Gilles Duceppe

Prime Minister Stephen Harper Prorogues Parliament to Stop Coalition

Greg Farries — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:11:31 -0700

NDP - Liberal Coalition Makes Harper Eat Humble Pie

Greg Farries — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:08:07 -0700

With Ignatieff as Leader of the Liberal Party, is the Coalition Dead?

Greg Farries — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:02:01 -0700

Events Leading to the Liberal - NDP Coalition Agreement

Jay Makarenko — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:47:59 -0700

On December 1, 2008, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois officially signed an agreement to defeat the Conservative minority government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Under this agreement, the Liberals and NDP agreed to form a coalition government, which would be supported by the Bloc. What led to the signing of this coalition accord? The following article provides an overview of factors and events surrounding the signing of this agreement, including the broader political and economic context, the coalition partners’ rejection of the Conservative economic and fiscal update, the negotiation of the agreement, and the Conservative response to the coalition threat, including its decision to seek a prorogation (or “temporary suspension”) of Parliament from Canada’s Governor General until January 2009.

Coalition in the Broader Political and Economic Context

It is important to note the broader political and economic situation in Canada leading up to the signing of this out-of-the-ordinary agreement.

Since 2004, the federal parliament has been in a perpetual state of minority governments, an interesting paradox in Canadian politics. Minority governments tend not to be viewed as positive or good for the long term — particularly from the perspective of Canada’s major political parties, which tend to look beyond minority governments to winning majorities and defeating governments. This tendency lends itself to a very hostile situation in Parliament, in which political parties view one another not as partners for cooperative governance, but as staunch competitors for political power that will attempt to create and exploit weaknesses in their opponents in order to win the ultimate prize of majority government.

Writing in mid-December 2008, it’s fair to say that concern over the Canadian and global economies increased considerably beginning in September 2008 — both with Canada’s leadership, and abroad. Of considerable worry has been the unfolding economic downturn in the United States, Canada’s largest trading partner, which officially entered into a recession, and the potential impact of said developments on the manufacturing sectors of central Canada and resource sectors in Western Canada. This, in turn, has made the economy a central issue in Canadian politics, and a key area of government public policy.

The Conservative Government’s November Economic Update

Within these broader political and economic contexts, the catalyst for the coalition agreement was the Conservative minority government’s economic and fiscal update, which it released on November 27, 2008. Titled Protecting Canada’s Future, the update outlined the Conservative government’s short-term strategy for dealing with the economic slowdown and projected drops in government revenue.

Within the economic and fiscal update, three policy initiatives, in particular, were deemed unacceptable by the opposition parties. First, the Conservative government elected not to introduce any new spending measures to stimulate the economy, choosing instead to rely on past tax reductions and infrastructure spending programs. Citing the soundness of Canada’s financial institutions and the relatively strong financial positions of Canadian households, corporations, and governments, the Conservative government argued these tenets of Canada’s economy were sufficient to ensure the economy remained stable. The Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois rejected this premise, arguing the Conservatives had failed to appreciate the severity of the economic slowdown. Moreover, they asserted the federal government should implement an aggressive economic stimulus package, which would include broad new spending measures to encourage employment and economic activity.

Second, the Conservative government announced it would legislate a ban on strikes by public service employees until 2010-11. The government argued this measure was necessary to ensure the financial health of the federal government, as it would control labour costs during the projected period of reduced government revenues. The initiative, however, was strongly opposed by the New Democratic Party, a strong supporter of worker rights, and a party with strong ties to Canadian unions and labour organizations.

Third, the Conservative government announced it would eliminate public financing for federal political parties. Canada’s current election financing laws severely restrict donations to political parties from certain interest groups, such as big business and labour, with the purpose of limiting the influence of these groups on political parties. Since they were implemented in 2002-03, these restrictions have had the greatest impact on the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, whose traditional sources of revenue were large donations from big business and unions respectively. The Conservative Party, by contrast, receives the bulk of its financing in the form of small donations from individuals, leaving it less affected by the restrictions. To compensate for the loss of revenue, however, federal law allows political parties to access public funds in support of their election activities. These public funds represent a large portion of New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois’ revenues (and to a lesser extent, those for the Liberal Party).

The Conservative government argued the elimination of public funding to political parties was necessary for the financial health of the federal government, as it would save approximately $30 million. Moreover, the government argued that such a course of action would be of symbolical importance, as political parties would be “tightening their belts” in difficult economic times. The opposition parties, by contrast, asserted the measure was an attack on Canadian democracy. The elimination of public funding, it was argued, would financially cripple the opposition parties, while leaving the Conservative Party relatively unscathed. Considering the importance of money in running effective campaigns during elections, the opposition parties argued that this would have given the Conservatives an unfair advantage in the next federal election.

Negotiating the Liberal-NDP Coalition Agreement

Immediately following the release of Conservative government’s economic and fiscal update, the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois publicly denounced the government’s proposals, focusing on the three policies discussed above. The New Democrats and the Bloc, moreover, indicated they would vote against the government’s update when it was introduced in the House of Commons.

Under Canada’s parliamentary system, defeat of a government money bill, such as the economic and fiscal update, would result in the fall of the government. Normally, this would lead to the calling of an election. However, Canada’s parliamentary system does allow the Governor General of Canada to ask another political party to form a government. In anticipation of this possibility, the three major opposition parties, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, began negotiating to form a coalition government to replace the Conservatives.

While the precise nature of these negotiations has remained private, it is suspected that negotiations first began between the leaders of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, and focused on the issue of whether the Bloc would support a possible Liberal-New Democratic coalition. As a Quebec-based party driven by the goal of achieving sovereignty for the province, it was agreed that the Bloc would not sit in any future coalition government. The party’s support, however, would be necessary to ensure the coalition could maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. On November 28, 2008, the Liberal and New Democratic parties entered into formal negotiations on a coalition agreement. These negotiations were originally conducted by former party leaders Jean Chrétien (Liberal) and Ed Broadbent (New Democrat), and were eventually extended to include the existing party leadership at the time, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton.

Key issues in the negotiations included the question of who would become prime minister; how key cabinet positions would be divided between the Liberals and NDP; particular policies a potential coalition government would pursue; and how long all three parties were prepared to support such an arrangement.

On December 1, 2008, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc formally announced the signing of two coalition agreements. They submitted a letter to the Governor General of Canada, asking her to consider the coalition as an alternative to calling an election if the Conservative government was defeated. The coalition partners further announced their intention to introduce a vote of non-confidence in the House in order to trigger the fall of the Harper Conservative minority government.

For more information on the structure of the proposed coalition government:

Mapleleafweb: Overview of the Liberal-NDP Coalition Agreement

Conservative Responses to the Coalition Agreement

Between November 28 and December 1, the Conservative government significantly altered its position, as first established in its November economic and fiscal update. It dropped the proposed elimination of public funding of political parties, as well as the ban on striking by public servants. Moreover, it indicated that it might be open to implementing an aggressive economic stimulus package to address the concerns of the opposition parties regarding Canada’s economic fortunes.

Even with these concessions, the coalition partners (at least initially) remained committed to defeating the Conservatives and forming a new government. In justifying their position, the coalition partners stressed their general lack of confidence in the Conservatives as a governing party and the need for a change in government in order to bring decisive action on the economy. The Conservatives, in turn, charged the coalition partners with using the economic difficulties as a smokescreen for a bid to take power.

The Conservative government’s economic and fiscal update was to be put to a vote in the House of Commons on December 1, 2008, at which point the coalition partners could — and indicated they would — have defeated the legislation and caused the fall of the government. The Conservatives, however, decided to delay the vote by a week, until December 8.

Over the course of the week, both the Conservatives and the coalition partners engaged in broad media campaigns in an attempt to gain the support of Canadians. The Conservatives worked to undercut the legitimacy of a possible coalition government, emphasizing its dependence on the Bloc Québécois (a Quebec sovereignist party), and arguing that stability, as opposed to a change in government, was vital to Canada at a time of economic crisis. The coalition partners, by contrast, pointed out that the Conservatives had struck an agreement with the Bloc in 2004 to form a coalition government if the Liberal minority government at that time was defeated. Moreover, the coalition continued to publicly question the Conservatives economic leadership, pointing to the fact the party had changed its economic policies radically in less than a week, and did not seem to have any definitive direction as far as guiding Canada through its economic difficulties.

With the coalition holding together and poised to defeat the government, on December 5, 2008, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper took the extra-ordinary step of asking the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. To “prorogue” Parliament is to discontinue a session of Parliament, and is a mechanism that has traditionally been used to end a session after Parliament has completed all its work. In this case, however, Prime Minister Harper employed such a measure at the beginning of a session, largely before Parliament had even begun its work, and, arguably, for the implicit purpose of temporarily denying the coalition partners an opportunity to defeat the government. The Conservatives asserted that proroguing Parliament was necessary in order to give Members of Parliament a pause to calmly review recent events. The coalition partners, by contrast, contended the Conservatives were circumventing the democratic process by denying the right of Members of Parliament to defeat the government.

In the end, the Governor General accepted Prime Minister Harper’s advice, that proroguing Parliament was indeed a necessary course of action to take, and officially discontinued the session of Parliament. As such, Parliament will resume sitting on January 26, 2009, with the Conservative government set to table a budget in the House of Commons on January 27. Upon resumption of Parliament and the tabling of the budget, the coalition partners will have a new opportunity to defeat the Conservatives and possibly form a new government.

For more information on the how the coalition can form a new government:

Mapleleafweb: The Liberal-NDP Coalition and Forming Government

2008 Canadian Federal Election: Results and Summary

Jay Makarenko — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:04:39 -0600

On October 14, 2008, Canadians returned Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada to a second minority government. On the one hand, the 2008 election did little to change the Canadian political landscape, as the major political parties were returned to Parliament with similar seat totals and percentages of the national vote as in the previous 2006 election. On the other hand, the election saw several significant trends, such as a strengthening of the Conservative vote in Ontario, an overall decline in support for the Liberal Party, and key electoral gains for the New Democratic Party. This article provides a summary of the 2008 federal election, including an overview of the results, discussions of key factors/non-factors in the election, and an examination of the election’s impact.

2008 Federal Election Results

Second Conservative Minority Government

The 2008 federal election resulted in a second minority government for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, which won 143 of 308 seats in the House of Commons. This represented an increase in seats for the Conservatives, which garnered 124 seats in the 2006 election. Nevertheless, the Conservatives fell short of the 155 they needed to form a majority government.

The Liberal Party of Canada formed the Official Opposition, winning 76 seats in the House, the second highest seat tally of the remaining political parties. The Bloc Québécois won 50 seats (third highest total) and the New Democratic Party of Canada took 37 seats.

The 2008 general election also saw two independent MPs elected to the House of Commons. Independents are elected Members of Parliament who have no formal party affiliation. Bill Casey was elected for the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland―Colchester―Musquodoboit Valley. Casey, originally a Conservative MP, was dismissed from that party’s caucus after he voted against the government’s budget in 2007. André Arthur, the second independent, was elected in the Quebec City-area riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Arthur was first elected as an independent in the 2006 federal election; he has never had any affiliation with a federal political party.

2008 Election Results (Seat totals and Status by Party)

Party	2008 Election	Status	2006 Election	Seat Change
Conservative Party	143 seats	Minority Government	124 seats	+ 19
Liberal Party	76 seats	Official Opposition	103 seats	- 27
Bloc Québécois	50 seats	Opposition Party	51 seats	- 01
New Democratic Party	37 seats	Opposition Party	29 seats	+ 8
Independent	02 seats	-	01 seat	+ 01

Summary of National Vote

In terms of gains, the Green Party of Canada received the largest increase in national support of all the political parties. In 2006, the Greens won 4.5 percent of the national vote; in 2008, that total increased to 6.8 percent, a gain of 2.3 percentage points. This increase in support did not, however, translate into any seats in the House of Commons for the party.

In the 2008 vote, national support for the Conservative Party remained largely the same. In 2006, the Party received 36.27 percent of the national popular vote; in 2008, it received 37.63 percent ― an increase of 1.36 percentage points. This marginal increase, coupled with declines in Liberal Party support (see below), did result in significant increases in the party’s total seat count, as it won 19 more seats than in 2006.

Support for the New Democratic Party also remained almost the same. The party received 17.48 percent of the national popular vote in 2006. In the 2008 election, it increased its percent of the vote to 18.2 ― a gain of 0.72 percentage points. As with the Conservative Party, this small increase resulted in a significant gain in seat totals for the party; in 2008, the NDP won eight additional seats.

The Bloc Québécois incurred only a slight drop in its support. In 2006, the Bloc won 10.48 percent of the popular vote (all from the province of Quebec). In 2008 that support dropped by half a percentage point, to 9.97 percent of the vote. This, in turn, resulted in almost the same number of seats from the prevision election (51 in 2006 and 50 in 2008).

The Liberal Party experienced the largest decrease in support of all the political parties. In 2006, the Party won 30.23 percent of the national vote, while in 2008 that total fell to 26.24 percent. This represented a decline of 3.99 percentage points. Moreover, this drop resulted in a large decline in seat totals for the party, as it won 27 fewer seats than in 2006.

2008 Election Results (National Popular Support by Party)

Party	2008 Election	2006 Election	Vote Change
Conservative Party	37.63%	36.27%	+ 1.36%
Liberal Party	26.24%	30.23%	- 3.99%
Bloc Québécois	9.97%	10.48%	- 0.51%
New Democratic Party	18.20%	17.48%	+ 0.72%
Green Party	06.80%	04.50%	+ 2.3%

Key Factors in the 2008 Federal Election

The Economy

One of the most important factors in the 2008 election was the economy ― in particular, the highly publicized weakening of the international finance industry and the sharp drop in the stock market that coincided with the election period. While the economy was already a key concern for Canadians prior to the election, these specific events brought the parties’ economic policies even more to the forefront of the election debate.

The Conservative Party attempted to calm fears by suggesting that Canada’s economic fundamentals were strong and that the federal government’s best approach was to lower taxes and exercise fiscal restraint. The Conservatives also attempted to undercut support for the other parties by arguing they would damage the economy further by raising taxes. The other parties, by contrast, attacked the Conservatives for failing to have a real plan of action for addressing the new economic conditions. They also argued that this “do-nothing” approach indicated weak leadership and a failure to understand the gravity of the economic situation faced by Canadian families.

The drop in Liberal support may have been due in part to a concern over that party’s proposed environmental policy (known as the Green Shift) and its impact on the economy. On the other hand, the Conservatives failed to gain a majority, even though the economy was supposedly an area of strength. In the end, while the economy was a central focus of the election, the issue may not have been a singularly decisive factor for any of the political parties as Canadians cast their ballots.

Quebec and Newfoundland

Another key factor was the failure of the Conservative Party to gain any kind of traction in the provinces of Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador. This failure is very important, considering how close the Conservatives came to forming a majority government. In fact, following the 2008 election, Gilles Duceppe (leader of the Bloc Québécois) characterized his campaign as a success insofar as the Bloc was able to deny the Conservatives a majority government.

In Quebec, the Conservatives won 10 seats, the same as they won in 2006. More importantly, the party saw its share of the vote in Quebec drop from 24.6 percent in 2006 to 21.7 percent. The Conservatives had anticipated making large gains in Quebec due, in part, to long-term trends which had the Conservatives increase their popular support in that province over several elections. The Conservative government, helmed by Stephen Harper, had also attempted to make their party more attractive to Quebec voters. In 2006, the Harper government passed legislation recognizing Quebec as a “nation within a united Canada.” The Harper government had also attempted to meet financial demands from Quebec (as well as the other provinces) by addressing the perceived federal-provincial fiscal imbalance. Nevertheless, two key events derailed the Conservatives efforts to secure greater support in Quebec in 2008: there was a backlash over Conservative handling of arts and culture policy, in which the Party became perceived as under-appreciating the arts and cultural sectors; and the party gained an image as being overly socially conservative, with changes it had proposed to dealing with young offenders.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Conservatives lost all three seats they had won in 2006; they also saw their portion of the vote in that province drop from 42.7 percent to 16.5 percent. The Conservatives’ weakness in Newfoundland and Labrador stems from its cancelling of the Atlantic Accord (to which the previous federal Liberal government had committed), and dealt with equalization payments to the province. In 2006, the new Harper Conservative federal government unilaterally cancelled this Accord, resulting in a provincial backlash. The Conservative government later back-tracked from its original decision and negotiated a second deal with the provincial government, however voter disdain for the Conservatives did not subside. In the 2008 campaign, voters were reminded of all this by Danny Williams, the popular premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who actively campaigned against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives during the election with his “ABC” campaign (Anybody But the Conservatives).

Televised Leader Debates

Traditionally, the televised leader debates have minimal impact on the outcome of federal elections. The 2008 debates were projected to continue this trend, especially considering the English debate was to be held at the same time as the debate of the vice-presidential candidates in the US. Surprisingly, however, the debates had a much larger impact on the 2008 election than in previous years.

In the 2008 campaign, the debate ‘stakes’ were raised significantly, at the campaign’s outset, over the issue of whether or not Green Party leader Elizabeth May should participate. Previously, only the leaders of political parties with representation in the House of Commons had been allowed to participate in the debates. Even though the Green Party had one member in the House prior to the election call, the media consortium (which organizes the debates) had excluded the Greens. In addition, both Stephen Harper (Conservative Party leader) and Jack Layton (New Democratic Party leader) expressed the view that May should not be allowed to participate in the debate. Following public outcry over the exclusion, the broadcasting consortium reversed its decision, allowing May to participate in the debates.

While the debates did not decisively change the dynamics of the election, they did serve to have a significant impact on the campaign. Prior to both the French and English debates, the Conservatives enjoyed a large lead over the other parties in public opinion polls; at that time, the general consensus of pollsters was that the Conservative Party could win a majority government. By contrast, in the pre-debate period, the Liberals were mired at historically low levels of public support, at times near only 20 percent of popular support. Following the debates, however, the gap closed noticeably; support for the Conservatives began softening, while the Liberals enjoyed a slight boost. This may have been due to perceived weak performance by Conservative leader Stephen Harper during the debates and relatively strong performances by Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, NDP Party leader Jack Layton, and Green Party leader Elizabeth May (particularly, in the French debates). Also important to note is the increase in support for the Green Party. This may have been due, in part, to May’s participation in the debates, and the resulting national exposure.

The debates alone did not cause this shift in public support. Economic events, such as the collapse of major international financial institutions and weakening world stock markets, also coincided with the closing of the gap between the parties in the public opinion polls. Moreover, the Conservatives were already under public attack in Quebec over the party’s positions on the cultural arts and youth offenders. The debates, however, may have reinforced trends in voting behavior that were already ‘in play.’

Non-Factors in the 2008 Federal Election

The Environment

The environment was billed as a key issue in the 2008 election. Public opinion polls conducted prior to the election had suggested the electorate’s concern about the environment had increased significantly since the previous election in 2006. This coincided with greater public awareness about key environmental issues, such as global warming, and the rise of green politics at the federal level. The Green Party had emerged as a mainstream political party in Canadian politics, while the Liberal Party had chosen to make the environment a central plank of its election platform.

Nevertheless, it’s not clear that concern over the environment played a significant role in voting behaviour, at least not in a direct manner. The economy, instead, dominated political discourse during the election, with strong environment policy being portrayed as being in conflict with pressing economic realities. In this sense, the Conservatives may have been successful in suggesting to voters that the stronger environmental policies of their opponents, such as the Liberal Party’s Green Shift, would be detrimental to Canada’s economic stability and recovery. Further contributing to this was the inability of the Liberals to explain their Green Shift in an effective manner, so as to counter Conservative portrayals of this policy.

Military Mission in Afghanistan

Another significant non-factor in the 2008 election was the military mission in Afghanistan. Public opinion polls prior to the election had suggested that a strong majority of Canadians disapproved of Canada’s military actions in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report during the election in which he was critical of the government for misreporting the total cost of the military mission. Nevertheless, the Afghanistan mission was not a dominant issue in the election discourse ― nor was it likely a decisive issue in voter behaviour.

This may have been due to a number of factors. First, the Conservatives and Liberals both supported military action in Afghanistan, as well as the timeline for ending the mission. This partisan agreement effectively took the Afghanistan mission off the election table for both parties. Second, the fact that formal timeline for withdrawal exists may have reduced the significance of Afghanistan for Canadian voters. At the time of the election, the Conservative government had committed to withdrawing troops by 2011. The Afghanistan mission may have had a higher election profile if the government had left the timeline open, without a firm exit date.

Traditional Policy Issues

It is worth noting that several policy issues, which tend to be at the forefront of Canadian federal politics, did not play a significant role in this election. The first of these issues was health care. Traditionally, health care is a central plank of the parties’ election platforms, with each party highlighting how it would address deficiencies in the system (such as waiting times) and advocating reforms, be it through stronger public support of the system or greater participation by the private sector. The 2008 election discourse, however, rarely focused on the issue of health care.

Another traditional issue that was absent from the 2008 election campaign was Quebec separatism. Even in Quebec, where the Bloc Québécois tends to focus voting patterns on the Quebec separatism, the issue had very little traction. Election dynamics in Quebec, instead, seemed to be influenced by Conservative policies on the arts and young offenders. The Bloc Québécois intentionally based its campaign on these issues. Interestingly enough, its success in the 2008 election was more about the party’s ability to capitalize on anti-Conservative sentiments rather than any public support for Quebec separatism ― the party’s raison d’être.

Beyond the 2008 Federal Election

Continued Minority Government

The most direct impact of the 2008 election result is continuing minority government at the federal level. This is the third minority government elected by Canadians since 2004, marking one of the longest periods of minority government in post-Confederation history.

Duration of Minority Governments (1867-2008)

Political Party	Prime Minster	Term	Duration
Liberal	William Mackenzie King	1922-1925	1,277 days
Conservative	Stephen Harper	2006-2008	888 days
Liberal	Pierre Trudeau	1966-1968	826 days
Liberal	Lester Person	1963-1965	846 days
Liberal	Pierre Trudeau	1973-1974	490 days
Liberal	Paul Martin	2004-2005	421 days
Conservative	Arthur Meighen	1926-1926	176 days
Progressive Conservative	John Diefenbaker	1962-1963	132 days
Progressive Conservative	John Diefenbaker	1957-1958	110 days
Progressive Conservative	Joe Clark	1979-1979	66 days

(Source: Parliament of Canada, 2008)

As the Conservatives do not enjoy a clear majority in the House of Commons, they will need to rely on the other parties to pass government legislation. This may result in greater cooperation between the Conservatives and at least one other party, either in an ongoing basis or a case-by-case basis. Following the election, Conservative Party leader, and prime minister, Stephen Harper indicated a willingness to work with the other parties. Considering the large ideological differences that separate the Conservatives from the other political parties, however, it’s not clear how such a relationship might work.

One advantage for the Conservative government will be a weakened Liberal Party (see below for more). With the Liberals looking inward at their leadership and policy direction, they may not be inclined to challenge the Conservatives in the immediate future, or to consider forcing another election anytime soon. This may, in turn, allow the Conservative government to push forward with its own agenda without great concern over losing the confidence of the House.

Growing Conservative Strength in Ontario

One of the more important results of the 2008 election was the growth of Conservative support in the province of Ontario, once a fortress of Liberal power and electoral support. Since the 2000 election the conservative support in Ontario has steadily grown, translating into a greater number of seats and share of the popular vote share. By contrast, the Liberals have seen their electoral fortunes steadily decline. The 2008 election is a significant milestone, in that it saw the Conservatives take top spot ― as the preferred federal political party of choice in Ontario ― for the first time in several decades.

Liberal Party Support vs. Conservative Party Support in Ontario (2000-2008)

General Election	Liberal Party		Conservative Party
General Election	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote
2000*	100	51.5	02	25.8
2004	75	44.7	24	31.5
2006	54	39.9	40	35.1
2008	38	33.9	51	39.2

*2000 figures for the conservatives based on the combined numbers of the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, which subsequently merged into the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is unclear, however, what this trend means for the long term. On the one hand, it may suggest a changing of the guard, in terms of the preferred political party in Ontario, away from the Liberals and towards the Conservatives. Considering the historic influence of Ontario on the overall results of Canadian federal elections, this may further suggest the entrenchment of the Conservative Party as the new party of government in Canada, at least for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, it’s not clear that Conservative support in Ontario is stable. As the 2008 campaign clearly demonstrated, Conservative support outside Western Canada is vulnerable to sharp declines over relatively minor issues ― as evidenced by the party’s poor showing in Quebec. There, Conservative support at the beginning of the election bled away not only to the Bloc Québécois, but also to the Liberals. If Conservative support in Ontario is similarly soft, the Liberal Party may be able to recapture some of its past support under different leadership and/or with a different policy focus and platform.

Continued Liberal Weakness in Western Canada

In Western Canada, political observers have long recognized the weakness of the Liberal Party, which has been systemic since the days of the Trudeau Liberals in the 1980s. Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium, the Liberal Party was largely able to rely on its massive support in central Canada to form governments.

Liberal Support in Western Canada (2000-2008)

General Election	British Columbia		Alberta		Saskatchewan		Manitoba
General Election	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote	Seats	% of Vote
2000	5	27.7	2	20.9	2	20.7	5	32.5
2004	8	28.6	2	22.0	1	27.2	3	33.2
2006	9	27.6	0	15.3	2	22.4	3	26.0
2008	5	19.3	0	11.4	1	14.9	1	19.1

As the Liberal Party can no longer depend upon massive support in Ontario, it may have to look to growth in the west as a key element in the party’s revitalization. This, however, would be difficult; since 2000, the Liberal Party has steadily seen both its seat totals and percentage of the popular vote steadily decrease in the west (see above table). In 2000, for example, the party won 14 seats, with popular support in each of the western provinces above 20 percent. In 2008, the Liberals won only seven seats and fell below 20 percent in each province. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, support for the Liberal Party fell to lows of 11.4 and 14.9 percent respectively. It also bears noting that the Liberals have not elected a member of parliament from Alberta since 2004.

This all contrasts sharply with the extremely high numbers traditionally charted by the Conservative Party across the western provinces. Moreover, in the 2008 election, the Liberal Party trailed well behind the New Democratic Party as the second major contending party in each western province. A perfect example of this is British Columbia, where the Conservatives took over half the seats and almost half the popular vote, while the New Democratic Party was the second strongest party in the province.

Party Support in British Columbia (2008 General Election)

Party	Seats	% of Vote
Conservative Party of Canada	22	44.4
New Democratic Party of Canada	09	26.1
Liberal Party of Canada	05	19.3
Green Party of Canada	00	09.4

Growing New Democratic Party Electoral Success

While the New Democratic Party remained the fourth party in terms of seat totals, it nevertheless scored an important victory in the 2008 election. The Party significantly increased its overall seat count, winning its largest number of seats in the House of Commons since 1988. Since the 2000 election, the NDP has steadily increased both its seats in the House and its portion of the national vote.

New Democratic Party Support (2000-2008)

General Election	Seats	% of Vote
2000	13	8.5
2004	19	15.7
2006	29	17.5
2008	37	18.2

During the election, the New Democrats adopted the strategy of presenting themselves and their leader, Jack Layton, as a legitimate government alternative. This is in contrast with previous tactics adopted by the party, where New Democrats portrayed themselves as simply a social democratic voice in Parliament. It’s important to note that in the 2008 campaign the Party was able to increase its seat count even with strong growth by the Green Party of Canada ― support which likely came at the cost of traditional NDP votes.

It is, however, unclear what this trend may suggest for the long-term. While the New Democrats almost doubled their seats between 2004 and 2008 (from 19 to 37 seats), their portion of the national vote has only increased marginally during the same period (from 15.7 to 18.2 percent). This may suggest the Party has a ceiling in its electoral support and that current electoral gains have been based on dissatisfaction with the Liberal Party in its current form rather than stable, committed support for the NDP. Nevertheless, the 2008 election results are very important, considering that in 2000 the Party was on the verge of becoming an irrelevant force in national politics.

Declining Voter Turnout

Another important result of the 2008 election was the extremely low voter turnout. In the 2008 election, only 59.1 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot ― the lowest voter turnout for a federal election in Canadian history. Overall, voter turnout for federal elections in Canada has steadily declined since the late 1980s.

Voter Turnout for Federal Elections (1988-2008)

Year	1988	1993	1997	2000	2004	2006	2008
Voter Turnout	75.3%	69.6%	67.0%	61.2%	60.5%	64.7%	59.1%

This long-term, declining rate of democratic participation has been attributed to a number of factors, including a lack of interest in the electoral process, dissatisfaction with the candidates/political parties, and a lack of confidence that one’s vote mattered.

For more information on voter turnout:

Mapleleafweb: Voter Turnout in Canada

English debate preview: pressure on Dion and Layton

Harold Jansen — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:36:15 -0600

Tonight is the big show: the English language debate at 9 Eastern/6 Pacific. The dynamics here are a little different than in French. The Conservatives are in a stronger position outside of Quebec, so Harper mainly has to stay out of trouble. I imagine we'll see the relaxed prime-ministerial sweater vest version of Stephen Harper again. All four leaders will be gunning for Harper again. I don't expect we'll see the NDP and Liberals squabble too much over who is the real opponent to Harper. The way the Conservatives are poised to break through in British Columbia means they both have to dump on Harper big time. Harper just has to weather the storm. It's pretty much impossible for an incumbent prime minister to "win" the debate; you win by not losing, which is about the best you can hope for.

Duceppe is pretty much irrelevant tonight, but he's a good debater, so he will likely mostly just irritate Harper. May is a bit of wild card. I thought she was surprisingly good in the French debate. She has nothing to lose really and I suspect she'll be pretty effective, but any gains are marginal in the election.

That leaves Dion and Layton as the leaders who have to perform well. Dion comes off of a decent performance in the French debate, but will obviously be hampered by the fact that English is his second language. He benefits from the fact that many people have written him off without actually listening to him speak. If people listen, they might be surprised to find out that he's actually a pretty bright guy. Layton also needs to do well. Right now, the NDP is in the annoying position of being up in the polls over last election, but not enough to translate into many seats. The debate could help Layton get over the bubble. In past debates, Layton has been a bit too over-eager and comes off a bit rehearsed as he launches into various set pieces; if he can resist those tendencies, he could do all right.

Any guess as to viewership? The Biden-Pallin debate will be tough competition. I know I'm going to have trouble resisting a peak over at American networks to see how it's going. At least I don't have to choose between the debate and The Office. That would be a tough one.

During the Leaders Debate, Will the Economy Bore all the Leaders but Harper?

Greg Farries — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:08:42 -0600

Is Religion Fair Game in Canadian Politics?

Royce Koop — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:35:17 -0600

We were subjected in the 2000 election campaign to constant mockery of Alliance leader Stockwell Day's evangelical faith and beliefs. We got a glimpse of this tendency in the present campaign, this time from Gilles Duceppe:

"Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe again attacked the governing Tories as social conservatives, pointing to the candidacy of a member of the Catholic group Opus Dei as evidence that the party is composed of right-wing ideologues who would take away a woman's right to choose."

Duceppe's sudden infatuation with the imaginings of Dan Brown has more to do with the electoral threat the Tories are now posing the Bloc than with any concern over Opus Dei infiltration of the Canadian government. The bigger question is of course about religious litmus tests for candidates for public office in Canada and whether candidates' religious beliefs are fair game for attack. Michael Coren points out that Duceppe's attack is not confined only to members of Opus Dei:

"Opus Dei is entirely faithful to Catholic teaching, so if anyone objects to its people standing for office they should really say what they mean — that genuine Catholics are not welcome."

It's the Catholic Church, not just Opus Dei, that opposes Duceppe's laundry list of "recent accomplishments." By attacking Opus Dei, Duceppe is by extention attacking Catholics and their right to run for public office in Canada without first jettisoning their most deeply held beliefs.

The real question is whether it is acceptable for politicians to attack the religious beliefs of their opponents.

Presidential Race vs Canadian Federal Election: Heavyweights vs Lightweights

Greg Farries — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:49:27 -0600

Gilles Duceppe

Greg Farries — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:12:49 -0600

Gilles Duceppe is leader of the Bloc Québécois, the federal party committed to realizing a Quebec that is separate from the rest of Canada. He represents the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

The Bloc Québécois (BQ, or “Bloc”) won 49 seats in the federal election held on October 14, 2008. During the election, the Conservative Party of Canada was the Bloc’s main rival for voters in Quebec. There was some concern about the legitimacy of the BQ as a party at a time when separatist sentiment has waned — the Bloc was created to protect the interests of Quebecers, preserve French language and culture, and to promote sovereignty — but it maintains a strong presence in federal Parliament as evidenced by the electoral results.

In December 2008, Duceppe signed an agreement giving his party’s support to a Liberal-NDP coalition that would have replaced the minority Conservative government had it fallen on a non-confidence vote. The agreement was reached because the opposition parties were critical of the governing Conservatives’ economic and fiscal update delivered in November 2008. Though not formally part of the coalition, the Bloc had pledged to support it for 18 months. Thus far, a non-confidence vote has not taken place: first, the Conservatives postponed it, then Prime Minister Harper secured a prorogue of Parliament from Governor General Michaelle Jean until January 26, 2009. At that time, the Conservative government will deliver its budget.

Duceppe has been leader of the Bloc Québécois for more than a decade, but his affiliation with the party spans even longer. In 1996, he became the Bloc’s interim leader, when then-leader Lucien Bouchard resigned to lead the Parti Québécois in the lead-up to the October 1995 referendum in Quebec, when the province’s association with Canada was the subject of a provincial vote. From 1997, Duceppe assumed the leadership following the short-lived tenure of Michel Gauthier, who resigned a year after taking the party’s reigns. Previously, from 1990 to 1996, Duceppe served as the party whip, responsible for ensuring unity among the BQ’s caucus members. In 1993, the Bloc made history by winning enough seats to form the Official Opposition.

Promoting Quebec’s interests as well as Quebec sovereignty are key forces that drive the Bloc Québécois and its agenda. In federal elections, however, the Party campaigns on a range of issues. The environment, health care, child care and improving conditions for working-class Canadians are important areas of concern.

The Politics of Separation

During Duceppe’s tenure as leader, the Bloc’s seat count in the House of Commons has both risen and fallen. Following the Party’s history-making electoral success in 1993 with 54 seats, the Party suffered a setback in the 1997 federal election, Duceppe’s first campaign as leader, when it won 44 seats. The Bloc’s fortunes fell even further in 2000, when it won 38 seats. At that time, the federal Liberal Party held the majority of seats. In 2004, the Party’s fortunes were restored when 54 Bloc MPs won their ridings. At the time of writing, the BQ’s representation in the House of Commons stands at 49 seats.

On two occasions, there has been speculation that Duceppe would resign from federal politics in favour of running for the leadership of the Quebec-based Parti Québécois. The first came in 2005 when then-PQ leader Bernard Landry resigned; Duceppe, however, chose to remain in Ottawa, asserting that he could be more effective in fighting for sovereignty at the federal level while leading the Bloc into the 2006 general election. In 2007, following the short-lived tenure of André Boisclair as PQ leader, Duceppe announced he would run for the PQ leadership, only to change his mind the very next day. The move earned him criticism both from journalists and political opponents alike.

Another chapter in Duceppe’s history, particularly in the time preceding the 2004 federal election, was the supposition that the days of the Bloc and its leader were numbered. At the time, public sentiment in Quebec for sovereignty had waned, reaching all-time lows, and it seemed the Party had lost its raison d’être. However, the fortunes of Duceppe and the Bloc rose significantly in the wake of Quebecers’ anger over the so-called sponsorship scandal of the day, and allegations of corruption by some members of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party.

A New Political Party is Born

The Bloc Québécois emerged as an entity in 1990 when Lucien Bouchard, a prominent cabinet minister in the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, and a group of Progressive Conservative and Liberal MPs, left their respective parties. The Bloc was originally created as an informal coalition with the objective of promoting Quebec sovereignty at the federal level. However, it soon evolved into a full-fledged federal political party, despite that it has always run candidates only in Quebec ridings. The BQ was bolstered by considerable dissatisfaction with the federal system and increased sentiment for separatism in Quebec following the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. Duceppe’s victory in the 1990 by-election in the riding of Laurier—Sainte Marie was a watershed moment in the Bloc’s development: it showed that a sovereigntist party at the federal level was capable of winning seats in Quebec.

Ideology and Activism

Quebec nationalism and sovereignty are intrinsic elements of Duceppe’s political view. He advocates ‘sovereignty association,’ a particular form of Quebec nationalism, that involves sovereignty for Quebec but that also includes a political and economic association with the rest of Canada. This ideal contrasts with hard-line nationalism, which advocates for a completely independent Quebec; according to this view, the new nation would cut all its political and economic ties with Canada, and act as a fully autonomous nation in both domestic and international affairs.

Proponents of sovereignty association often cite the European Union (EU) as a model; the EU allows for strong national governments within a very decentralized continental political and economic framework. In this vein, for example, Duceppe has suggested that an independent Quebec would continue to be integrated within the Canadian and North American economies.

Duceppe embraced the ideas of Quebec sovereignty and nationalism following his earlier exposure to the ideologies of communism and social democracy during his university days. For a three-year period he was a member of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Workers’ Party, which espoused ideas of class oppression and revolution. In retrospect, Duceppe considers his Communist affiliation a mistake — one stemming from his desire for fundamental change. With the sharply declining influence of the Catholic Church during those years, communism had provided Duceppe with an alternative set of values while simultaneously offering him a sense of security. While Duceppe turned away from Marxism-Leninism as a strict blueprint, to this day, its general values of equality and social change continue to influence his political perspective.

Following his university studies, Duceppe entered into the Company of Young Canadians (CYC), a short-lived federal government youth program inspired by the US Peace Corps. Established in 1966, the CYC encouraged social, economic and community development in Canada. It trained young Canadians in social organization techniques, then placed them to work in community programs across the country. The initiative ended in 1977, following criticisms that many of the CYC’s recruits were engaging in Marxist and separatist activities.

Following his involvement with the CYC, Duceppe became a union negotiator for the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN), a provincial union organization in Quebec, which, in the 1970s, proposed a socialist agenda for Quebec workers. Duceppe worked for the CSN from 1977 to 1990, when he resigned to run for federal political office.

A Personal Snapshot

Duceppe was born in 1947 in Montreal, Quebec, where he also grew up. He is the son of Hélène Rowley and well-known Québécois actor Jean Duceppe. He earned his Bachelor of Arts from the Collège Mont-Saint-Louis, and studied political science at the Université de Montréal.

He is married to Yolande Brunelle. Together, they have two children.