Commentary on Canadian Public Affairs

Today the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in order to save himself from being defeated. If she grants his request, this will mean the end of responsible government in Canada as we know it. The core of our democracy is in peril and only the people can save it.

The principle of responsible government is a constitutional convention — an unwritten rule that has developed over time based on practice. But, just because it’s not in a document, doesn’t mean it’s not important. In fact, many of our political institutions aren’t written down; you won’t find the words “prime minister” in any of Canada’s constitutional documents.

Under responsible government, the executive (the prime minister and Cabinet) is accountable to the legislature. In other words, the government is accountable to the people through their elected representatives in the House of Commons. Therefore, once the executive, currently the Conservatives, loses the support of the majority of the House, it no longer has the authority to govern. It must step aside and allow the Governor General to either call an election or invite another group to take power.

Prime Minister,

Well, that didn’t go as well as planned now did it? I’ll avoid the “What were you thinking?” speech. We’re here now, and despite our differences you are the Prime Minister for at least a few more days. Canadians depend on their Prime Minister to do the right thing, so I hope you’ll take some advice on this issue.

It’s clear now that the opposition parities are going to vote non-confidence in your government. It’s also clear that the Liberals and the NDP have an official coalition and are going to ask the Governor General to invite them to form the government. What should you do?

According to the headlines, Canada is heading towards its first inter-election change of government since the 1926 King-Byng Affair. 

Despite winning only a quarter of the seats and subsequently offering a resignation that was strongly accepted by his party, Stéphane Dion may become Prime Minister by the end of the year. Stranger still, he will head a coalition government that includes the New Democrats, who are the fourth largest party in parliament, and is supported by the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Combined, the Liberals and NDP only have 114 seats, 29 fewer than the Conservatives they are about to topple.

While there is no Canadian precedent for this month’s manoeuvrings, in mid-19th century Britain, governments were formed and dissolved on a regular basis. Until Disraeli and Gladstone created the modern party system, these governments featured even stranger bedfellows than separatists and socialists. Even though suffrage was limited to propertied males (about 10% of the adult population), the electorate was split on foreign and domestic policies, including free trade, Irish rights, Church-state relationships, and relationships with the various French empires and republics.

If you’re upset about the political crisis going on in Ottawa, don’t blame Stephen Harper.

Well, who am I kidding, of course you should blame Stephen Harper; his inability to resist a chance to poke his adversaries in the eye, regardless of the costs to the country, precipitated this mess. But, Canada’s backward electoral system at the federal level should also be the subject of criticism this week.

The problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) method of electing Members of Parliament are well-known. In last month’s federal election, 62 per cent of Canadians voted against the party that ultimately formed government. As a result, the vast majority of voters, who undeniably lean progressive, ended up with a conservative prime minister.

A few days ago, I had an unsettling realization: Michael Ignatieff may be the best candidate to lead the Liberal Party.

Like many, I’m uncomfortable with Iggy’s views on Iraq, torture, and, perhaps most of all, the recognition of Quebec as a “nation”. But, the central issue of this leadership campaign should be federalism — the division of power between the federal and provincial governments. This issue comes before the economy because without clearly defined responsibilities, Canada’s governments won’t be able to respond effectively to the recession. And, on that score, Ignatieff seems to be the only candidate ready to abandon the old “Ottawa-knows-best” mentality that has hampered the political and policy success of the Party for too long.

This past weekend, on a quiet hillside in Kyiv along the Dnipro river, Ukrainians and dignitaries from around the world gathered to mark the 75th anniversary of one of the darkest periods in modern Ukrainian history, and one the greatest crimes of the twentieth-century. 

The Holodomor is the name given to the famine that broke out on the territory of Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933. The mass starvation that ensued claimed the lives of somewhere between six and ten million Ukrainians. What makes the Holodomor stand out is not the fact that a famine occurred or that millions died, but that the Soviet authorities were complicit in the deaths, and even intentionally caused them. 

The New York Times recently featured a story on the dilemma facing the United Kingdom with respect to private religious “courts” applying Sharia law in the UK’s Muslim communities. As is noted in the article, Ontario grappled with this issue in 2006 and decided to remove any possibility of legally binding arbitration based on religion. Ontario took this step because if it hadn’t it would be faced a dilemma: Give in to the public outcry against allowing “Islamic law” to be enforced in Ontario, or blatantly discriminate against Muslims (Christians and Jews were already permitted to use this type of arbitration in Ontario). 

Ontario’s decision was a fair one, but unnecessary. It is possible to allow this kind of arbitration while protecting Ontario law, Canadian values, and members of minority communities. However, doing so forces us to acknowledge that protecting personal freedom can mean allowing individuals to reject the rights offered by Canadian law.

As was widely expected, Michael Ignatieff recently announced his intention to enter the leadership race to replace Stéphane Dion. That the race will feature a renewed battle between the Rae and Ignatieff camps, means that Canadians will likely see Liberal knives out a little while longer before they see them sheathed away. 

The Liberal party, its leadership candidates and their supporters are rightly examining the Democrats’ recent victory for clues on how to not only energize their increasingly disillusioned base, but to again appear relevant to an increasingly skeptical Canadian public. While a lot of focus has been on Barack Obama, I think there’s a more fundamental lesson on party solidarity to be learned from Hillary Clinton.  

The evening of November 4, my Facebook news feed read like a lament for a nation. My Canadian friends, inspired by the candidacy of Barack Obama, began to long for their own visionary and transformational leader.

Through their status messages, young Canadians expressed their envy of how engaging American politics had become. They too wanted to reclaim their government, but felt aimless without a compelling figure to call them to action. They wondered, “Where’s Canada’s Barack Obama?”

True, it often takes an inspiring figure to galvanize a critical mass of people. And Barack Obama’s charisma and inspiring message were certainly part of his stunning victory. But neither his candidacy nor his election would have been possible without the willingness of everyday Americans to believe in something greater than them and work tirelessly to change their country. Young Canadians looking for their own Barack Obama should start by looking at themselves.