Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Democracy is in the eye of the beholder (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:48pm - 72 Comments

Both today and yesterday the Conservatives sent up a dutiful backbencher to express fear and outrage at the prospect of a Liberal-led coalition government, that specifically it is not acceptable to “give the NDP co-management of the economy,” nor “share power with a political party committed to the breakup of our country.”

Mind you, shortly after the 2004 election, Stephen Harper, as leader of the official opposition, said it was the Liberal government’s “obligation,” in that rare minority government, to look to “to the third parties to get the support to govern.”

Here as well is how he explained the letter to the Governor General that he signed alongside Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe.

Solomon: So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election – are we to assume that therefore you’re working to form a coalition?

Harper: There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government – that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election – that’s not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority – it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can’t form a majority, we look at other options, we don’t just concede to the government’s request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people.

Solomon: Other options meaning that you would have to govern though – don’t you have to be in a coalition de facto – isn’t that the implication?

Harper: The current government believes it doesn’t have to be in a coalition and I share that view. There’s a lot of options in the House of Commons – what I expect the Liberals to do is try to seek different allies for different pieces of legislation.

Tags: coalition, coalition government, Gilles Duceppe, house of commons, Jack Layton, Parliament, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

John D

Dear god, if the NDP ever got their hands on the economy… they'd probably start spending like a BILLION dollars on frivolous things. The humanity…

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Nothing but pork for elitist downtown Toronto too probably!

John D

And trying to funnel tourists into central Canada

John

They would pump billions into regional development agencies!

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

I'm sure the NDP would want to spread it around, they have a history of reaching out into rural and northern areas.

There would be funding for Gay Pride parades in Brooks, Okotoks and Red Deer, and they'd likely build a new adminstrative and communications centre in Yorkton, the Garry Breikertz Memorial Gun Registry.

Wallace Cleaver

Okotoks hasn't been rural since about 1990, has it?

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/michaeltripper michaeltripper

lol!

Anon 001

Fake lake … makeup artist for Harper's hair … a toilet in the middle of nowhere … hard to believe these clowns are still in office.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Hey man, if I had a mad tendency to wear unflattering fishing vests to summits in Mexico, I'd probably get a personal stylist, too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

And the cowboy suit. Never forget the cowboy suit.

The scary part is, I believe she was already on retainer when he wore that vest.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Photographic evidence that Mr. Harper has no issue with Pride Week :)
Charles H.

"And the cowboy suit. Never forget the cowboy suit. "

I've tried. Believe me, I've tried.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Anon 001,,,,,,,get use to it my friend. It is coming this Fall….wait for it….drum roll please……A conservative majority government.

Do you honestly believe that Canadians are going vote for the clown who currently occupies the office of the leader of the opposition?

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

All spin and partisanship aside, seriously and honestly, how on earth do you figure a majority government? Where are the extra seats?

Charles H.

Well, there's one from "fake Northern — really Central — Ontario", and several from "Fake Toronto" — unless the fake latte-sipping liberals who reside there happen to return a Liberal or a NDP MP…

E.B.

Sssshhhh! You'll uncover the Conservative Secret Plan.

If Canadians don't get upset about the fake lake, the Conservatives have a secret plan to set up 100 fake ridings. Their candidates will run unopposed, and this will finally guarantee them the majority they so desperately want.

hollinm

tedbetts……more importantly you tell me where are the Libs and the NDP going to get the seats they need to even consider forming a coalition. Harper needs 12. Your guys need 42. I like our odds better than yours.

In fact current polling numbers suggest the Libs would lose seats.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

It's just a question, hollinm.

You made an assertion and I'm just asking you how you came to reach that conclusion.

Do you have so little to back up your own comments that you need to quickly change the subject when asked about them?

I'm just really quite curious because many make this assertion that Harper will have a majority and I'm curious about whether you actually believe that whay you write.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

tedbetts…..I told you my odds are better than yours. It is your guys talking about a coalition etc. etc.

Tell me how they will do it? They need 42 seats. Looking at the polls acros the country the Libs are running in 3rd spot in some cases.

Harper already is the PM. It is you guys who are talking about how to defeat him. Tell me where you are going to get 42 seats.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

It is not a complicated question hollinm.

Here, I'll quote you: "It is coming this Fall….wait for it….drum roll please……A conservative majority government."

I'm just asking whether you actually believe that and how you substantiate your own comment.

I've made no comment about the electoral prospects of any party. You have. Are you saying you just made that up and don't believe what you write?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Just answer the question Claire!

:)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

"In fact current polling numbers suggest the Libs would lose seats."

My sources say otherwise.
http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

(annnnd….cue the shoot the messengerism)
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Exactly.

The Liberals and the Conservatives are generally about where they were in 2008, give or take a bit week by week. However, that is on a national level. On a provincial level, those ridings especially in Alberta that already were voting Conservative are even more strongly Conservative, so no more seats there; whereas many ridings in Ontario, Quebec, BC and the Atlantic provinces have swung more to the opposition parties so even or more seats for the opposition.

Certainly not enough with these numbers for the Liberals to get more seats than the NDP, I think, but certainly reducing the Conservative plurality and possibly more in combination depending on how an election goes.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Anon…..001….Have you not heard? Harper puts his hair in the fridge every night while Iffy's eyebrows are in constant revolt.

Anon 001

Ahh … that explains it. Doesn't explain the cowboy suit, though, nor the seemingly relentless display of sheer incompetence that we're witnessing these days.

Dave

Muumuu for the win.

Habitant

I went to the letter's link (Blogging Tories). I love the feedback, especially this one:

''The difference is easy. Harper's letter was tasteful and non-confrontational.''
- Joahob, Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Tasteful? Spicy maybe, but tasteful? It ain't a menu!

Non-confrontational? Tell that to the then-Liberals!

Loraine Lamontagne

That letter was sent to the GG before MPs took their seat in the HoC – maybe as much as two months before the first Throne Speech of that parliament. Non-confrontational?

Wascally Wabbit

I'll bet – if the NDP candidate won a riding in cottage country by a landslide of 100 or so votes – he'd probably do HIS darndest to get as much infrastructure money spent there to!
Probably say it was all in the interests of promoting Canada.
The more I think about this – the more I'm convinced that Landslide Tony is a closet Dipper!

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Correction: "Landslide Tony" was officially re-christened "ShamWow Tony" or "Steamboat Tony" earlier this week.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

tedbetts……aren't we intelligent?. Go for it. It makes you and the rest of the lefties look petty and silly. I bet they have a few names for you in the Liberal party as well.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I love when the conbots lecture on pettiness.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

kinda like taking etiquette lessons from a pit bull

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

That's what I've always appreciated about conservatives – the bedrock principles that underly everything they do.
Mike T.

Harper is lying.

There is nothing more to say. There is no discussion to be had. Harper is lying.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Or you have nothing to add to this conversation.

"What I expect the Liberals to do is try to seek different allies for different pieces of legislation." Which is exactly the way Harper has governed since day #1.

Lying is saying you're not going to form a coalition, and then promptly forming a coalition as soon as it suits your needs. And now that Iggy has flip-flop-flipped on the idea of a coalition and is in favour of it again, even Duceppe and Layton are calling him a liar on that front.

How much does the Liberal war room pay you any way?

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

What about promising not to tax income trusts, not to go into deficit, not to call an election unless a confidence vote is held, to hold a confidence vote on a fiscal update, to create a public appointments commissioner, to hold public hearings into all Supreme Court nominees, not to appoint unelected senators, to make only budgets confidence votes, to have a "made in Canada" climate change plan, etc.

Were these all "lies" by Harper?

How much does the Conservative war room pay you any way?

officerfarva

It pays in sweater vests and koolaid.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

tedbetts…..now your are desperate.

How about tearing up the free trade agreement and not doing it. How about not getting rid of the GST and not doing it., How about the Red Book that was full of lies. There is enough to go around buddy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Ah, finally. An admission that Harper has fully morphed into and is no different than Chretien.

Or put another way, we should start calling him The Right Honourable Stephen Brian Jean Harper.

So much for the Reform Party. So much for "doing things differently". So much for the trust of Canadians.

As long as you can find some example of some prior politician doing something bad, it's carte blanche for Harper.

And us lowly ordinary voters should be ashamed to expect something better or even something decent, just because a politician promised it and made it his central argument for electing him.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

tedbetts……trouble with Liberals they don't like to be reminded of their so called glory days. They are long gone and the party is just a shadow of its former self. I can almost see the tears on your keyboard as you type your venom and yearn for the glory days.

Given the fact that Harper is fighting three left wing parties in the House and a hostile media he needs to do everything in his power to protect himself, his government and the party. So he is fighting fire with fire.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I will forever be amazed and impressed with the pretzel gymnastics Conservative supporters will go through to make excuses for Harper.

Harper's fundamental raison d'etre before he got power was to put principle above politics. Instead, his entire government has been about politics above principle. And you defend that. Unbelievable. Harper has broken more promises in 4 years than the prior 4 Prime Ministers. And you defend that. Tis to laugh.

How on earth a minority government means he has to appoint unelected senators, has to run a deficit, has to spend more than any other PM, has to skip out on promises to create a Public Appointments Commissioner or public hearings on Supreme Court nominees, or call an election on a whim, etc. is beyond my comprehension.

Unless it is all always only about power for its own sake and not about principle, in which case Harper and the unquestioned feverish koolaid drinking support makes perfect sense.
E.B.

Indeed. Mr. Harper has been an abject failure when it comes right down to it. The Liberals have never been weaker. Their leaders have never been weaker. And, Mr. Harper? In spite of everything he has attempted, he is no closer to a majority than he was in 2006.

Hollinm, and others like him, are left to defend the undefendable. Harper promised so much more and has delivered so little.

If he had delivered just a percentage of what he promised, he would have a majority by now. Hollinm's justification of Mr. Harper by comparing him to the Liberals will just ultimately re-inforce the fact in people's minds that Mr. Harper is no different than who preceeded him, and not worthy of trust. And, not worthy of a majority.

"Not as bad as the Liberals", is not much of a defence. If that is the best Hollinm can do. he is wasting his time.
Charles H.

Ah… How well I remember the heady days of the 2004 election campaign: Stephen Harper, then Leader of the Opposition, going around promising that when he gets in he'll carefully find every fault of the previous government so that he can be no worse than they were.

Truly it was an inspiring campaign slogan: "Demand No Better than the Same!"
Richard_S_Argent

Know what's hilarious about you guys? How at the drop of a hat you'll scream from the rooftops about Chretien not getting rid of the GST.

and yet you'll never say boo about the fact that the GST was BROUGHT IN BY A PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE.

Why it's almost like you're hoping that if you complain loudly enough and long enough about Chretien's failed promise that somehow the rest of us will magically forget who gave us the tax.

(not that I have a problem with the GST – in fact I think cutting that 2 cents off it was just about the dimmest thing a politician has ever done)
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Or how they will turn around and say taxing income trusts wasn't a broken promise but OK because it was the right thing to do.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Both Mike T (I presume) and I were discussing the contents of this particular quote. Can you point out where, specifically, as quoted by Wherry, Harper told a lie?

At no point did I say that Harper's never told a lie. I would never give any politician such credit. But if you're going to call somebody a liar in regards to something PARTICULAR that they said, you should sure be able to back it up.

This is about Mike T in particular, who seems to think he can sully this (formerly respectable) board with his useless comments. I've got nothing against disagreement, that's part of debate. The trash he spouts around here isn't debate or disagreement, it's just hogwash.

And I don't work for the Conservative Party, I work for the Bilderberg Group, and they pay me quite handsomely, thank you very much!

wilson

Harper won't form a coalition with the socialists and spearatists,
but when blue Liberals split off , they are surely welcome in a coalition or formal agreement with the CPC.

Wallace Cleaver

A coalition with spearatists?

Hand me that atlatl!

wilson

CBC just announced talks for a new party, Lib-Dems.
Blue Liberals ……… can keep the Liberal name!!!
Con-Lib vs Lib-Dem

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Personally, I think Liberal Democrats (ie Lib Dems short form in the UK) is pretty catchy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I agree with the Lib Dem name, but I don't think a merger is actually gonna happen. Of course Wilson's name for the other part of the party is just silly. Why wouldn't they call themselves Progressive Conservatives?

Gaunilon

Because nearly everyone on the political right has come to hate the term "progressive" with passion, after putting up with its arrogant misuse by the political left and the media (redundancy?) for a generation.

Why don't they just call themselves Classical Liberals? I kid, I kid, I know everyone would think it was some sort of nouveau reference to Mozart, or possibly Mason Williams.
wilson

Cons are starting a new party, but a coalition with the blue Libs….. nice!
Is Rae starting a break away party or is the LPC merging

wilson

opps s/b Cons are 'not' starting a new party

wilson

Bloggingtories like the name Lippers

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

The Liberal Adscamocrats

http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

You gotta give my boy Stevie major Kudo's he has outroved Rove … ROFL! – this merger lib-dem party idea is exactly the logical outcome of what happens when you have a weak leader! After Harper permanently retires one oppostion leader he is now working on retiring another. The best part of it is that he doesn't have to do anything as he can just sit back and watch the LPT experience the very thing he setup years ago and it only took 10 years for him to achieve the present CPC so we do not have to worry about the LPT for another decade at least and a few more points down in the polls which is what happens when partys split up at the dance and voila the LPT becomes a fringe party and goes to war with the LIB-DEM's and disaffected Lib's and Dippers go Green or CPC and both choices work well with my boy Stevie – PERFECT! so I am 100% behind the merger go for it Lib's go for it Dippers – come on stand up and put your money where your mouths are – sheer unadulterated GENIUS!
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

What? Stephen Harper pre-2006 held opinions diametrically opposite to what Stephen Harper post-2006 claims to believe?

Quel surprise.
LiveBloggin Junkie

What?!? Stephen Harper's pre-2006 opinion "what I expect the Liberals to do is try to seek different allies for different pieces of legislation." is exactly how he has governed post-2006
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

You think Harper still believes that "we don’t just concede to the government’s request to make it dysfunctional"? His actions, especially the way he has deliberately tried to shut down committees and prevent them from doing their work and make them dysfunction, indicate he no longer believes that.

You think Harper saying that you shouldn't make deals with separatists is consistent with "I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work"?

But to be fair, I was also thinking about the rest of that 2004 interview which I have seen and read before. In the interview, he confirms that — while he would not allow other parties to have Ministers in his government — he was open to working with the other two parties to form an alternative government in a move remarkably close to what he is today calling a "separatist coalition."
hollinm

What do you think Harper has been doing for 4 years? There is nothing that has passed without support of an opposition party.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

From that 2004 interview: "I've consulted pretty regularly with Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton to get a sense of what they're looking for – it's up to the government to do the same thing. If you want to be a government in a minority Parliament, you have to work with other people."

He goes on to say that not consulting regularly with third parties, including the Bloc, is "arrogant".

Does anyone believe Harper thinks that now? Either for the government or the opposition?
LiveBloggin Junkie

Yes, I think working with other parties on an ad hoc basis is vastly different then signing a formal confidence and supply agreement with the Bloc.

Any minority PM has 4 choices,
1. Coalition, where another party joins the government,
2. Formal Confidence Agreement, where they sign a deal to provide the governing party with support for a fixed period ala Peterson-Rae,
3. Informal agreement, ala Trudeau-Lewis '72-'74
4. The Ad hoc style used by Harper, Martin, Clark(FAIL), Pearson, Deif, and King

I think Harper was thinking of the 4th option when he wrote to the GG and to say that is a 'separatist coalition' is a tad disingenious.
Orson Bean

Just sayin': that agreement between Trudeau and Lewis in 1972 wasn't all that informal. It had specific, enumerated policy provisions that the NDP stipulated be implemented (e.g., FIRA), and they were implemented.
Gaunilon

Wow, 3000 comments. I truly spend far too much time on this site.

Anyhoo, that interview is interesting. On the one hand he says flat out that he wouldn't form a coalition (is there a verb for that? Coalesce? Coalite? Coalitioninitiate?) but he also seems to be saying that one could govern in the minority without such an arrangment.

I suppose it's remotely possible….you just have to get support from various MPs for each piece of legislation (which is what he points out). In fact, isn't this exactly the sort of thing that Liberals will insist was arranged by Dion w.r.t. the Bloc? It was MOST CERTAINLY NOT A COALITION, but it was some kind of "we will support you" arrangement.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

He also says that he is prepared to form a government with the support of the Bloc without an election even though he was a "loser" and that it is the GG's obligation to consider that option.
Stephen

Congrats on 3000!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I have to agree with Ted… some of Harper's subsequent statements do seem hypocritical in light of that 2004 letter.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Hear, hear. Thanks for your many contributions, Gaunilon! I really enjoy reading your comments.
Gaunilon

Thanks gents! I'd get all misty-eyed if I wasn't such a cold-hearted right-wing bastard.
http://intensedebate.com/people/David0M David_M.

Forget about being a cold-hearted right-wing whatever. Your posts are coherent, sane and very readable. Congrats on 3000.