Pearson-Shoyama Institute
Archives
NDP and Tories should support Reform - and demand more
clout in the changing House
by Andrew Cardozo
It's a new year and a new political season and we need a new Parliament.
Not a new election, just a more pro-Canadian Parliament.
Now that Jean Chretien has come out in favour of Reform being the official opposition,
its time for the New Democrats and Tories to get behind the idea, and in the process, get
themselves a better deal.
Reform leader Preston Manning has been pressing for change in the set-up from what the
electorate decided in 1993 and he has good reason: the federalist voices should be better
heard, especially now that the real battle is on for the future of this country.
If it is federalist gains that he is interested in, rather than only partisan gains for
his own party, he should take a more inclusive approach to advancing federalist parties in
the House.
He should support greater prominence for the New Democrats and the Progressive
Conservatives.
Here is what could be done: implementation of a "magic-five" formula.
Currently, we have a "magic-twelve" formula whereby a party needs 12 seats in
order for it to have official party standing. While it's an old practice, no one can
explain why 12 is the magic number. If the purpose is to differentiate between major
parties and fringe groups, then five is still a reasonable number - whereby parties would
need five seats and/or receive five per cent of the popular vote in the last election in
order to receive "minor party standing". Currently the New Democrats and Tories
sit as independents with no official recognition in the House of Commons or its committees
- and rarely get a chance to speak.
Magic-five could entitle them to have five questions a week in question period, five
minute speeches at the start of all debates (following other parties), and one full
membership in each of five standing committees of their choice. This way Jean Charest
would not be prevented from speaking on something as important to him as the recent
"distinct society" debate.
They could also receive five staff persons each to form a small research bureau -
financed from the savings after the Bloc loses its official opposition status and Reform
declines rushing to the trough.
Why should Reform support this? They want priority for federalist voices. Well the
Tories and New Democrats are also federalist. Sure the rise of these two parties would be
politically threatening, but then Reform is more dedicated to co-operative politics than
the old style of vindictiveness and revenge. Right? Besides they need the votes of other
parties if they want to put a motion to the House in this regard.
Why should the Liberals support this? They could do with more vocal support from
federalist parties with an accommodationist approach to federalism. They need the Tories
and New Democrats to balance out the hard nosed politics of Reform and divisive politics
of the Bloc. Besides they owe it to Charest after his performance in the referendum, and
advancing the profile of Charest while reducing that of the Bloc may be a good compromise
for many Quebecers. The NDP would also provide some pro-social policy voices in Parliament
to counter the hard-core neo-conservatism of Reform - of special note to the small-l
Liberals who are feeling out-gunned these days. Further, their failure to support Reform's
quest is causing much consternation in western Canada - its like not giving B.C. the
constitutional veto.
Why should the Bloc support this? Well actually I can't think of any good reason, but
they can be out voted on this. And among federalists in Quebec a higher profile for
Charest will be well received. The Bloc need not scream too much, as their position will
still be quite significant, they just won't be the "Government of Canada in
waiting".
At the very least, Charest and NDP leader Alexa McDonough (remember her?) should put up
a good fight for better recognition. They owe it to their party members and to the history
and ideas that drive their parties. Further, all four pro-Canada parties need to be more
forthright about Canadian unity in the future, within the norms of democracy of course.
| 
