Canada West Foundation Blog

by: Robert Roach, Senior Researcher and the Director of The West in Canada Project

Majorities are not evil
Majority governments are the norm in Canada, so it is a bit odd to hear a large number of commentators acting like a Tory majority is some sort of evil aberration out of Tolkien’s Land of Mordor. It is true that the Harper government will be able to pursue its agenda without the restrictions of a minority Parliament, but this is exactly the same as it was for Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien. We are back to business as usual and not—as some seem to think—out on a crazy limb that will break and send the country into freefall.

In addition, majority governments like to win more than one majority. Hence, while they can pursue their vision for the country without constant fear of a non-confidence vote, they tend to keep one eye on the next election cycle. In other words, radical policies that will alienate large chunks of voters remain unappealing regardless of majority status.

Regional fault lines remain
From a regional perspective, the outcome of the election is very interesting. You barely need two hands to count the Conservative seats in Quebec whereas the NDP have become the de facto representatives of Quebec in the House. This is a new dynamic. In some ways, Quebec has become like Alberta in that it has chosen to side with the opposition rather than the government. Not that long ago, it was Alberta MPs who had only a small presence on the government side of the House.

On the bright side, a Harper majority likely means that the federal government will do as much as it can to advance Senate reform (full reform still requires the provinces to get on board). This is good for the country, good for Quebec and good for the West. A properly designed Senate has the potential to ensure that regional representation does not depend on which party forms the government in the House. Maybe, just maybe, Canada will finally start to fix this broken part of our political system. Maybe.

The Rise of the NDP
Given the nature of the Canadian system, the Official Opposition in a majority Parliament is largely irrelevant in terms of policy. They have an important job to do trying to keep the government’s feet over the coals, but they can’t block government legislation. In this sense, it matters little which party forms the opposition. However, the rise of the NDP is important for several reasons: 1) it is the first time in Canadian history that the Liberal party finds itself in the third party position and it remains to be seen if it can recover; 2) the fuzzy mandate that Layton has from Quebec voters will be a factor but it is impossible to say how this will play out; and 3) the ideological differences between the Tories and the NDPs are relatively clear and will present Canadians with a black and white set of alternatives to watch over the next four years.

The West is Still In
This election shows that a party with a leader from the West and a strong base of support in the region can, by also appealing to Ontario voters, form a majority government. Regardless of your political stripes, the Harper government is not a bad thing from a regional perspective. A government with a strong western base will have a natural connection to the region’s needs and unique circumstances. Because they are governing a nation rather than a region, these needs will not always take precedence, but they should be at least understood and given a fair hearing. This does not mean that governments without a strong western base can’t do this, but in reality, it is much more likely when they do.

A few blogs ago I mentioned that the March budget contained hints that the Conservative minority government was attempting to leave a shrunken government as its permanent legacy. In a recent op-ed I also lamented the absence of long-term thought in current federal economic policy. But now, Industry Minister Tony Clement has apparently accomplished both of these feats by altering the way Statistics Canada collects demographic data across the country. I am talking here of the decision, in anticipation of next year’s Census, to replace the usual Long Form (which was randomly sent to one Canadian household out of five) with a voluntary survey.

Does this matter? Isn’t this just a data collection methodology debate among statistical eggheads and data geeks? Well, the instant uproar was started among that group (of which I am a proud, card-carrying member), but the impact of this decision will be felt everywhere in Canada. Other people have explained very well how the loss of detailed census data will greatly complicate the work of anyone in this country whose job it is to make informed decisions requiring some detailed knowledge of who Canada’s population is. This is especially the case for public policy specialists who work in areas concerned with planning. Just think of people who must figure out the location and the size of hospitals, public transit and roads.

Census information forms the backbone of too many Canadian systems and processes to count. The new approach is the statistical equivalent of changing the diametre of gas pump spouts across the country. It can physically be done and there is a way for everyone to adapt to it, but the adjustment itself is so complicated that you better have a pretty darn good reason for making the change in the first place. I do not think that this is the case here.

Apparently, the Harper cabinet decided to proceed with the change because of growing complaints from the population. Minister Clement told the press that “every MP has had complaints” about what is perceived as intrusions into people’s privacy. Well, I have two things to reply to this. First of all, filling in a census form with personal information is a very small price to pay in order to benefit from informed public policy. Secondly, the complaints the government will receive about this change probably outnumber the initial privacy-related batch already. From left to right, in both the private and the public sector (ranging from federal to municipal), not to mention NGOs and think tanks like Canada West Foundation, many people have expressed concern about the risk of losing access to precious information.

One of the most unexpected aspects of this is the stealth surrounding the change. No consultation whatsoever took place, and the announcement consisted in a mere posting in the Gazette of Canada on June 26 (a Saturday). Contrast this with all the opinion-seeking our Prime Minister went through before selecting the next Governor General.

Statistics Canada has been ranked the world’s no. 1 statistical agency many times and takes great pride in producing good data. As an “arm’s length” federal agency, it is supposed to be outside of the small politics game. When I worked there in the 1990s, the only time we realized we had a Minister at all was during budget cut time. Apart from this, we were allowed to do our number-crunching work alone with no interference. Otherwise, how could our data be credible?

Some will say “This is not a truly important issue. Get your priorities right. Do something about child poverty instead.” Sure. Now, tell me, how do you measure child poverty to start with?

(Note: click PM Harper July 5 to read the letter sent to the Prime Minister by Dr. Roger Gibbins, President and CEO of the Canada West Foundation.)

Posted by: Jacques Marcil