Concerns for our democracy

Note:  This piece appeared in the Chronicle-Herald "Opinions" on March 21, 2025.

​Since January 21, when Premier Houston wrote to the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus laying out his plans for energizing Nova Scotia’s economy, political discourse in this Province has been consumed by concerns for our democracy. 

 Last week the Public Bills Committee heard from ordinary citizens. Anger dominated. Most felt that fundamental safeguards were under threat from a government that had gone well beyond the mandate  it  won in the last election. That mandate recognized the Houston government’s attempts to fulfill its promise to reform health care.  It did not authorize turning our democracy on its head. Earlier the government had withdrawn legislation that would have given it authority to dismiss the Auditor-General, and many speakers hoped to persuade it to abandon other proposals that would undercut freedom of speech and numerous democratic protections.

 The great Parliamentary battles of the nineteenth century, some of which were fought out in our own Legislature, established that the government of the day is chosen from whichever group of legislators can consistently win the support of a majority of members of  the House. The Houston government’s ‘super majority’ will ensure that votes of confidence will be sufficient to keep it in power.
 
Of course, it is possible that enough members of the Conservative majority will be so appalled by the anti-democratic over-reach of the Government’s plans that they will switch sides and vote with the Opposition.  That is not likely because governments secure members’ support through patronage. The promise of a provincial government office building, or a sports facility, or grants for economic development or roads in the constituency or perhaps some kind of advancement for an individual member can all hold members on side.  A caucus rebellion, in other words, is extremely unlikely. 

Nevertheless Conservative MLAs must be extremely uncomfortable with the measures that their government has forced them to endorse.  They must be searching for ways in which to persuade their leaders to back away from this platform. After all, if the anger expressed at the Public Bills Committee represents feeling within the public at large, this government is very likely to lose badly at the next election and the party itself will bear the burden of complicity for many elections to come. 

There are steps that caucus members can take to persuade the government to retreat.  The British parliament in recent years has resorted to several that Canadian legislatures have not really explored.  British MPs  often abstain when votes are called. Party officials note the number of abstentions at each vote; when they become too many, leaders may be open to compromise.  Occasionally MPs may actually vote against the government. If the issue is significant the government may be willing to compromise.  At times the position of the leader may be questioned and can lead to his or her replacement. 

Essentially each of these steps can amount to a caucus revolt.  We don’t hear of caucus revolts very often in Canada. Perhaps most Canadian MPs or MLA are too easily cowed, or bought off, by their leaders.  Perhaps our senior politicians are too canny to ask too much of their followers, so they frame their policies accordingly.  The current situation in the Nova Scotia legislature suggests that Premier Houston has gone well beyond the reasonable expectations of his caucus, his party and, if the recent hearings are any guide, the voting public.

Let us hope that Conservative MLAs will take seriously the presentations made at the Public Bills Committee. 

Paul Pross
​
Professor Emeritus in Public Administration and a former Director of the School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University