Opposition MPP Jim Flaherty crossed Queen’s Park Cresent last Thursday night to take part in a formal debate at Hart House, arguing against the resolution: “This house believes that the right should not be united.” Flaherty also mused about his own political future.
In an interview about recent federal politics following the debate, Flaherty speculated on what a Conservative government, which he expects, would look like. He said that the Conservatives would not form a formal coalition government. In terms of constitutional reform, they would be likely to move toward set election dates and an elected senate. He said that Mr. Harper would likely call free votes on contentious social issues like gay marriage.
With regard to his Liberal adversaries both provincially and federally, Flaherty had some harsh words. He called last week’s budget “a non-event, boring, lack of vision, too much spending, no tax cuts, it’s almost as if it didn’t happen; this year will be just like last year.” As for Premier McGuinty’s Liberal government, who sit across the Queen’s Park floor from Flaherty, he said “It hasn’t done much at all. Most new governments are anxious to go forth with their changes. They’ve been there six months and all they’ve done is broken some election promises.”
Flaherty says that he intends to run for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party of Ontario as soon as Ernie Eves steps down.
In the debate, both sides made very good and strong cases and echoed the discourse that imbued with the federal Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance Parties as they faced repeated election losses to the Liberal Party. Within Canada’s electoral system, members of the House of Commons are elected from ridings-the single candidate with the most votes gets elected. In many ridings the sum of the votes for the PCs and the Alliance surpassed the votes for the Liberals.
The first side to speak was the “Ayes,” in favor of the resolution.
Roderick McKeown, a second year graduate student argued, “What is the drive behind uniting the right? It shouldn’t simply be governing, but providing a voice for constituents.” He went on to cite that the new Conservative Party evidently does not have a strong base providing a voice for its constituents with only 37 per cent turnout in their latest leadership convention.
His partner, Ethan Hoddes, a second-year Trinity student later argued, “We already have a party that adopts others viewpoints to get elected,” referring to the Liberal Party. He said that the NDP shows a good example of how to make a difference from the opposition benches: they introduced and pushed for Medicare, and not only did the Liberal party adopt it, it has become a hallmark of Canadian patriotism.
On the “No” side, Stephen Shapiro a third-year University College argued, “This country needs an alternative.” He said that with both the Alliance and the PCs stuck in their regions in the east and west, they did not have a credible chance of forming government. He went on to say that Canadians need a credible opposition to moderate the government, and in turn the opposition needs the desire to get elected to moderate their position.
The concluding speaker for the “No” side, third year Engineering student Daniel Schwartz-Narbourne, argued that the Liberal Party functions like a giant amoeba which engulfs the organic ideas of other parties.
He argued that in the past 10 years Canada has essentially become a one party state. He said that the Liberal Party has shown that single party rule becomes insular and degrades into scandal. He went on to say that it is better to have the different types of conservative opinion, social and fiscal, under a single party banner that works together. “The Liberal Party is allowed to have diverse opinion, why can’t the Conservatives?”
McKeown, the first speaker, was allowed a rebuttal at the end, and in it simply stated, “The parties that stick with the ideals they come in with are a success. This is a debate between idealism and opportunism.”
Following the debate, Flaherty spoke on the side of the “Ayes.” Before he spoke, he joked, “I’m used to speaking at the legislature, not in front of a live audience.” When he got serious, he spoke strongly in favour of the united party. However, he does not like the left-right spectrum: “It is intellectual laziness for those who do not want to deal with real issues.” Representing true conservative ideals, Flaherty reminded the audience that Canada’s “system was not designed for proportional representation, but reflects the British parliamentary system of clear choices between parties… Canada was not a healthy democracy over the past 10 years.”
After all the speeches were made the audience voted on the resolution, by exiting through the east doors (for the Ayes) or west doors (for the No side) and reentering to hear the verdict. Flaherty watched with glee as only one person walked out the “Ayes” door.
