The Case For -- And Against -- The Coalition

The following is a letter submitted by Nexus of Assholery colleague Jared Milne outlining a brief summary of the comments raised both in favour of and against the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition government:

"An open letter to my fellow Canadians:

Une lettre ouverte à mes confrères canadiens :

This letter is not meant to criticize or condemn any single political party or political movement. It is meant to urge Canadians to think about the opposing point of view in the current parliamentary crisis, to build understanding by summarizing the arguments both in favour of and against the coalition government. At the present time, we as Canadians have been set against one another, when we must come together from all regions, all languages and all races to resolve the terrible problems that confront us. I am equally dismayed and disappointed by all our current federal political leaders and the missteps they have all made, which have all deepened a crisis and harmed our national unity, putting their personal pride and petty goals before the national interest.

Cette lettre n’a pas comme intention de critiquer ou de condamner un seul parti ou mouvement politique. Son propos est d’inspirer une réflexion chez les Canadiens au sujet de l’autre point de vue concernant la crise parlementaire à Ottawa, et de renforcer la compréhension en notant les arguments en faveur d’un gouvernement de coalition, et les arguments contre ce dernier. À ce moment, comme Canadiens nous sommes divisés contre l’un l’autre, quand nous devons venir ensemble, de toutes les régions, toutes les langues, et toutes les races pour résoudre les problèmes terribles qui nous affrontent. Je suis également déçu et consterné par tous nos chefs politiques fédéraux courantes et les fautes qu’ils ont tous commis, qui ont tous aggravé une crise et endommagé notre unité nationale, en mettant leur fierté personnelle et leurs buts mesquins devant l’intérêt national.

Consider first what provoked this political crisis-Stephen Harper’s proposal to end public subsidies to political parties based on their electoral performance in his recent economic update. How can Harper justify an action that the opposition parties were sure to oppose, when the election results made it quite clear that Canadians wanted the parties to all cooperate with one another? Was he simply short-sighted, or deliberately trying to goad his opponents? Either response is extremely irresponsible, particularly when the $30 million that would be “saved” from such a move is a tiny fraction of the overall federal budget. Also, in comparing the actual vote counts for the 2006 and 2008 federal elections, Harper actually lost 168,737 fewer votes-hardly a ringing endorsement and a clear signal that Canadians wanted all the parties to cooperate, not play partisan games with one another.

Premièrement, considérez qu’est-ce qui a déclenché cette crise politique, le propos de Stephen Harper d’abolir les subventions publiques aux partis politiques basées sur leurs performances électorales, dans son compte rendu économique récent. Comment est-ce que Harper peut justifier une action que les partis d’opposition étaient certains à opposer, quand les résultats électoraux ont rendu très claires les désirs des Canadiens que les partis politiques coopèrent ensemble? Était-il simplement myope, ou essayaient-il volontairement de provoquer ses adversaires? Quoi que ça soit, il était très irresponsable, particulièrement quand on rappelle que le 30 million $ qui serait « économisé » par cette action est en fait seulement une partie très minuscule du budget fédéral en somme. En plus, en comparant les taux de vote pour les élections de 2006 et 2008, Harper a en fait perdu 168,737 votes, ce qui n’est pas un endos particulièrement impressionnant, et une indication claire que les Canadiens voulaient que tous les partis politiques coopèrent ensemble, plutôt que de jouer des jeux partisans.

The move is also suspicious by itself. If Harper is opposed to taxpayer subsidies for political parties, then why did he seek to abolish only one type of subsidy, which just happens to be the one his opposition is most reliant on? Why doesn’t Harper eliminate the reimbursement of electoral expenses, the tax subsidies given for political donations, or other forms of subsidy that all, in one way or another, come out of taxpayers’ pockets? It should be remembered, after all, that we have had public subsidies in one form or another in Canada since 1974, and that Harper’s fellow conservative John McCain had no problem accepting such subsidies in the American presidential election, subsidies that were essential to ensure a fair shake on both sides of the contest.

Par elle-même, l’action est aussi soupçonneuse. Si Harper s’oppose aux subventions publiques pour les partis politiques, pourquoi est-ce qu’il cherche à abolir seulement une type de subvention, ironiquement la subvention sur laquelle son opposition est la plus dépendante dessus? Pourquoi est-ce que Harper n’élimine pas le remboursement pour les dépenses électorales, les subventions financières données de ceux qui font des dons financières aux partis politiques, ou d’autres subventions qui viennent tous de nos impôts? On doit rappeler, notamment, que John McCain, le confrère idéologique de Harper, était prêt à accepter des subventions publiques durant l’élection présidentielle américaine, des subventions qui étaient essentiels pour assurer une élection juste aux deux combattants dans l’élection.

Some may argue that they do not want to see their tax dollars going to support political parties they oppose, but this argument cuts both ways. Many progressives do not like seeing their tax dollars going to support such things as the war in Afghanistan, our military buildup, tax incentives for corporations, the prison system, and other causes that right-wing conservatives are more inclined to support, and yet their tax money goes to support these institutions and causes anyway. Similarly, many single mothers, working poor, and others who would be more inclined to support the NDP’s left-wing policies, cannot afford to make the same kinds of regular donations that wealthier businesspeople, who might benefit more from the Conservatives’ pro-business policies, can make to their parties of choice.

Certaines personnes pourraient répondre qu’ils ne veulent pas voir leurs impôts allant à appuyer des partis politiques qu’ils opposent, mais cet argument peut être retourné. Il y a bien des progressifs qui n’aiment pas voir leur impôts allant à subventionner la guerre en Afghanistan, notre développement militaire, les encouragements fiscaux pour les compagnies, le régime des prisons, et bien d’autres causes appuyés par les partisans de l’aile droite, mais leur argent supportent ces causes et institutions tout de même. En même temps, les familles monoparentales, les pauvres ouvrières, et d’autres personnes qui seraient plus enclins à appuyer les politiques gauchistes de l’NPD, n’ont pas les mêmes moyens à faire des dons politiques réguliers que les gens d’affaires plus riches, qui pourraient profiter plus des politiques affairistes des Conservateurs, peuvent faire à leurs propres partis.

Finally, it should be remembered that in 2004, after the exposure of Adscam, Stephen Harper wrote a letter to the Governor General, co-signed by Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, advising the Governor General of her “constitutional options” and informing her of the consultations being made by the opposition parties. Harper was, in effect, proposing the exact same thing with the Bloc and the NDP that the Liberals are proposing now. Would Conservative supporters be as angry about a coalition government if their party had been the one to head it?

Enfin, on doit rappeler qu’en 2004, après que la scandale des commandites à été exposée, Stephen Harper a écrit une lettre au Gouverneure générale, signée par lui, Jack Layton et Gilles Duceppe, conseillant la Gouverneur générale de ses « options constitutionnelles » et l’informant des consultations fait par les partis de l’opposition. En effet, Harper proposait précisément la même chose avec le Bloc et le NPD que les Libéraux proposent maintenant. Est-ce que les partisans conservateurs seraient aussi fâchés au sujet d’un gouvernement de coalition si leur parti seraient à sa tête?

Some may see these arguments as sufficient reason for a coalition government. However, the coalition government as proposed by the Liberals under Stéphane Dion brings very serious problems of its own, not the least of which are the national unity ramifications. How can Dion, whose criticisms of the sovereignist movement were what brought him into federal politics, justify working with the Bloc Québécois now? It creates an extremely negative perception in the rest of the country, particularly among those who may not realize that not all Bloc supporters are sovereignists. Any coalition with a political party whose stated goal is the separation of one of Canada’s provinces will provoke a negative reaction in the rest of the country by itself…and who is to say what demands the Bloc will make in exchange for its support? Don’t forget, too, that Dion claimed during the election he would never form a coalition, and that Layton attacked him for not knowing how to handle the economy.

Certaines personnes pourraient voir ces arguments comme raison suffisante pour un gouvernement de coalition. Toutefois, le gouvernement de coalition comme proposé par les Libéraux sous Stéphane Dion apporteraient ses propres problèmes très sérieuses, particulièrement parmi ceux qui ne réalisent pas que pas tous ceux qui appuient le Bloc sont souverainistes. Une coalition avec un parti politique qui a comme but la sécession d’une des provinces canadiennes va par elle-même provoquer une réaction négative au reste du pays…et qui sait quelles demandes le Bloc va faire en échange pour son appui? N’oubliez pas aussi que durant l’élection fédérale Dion prétendait qu’il ne formerait jamais une coalition, et que Layton l’a attaqué pour ne pas savoir comment gérer l’économie.

Arguably even worse for Canadian unity is the backlash this has already provoked in Western Canada. While not everyone in Alberta or the West in general supports Harper, the Conservative party has its strongest base of support in this part of the country, and is seen by many as the West finally having a strong voice in government after years of alienation. The coalition is seen by these Westerners as an illegitimate way of taking power away from the rightfully elected government, and as a slap in the face to their part of the country. While it was never intended this way, Albertans in particular would see this as an attempt to shut them out of the democratic process after overwhelmingly supporting the current prime minister. All this has done is refuel Western alienation and provoke a backlash against other parts of the country, and against the federal Liberal and NDP parties in general.

Peut-être encore pire pour l’unité canadienne est la réaction très négative déjà provoquée dans l’Ouest canadien. Bien que pas tout le monde dans l’Alberta ou l’Ouest en général appuie Harper, le Parti conservateur reçoit son appui le plus fort de ces régions du pays, et son élection est vu par beaucoup dans l’Ouest comme leur région gagnant enfin une voix forte dans le gouvernement, après des années d’aliénation. La coalition est vue par ces habitants de l’Ouest comme une manière illégitime d’enlever le pouvoir du gouvernement élu légitimement, et un gifle dans le visage à leur région du pays. Bien que ce n’était jamais l’intention, les Albertains en particulier voient la coalition comme un effort de les éliminer du processus démocratique après avoir fortement appuyé le premier ministre courant. C’est alors que la coalition a seulement renforcé l’aliénation de l’Ouest et provoqué une réaction négative envers les autres régions du pays, et particulièrement contre les Libéraux fédéraux et le NPD fédéral en particulier.

The question has been raised too about the constitutional workings of government, and it’s been argued that the coalition is in fact perfectly legal and in keeping with parliamentary tradition. Indeed it is, but another part of our parliamentary tradition is the idea of constitutional convention-that set of unwritten rules and expectations that dictate how political actors use their powers in practice. It is why the federal government no longer uses its powers to reserve or disallow provincial legislation, why the federal government can set national standards for social policy with legislation such as the Canada Health Act, and why the Trudeau government was forced to negotiate with the provinces in the constitutional patriation of the early 1980s.

La question du fonctionnement constitutionnel parlementaire à été levé, et certains ont prétendu que la coalition est en fait parfaitement légal et légitime dans la tradition parlementaire. Tel est le cas, mais un autre aspect de notre tradition parlementaire est l’idée des conventions constitutionnelles, ces règles et attentes qui dictent comment les acteurs politiques utilisent leurs pouvoirs en pratique. C’est pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral n’utilise plus ses pouvoirs pour abolir les lois provinciales, pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral peut établir des standards nationaux pour la politique sociale comme la Loi sur la santé canadienne, et pourquoi le gouvernement Trudeau devait négocier avec les provinces dans le rapatriement constitutionnel des années 1980.

It appears to me that the modern convention that has arisen is, that if a government loses the confidence of the House, an election must be called immediately. This is what happened after the Paul Martin minority collapsed in 2005, when Harper felt that he could win the resulting election. Now, it seems, whichever party receives the most seats in the House of Commons is automatically declared the winner, and called on to form a government. It is true that more than 62% of the population voted against Harper, but all of the other party leaders received even less support than he did. Going to a coalition was quite unnecessary, given that the opposition forced Harper to back off on the funding issue. What the opposition parties should be doing is working with the Conservative government, the way the people wanted them to! Both sides should remember that, in order to avoid the collapse of the Harper government and avoid an election that Canadians absolutely do not want, they must cooperate and compromise, which what they were elected to do in the first place.

Il me semble qu’une convention moderne s’est développée, qui exige que si un gouvernement perd la confiance de la Chambre de communes, il faut appeler une élection immédiatement. Voilà ce qui est arrivé en 2005 quand le gouvernement minoritaire de Paul Martin s’est écroulé, quand Harper pensait qu’il pouvait gagner l’élection qui suivait. Il est vrai que plus de 62% de la population a voté contre Harper, mais tous les autres partis politiques ont reçu encore moins d’appui. La formation d’une coalition n’était pas nécessaire, étant donné que l’opposition a forcé Harper à reculer sur le financement des partis politiques. Ce que les partis de l’opposition devraient faire est de coopérer avec le gouvernement conservateur, de la manière dont le peuple les avaient voulus! Les deux côtés devraient rappeler que, afin d’éviter l’écroulement du gouvernement Harper et une élection que les Canadiens ne désirent aucunement, ils doivent coopérer et compromettre, ce qu’ils ont été élu à faire dès le début.

With no party receiving a clear mandate of support from the voters, and with nearly 40% of the population staying home on election day, to me it seems clear what Canadians want, for their politicians to not play partisan games and cooperate with one another in dealing with our economic, environmental, and social issues. Harper does not have all the answers in dealing with the economy, nor do Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe or May. Their infighting does nothing to rebuild the trust and unity we need to get through this crisis.

Étant donné qu’aucun des partis a reçu un mandat clair des électeurs, et avec presque 40 % de ces derniers restant chez eux la journée de l’élection, il me semble clair que les Canadiens désirent leurs politiciens à coopérer ensemble en adressant nos problèmes économiques, sociaux et environnementaux, plutôt que de jouer des jeux partisans. Harper n’a pas toutes les réponses à ces difficultés, et non plus Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe ou May. Leurs combats politiques ne font rien à rétablir la confiance et l’unité que nous avons besoin pour dépasser cette crise.

This applies more broadly to supporters and opponents of the coalition as well. Our insults and fighting is only making the problem worse-both sides of the argument have equally strong and legitimate reasons for their stances, and condemning one another is only reopening old wounds and grudges that we can’t afford to waste our energy on right now.

Ceci s’applique plus généralement aux partisans et aux adversaires de la coalition en même temps. Nos insultes et nos combats aggravent le problème. Les deux côtés de l’argument ont des points également légitimes pour leurs positions, et en condamnant l’un l’autre, nous rouvrons des anciennes blessures et des rivalités sur lesquels on ne peut pas gaspiller notre énergie pour l’instant.

That is why, above all else, it is critically important for both supporters and opponents of the coalition to set aside their differences and cooperate. This crisis is larger than any single group or party, and the needs of the country must come before individual partisan desires. Try and see the other side’s point of view, and above all, please try and ease off the rhetoric on both sides-it’s not getting us anywhere.

C’est pourquoi, avant tout, il est absolument essentiel pour les partisans et les adversaires de la coalition de mettre leurs différences de côté, et de coopérer ensemble. Cette crise est plus grande que n’importe quelle seule groupe ou parti, et les besoins du pays doivent prendre priorité sur les désirs partisans individuels. Essayez de voir l’autre point de vue, et avant tous, s’il vous plait essayez de reculer la rhétorique des deux côtés, qui ne font rien pour nous aider.

Canada deserves no less.

Le Canada n’en mérite pas moins."

An Alternative View of Stephane Dion's Green Shift

It was recently brought to my attention that a good personal friend of mine -- and U of A Gateway colleague -- Jared Milne recently published an article in the Edmonton Journal commenting on Stephane Dion's Green Shift.

Those following the story here on the Nexus are well aware of the criticisms previously offered here. That being said, let it never be said that we at the Nexus are afraid of offering a dissenting opinion. On that note, here is what Mr Milne had to say about Dion's Green Plan:

"Dion's Green Shift offers a place to start

Even if you don't believe in climate change, plan would address many problems

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan for the environment has stirred up much controversy in recent months, not the least of which are the West's concerns about the plan's impact on the region's natural resources.

Some fear a repeat of the dark days of the national energy program, and others are raising the spectre of yet another national unity crisis.

Other parts of the country, such as Nova Scotia and the governments of the northern territories, have had similar reservations about Dion's policy. But before the debate becomes polarized, both sides need to take a look at each other's points of view.

For example, even if you don't believe in climate change, Alberta still faces a host of problems related to the development of the oilsands: the ecological devastation and the strains on our water supply, concerns noted by both right-wingers like Peter Lougheed and left-wingers like the Parkland Institute; serious medical problems among the aboriginal people of Fort Chipewyan resulting from contamination of their food supplies; the outsourcing of our bitumen and related jobs to the U.S.; the anger of some landowners over pollution of their property from sour gas wells and other problems, and their frustration over government activities related to the oilpatch, like the EUB scandal; inflation and a superheated economy putting a serious strain on ordinary workers, as Peter Lougheed has pointed out; and air and water pollution in general.

Unlike Stephen Harper, Dion is actually proposing concrete measures to try and respond to these problems that affect us all as Canadians. All of these things could be incorporated into a national green plan, which can propel it beyond the polarized debate on climate change.

And western concerns are very real, especially given the greater concentration of industrial emissions in the West, and the role of oil and gas development in the region's economy.

Some westerners even compare the Green Shift to the national energy program of the early 1980s, blamed by many for worsening or even causing Alberta's economic woes of that era. And their critics rightly point out that we're hardly the only polluters in Canada -- will the Green Shift have more of an impact on western resource development, than, for instance, Ontario's heavy industry or its coal-burning power plants?

The rhetoric on both sides doesn't help, either. Did Ken Boshcoff honestly think that his foolish blogging about a transfer of wealth from the West to the East would help Dion's cause? All that has done is fuel western suspicions, and made it that much harder to find an honest solution.

Besides, whether it's through the interest-free grants and loans Lougheed made to financially strapped provinces in the 1970s, up to the centennial scholarships organized as one of Ralph Klein's final gestures in office, the idea that Alberta is always selfish and uncaring is just plain ridiculous.

By the same token, however, any refusal to co-operate on Alberta's part and, even more so, any talk of western separation in response to the Green Shift won't help matters, and just gives ammunition to people who say we're greedy and uncaring.

Such issues as landowner anger over the Energy and Utilities Board scandal, and contamination of their land and property, and the sharp criticisms made by Peter Lougheed, show that not only left-wingers and Liberals are worried about these things -- they're problems that affect everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

Lougheed, the grandfather of Alberta conservatism, the man who brought the Conservatives to power in the first place, has stressed the need for an "olive branch" to the rest of Canada -- if the federal Conservatives aren't going to do anything about pollution, then doesn't it make more sense to try and cooperate with Dion and the Liberals if they actually are trying to find a solution, and make it stronger and better with our own input, rather than simply refusing to speak to him because of his party affiliation?

Lougheed has said that the oil projects in Fort McMurray should be slowed down -- maybe this slowdown can take some of the pressure off both our ecology and our economy, and buy us some time to deal with everything from the pollution at Fort Chipewyan to runaway inflation to the strain on our water tables, to finding a solution to the problems with the Energy and Utilities Board and pollution of public and privately owned land, without crippling the oil industry and putting Alberta in the poorhouse.

At the same time, we could make a strong statement to the rest of Canada by pointing and helping with other problems, like Ontario's continued dependence on heavily polluting coal plants.

Prominent Liberals and Conservatives like Dion and Lougheed are discussing many of the same issues -- if anything, the East and West probably have more common ground than they realize.

From there, a competent federal government can act as mediator between the provinces, developing a pan-Canadian environmental strategy that combines policies that apply to Canada as a whole in with variations that take provincial differences into account.

Whether or not the Green Shift is the solution to Canada's environmental woes, at least it's a start.

If Canadians co-operate with and listen to one another, and make an honest effort to see each other's points of view, maybe we can come together to do something great for the landscape we love."

Update: The man himself has some more points he'd like to add about the article in question:

"I am not so much endorsing the Green Shift so much as I am urging people not to dismiss it out of hand. I'm trying to show Westerners, especially Albertans, the other side of the story, and some of the reasons why people feel a need for this type of legislation. It's especially important not to dismiss Dion out of hand just because he's a Liberal-he's trying to do something about pollution, problems we're dealing with in Alberta."

"That said, the critiques offered by people like Rajiv Sinha (in the Sunday, August 17 edition of the Journal) are quite right. One important thing I wanted to do in the article was get people to consider Alberta's point of view, and just why we're so leery about the Green Shift. I wanted to put more emphasis on the comparison to the NEP, and Alberta's connection between that program and the Green Shift, in the original version, but I had to reduce it owing to the editor's changes. Like I said in the article, if we're going to tackle pollution, we have to do it in a way that minimizes the risk of putting Alberta in the poorhouse. After all, many Westerners have pointed out-and quite rightly, I might add-that Alberta's serving as one of the country's major economic engines, and we're already sharing a lot of our wealth in transfer payments. From Lougheed to Klein, Alberta has always been there to lend a hand in one way or another, and portraying us as blue-eyed sheiks, or comparing us to Quebec separatists-thank you very much, Garth Turner, we really appreciate it-doesn't do a damn thing to help out. Damage Alberta's oil industry, and what will happen to the rest of the national economy? Harper's tax cuts and squandering of the federal surplus have left us with little cash to draw on in case of an economic crisis-and wrecking one of our best industries doesn't help one bit if another such crisis does come."

"Like I said, the Green Shift is a start. I don't really think it's the be-all and end-all of environnmental policy-indeed, it might have sold better in Alberta if the emphasis wasn't just put on climate change, and steps were taken to mediate the Shift's regional effects. Harsher environnmental fines, subsidies for R&D in energy-efficient technology, and more support for public transit could all fit into a national green policy, and gain more support in the process, including in Alberta. As it stands, the Green Shift's impact is going to have the biggest impacts in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, and its effects are going to be unevenly distributed across the country. Don't get me wrong, it's extremely important that we restore at least some of the social safety net, as the Green Shift proposes, but the "transfer of wealth" that Ken Boshcoff stupidly advocates isn't the way to do it."