LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

There have been many complaints about the necessity of the 2021 Canadian election. But it may finally prove more important in retrospect.

The latest federal contest at least raises an intriguing question. Are voters, or growing numbers of political activists at any rate, increasingly demanding a more collegial and co-operative incarnation of Canada’s parliamentary democracy?

There have been, for instance, eight federal elections so far in the 21st century. Three of them, in 2000, 2011, and 2015, have returned majority governments.

Five elections, however, have returned minority governments, where no party had at least 50% plus one of the seats in the elected parliament — in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2019, and now 2021.

All five recent minority governments have finally had to co-operate with their oppositions in some degree, to get key legislation and government budgets through the House of Commons.

All told there have been 15 minority governments in Canada since 1867. A new Progressive Party complicated the struggle between Liberals and Conservatives in the 1920s. The New Democratic and Social Credit parties had a parallel impact in the 1960s.

The latest minority governments of the 21st century are arguably tied to two historical events. One is the election of 1993. The other is the introduction of fixed date election legislation by the minority government of Stephen Harper’s new Conservative Party of Canada in 2007.

The 1993 election was the first in which the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois ran candidates. In this and other respects it “gutted the Canadian political structure like no other,” in the sharp words of journalist Lawrence Martin.

The 2007 fixed date legislation —  requiring that each election take place on the third Monday in October, in the fourth calendar year after the preceding election — echoed similar early 21st century action in Canadian provinces and elsewhere.

The legislation adapted an ancient practice of Democracy in America to Canada’s somewhat different “Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom,” as prescribed in what we now call the Constitution Act, 1867.

Because of this the 2007 legislation includes the crucial sentence: “Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.”

This provision is integral to our kind of parliamentary democracy, where a government can last only as long as it retains the support of a majority in parliament. It also legitimizes so-called snap elections called by prime ministers who effectively appoint governor generals.

This has meant that since the 2007 fixed date legislation was passed Canada has had only two elections the prescribed four years apart (2015, 2019), and three snap elections at shorter intervals (2008, 2011, 2021).

One potentially intriguing feature of the 2021 federal campaign has been a novel claim that the minority government elected in 2019 should have carried on with the people’s business, until the next legislated fixed date election on the third Monday in October, 2023.

The September 20, 2021 election on this view was unnecessary and even “unlawful”! And the argument is logically accompanied by a parallel claim that our party politicians should increasingly behave with more collegiality and co-operation.

Some have urged as well that in the very similar results of the 2019 and 2021 elections the Canadian people have voted as if our current electoral system were “proportional representative” instead of “first past the post.” And this further implies some increasing popular demand for less partisan and competitive politics in Ottawa.

The fate of the 2021 minority government could begin to tell us just how much of a future this point of view might have. Even former Trudeau advisor Gerald Butts has suggested that the new government might just try to last the fixed date term of four years.

A government that succeeded in or at least came very close to doing this would almost certainly be a more collegial and co-operative government than in the past. (And it would require much greater co-operation from opposition parties too.)

At the same time, already other expert voices are arguing that the Trudeau Liberal minority government elected in 2021 is unlikely to last too long. And this brings a more traditional perspective to bear on the issue.

It is also possible that the real wave of the future is the 2011 and 2015 elections. Liberals and Conservatives at least may not be all that likely to give up on the longstanding quest for more partisan and competitive majority governments any time soon.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


If you listen to the Conservatives, there is nothing that Justin Trudeau personally isn’t responsible or liable for that ills this country. Usually these days, they are trying to paint him as being solely responsible for the third wave of the pandemic because somehow didn’t procure enough vaccines in January and February (never mind scarcity, production ramp-up or supply chain issues), as though the premiers west of New Brunswick engaging in half-measures, re-opening too soon and not imposing more restrictions soon enough was not the actual cause of said third wave. In the past, they have insisted that Trudeau somehow controls the world price of oil when it comes to how it has affected the oil patch in Alberta (when they didn’t blame Rachel Notley). And now, they are trying to make him personally liable for sexual misconduct in the military.

“Women in the military have lost hope,” Conservative MP Leona Alleslev declared in Question Period last week. “Some have lost their career, others have tragically accepted there will be no justice. Service to country is an honourable profession. My father served, I served, and I would be incredibly proud if my daughter wanted to as well, but under the Prime Minister, if she chose a military career I would be worried for her safety.”

The implication that Trudeau is responsible for the statue of sexual misconduct in the military is risible, and yet the Conservatives are trying to make this narrative stick. On Monday, Erin O’Toole tried to pin Trudeau personally on the removal of Major-General Dany Fortin from the head of the federal vaccine distribution task force when an investigation into a past allegation of sexual misconduct was started.

“It is clear that Justin Trudeau’s failure to take action on sexual misconduct in the military is having serious consequences not only for our brave men and women in uniform, but all Canadians,” O’Toole said in a release. “Now we fear his inaction will affect our country’s vaccine rollout, which is already behind other countries.”

Our vaccine rollout is among the highest in the world after a slower start, but Fortin’s deputy, Brigadier-General Krista Brodie was announced as Fortin’s replacement hours after O’Toole’s release went out. Nevertheless, trying to pin the systemic issue of misconduct in the military solely on Trudeau is hard to take seriously, precisely because this is a systemic and endemic issue. It has existed long before this government came to power, and previous governments did precious little to address the problem, including Stephen Harper’s.

True, they did commission the Deschamps Report after a damning report in Maclean’s made it clear that nothing had been done over decades when incidents of sexual harassment and assault were brought to light, but once they engaged the former Supreme Court justice, they didn’t do much, citing the need to wait for the report, and once it was delivered, had the better part of six months to start implementing its recommendations and didn’t make much in the way of progress. And when they replaced the massively tone-deaf General Tom Lawson as Chief of Defence Staff with General Jonathan Vance, they certainly didn’t do a thorough job in investigating the rumours around previous inappropriate relationships – and there are now conflicting reports as to just who they asked to do the investigating.

This isn’t to say that Trudeau’s government, and Harjit Sajjan in particular couldn’t have done more, because they absolutely could have. They could have better vetted Admiral Art McDonald before appointing him as the new Chief of Defence Staff to replace Vance, as well as ensured much better vetting lower down the ranks, as evidenced by the choice for the head of personnel, who was also quickly forced to step aside for allegations of past sexual misconduct. And more importantly, they could have done the hard work of insisting on the recommendations of the Deschamps Report being implemented, and pushing the recalcitrant military leadership to take those actions, but they did not. This is one of the reasons why it’s clear that Sajjan needs to fall on his sword – his inability to provide that leadership, combined with his deep incuriosity about the status of the investigation into the latest round of Vance allegations – given that, as minister, he is responsible to Parliament for the Canadian Forces and its leadership – have ensured that he has lost the moral authority to remain in his position.

Clearly, more could have been done, but even if Trudeau and Sajjan had been more diligent, I’m not sure that the whole problem of the highly sexualized culture of the military would have been sufficiently changed in those six years, and that more allegations wouldn’t still be coming out the woodwork even now. Part of the reason why, as some like former Army officer and current professor Leah West have noted, is that there still isn’t enough of an impetus within the rank and file of the military to make those changes, and if there is to be lasting change, it has to come from within. But this is something else that Trudeau and Sajjan should have been working to address – to know why there was such resistance to the Deschamps Report before they hired yet another former Supreme Court justice to produce yet another report for them.

Change is hard. Systemic change is even harder. That the Conservatives are pretending these kinds of changes could have happened already if Trudeau had merely exerted enough willpower is not only a poor attempt at scoring cheap points, it undermines the severity of the work that is necessary if there is going to be actual reform to the institution. There are serious challenges ahead for this government and future ones when it comes to applying enough pressure when it comes to civilian oversight, and sustaining that pressure, so that we see the change happen. But this game of trying to personally implicate Trudeau merely underscores that the Conservatives are not serious about this problem, or any of the other problems they blame him for.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.