No confidence in non-confidence

In the year 1848, there was an election in the United Province of Canada (present-day Ontario and Quebec). As in any election of the time, those entitled to vote (males who owned real estate) would assemble at the “hustings.” Candidates would make their pitches to the voters, and the electors would declare their votes publicly. Sometimes a candidate would not even attend – William Hume Blake, elected in East York, was in France in the fall of 1848 – and supporters would speak for him. The only machinery of government involved was a recording of the vote by a returning officer. Simple and cheap.

Simple and cheap was the nature of elections when responsible government emerged in the 18th century, and, continued to define elections through the 19th century. So, if a government “went to the people,” the “people” – the taxpayers – would not be burdened with excessive costs.

So, the “motion of non-confidence” must be seen against this background. If a government fell, there was no great cost involved in “going to the people.” And while a Governor General might “invite” another party to try to form a government, “nonconfidence” usually resulted in an election which was, again, simple and cheap.

But fast-forward to the year 2015. The federal election in that year cost Canadian taxpayers $443 million. No longer simple, and certainly no longer cheap. What is more, that $443 million represented an increase of 53 per cent over the cost of the 2011 election. If the 2019 election follows suit, the cost would approach $700 million. There are a great many things far more deserving of an appropriation of $700 million than adhering to an aged and outmoded system of governing.

And our 19th century, coalfired, steam-driven system of government is outmoded. The system that was supposed to give the legislature control over the executive has had the opposite effect: the executive usually controls the legislature. “Non-confidence” rarely arises for a variety of reasons. And if it does, and if the government falls, then we are faced with yet another expensive election.

The motion of non-confidence is every bit as Victorian as a hissy-fit over an undraped table leg. What does it matter if the House votes against the Speech from the Throne? The executive, which should not be making policy and legislation anyway, is simply put on notice that they are going to have a rough time getting bills passed. Time to negotiate. If a budget fails, time to draft a new one. We don’t need to be going to the polls when this sort of thing happens.

Mr. Singh, who was unable to convince as many voters as his predecessor, is muttering about not supporting the government. If he decides to bring the government down, then we’ll be back at the polls in the new year. Ridiculous.

It would be wonderful to actually send Mr. Trudeau packing, but not at a cost of $700 million and a resumption of election hoopla.

Time for a popular expression of no confidence in non-confidence.