I believe that the leader of the Liberal Party,
Michael Ignatieff, has what someone called the "dog's syndrome."
Looking at a dog running furiously after any passing car, a simple
question could be asked: if the dog reaches the car, what's he going
to do with it?
This
little anecdote came to mind last week when I read about several
angry statements from Ignatieff decrying the decision of Prime
Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament until the beginning
of March. To stress his disappointment with the Prime Minister's
decision, he has called his MPs to report to work on Jan. 25,
according to the old House of Commons calendar.
It's
a nice gimmick to get the attention of the people. But then what?
Once he has the public's attention, what does the Liberal leader
want to tell Canadians? What is Ignatieff going to do with a fully
fledged, open and working Parliament?
He
already said that this is the worst government ever. He already said
the economic plan presented by Harper, and supported more than 90
times by his party, is bad and not working. He already said that
this government is undemocratic. But he also said that he doesn't
want an election and is not prepared to vote against it. Can
Ignatieff explain to Canadians what he needs a full functioning
Parliament for?
The
criticism from opposition parties to have Parliament back in session
at the end of this month is legitimate, but free Parliamentary
debates are not the end of the democratic process. They're a tool to
reach common goals for the good of all citizens.
If
all that Ignatieff has said about the government is true and he is
still trusted by Canadians less than Prime Minister Harper, it says
a lot about his leadership and his credibility with Canadian voters.
It
is unfortunately true that our Parliamentary institutions are not
working properly. It's not because they are bad, but because they
were designed to work in a bipartisan environment and with political
parties well-led and structured. Our Parliamentary system works
better when governments can rely on a solid majority.
It's
been almost 20 years now since our Canadian Parliamentary
institutions have been trying to cope with a changed political
partisan system. It started with the creation of the Bloc
Québécois
and the increasing presence in the polls of the Green Party.
The
Conservatives went through radical changes and are still coping with
them. They were able to start their new course only after they
elected a leader who was capable of leading the structural changes
and making ideological adjustments.
The
Liberals, on the other hand, are in the middle of an identity crisis
and are still looking for a person who can lead them through their
changes. After the strong leadership of Jean Chrétien,
also supported by the weakness of the Conservatives in the 1990s,
the Liberals have basically been without any real leadership. Paul
Martin was too entrenched in the past. Stéphane
Dion was intelligent, but had serious communications challenges. And
now they have Ignatieff, an academic with good communications
skills, but who, unfortunately has nothing to communicate.
Parliament,
in the last few years, has not been the place to debate issues. It
has become a soccer stadium where fans throw insults at each other
for 45 minutes and then return home.
Nonetheless,
I don't agree with Prime Minister Harper's decision to prorogue
Parliament for two reasons: principles and politics.
I
believe Parliament should not be closed for such a long time too
often because it's the place where elected Canadians have the
mandate from the electorate to represent their interests. If they do
it or not, that's a different story.
The
second reason is related to the present situation in the Liberal
Party and its leadership. A big stage like Parliament would have
further exposed the emptiness and the lack of vision of the Liberal
leadership. Despite his screaming against the prorogation, this
pause is a godsend for Ignatieff who now has a chance to work and to
promote his vision; if he has one.
I
believe this break is also good for Jack Layton and the NDP. In the
last couple of years, he has led his party very skillfully, becoming
the only real opposition to the present government. If Layton uses
this pause to strengthen some of his ideas in a more sustainable
economic context, he can really help his party to become the real
federal opposition even in the polls.
There
is nothing wrong with our Parliamentary system. The problem is in
our political and partisan approach which can be solved in two ways.
We should hope to go back to a bipartisan system that allows the
election of a majority government, like it was in Canada before the
1990s or like the United States (this implies the extinction of the
Bloc Québécois),
or we need a change in the mentality of our politicians. They should
learn how to work in a coalition environment and also consider a
change in our electoral system. If we keep electing minority
governments in an environment that cannot handle them, then we are
going to face many years of political turmoil and economic
instability.
