In many ways, an outside observer might be surprised at how smoothly Canada is functioning since our constitutional crisis last December. You can see it as either a mark of the resiliency of Canada's parliamentary system, or of the apathy of the Canadian public, but either way, 6 months after one of the most serious political crises in Canadian history, Canadian politics go on almost as if it never happened.
After my recent article on the Canadian Governor General's, Michaëlle Jean, change in dietary habits, a thread developed in the comments about her involvement in the coalition crisis from December 2008, and it occurred to me that many readers may not know much about the incident. To understand the crisis, it necessary to do a bit of explaining about the Canadian political system first.
Although I satirically called Canada a monarchy in the seal heart post, the truth is we are a parliamentary democracy, with a monarchical head of state. Our normal, day-to-day politics are governed by an elected parliament of Members, who are elected to represent specific geographical ridings in Canada. It is a population-based body that is probably most similar to the US House of Representatives from the American system. Currently, Canada elects 308 MP's (Members of Parliament) from across the 10 provinces and 3 territories.
The leader of the country, and that body of MP's, is called the Prime Minister. According to parliamentary procedure, the PM is the MP who can "gain the confidence of a majority of the house." In practise, this almost always ends up being the leader of the party that won the most seats in the house, and that can happen in one of two ways. Either the largest party wins a raw majority of seats (ie, more than 153), they form a majority government, and their leader essentially gets rubber stamped as the Prime Minister for up to 4 years, at his discretion, or the largest party wins a minority of seats, but still more than any other party, in which case they form a minority government, and their party leader almost always assumes the mantle of PM, assuming the confidence of the House. In this case, the PM always needs support from at least some opposition members to retain a "majority confidence" in the House of Commons, which is the only way they can retain legitimacy in the PM post.
In September of 2008, Canada started an election that eventually saw the Conservative Party of Canada, with Stephen Harper as leader, form a strong minority of 143 seats, against 77 Liberal seats, 49 Bloc Quebecois seats, and 37 New Democrat Party seats. There are a couple of significant points about the strength of this minority. First, with 143 seats, the Conservatives needed the support of only 11 Members to gain their majority confidence. Second, the weakness of the other parties meant that no two parties together had enough strength to form a majority ... the cooperation of all three parties would be required to gain a majority to oppose the Conservative government.
The cracks developed early. After submitting a much-panned economic statement, in the midst of the global economic meltdown, that not only did nothing to address the growing financial crisis, but also contained several partisan measures seemingly designed specifically to inflame the opposition parties, an unprecedented coalition of the opposition parties formed to oppose the governing Conservatives. A formal confidence vote was called for December 8, 2008. Rather than face that vote, Harper called on the arcane parliamentary procedure of prorogue to suspend the parliament.
And thats where Governor General Jean came in. Because of our monarchical component, the Queen's representative is the one who presides over all parliamentary disputes like this. It is her job to formally dissolve or seat a parliament, among other things, on the "advice of the Prime Minister." In this case, that meant that Harper could only ask for the prorogue ... it was the governor general who actually chose whether or not it happened.
It's worth noting that, traditionally, the Governor General almost always does what the Prime Minister asks. As an appointed, instead of elected, position, making decisions of policy is generally outside the pay scale of the GG. However, the GG is required to observe certain specific points of parliamentary procedure in making her decisions, specifically relating to the confidence of the House.
The most common role of a GG in Canadian politics is in the mechanics of election calls. When a PM calls an election, either by choice as a majority or minority, or through a failed confidence vote in a minority situation, that election call must go through the GG. The PM requests that she dissolve the parliament, and call an election. In almost all cases, its appropriate and required that she do just that, though there are cases where she has the option of allowing another majority (or defacto confidence) to form lead by one of the other opposition parties. It is vitally important that the GG understand, and pay attention to, issues of confidence in the House ... it is really one of her only important functions beyond ceremony these days.
That brings us to December 4th, 2008. In the face of an announced confidence vote on Dec 8, and an opposition coalition representing a majority of elected MP's, Harper requested a prorogue, or suspension, of parliament. It's hotly debated whether the GG should have had any role in approving or denying the request, other than as a rubber stamp, but I think the issues of confidence I discussed above made her role vital.
Her job, essentially, is to take advice from the PM on matters of change of government, and to adjudicate issues of confidence in the House. Given that Harper faced a coalition of MP's that represented a majority who had pledged to oppose him in a planned confidence motion, there is a lot of question about his legitimacy as Prime Minster at that point. The job of PM is only given based on the confidence of the House, and it was pretty clear at that point that he didn't have that confidence. All that lacked for official lack of confidence when Harper called for prorogue was the official vote ... Harper could clearly only command a minority of MP's at that point.
On Dec 4th, GG Jean agreed with Harper's request, and parliament was suspended, cancelling the planned confidence vote. That lead to a collapse of the coalition, and the eventual change of leadership of the largest opposition party, the Liberals. When parliament resumed Jan 26th 2009, the Conservatives tabled their budget (budgets are typically considered official confidence motions) which passed with fairly strong Liberal support, and the Conservative minority government lives on.
There are a few important points to be made about the coalition that formed, then died, in November and December. It was always spectacularly unstable, in design and practise. The idea of the NDP, a deeply socialist party, sitting beside the Bloc Quebecois, a deeply nationalist party (and Quebec Nationalist at that), for any length of time without stabbing each other boggles the Canadian mind, even with (especially with?) Liberal referees. It's highly doubtful that the coalition could have governed with any sort of stability, and were they given a chance to govern, they would have been an epic fail in short order, with little doubt.
None of that, sadly, changes the basic math however. At the time of prorogue that motley coalition represented the majority of duly elected MP's, and I think that's the point that Jean failed to consider in her choice. Like it or not, they were the majority, and I think her role as adjudicator of government change required her to consider that majority confidence in her decision.
I think she made the wrong call. Harper did not have the confidence of the House when he asked for the prorogue, in any sense other than strictly formal. I think the correct decision by the GG was to allow the planned confidence vote, and if Harper failed, to accept his call for a new election. She could have legitimately given the coalition a chance to form a government after a formal confidence vote ... as I indicated, that would have been a short lived marriage, almost certainly. Either way, an election would have been called in fairly short order.
And that's the ironic part of all this. Under that scenario, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives would almost certainly have a majority government at this point. With an immediate election, they had a chance to run a campaign against a coalition opponent that was deeply fractured and opposed across the country. With an opportunity for the coalition to form a government, they could have added the epic fail to their campaign bag. In either scenario, the case they could have made against the unpopular coalition was very strong, and almost certainly would have given them majority control of the House of Commons at this point.
Instead, we have a continuation of the old minority, propped up by the new Liberal leader. The Conservative finance minister has just announced that the budget deficit this year will be $16 billion higher than predicted, with no rational explanation why. As Canadians, we face an election at some point in the near-ish future, as the global economic chaos continues to swirl around us. This could all have been dealt with last year, had Harper the courage to face the confidence of the House, the only place he gets any legitimacy from.
I am no Conservative supporter in general, and I wouldn't relish living under the Conservative majority I describe, but it's the government we should have right now. What I relish even less is living in a country where a person who can't demonstrate the confidence of a majority of duly elected representatives has the power to suspend parliament for any reason, especially in order to avoid having that exact question answered. That is not the mark of a democratic nation.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
thebloggess
serenity says
1_Irritated_Mother
Martha Nichols
Coccinella
Rob Crotty
Salon.com
Comments
In the CG defense, another election takes time, and maybe she did the math as to the political connectedness of the thing and figured it wouldn't last. rated though and sent to other political scientists for the importance of our Northern Ally.
Especially this weekend, June 6, and the event that made it possible, not forgotten, Dieppe.
I should add, for any Americans reading this, that in Canada "to table" means basically the opposite of what it means in the States. In Canada, "to table" means to put something forward to be discussed and/or decided upon now. This comes from the metaphor of taking the document, dumping it on the table in front of everyone, and saying "let's deal with this now." In US usage, "to table" means to put something on hold and not deal with it now. So if a US congressman tables a bill, that means that they withdraw it from any current debate or vote. I guess the metaphorical table in the US is in another room or something...
I think that Canada is a monarchy. And a parliamentary democracy. (And a representative democracy. And a federation. And a constitutional monarchy. etc.) Those aren't mutually exclusive terms.
But in any case, I think it's good that you clarified the Canadian system here and how our Queen and the GG fit into it. Too many Americans seem to think that "monarchy" means a system just like the worst alleged offences of George III's government.
I'm a bit confused, however, as to why you characterize the Bloc as "nationalist" rather than sovereigntist. The two attributes are not mutually exclusive in the Québec context, of course. But Bourassa considered himself a nationalist, too, and yet was also a flaming federalist. The defining characteristic, it seems to me, is the sovereigntist one.
And whereas the Bloc was originally made up of Québec sovereigntists from across the political spectrum (Bouchard was no lefty), would you not agree that the Bloc has had a rather progressive voting record on the whole? Duceppe, let us recall, used to belong to the Workers' Communist Party of Canada and was very active in community organizing and with the unions. He could probably now best be categorized as a social democrat.
All of which makes me wonder why you see the Bloc and the NDP as being too incompatible to have been in an ad hoc coalition? Layton and Duceppe seem to have considerably more mature, broader views than the mercurial, histrionic, English-botching, and charisma-free Dion, who would constitute a far greater threat to coalition success on a pan-Canadian scale.
I would also submit that, if Canada must flirt with the right as an alternative to a Liberal leadership vacuum (pre-Ignatieff), having the Conservatives in power as a minority government is just about ideal. That way people can see how petty, indifferent to human rights, and lacking in transparency (and in Harper's case, I'd add Bush-adoring) they really are without their being in a position to wreak the full havoc they could wreak if theirs was a majority government.
Won't their economic performance restore them to their rightful minority position soon enough? There perhaps they will stay.
Thanks for the post Lyle--I'd been wondering what, if any, fallout there'd been after the prorogue. Naturally, no one was talking about it in the US. Your GG seems like a real piece of work. Rated.
The Canadian election is without contest, the most gruelling and demanding election in the world. Candidates must travel the second largest country on the planet coast to coast in three weeks. The Liberal party has never been as poor as it is now. Even though it won the second largest number of seats, itwon most of those seats by default. It had the lowest popular vote in its history. Its leader, Stephane Dion, had resigned and was leading in a interim capacity.
You clearly have no idea of the symbiotic relationship between the NDP and the Bloc. So let me explain it to you. In the late eighties, a group of Quebec lefties became disaffected with the Parti Quebecois for not being left wing enough. For about three years they began flirting with the NDP and formed a 9,000 member strong provincial wing of the NDP. This lasted through the late 80s when it realized that it was too identified in nationalists minds with anglo Canada.
Many of these people went off and formed the Bloc. The NDP and the Bloc have always had a relationship. The one seat the NDP has in Quebec (Outremont) is due to the support of Quebec Solidaire, a left wing sovereigntist provincial party that sends it's workers out for the NDP in ridings where the Bloc doesn't stand a chance (Outremont was Trudeau's riding.) As a Quebec journalist, and former sovereignist herself, Jean knows this well.
And so she knew that this coalition would have destroyed the Liberal party. Which, as a Liberal party appointee, left her with three options. Accept the request to prorogue, which would give the Liberals a chance to rebuild. Support a coalition, which would have fallen apart and most likely drained even more energy from the Liberals. Or wait for an election. Which would have bankrupted the Liberals.
I disagree with you that her job is to "essentially" follow historical protocol. Her job is to "essentially" do what she thinks is in the best interests of Canada. And I think, using her fairly sophisticated understanding of Quebec and Canadian politics, she did.
I agree with the difficulty of Canadian elections. The problem is, the Liberals financial problems shouldn't have been a concern for the GG in her deliberations, nor should the length of time since the election. What should matter is the rules relating to prorogue, which is that its only usable when no business has been done in session. That wasn't the case in Dec ... the government had already submitted several things, including the economic statement that set off the problems.
Ultimately, for me, this comes back to a basic question of math. Harper did not command a majority of the House. Its not the GG's job to protect the Liberals from themselves ... it's her job to adjudicate changes of power based on the rules of her position. The most fundamental rule of Canadian democracy is that you gain power through the confidence of the House and in no other way. For Harper to suspend parliament to specifically avoid answering questions of confidence is profoundly undemocratic. It's not a question of whether you like the result of applying democratic principles unfailingly ... its a matter of realizing that like it or not, democratic principles in Canada rest on confidence. We may not have liked the situation that resulted from expecting Harper to demonstrate that confidence, and it may well have ruined the Liberal party. None of that is any excuse to agree with undemocratic principles that allow a leader representing less than a majority of MPs to suspend parliament specifically to avoid having to demonstrate a majority.
If we jettison principle in the name of expediency, we end up losing both. In this case, we now have an ineffectual government that is destined for a new election in short order. I may not have liked what happened from an election call in Dec, and it might even have put us in a worse position ... but thats all immaterial since its not appropriate for a man commanding a minority of House seats to suspend that House specifically in order to avoid having to demonstrate that he has the confidence of the House. Whatever the result of forcing Harper to demonstrate confidence would have been, allowing someone who who can't demonstrate confidence to specifically avoid being forced to answer that question is not the proper way to do things in a democracy.
And finally. As the country seems to be splintering into more and more parties, its clear that the GGs role is going to become more than just someone who does math and follows a simple procedure.
That's the way it is in any country that has a coalition parliament. There's almost always a President, a mostly figure head position who represents a critical mass minority who has the power to make the veto coallition. The GG has not been the representative of the Queen since the Baron Byng crisis, when it was decided that the GG could make decisions without consulting Britain. My prediction is that as Canada becomes more complex the GG will almost always be someone from Quebec without important ties to any party, or maybe someone from the First Nations. Someone who is perceived as reasonably wise, and reasonably disinterested.
Here's the thing Lyle. The worst that has come of this decision has been us wasting too much time grumbling about it. The worst that would have come of that election, I believe, would have been an entrenched Conservative party. The only reason I think Harper didn't simply let the government fall apart is that he's too set in ways of doing everything on the cheap.
Still, I like the idea in the Canadian system that if the PM is a bum you don't necessarily have to sit there and live with it for four excruciating years.
Oh, and the beer is decent, too. And I love the way some Canadians say "aboot" for about. And you've figured out a workable, if imperfect, healthcare system. And lots of performers I like are from there. Man, shitty winters notwithstanding (I'm a Texas boy), I think I'm calling the moving van today!