Why minority government is good for Canada

Author(s): 
January 20, 2006

Is minority government good for Canada? Former Conservative pollster Allan Gregg would have us believe in his Strategic Counsel poll this week that 55% of Canadians (and 64% of Quebecers) think a Harper majority would be good for the country.

One wonders what Canadians’ response would have been if the question had been prefaced with the statement that a Harper majority would tear up a major international treaty obligation--the Kyoto Accord; or that it would put Canada’s support for George Bush’s Missile Defense program back on the table.

Gregg’s poll bolsters the economic elite’s view that minorities produce gridlock and instability, and that only “strong” majority governments can produce meaningful change. Yet while majority governments have been very successful in advancing elite policy priorities, this convenient myth masks the reality that minority governments have historically (and most recently) produced important change that most Canadians support.

Canadians need to recall their recent experience with majority governments. Two full decades of back-to-back majorities under successive Conservative (1984–1993) and Liberal (1993–2004) governments have delivered largely on the demands of corporate Canada, not the broader electorate. For Canadian citizens, election promises seemed to vaporize. Instead, these majorities delivered:

  • massive corporate tax cuts;
  • the end of universal benefits for children;
  • repeated attacks on Old Age Security benefits;
  • deep cuts for health, education, and social assistance;
  • removal of federal support for affordable housing;
  • gutting of unemployment insurance;
  • offloading of programs such as training and welfare to the provinces;
  • introduction and entrenchment of both NAFTA and the GST;
  • closer harmonization to U.S. standards and regulations in areas such as health and the environment; and closer integration on intelligence and military security.

And the list goes on. None of these measures were election issues, nor were they priorities for the majority of Canadians. They serve as an important reminder that we should be careful what we wish for, and that many of the most significant (and harmful) things done by majority governments never appeared in their election platforms.

In contrast, the Pearson minority governments of the 1960s brought in far reaching reforms greatly valued by Canadians to this day, including the Canada Pension Plan, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Student Loan program, increased federal transfers to the provinces, and Canada’s most cherished social program –– Medicare.

In 2004, the Liberals campaigned on commitments to affordable housing, training, student assistance, the environment and foreign aid. But it was only because they were reduced to a minority and forced to make compromises with the NDP that they were held accountable for these promises. If they’d had their way, the Liberals would have replaced these promises with more tax cuts for big business.

Under a Liberal majority, Canada would almost certainly have signed on to the US Missile Defense program, over the opposition of the vast majority of Canadians. With a majority, it is doubtful the Liberals would have finally moved forward on their promise (overdue by 12 years) to bring in a national child care program, or achieved their landmark Aboriginal agreement.

Many Canadians want to punish the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal. But is handing a majority to another party –– and giving it carte blanche to implement its own, largely unknown, agenda –– the answer? We don’t believe so. There are far too many issues that have gone un-debated in this election.

Under a Harper majority, what will happen to the CBC? Will we see a radical decentralization of taxation powers to the provinces? Might they re-open the issue of privatizing the CPP? Will we see cuts to core social programs like EI or seniors benefits? We don’t know, and we shouldn’t find out the hard way.

The Conservative plan has not been fully costed (for example, it does not spell out how it would redress the so-called fiscal imbalance with the provinces). Thus, while we know what Harper says he will spend more on, we do not know what he may cut or privatize.

While far from perfect, the last minority parliament made modest progress in reversing the damage to our public programs. This is what most people wanted and what they voted for.

One reason Canadians feel disenchanted with politics is that parties run on one thing (usually centre-left platforms with broad appeal), and then when handed a majority, deliver something very different. Minority governments, on the other hand, serve to check this impunity. Another minority would force whoever forms government to listen to the representatives elected by the majority of Canadians (rather than influential lobbyists), and keep them from straying too far from core Canadian values.

Bruce Campbell is the Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Seth Klein is the BC Director of the CCPA. The CCPA recently published Minority Report: A Report Card on the 2004-05 Minority Government (available at www.policyalternatives.ca).


Issue: