rabble.ca is a reader-supported site -- we count on donations from people like you. Please join us as a paying member (click here) or send a one-off donation (click here) to help us continue our work.
The gap that separates government benches from the official opposition was reportedly established to keep each side more than two swords length from the other. At least that is the tale told about the Westminster parliament, the model for the Canadian parliament.
Parliamentary governments have a dynamic that is not widely understood. Rather than attacking sword in hand, as it were, governments tend to cherry pick ideas from the opposition. The reason is simple. No government wants an opposition party to build its base of support. Often, adopting an opposition policy helps a government keep its adversary from gaining ground.
In a minority situation, in 2008 Stephen Harper was forced to bring in an expansionary budget, though he was on record as denying the existence of a recession, and not believing in government deficits. He extended unemployment benefits, although he is a sworn enemy of social spending, especially for income support.
With the 41st Parliament about to open, and enjoying a majority for the first time, it is easy to imagine that Harper will move swiftly to implement his agenda, paying no attention to the 103 NDP members of the official opposition seated opposite. Undoubtedly, he will act swiftly to cut government spending, and reduce public service employment. His tough-on-crime agenda will proceed quickly. The long-gun registry will be killed. Senate reform will go ahead. He may well introduce legislation to privatize the CBC and Radio-Canada.
Furthermore, the prime minister may decide to ignore the official opposition when it points out that eight provinces support the doubling over time of Canada Pension Plan benefits. Harper could well turn a deaf ear when Jack Layton asks him why the government has ignored requests from mayors and the government of Quebec for army assistance to deal with the out of control flood waters in the Richelieu valley.
After his re-election in 1988, Brian Mulroney saw no need to heed the opposition calls for assistance to workers hurt by the introduction of free trade. After the demise of the Meech Lake Accord, he did not think it necessary to bring the opposition on board before attempting a second round of constitutional reform. By going it alone, when the 1993 election results were counted up, the Conservatives had won two seats.
Advertising
Jean Chrétien took over from the Conservatives, and he governed in the more traditional way, taking ideas about deficit reduction, and a plan B for Quebec (what became the Clarity bill) directly from the Reform Party program, as its leader Preston Manning (and Stephen Harper) watched uncomfortably from across the aisle.
On announcing Canadian non-participation in the Iraq war, Chrétien acknowledged the wishes of Quebec, not just his own members, but also those from the hated Bloc Québeçois.
Chrétien won three successive majorities by borrowing governing ideas from the opposition.
Pierre Trudeau ran his 1972 election campaign against wage and price controls, proposed by his Conservative opponents. Returned to power in a minority situation, he then introduced them, and borrowed ideas liberally from the NDP as well. Wiser, he went on to win a majority again in 1974.
The dynamics of parliamentary government suggest that an opposition party can succeed in getting its ideas adopted by the government, and fail to take power, because the prime minister's party is strengthened as a result. Conversely, the prime minister can ignore the ideas of the opposition, allowing them to enlarge their base of support, and watch his government go down to defeat when the public judges he has lost touch with popular opinion. Either way the official opposition has a key role to play in the upcoming parliamentary session.
The sword of choice for Stephen Harper when he attacks opposition leaders is negative advertising on television. One of the democratic reform measures the official opposition should push to have introduced is bans on television advertising by political parties outside the electoral period. In the meantime, the NDP should be preparing its own ads comparing what the government is doing to what Canadians want to see from their government.
Duncan Cameron is the president of rabble.ca.
Thank you for choosing rabble.ca as an independent media source. We're a reader-supported site -- visited by over 315,000 unique visitors during the election campaign! But we need money to grow. Support us as a paying member (click here) or in making a one-off donation (click here).
These are dark days for Canada (possibly the darkest).
But at this point,I hope the Cons go hog wild......At the end of the day,only their base 30% will support it and the seats they may have stolen from the traditional Liberal center/right base may well disappear in the next election.
Not to mention that the alienation of Quebec will only serve to strengthen the sovereignty option.
As cynical as this may sound,I don't think Harper really cares about the next election..I think there's an agenda that could only come to fruition with a majority.
Now that they have that majority,they can implement any policy and/or law that they want.
They're taking over the Senate and they will take over the SCC.
I think the ultimate goal was to kill the Canada everyone was familiar with for the past 50 years and replace it as a bastardized American state.
I have no doubt that by 2015,Canada's progressives will find themselves knocked back to the early 1900's and it will take a generation or 2 to get back to where we were 10 or 15 years ago.
For the Harperites,it would be mission accomplished.
The only positive thing through all this is a renaissance of the Quebec Independence movement and a winning referendum.
If 39.7% is good enough for a majority government win,then 50% + 1 is good enough to seperate.
I have no doubt that by 2015,Canada's progressives will find themselves knocked back to the early 1900's and it will take a generation or 2 to get back to where we were 10 or 15 years ago.
I'm in complete agreement with the first half of your analysis, but I'm afraid there is no possibility of recovery afterwards short of armed revolution. I'm becoming resigned to living the rest of my life in an ever-deteriorating banana republic.
I don't know whether you're more cynical or more realistic than I am,LTJ.
Hopefully it won't take an armed confrontation...Hopefully whichever the successor may be come the next election,they will not only try to undo the damage but finally take a stand on many issues which would mean scrapping alot of laws and implement firm policies.
But without any power in the Senate or the Supreme Court,there's not much to doubt about a banana republic future for many years to come.
Just look at what the United States became when Reagen and the christian right took control--they're still fucked up.
Just a side note...It seems that there is no way to get around it anymore either...Europe is rapidly becoming a neo-con American state (the whole continent)
So we don't even have the option of packing our bags and leaving anymore :(
Duncan, I often appreciate and look forward to your columns, but i think that this one is a bit too Pollyanna. For the most part, Harper has done pretty much whatever he wanted to during the last few years of minority government. If he didn't get away with his agenda in Parliament, he simply did what he wanted administratively, or by putting together huge omnibus legislative agendas that were inserted into budgets that passed in Parliament in order to avoid unwanted elections. Consider the trashing of the Navigable Waters Act that were passed a few years ago. With a majority, harper will do whatever he wants, and given the vote split that we currently have, he's unlikely to suffer much at the next election.
The difference between 1993 (when the conservatives were reduced to just two seats in the House of Commons) and today is that in 1993 the right wing vote was split at least two ways with the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party battling it out for the right wing vote. Today, with only one main party courting the right wing vote, there is much less likelihood that the Conservatives will lose many seats given that the left wing vote is split as it is today.
That said, I'm not arguing for a reduction in the number of parties in Canada. I'm pleased that there is a relative plethora of political parties in Canada. Democracy is best served by a diversity of voices. I do not want to see a polarization of politics in Canada. Polarized politics means that there is less likelihood of one side listening to the other. People just start to tune out to any messages from the other side. With our relative multitude of credible political parties in Canada, citizens are called upon to listen more carefully to the ideas being brought forward.
Of course, the first past the post electoral system that we labour under, means that citizens are also called upon to be creative in finding ways to compensate for our unfair electoral system. This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is much room for creativity here, and let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Harper is simply going to defeat himself at the next election. That's not as likely to happen as it did in 1993.
Anyone who says that a Harper government has anything to do with the Republicans knows nothing about American politics. In many ways Harpers Conservatives are a bit left of the Democrats.
There are a number of things that Mr Harper has said he would do before and during the election and now that he has a majority, why wouldn't he do those things? Obviously if he strays far from his election platform, he won't get his party elected in 5 years. You people might disagree with some of his policies but most Canadians actually believe that he is honorable and doesn't state things he believes to be false. If you think Mr Harper is a lier then you know nothing about the man!
Why do so many people insist on giving him motives he simply doesn't have to do things he has explicitly said he won't do? (abortion, same sex marriage etc)
Most of what I hear about Mr Harper are the lies and innuendo of the opposition and the media who believe they are helping the public in denouncing everything this man does.
I take great exception to everyone talking about Mr Harper's promises! Did he ever say "I promise" anything? He stated how he would like things to be on Senate Reform etc but I have news, he can't do everything he might want to do personally. He simply isn't that powerful, so get over it.
The Conservative Speaker of the House had to admit that Stephen Harper was a liar in order to allow a vote on the charges of Contempt of Parliament. Perhaps you are just somewhat less than aware of the facts, clarkd99.
Left of the Democrats?
I'd have a hard time believing they were left of the Israeli Likud Party.
Troll.