play ball - any pr system would definitely lead to them getting fewer seats in parliament - probably a tough sell.  Although, if it was just a true national referendum, and it didn't require 50%+ in each province like Meech Lake, decreasing the influence of the bloc might actually be a big enough selling point in English Canada to offset the likely crushing defeat in Quebec.  

[ Parent ]
As recently as 2003, Bloc supported proportional representation (4.00 / 2)
Back in September 2003, when the Liberals controlled Parliament, the NDP introduced a motion to hold a national referendum on proportional representation. It was defeated by the Liberals, but got support from both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois.

I don't see how PR would do anything but hurt the Bloc, so maybe Bloc leader Duceppe supports PR out of principle, or maybe back in 2004 he saw it as a way to stop the Liberals from winning governing majorities with a minority of the vote.

As for Stéphane Dion, he personally supports electoral reform (audio) — but instead of PR, he supports preferential voting.


[ Parent ]
In the past, referendum on PR a prerequisite for NDP support (4.00 / 1)
As recently as the 2004 elections, Layton made electoral reform, specifically a national referendum on proportional representation (PR), a prerequisite for NDP support of any government.

Back in 2004, Liberal leader Paul Martin promised to pursue electoral reform, but then tossed aside the idea once he was in power — even though his minority government depended on the NDP's support. Even before that, Martin and the Liberals voted against an NDP motion for a national referendum on PR back in September 2003.

I'm sure Layton's first priority is to show Harper the door, and there's no way he'd bring down the government over the issue (unless the Liberals have already agreed to it and go back on their word). Some people claim that Layton's impetuousness brought down Martin's minority government in 2005, but Martin actually promised to call an election within 30 days of the Gomery report. When the opposition tried to schedule the election that Martin had promised, he balked, forcing the no-confidence vote.

Layton is smart politician, and I'm sure he's carefully planning how the NDP can win concessions without pushing its luck. Even if the Liberals don't support electoral reform en masse, there may be enough votes to pass it. And right now Liberal leader Stéphane Dion is a lame duck — due to the party's poor performance in the election, a new leader of the Liberal Party will be elected next spring. Early next year might be a window of opportunity for PR in Canada.


[ Parent ]
Samrt hell, Layton is brilliant. (0.00 / 0)
This is all Layton one of the great politicians of North America.  It seems self serving to say, I admit a bias, but this isn't dishwater Dion or anything at all to do with the dark lord Ignatieff.

Layton has rebuilt the NDP, made a force to be reckoned with, using every trick, smart move and deep knowledge of rules and policy. Layton has great advisors, but just like Obama causes us all to say, damn that was smart, Jack gets things done, before you knew they could be done.\

On PR its not in the statement of principles, so it will probably not be in the first year if at all. It doesn't help the Bloc, as theyu would lose seats under any PR system, and the Liberals always aim to get a majority government with 40% of the vote. They always have, they hope they always will.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
I saw some kind of weird quote (0.00 / 0)
Wherein Harper was outright asserting that they couldn't do this, that there was some sort of Canadian constitutional reason that if his party won the election that he gets to be PM whether the majority of the parliament want to form a unity government or not. Is there any basis for this whatsoever or is this just the desperate thrashing of a politician facing the end of his career?

yup (4.00 / 4)
Just desperate thrashing.  This is quite constitutional, if unprecedented and unorthodox.  It's almost like our first Impeachment.

[ Parent ]
No it isnt. Its pretty normal stuff. (0.00 / 0)
This is how Peterson and Rae ran Ontario, and if you look in the books you will find other examples, and examples in other countries too. This standard operating for a Parliamentary system. Peterson and Rae in Ontario ruled despite the fact that Miller (the conservative) had the most seats. But that time again the Libs and NDP had more together.

Parliament is this:

"Do you have the confidence of the house?"

"No?"

"Does anyone else?"

It often happens (the creation of a coalition) sooner than this, within the first few days after an election, but Harper had to act like an ass to jump start the process. No I have no confidence in Harper.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
What will this mean in terms of public policy? (4.00 / 2)
What are the largest points of agreement between the NDP and the Liberals that will be enacted should they take over the government? And what is likely to cause the coalition to unravel?

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter


Also on that (4.00 / 1)
What do you think will happen in terms of climate change? That seemed to be a big disagreement.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
economic stimulus (4.00 / 1)
Is the immediate goal.  Beyond that, there is agreement on the need to act on climate change, general agreement on a social agenda, maintaining single payer health care and maybe even a national day-care program.

The big fracture point is not between the NDP and Liberals, but the Bloc, who are still formally a sovereigntist party and supposedly only exist to promote separation for Quebec.  The issue is quiescent right now because fervour for separation is quite low in Quebec, but they might get antsy.  Helping Canada's federal government work too well isn't really in their interest.


[ Parent ]
The national daycare plan is in the agreement. (4.00 / 1)
It will be modeled on the system now in use in Quebec. universal, plenty of spaces, more as we move forward, with each space costing about 5 to 10 dollars a day per child. And as everyone who is a parent knows that is a huge saving.
Daycare is far too limited, with thousands waiting to get in, tens of thousands, and it costs about $500 to 900 per child a month, this will roll at about $100 a month. It is very pro woman, pro family.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
In 2005, the NDP forced the Liberal budget to the left (0.00 / 0)
Back in 2005, the Liberals led a minority government, but without a formal coalition with the NDP. Initially, the Liberals, led by Paul Martin, released a budget that pleased the Conservative Party, including $4.6 billion in tax cuts for big corporations and $12.8 billion in additional military spending. Conservative leader Harper pledged to support it: “I'm a lot happier than I thought I'd be. The major priorities in this budget are Conservative priorities.”

However, after the Liberal Party's popularity plunged due to testimony on the sponsorship scandal, Harper saw an opportunity to bring down the Liberal government, and a confidence motion like the budget presents a good opportunity to oust a government. Suddenly, Paul Martin needed the NDP's support to stay in power and pass his budget.

The NDP, led by Layton, insisted that the tax cuts for big corporation be stripped and, instead, the $4.6 billion be used to boost spending on social programs. In the final deal, Layton got $1.6 billion for affordable housing, $1.5 billion for tuition and training, $900 million for the environment and public transit, $500 million for foreign aid, and $100 million for pension protection fund for workers.

Harper of course denounced this as “death-bed conversions and deals with the devil.”

Right up to the end, the Liberals preferred their original conservative budget, with billions in tax cuts for big corporations, to the one with the NDP amendments. After the budget deal, Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale (who introduced the original Liberal budget proposal) told reporters, “I would have preferred my original plan. I would prefer not to have to make these changes.” Martin vowed to push ahead with the corporate tax cuts. “We have pulled the large corporate tax cuts out of this budget to be pursued in a separate piece of legislation. And that separate piece of legislation we'll introduce as soon as the Conservatives or somebody say they will support it. The corporate tax cuts remain intact.”

So, in 2005, the Liberals and NDP were able to work together to pass a budget. And, thanks to the NDP's pressure, the Liberals passed a liberal budget instead of a conservative one.

Eventually, the Liberal minority government was defeated over wrangling around when to hold the next election. Martin promised to call an election within 30 days of the Gomery report on the sponsorship scandal, but when the opposition tried to schedule the election, he balked, so they passed a no confidence motion instead. Luckily, nothing like that will affect this coalition government.


[ Parent ]
My gratitude again to right wing over-reaching (4.00 / 4)
If Harper hadn't resolved to be such a shocking douchebag with last week's moves, this would likely never have happened.

Without blatant right wing over-reach, the 'opposition' parties might not have had the gumption to notice that they were, in fact, the majority.


What if this were the US (0.00 / 0)
I posted a diary on this, but I'll ask the question here.  If we had separate Progressive and DLC/New Dem political parties, what sort of compromises would you be willing to make to bring down a conservative government?  What Cabinet posts would you be willing to give up?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

it sounds like the big split b/w NDP and Liberals is the Afghanistan war (4.00 / 1)
Imagine a concession to the Joe Lieberman party was that we had to stay in Iraq. I'm not sure I could stand it. But to have somebody to help us with our economic agenda and to project an image of unity, we might not have much other choice.

It's eerily similar to reality, actually. Except that we're actually going to get out of Iraq. Thank goodness!


[ Parent ]
The Coalition Government (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that this coalition will last the entire two years.  I think you will see an economic package of some kind.  I don't think you will see much else.  Once the Liberal leadership convention is over the Liberal leader will take 4 or 5 months and then go to the country.  Dion is a placeholder until the leadership is decided.

A strange result (0.00 / 0)
In the aftermath of an election, the Prime Minister will be one that wasn't a leader during the election.

Stuff like that happens in Parlementary Democracies (see, eg, John Major) but it is rather odd.  

It's great to see Harper out, though.


From a country with a lot of coalitions .... (4.00 / 1)
Success of coalitions depends on luck (but does a lot of politics), but it also depends on the personalities of the Prime Minister and that of the leaders of his Coalition partners, also on partnership and a sharing of the burdens of unpopularity around the cabinet table.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search