EDITORIAL: Harper's heavy hand

1. Canadian support for Harper increased during the recent election and has increased further since the attempt by opposition parties to form a coalition. 2. The "rules" of parliamentary democracy allow for coalitions but they also allow for the Prime Minister to prorogue parliament as Harper has done. There is no "rule" that says you must cut your own throat at the earliest opportunity. Your view that this was unnecessary is naive at best. Do you think that "Canadians" can say "OK this is not good, let's go to the polls". Don't you realize that the coalition can cling to power for years even with low approval rates.

This article just shows the lack of understanding Americans have for a Westminster system of democracy. Unlike the US, where the roles, election dates and powers of each branch of government are strictly spelled out, Westminster systems, such as Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, have constitutions that leave large sections of political power to 'convention' - ie, what has always been done. One of those conventions in Canada is that the largest party forms the government. Another is that the Federal Government should never be propped up solely by the votes of separatist parties. With a divided government like the US has, it is easy to forget that Westminster systems do not have the level of checks and balances the US has. For all intents and purposes, all power lies with the elected house (House of Commons). Had the coalition taken over, there would have been no election until either four years from now or when the coalition Prime Minister decided there would be one. The Governor-General does not dissolve Parliament alone, only on advice from the PM. So there is every chance that the Canadian people would have had no opportunity to vote on the coalition until long after it had formed. Stephen Harper may have caused the crisis, but he is using perfectly constitutional (if unusual) methods for dealing with it. For the coalition to unseat the sitting government without even waiting for them to produce a budget and a full agenda would be reprehensible.

The editorial is, in my view, very accurate and I agree with it. The editorial shows a greater understanding of the Canadian system, I will suggest, than is apparent in some of the comments below. The fact is that the move is unprecedented, at least in Canada and possibly in the British Westminster tradition. Yes - the GG ordinarily will agree to suspend Parliament but the PM does not ordinarily go to the GG for the express purpose of avoiding a non-confidence motion in Parliament. If Parliament has lost confidence in the government, the government takes the result of the vote in stride and the GG either appoints a new government or dissolves Parliament and calls an election. The suggestion in one comment that it is a constitutional convention that "the Federal Government should never be propped up solely by the votes of separtist parties" is absurd. It is also an extremely disingenuous argument from a PM who has had no difficulty proposing to work with the "separatists" in the past. Opposition parties forming a coalition to replace the governing party (whether one likes it or not) is NOT an abuse of parliamentary democracy. Suspending Parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence is. Let's not forget that the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP received not only more seats, but considerably more votes from Canadians, than did the Conservatives. The convention is not actually that the largest party governs - it is that the current government be given a chance to continue governing if they can maintain the support of the House. Harper was given that chance and he lost the confidence of the House. Unless his government gains it back, it will fall. Whether one likes that particular change in power or note, that is how our parliamentary system works. We just don't get to see it often because we have grown accustomed to majority governments.

As others here have noted -- and the author of this column blithely seems to have ignored -- this cabal of sore losers (i.e., the liberal/socialist/separatist "Coalition") sprang out of nowhere SEVEN WEEKS after a $300-million Federal Election in which the Conservatives by far won more seats than any other party. While Harper's Conservatives were, indeed, still in a minority position (143 seats out of a total of 308), they decidedly improved their seat total over what they won to create their FIRST minority government back in January 2006. For the other three parties to try to overturn the clear desire of the Canadian electorate to carry on with a Conservative minority goverment is -- while technically legal -- morally disgusting. And public-opinion polling since this attempted coup is showing STRONG resistance to the idea of the coalition taking over without there first being another federal election. Lastly, the main instigator of this plot, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, is so rejected by his own party that his promise to resign as of the planned Liberal leadership convention in early May 2009 has now been advanced such that he will bail-out TOMORROW (Wednesday 10 December), and the party leadership will apparently be handed to Michael Ignatieff without the untidy formality of letting the Liberal-party rank-and-file VOTE for whom they want as leader! (NOTE: during the last election campaign, Dion the Dunce SPECIFICALLY said that he would NOT entertain any idea of a coalition with the other opposition parties!) Bottom line: when Parliament resumes on 26 January (with a Federal Budget introduced the next day by the Conservatives), a Liberal leader with no democratic credentials to lead his party either will or will not decide to stay part of this rapidly fracturing "coalition" and vote down the budget (which would bring down the Conservative government). If this happens, the only FAIR course of action for the Governor-General to take would be to authorize another federal election, and let the PEOPLE decide if this coalition plot appeals to them. There was NO "coalition" mentioned on MY ballot on 14 October...and that means the Canadian electorate did NOT have a proper opportunity to vote with full knowledge of the planned outcome by the Opposition!

The article is dead right. If the coalition came to power, it could soon be defeated by a counter vote of no-confidence ( by cajoling a few members of the coalition to vote with the Conservative Party or by fracturing the coalition on a key issue) and then the nation would have to go to the polls once again. Harper was wrong to proceed as he did. His judgment was wanting. I will not be surprised if the coalition brings him down soon in the new year, even if for mere revenge for suspending parliament. But, in the long run, I think Canadians will elect a majority Conservative government. Harper needs to learn to be more tactful and to legislate based on what is possible--not simply what he wants in an ideal world.