Nietzsche called it the eternal recurrence of the same. In French we say “Le plus ça change, le plus ça reste la même.” Whichever you prefer, for those of us with memories longer than the expiration date on a milk carton, the decision by the NDP to pull out of their deal with the Liberals feels awfully familiar.
Now, not to step on the beatified memory of Jack Layton, but he was directly and unquestionably the author of ten years of Stephen Harper government. If you don’t accept that assertion as fact, a) you’re wrong and b) you’re really not going to enjoy the rest of this piece.
After finishing the election in the summer of 2004 with a slim minority government, the Liberals needed a dance partner. The Bloc were a non-starter for several reasons, not least of which being the Sponsorship Inquiry that had just laid bare the depths to which a previous Liberal government (which featured many of the same faces) had sunk to promote and preserve Canada in Quebec.
By 2005 Jack Layton held the life of Paul Martin’s government in his hands. After several moments of high political drama (Belinda Stronach cross the floor; Chuck Cadman being wheeled in from his death bed to vote, etc.), the balance in the House of Commons was sustainable so long as the NDP voted with the Liberal government.
Knowing full well that this was the case, Martin and his team were more than willing to enter into quid pro quo arrangements with Layton to preserve this balance.
But by the fall of 2005 there appeared to be a predictable rhythm: Layton had gone to Martin and his Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale, and extracted concessions – largely around transit and infrastructure, as was the style at the time – and agreed to support the budget the previous spring.
However, the release of the first phase of the Gomery Report on November 1st – and the ensuing drop in the Liberal’s polling – was all they needed to join with the Bloc and Conservatives in voting non-confidence in the government. On January 23rd Conservatives won the most seats (but not a majority) and formed a government that lasted until 2015.
While the parallels to the current situation in the Commons should be obvious, allow me to spell them out:
- Like in 2005, a Liberal government with some existential challenges has been working with an NDP parliamentary caucus to keep itself alive during a minority.
- Like in 2005, the NDP have been able to extract significant, tangible benefits for Canadians from the Liberal government that likely otherwise would not have been priorities. Things like: anti-scab legislation, pharmcare, a dental plan, etc.
- Like in 2005, despite whatever nonsensical fever dreams the NDP leader may have, the only possible alternative to the current government is a Conservative one.
Unlike in 2005, however, the current leader of the NDP has neither as strategic nor as ambitious in his demands as his predecessor.
The reality is that the NDP – with an incredibly brief period of exception under Layton – doesn’t think about governing. It is a protest party that by and large contents itself with being the social conscience of the Commons, prodding, cajoling and, in these minority situations, requiring Liberal governments to do better.
They are, and of a right ought to be, anathema to the ethos of the Conservative Party of Canada. And if that was the case with Stephen Harper, it is surely doubly so with Pierre Poilievre.
Jack Layton’s decision to bring down the Martin government and replace with a Harper-led Conservative one guaranteed the end of: the Kelowna Accord that would have fundamentally changed First Nations relationships with Canada (especially for healthcare and education); the national childcare program that had been negotiated with the provinces and was about to roll out and was instead delayed almost 20 years; 2 points of GST revenue, the loss of which later justified Harper’s cuts to myriad social programs; and the Dion plan for climate change that was literally negotiated at the COP meeting hosted in Montreal during the first days of the election campaign.
Those were real consequences inflicted on real Canadians by Jack Layton’s ego and naïve lust for the power that he already had over Martin and would never, ever achieve with Harper.
Jagmeet Singh doesn’t strike me as much of a student of history, but one can hope that despite the new branding position he’s adopted this week someone talks him through the real politick of the choices he’s going to make in the coming months.
Jamie Carroll is a former National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada who now works as an entrepreneur and consultant.