December 1, 2008

Harper's Loss of Confidence

In his effort to defeat the Harper government, Jack Layton has demonstrated that he is more committed to building Canada than to advancing his partisan interests. It will be much more difficult to share responsibility for guiding Canada through an economic storm than it is to criticize. Stephen Harper is just 12 votes short of a majority. If Layton and his NDP caucus had chosen to back Harper's plan to withdraw the $1.95 per vote funding for political parties, they would have been able to help Harper financially crush the Green Party and the Block, while putting the Liberals in a tie with the NDP for fundraising. It must have been tempting for Layton to think about the financial advantage Harper's plan would have given the NDP over its rivals.

In asking for the support of the Block for an NDP-Liberal coalition, Layton is making Canadian history and gambling that the coalition will last two and a half years and provide good government through what is expected to be one of the most challenging economic crises in over 70 years. If the coalition fails and the Conservatives come back with a majority government, there should be no doubt that the threats in the November economic update will look comparatively puny. That prospect should provide the discipline it takes for the three parties to make the coalition work.

Stephen Harper may enter Canadian history books as the Prime Minister who led both the longest lasting minority government since Confederation, and the shortest. Unless there is a dramatic change before December 8th, the Harper government will fail a confidence vote and the NDP-Liberal coalition will assume power. The Conservatives are insulting Canadians by claiming that their impending loss of power is an attempt to overturn the October 14th election and seize power. Harper understands the Westminster model of parliamentary government and knows that his claims are utterly false. The Governor General has an obligation to see if the coalition can command the confidence of Parliament and thereby replace Harper's government.

Rumours that Harper might prorogue Parliament, rather than allow a non-confidence vote to be taken, shouldn't be taken seriously. If the current short session of parliament were terminated, the coalition could still approach the Governor General saying that it had the ability to receive the confidence of Parliament. It could be given the authority to convene Parliament and have that ability tested with a confidence vote in Parliament. That would truly be a constitutional crisis, one caused by Harper and his party self-destructing rather than having the patience to accept the consequences of their folly and wait a year or two for the opportunity to plead their case in an election.

Mr. Harper has allowed events to tumble out of his control. It appears that there is nothing he or his party can do to restore Parliament's confidence in his government.