Canada’s Debate

The year is 1989. Alberta premier Don Getty sits at his desk studying the latest polls and agenda items for the following week. It’s been a busy year, with the billion dollar campaign recently wrapped up and another victory for the Conservatives. It was the second election in three years, and they lost two seats to drop their majority to 59 seats out of 83. One of those seats was Getty’s: he was defeated in Edmonton-Whitemud and forced to run yet another election two months later in the safe riding of Stettler.

Getty’s been putting a lot of extra hours in lately, forced to combat a continuing shaky economy hurt by the 1980’s decline in oil prices. The Meech Lake Accord is working its way through the legislature, and the PC government has been busy boosting spending on programs and public works, as promised on the campaign trail. For an Alberta used to governments and premiers with approval ratings well above 50%, Getty is an aberration: the PC party won just 44% of the vote in the spring election and the opposition is gaining strength for the first time in decades.

(more…)

The headlines today trumpeted the suddenly-increased possibility that the minority government could fall over the issue of the environment, or specifically if the government ignores the new Bill calling for the Kyoto Accord objectives to be met.

It is the sad but practical truth that the only way to really enforce that Bill is by calling a vote of non-confidence. As Joe said, it would be a sad, scary and, for Canada, unprecedented turn of events for a minority government to so blatantly ignore legislation passed by a majority. Regardless of political persuasion, the Bill has passed, majority has ruled and the government is obliged to respect it. If the Bill contains loopholes which the government can exploit and thus avoid doing anything, then that is the failure of the Bill, but assuming it is straightforward and direct, ignorance and dismissal of it would really be a giant slap to Canadian democracy.

Within the confines of our electoral system, we voted for a minority government, and we expect and demand that it be respected. A party with 33% support in the polls cannot behave as if it has a majority when it doesn’t and, regardless of the political motives behind it, the Bill forces the government to act. In theory, a minority opposition could get together and pass some useless Bill that obviously panders to politics and symbolism, we’ve seen that before. The government is still obliged to respond, no matter how lame that Bill might be. If it stinks, the opposition will pay for it at the polls.

This one is serious though, it’s not just symbolism. Canada’s environmental record is an embarrassment and the government has not done enough to reverse that reputation. The Kyoto Accord has more than enough respect and stature in the world to make the government’s rejection of it look like a very poor decision in the eyes of the world. There are no easy, quick solutions to fixing climate change but it sure doesn’t start by rejecting a global agreement that took years of hard work to complete, and defending that decision with negative, cynical arguments.

However, the question is, with this Bill now passed by the House, have the opposition made climate change too political for its own good? Will it be blamed as the issue that triggered yet another election, and will it thus suffer in the polls as a result? Will those opposed to Kyoto, who don’t place the environment as a priority, be able to score major political points and tarnish the urgency of this issue?

But on the other hand, how can the opposition do nothing if the government ignores their Bill? They would look very weak-kneed and unwilling to go the distance in defending a policy that clearly has the support of the majority of the house, which is pretty rare to see unless it’s a vote to bring down the government. The government would sense that weakness and would get away with doing nothing.

Obviously the big loser here is the environment, Kyoto and the efforts to ensure climate change legislation is taken seriously. Meaningful change and action would be stalled for months. We’re already behind, but at least the ball can get rolling now instead of in 6 months.

It ultimately depends on the support of the people. Would Canada not be the first country to have an election itself forced over Kyoto and climate change? If our citizens decide they do care enough, that it’s worth the battle to force the parties to act, then the chance to hold an election over such a serious matter should be embraced. And the party that does take it seriously would win the next election.

Here’s a topic for discussion: reform of Canada’s Senate. Yay… Who wants to talk about it? Anyone? No.. aww, well, in these days of urgent focus on, environmental policies and Afghanistan missions, Senate reform has steadily remained on the back pages, even with the Conservatives bringing forth new proposals in the House. There was a time when democratic renewal and consitutional reform was front and centre in the media, but even now, 15 years after Charlottetown, it seems we still don’t have a national appetite for serious debate.

All this comes to mind having just picked up the latest copy of the Parliamentary Newsletter, which featured testimonials from three provincial ministers before the Senate Commission on Senate Reform. Presented as a “round table discussion,” it was instead transcripts from three separate speeches on different days, hardly a debate. It was the same old arguments: Alberta calling for the ol’ Triple E, Quebec reminding us that no changes are possible without the provinces’ consent, and Ontario insisting that there are far, far more important things to be talking about.

Maybe Ontario is right, we’ve gone this long, why change now? Ontario’s Intergovernmental minister said that, if anything, her province’s representation in both the House of Commons and the Senate should be increased, given that Ontario has “39% of Canada’s population but just 34% of the seats in the House.” You just roll your eyes. Besides, that one’s a smokescreen, if a bad one. Populist politics makes it so easy to claim reform and democratic renewal as the ‘right’ (correct) side of the debate. “Of course we need to reform the Senate; that a serious, powerful political body that is not elected still exists in this day and age is unconscionable.” My eyes are getting sore.

Thank goodness we still have a legislative body that is largely free from the political partisanship and mind-numbing rhetoric that is so completely dominant today. Its members don’t think about the perfect media soundbites, or staying focused for the next election. They focus on reviewing bills and legislation, regardless who is in power.

We need to talk about the Senate’s strengths and benefits. If you want accountability, give it some media focus. Let’s get more interviews with Senators, more reports on how productive they are, or aren’t.

I do support Senate reform, but not just for the populist sake of it. I like the proposal for 8 year terms, it keeps Senators on their toes and gives them a deadline to accomplish their goals and objectives. Senators should still be appointed, but how about by the Governor General? I bet that sounds like elitism and favouritism at its best. But when you get out there in the real world, you realize that people like the monarch and her representatives take their positions very seriously. They are very aware of popular opinion polls and overstepping their authority and credibility. We are fortunate that in Canada there is a growing trend in appointing good, passionate Canadians as Governors General. The bottom line, the Prime Minister makes Senate appointments right now, of course that is going to smack of partisanship. The GG, like the Speaker of the House, is required to be above that and make neutral decisions for the benefit of all Canadians.

If that doesn’t sound good enough, then perhaps a Citizens’ Commission can do the job. Accountability is important in the Senate; people can’t take their seats and then sit down to do nothing for the next 25 years. But frankly, that rarely happens, Senators do take their jobs seriously. This is why they need and deserve more exposure and attention. Ignorance leads to fear which leads to knee-jerk reactions. Canada is fortunate to still have a legislative body that rises above partisanship. The country just needs to know about it.

Is the number of Liberal leadership candidates not bordering on the ridiculous? It used to be about who was actually going to run for it, now it’s about who isn’t going to run.

I realize though that, when I look at the candidates themselves, there are a lot of people I like and who would make good Prime Ministers. I support many of their policies and even though politics is a dirty game, I believe they are good people. Ken Dryden, Gerard Kennedy, Scott Brison, Bob Rae, Carolyn Bennett (somewhat) and even, grudgingly, Michael Ignatieff would all be good leaders and have agreeable policies. (more…)

Minority parliaments are unique, not just because they force compromise, but because political prognosticating adjusts from 4-5 years to 3-12 months. Anything beyond is pretty much a completely different generation.

Here’s what to expect over the next twelve months.

The Conservative will have to compromise in order to hold onto power. With a caucus made up of many stubborn MP’s and ghosts in the closet, this may be no easy task. Unless they are smart and careful, the gloss of a new government may come off quickly, something which may have already begun this past week.

Step one is passing the budget in April, something that can only be achieved with opposition (read: NDP) support. If they pass that test, which again will require significant diversion from their policies, the next will come around November, by which time the Conservatives will have had ten months in the spotlight. If they are not successful and positive months, the opposition could assemble the political will to force a change. Finally, the third and most significant test will be the 2007 budget, sometime between February and April. It is very rare that any minority government can pass two budgets; how realistic is it that this one will? (more…)