Canada’s Neglected Tradition of Coalition Government James Muir* On Wednesday, 26 November 2008, I closed the proposed coalition took place in public, the second of two lectures on politics in the not in classrooms like mine. As the public dis- 1840s and 1850s for my second-year, pre-Con- course about the coalition evolved, three dis- federation Canadian history students by reiter- tinct threads of debate became apparent: legal- ating the de"nition of responsible government. ity, legitimacy, and precedent. I suggested that, at its core, was the principle that the parliamentary executive was respon- First, there was a great deal of discussion sible to the elected assembly as a whole, and that about whether or not it was legal to make the the governor general (or lieutenant governor) coalition the government without an election. was expected to follow the executive’s wishes. Related to this were two discussions of its legit- #is expectation included not calling elections imacy. One stream portrayed the Liberal-New every time a government fell in the assembly, Democratic Party coalition proposal as anti- but rather selecting another government that democratic because it was not part of either had the support of the already elected members party’s election platform, and so had not re- of the assembly. ceived popular sanction in the October 2008 general election. A second stream asserted that I continued by noting that the principles the inclusion of the Bloc Québécois in the coali- of responsible government remain the basis of tion agreement meant that the Liberal Party and Canadian democracy, although these principles New Democratic Party (NDP) were trying to have little practical e$ect, except at moments bring separatists into the national government. of crisis like the King-Byng a$air. I suggested Finally, public discourse frequently drew from that the students would be unlikely to see the the example of previous coalition governments, principles in action. By my Friday class, the including: the NDP-Liberal coalitions in Sas- conclusions I had made two days earlier seemed katchewan, 1999-2003, and Ontario, 1985-7; the no longer valid. Indeed, on that morning of 28 Liberal-Progressive coalition in the 1920s; and November and on the following Monday, 1 De- the Union government during the First World cember, while I discussed with my classes the War. Lecturing about Confederation convinced lead-up to Confederation from before the Char- me that all three of these threads were faulty. lottetown conference of 1864 through to 1 July 1867, Canadians were confronted with their To demonstrate this, it is necessary to Prime Minister postponing a con"dence vote brie%y recount one of the germinal events of 1 in the House of Commons, even as opposition Confederation. #e famous photographs and parties were forging a coalition agreement. paintings of Confederation show the Char- lottetown conference in the summer in 1864, At "rst, the events of late November and and its immediate successor at Québec in the early December 2008 excited me as a teacher autumn. It was at these conferences that the because they provided me with a contemporary initial agreement among the colonial govern- example of responsible government in action: ments to confederate was reached, and the ele- here was a perfect opportunity to understand mental division between federal and provincial continuity in political theory and political his- jurisdictions was decided. #e Charlottetown tory. Of course, most of the discussion about conference was originally organized for the At- Constitutional Forum constitutionnel !! lantic colonies alone, but upon request included to be replaced by George-Étienne Cartier. #e a delegation from Canada, which brought with Macdonald-Cartier government was brie%y it a proposal for the union of all of the central replaced in 1858 by George Brown and A.A. and eastern colonies of British North America. Dorion, but this coaltion was quickly brought #e Canadian delegation represented Canada’s down and replaced by a new Macdonald-Car- new government of June 1864, formed in part tier government that survived the 1858 election, to bring about confederation (or some other and persisted until a'er the 1861 election when constitutional change). #at government is now it was replaced by J.S. Macdonald2 and Louis o'en called the “Great Coalition” or “Canadian Sicotte. A'er the 1863 election, Sicotte was Coalition,” and was a coalition formed under replaced by Dorion, and the J.S. Macdonald- the leadership of John A. Macdonald, Alexan- Dorion government lasted until March 1864. der Galt, George-Étienne Cartier, and George It was replaced by a new Taché-John A. Mac- Brown (although, nominally, the premier was donald government for two-and-a-half months, Étienne Taché). which was then replaced by the Great Coalition under Taché. A'er Taché’s death in 1865, a co- Coalition government had been routine alition led by John A. Macdonald and Narcisse since the union of Upper and Lower Canada in Belleau governed, without Brown, until 1867.3 1841. #e nascent political parties of the colony Clearly, shi'ing coalitions and changing gov- were o'en, although not always, divided along ernments were regular features of the history of the old colonial boundaries. In the twenty-three the united Canadas. Elections, more o'en than years leading up to late June 1864 there were not, did not mark signi"cant changes in rule. seventeen governments, most of which were A'er 1848, changes in government occurred coalitions of more-or-less like-minded parties when the government no longer had the sup- from the two halves; generally speaking, these port of the assembly; elections generally served governments shared leadership with one senior to perpetuate already established coalitions, or minister from each side together performing to change only one part of the leadership. #e most of the premier’s tasks. #ere were, how- history of the united Canadas from 1841 to 1867 ever, only seven elections during this period. shows that, for some time, coalition was not an It is worth quickly running through this his- aberration in Canadian history but rather a tory: following the 1841 election in Canada, regular part of government. Lord Sydenham appointed Robert Baldwin and William Draper as leaders of a coalition Despite all of the previous coalitions, the government. Baldwin resigned prior to the Great Coalition of 1864 was peculiar. #e make- "rst Parliament. Draper continued on his own up of this government should have given pause, until 1842, when he was replaced by Baldwin I think, to those who asserted that the proposals and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine. In 1843, they of November and December 2008 were illegit- were replaced by Dominic Daley. An election imate because they were not part of any party’s in 1844 resulted in a Draper-Denis Viger co- platform or because they involved, in a limited alition, which was replaced by a Draper-Louis way, Québec nationalists who may be seeking Papineau coalition in 1845. In 1847, Draper re- the constitutional reorganization of northern signed to be replaced by Henry Sherwood. A'er North America. #e Great Coalition of June the election that followed, Baldwin and Lafon- 1864 was special, even given the frequency of taine began a new government. #ey resigned coalition government at the time. Macdonald, in 1851 and were replaced by a government led Galt, and Cartier had all worked together in the by Francis Hincks and Augustin Morin, which past: a ministry connecting Tories from Can- was then con"rmed by an election. In 1854, an- ada West with Tories and Bleus from Canada other election year, Hincks resigned and was East was not exceptional. What was exceptional replaced by Alan McNab. #ree months later was the inclusion of George Brown in the coali- Morin resigned to be replaced by Étienne Taché. tion. Brown and Macdonald disliked each other McNab resigned in 1856 and was replaced by with some intensity. More importantly, their John A. Macdonald; Taché resigned in 1857 mutual personal feelings of animosity re%ected !& Volume 18, Number 1, 2009 di$erences in opinion that were shared by their in any election on the basis of the suggestion respective electorates. Brown was a standard- that such a coalition was a possibility (the last bearer for liberalism in Canada West: "rst in election had been held many months before the championing responsible government, and then coalition was even formed). #e coalition part- in pushing for representation by population and ners included ethnic or regional nationalists in the separation of church and state.4 Macdonald the characters of Cartier and Brown. Moreover, was less clearly an ideologue (perhaps for no Brown, at least, was a separatist who saw the de- other reason than that Brown’s job outside of struction and reconstruction of the Canadian the assembly was publisher of !e Globe, while constitutional order, as it existed in 1864, as the Macdonald was a lawyer), and many of Mac- only possible future for British North America. donald’s electoral supporters might have ac- cepted some of Brown’s positions. Few people #ere was some opposition to the coalition who voted for Brown and his allies in the elec- in 1864, just as there was in 2008. #e strong- tion of 1863, however, would have expected a est opposition came from the minority within coalition with Macdonald. His political power the assembly le' out of the coalition: the Rouge relied on the electoral strength of the French in Canada East, and J.S. Macdonald and some Catholic Bleu in Canada East, and Macdonald of his supporters among the Grits of Canada was unprepared to signi"cantly alter consti- West.