Angry in the Great White North

The role of the Official Opposition has two elements. One as a critic of government action, and second as the government-in-waiting:

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (French: L'Opposition Loyale de Sa Majeste) in Canada is usually the largest parliamentary opposition party in the House of Commons or a provincial legislative assembly that is not in government either on its own or as part of a governing coalition. This is usually the second-largest party in a legislative house, although in certain unusual circumstances, it may be a third or fourth party or even the largest party.

The Official Opposition is viewed as the caucus tasked with keeping the government in check. It is also generally viewed as the alternative government.

By default, the second largest party forms the Official Opposition.

Why?

As I see it, it seems to be driven by the second element in the definition, government-in-waiting. If the government falls, the second largest party takes over. But of course that is not what happens at all. If the government falls, there is an election. The governing party might win again. A third party might win. There is no notion of predefined alternation between parties that would support the notion of a government "in waiting" in any formal sense.

This "government in waiting" thing is just meaningless verbiage. It seems to have no basis in law that I know of.

The real role of the Official Opposition is to keep the government in check. In order to perform that role, there are real-world distinctions. The time allotted in Question Period, the chairmanship and number of seats on committees, funding for research and other activities -- these are all adjusted and allocated in such a way as to give the Official Opposition the tools it needs to function as a check on government.

What if a party is not willing to use these tools to perform that function?

When the Bloc Quebecois was the second largest party elected to parliament in 1993, the argument was made by the Reform Party that a party dedicated to the dismantling of Canada could not form the Official Opposition. How could such a party be a "government in waiting"? Well, the simple answer is that it couldn't, and yet the Bloc Quebecois was allowed to form the Official Opposition because, even though I don't recall this argument being made, the "government in waiting" aspect is irrelevant. But the Bloc Quebecois could act as a check on government action -- nothing in its platform suggested that it would ever help the government do anything.

That to me set the precedent that the Official Opposition is defined by a willingness to oppose government action (ideally in a constructive way, but a belligerent opposition would be punished by the electorate, so there is a natural tendency to constructive opposition).

Now turn this on its head. Consider the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals have the second largest number of seats in parliament, while the NDP hold far fewer seats. Certainly history suggests that the Liberals form the only party currently in opposition that could ever form a government. The NDP has never come close. The Liberal Party is the "government in waiting".

Does that mean the Liberals ought to form the Official Opposition?

From L. Ian MacDonald the Montreal Gazette:

[Stephane Dion] took 45 minutes to say Canadians didn't want an election and he wouldn't force one. Then he offered a four-part amendment to the Throne Speech on Afghanistan, Kyoto, social programs and corporate tax cuts, knowing full well the NDP want our troops out of Afghanistan now, not in 2009 as Dion proposed, and that the socialists would never support tax breaks for corporate Canada.

When their own amendment is defeated on Monday, the Liberals will abstain on the main motion next Wednesday, allowing it to pass and the government to survive. This was all Dion's brilliant idea.

And it was as feeble as the rest of his speech.

From Lorne Gunter, writing in the Edmonton Journal:

"The official Opposition certainly remains very critical of the throne speech," Dion insisted.

But he explained, that same Opposition intended to nothing, absolutely nothing, about its displeasure.

Despite being really, really angry, Dion and his caucus plan to sit out the confidence vote on the throne speech.

From Michael Harris in the Ottawa Sun:

Before the prime minister is done the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is going to look like Stephen Harper's butler, caving in on the crime bill, the war in Afghanistan and, perhaps deadliest of all for the Grits, the environment. After all, Dion is allowing a legislative blueprint to stand that pronounces Kyoto targets unattainable and therefore irrelevant.

From Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail:

Liberal weakness, real and imagined, has emboldened the other three parties in Parliament. How else to explain the adroit positioning by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the take-no-prisoners stand adopted by the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party?

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's white flag - the Liberals will not vote against the Throne Speech - removes whatever threat the Harperites might have felt of parliamentary defeat.

Mr. Harper can now prod the retreating Liberals on a range of bills knowing that the Liberals will not stand and fight, just skirmish, delay and groan but ultimately yield. The Liberals are much more afraid of Mr. Harper than he is of them. For all intents and purposes, Liberals have now yielded all initiative to the government for the foreseeable future.

Until Mr. Dion can steady his leadership - if he can - the Liberals will be a hemi-demi opposition, throwing up alternative ideas but not willing to risk them in an election.

The best comes from Chantal Hebert writing for the Toronto Star:

The omnibus anti-crime bill brought forward by the federal government yesterday is primarily meant to yank the chain of an official opposition that can no longer back up its bark with a bite.

Dion may have dodged the bullet of a snap election on the throne speech this week but his capacity to function as an effective leader of the official opposition has taken a big hit. The main watchdog of the minority Parliament has become the government's best friend.

And the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen comes closest to actually saying what I'm about to say:

Mr. Dion's Liberals have had their chance to get united and get organized. It wasn't a very long chance, granted, but that's politics. Instead of gaining momentum since Mr. Dion was elected as leader last December, they've lost it. They lost three byelections, have slipped in the polls and let their Quebec wing fall into disarray.

All of this is the Liberals' own business, and for them to sort out. Meanwhile, though, the people of Canada require an effective Opposition in Parliament. Mr. Dion has a job to do, a job that is at least as important as rescuing the Liberal party. His job is to keep the government in check and test its arguments before the gaze of the people. He must also present the image of an alternative, a government-in-waiting should Canadians decide they've had enough of the Conservatives. He can't do that well if he's afraid of the political consequences.

Stephane Dion and his Liberal Party have been characterized over and over again as a Official Opposition unwilling to truly act as a check on government action. Why? Because in their hope to form the next government, as a "government in waiting" would expect to do, the Liberals are working hard to avoid an election that could result in crippling losses. Given the two roles of the Official Opposition -- check on government and government in waiting -- the Liberals have chosen to throw away the job of being a check on government action since it threatens their chances to form a government.

In a sense, I don't blame them. Circumstances have conspired to create this situation in which these two aspects that traditionally define the Official Opposition are at odds with each other.

But the traditions also provide a solution. The Official Opposition has not always been the second largest party. I might be wrong, but I think the Governor General has it in her power to appoint an Official Opposition she believes would function adequately in that role.

The Liberals have admitted that it is not in their interests to attempt to fulfill both aspects of that role, and in true Liberal style, they have chosen power (or at least the promise of power) over principle. Many political observers have commented on this.

So why don't we decouple these aspects? As the second largest party, the Liberals can enjoy the dream of one day being the next government. They can strut about Parliament Hill telling anyone who will listen that they are just waiting for the moment to form the next government.

Bully for them.

But in the mean time, parliament needs an effective check on government action. I have no problems saying that -- anyone honest will know that a government without strong opposition to keep it honest runs the risk of following a path that leads to corruption. I don't care if you support the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the NDP -- we're all human and we're all subject to the same human failings.

But even if you think the NDP is pure as the driven snow and could never be corrupted by power, it doesn't matter. You'd also likely believe that the Conservatives and the Liberals are always a half-step from dropping into a cesspool of corruption, maybe even permanently with one leg deep in that pool, up to the hip. Fine. Whatever. You would also buy into Jack Layton's argument that the NDP forms the only effective opposition:

“A Throne Speech is a rare but important opportunity to indicate whether you support the direction of the government or not. If Mr. Dion fails to show leadership, to oppose the Harper government, the NDP will do it.”

Jack Layton: Leader of the Effective Opposition

I agree with Jack Layton on that point. And I think we should change "Effective" to "Official".

NDP supporters, and for that matter any Canadian who believes that Canada benefits from a working democracy, ought to call on the Governer General to strip the Liberal Party of its role as Official Opposition and grant that title, and all the benefits and responsibilities that come with it, to the NDP.

I don't think it would create a constitutional crisis. A constitutional headache at best.

But a move in that direction, or even just musing about such a change, would do a great deal to either galvanize the Liberals into doing their job, or splinter the Liberals and allow the NDP to move in to do the job they've been itching to do.

I think it would be good for Canada.

If you think this is a unique opportunity for the Governor General to help steady this parliament and make it work effectively, you can contact her office in a number of ways.

If you want to encourage the NDP to pursue this change in role and make it official, they would probably appreciate it.

Addendum: I should point out that such a change, on one level, accomplishes nothing. Official Opposition or not, if the Liberals sit in the corner mewling about polls and such, and so refuse to vote down a confidence measure, the government will stand. Nothing Jack Layton says as Leader of the Opposition can change the number of votes each party wields. But then that's the point. At least Jack Layton is saying something and acting on it. His NDP is presenting an alternate vision for Canada (not one I like, to be sure) against which to compare the Conservative vision. More importantly, as the Official Opposition, the NDP would be able to put that vision front and centre, instead of obscured behind the spectacle Stephane Dion's Cirque du Soleil contortions in which he presents an alternate vision and then explains why he won't vote for it.

Update: I'm not the only conservative blogger who thinks we need to consider the proper role of the Official Opposition, and act accordingly:

The NDP has parsed the opposition benches into the absent opposition (Liberals) and the effective opposition (NDP).

The Prime Minister should play along this theme.

Since Dion is effectively silent on the Prime Minister's mandate by abstaining from voting on the Throne Speech, Harper should simply rebuke Dion's future questions and remind him of the opportunity he had to support or oppose the government's outlined agenda. Harper should then proceed to only debate the points of the NDP and the Bloc as the effective opposition since these parties are the ones fulfilling their parliamentary roles.

Makes sense to me.