By Lloyd Mackey

November 2008

Power-sharing is developing in such diverse nations as Germany, Zimbabwe and Kenya. But it would be hard to argue that Canada has reached the point where it needs to explore any such radical arrangements.

But all four of the federal leaders whose parties elected members to the House of Commons, spoke in one way or another of the need for working across party lines to make parliament function effectively.

They all know, even if it is not in their individual best interests to say so, that, for 30 months, the House did work and much legislation was passed with the approval of one or another of the parties, depending on the issues.

There are several points worth making.

Conservative increase

Firstly, it was not surprising that the Conservative party was re-elected with an increased seat number, a dozen or so less than a majority in a 308-seat House.

Further, it was interesting to note that, in the voting patterns, the Conservatives continued their political realignment process ­– incrementally drawing support from ridings in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and British Columbia which have been Liberal or NDP for the last decade or two. It would seem that, increasingly, the small-c conservative hinterland lengthens its reach into the suburbs of the large cities.

Meanwhile, the Liberals’ support fell in the suburbs ­– to the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, in the cores of the large cities, to the NDP.

Regarding Liberal leader Stephane Dion: immediately after the election, the talk of the pundits was that he would soon to be toast. He agreed to step down, but said he would stay on as interim leader until a successor is chosen.

Until the Liberal leadership convention, Dion could still contribute something of value to the collaborative process.

His weakness – lack of strong leadership – could be a strength in this context, as he permits the governing party to reach out with legislation which would find some acceptance, because it is not incompatible with some liberal principles.

If he could give collaborative leadership to his party – working with Harper, or at least not interfering with government fiscal policy – he could build a suitable legacy in the interim.

The ‘scary’ side

Another point worth noting is that, in the three previous elections, the role of faith-based social conservatives was used against the Conservative Party as a demonstration of the ‘scary’ side of the political centre-right.

In three Vancouver suburban ridings, Richmond, North Vancouver and West Vancouver-Sea-to-Sky ridings, there was considerable collateral damage to the Conservatives from the targeting of other ridings in other parts of Canada by faith-based so-con groups.

Some of the publicity with respect to those candidates centred around the very dubious suggestion that big American faith-based advocacy groups were suspected of bankrolling some campaigns.

Continue article >>

Previous article More Than Gold thinking big for 2010	Next article The economic meltdown – and the idolatry of security
Page 18	Page 19

This time, there was no such issue; all three ridings went to the Conservatives. One of the new MPs, John Weston from West Van, was the target of misplaced alarm in 2006.

But it should be known that he is a Harvard-educated lawyer who has special skills in aboriginal treaty issues. He will undoubtedly be invaluable in assisting the government in implementing actions flowing from the landmark residential school apology.

Harper lawsuit

One more person worth mentioning is Dona Cadman, widow of the legendary Chuck Cadman – who took over his former riding of Surrey North, after it was held by the NDP.

The Liberals, for whatever reason they deemed necessary, attempted to portray the prime minister and the Conservatives in a criminal light, resulting in Harper filing a multi-million dollar libel suit against them.

The suit has yet to be settled, but the Conservatives persisted in noting that Cadman was their candidate, and that she and the prime minister have a genuine regard for each other’s integrity ­– and that rapport gives the lie to whatever allegations have been put forward.

Cadman as an MP will demonstrate often, I believe, that rather than demonstrating an unseemly approach to inside politics, her story will be one of political redemption, renewal and reconciliation. And the model for what happened there is rooted in the Christian gospel.

Up to the point of Chuck Cadman’s death, that story was told in Tom Zytaruk’s book, Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, which inadvertently created some of the turmoil that embroiled Dona’s candidacy.

I hope he will have opportunity to write the sequel, as Dona’s efforts to continue Chuck’s work continue.

I am not saying that either Chuck or Dona should be seen as traditional garden-variety Christians. The story is too long to tell here, but the gospel is very much a part of their story – and that of the people who have surrounded and worked with them.

Lloyd Mackey is the author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006). 

November 2008