A coalition? Don’t we have one already?

PAUL WELLS: While Merkel’s coalition looks off-balance, Harper seems to be doing fine with Ignatieff as junior coalition partner

by Paul Wells on Friday, July 2, 2010 9:00am - 128 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

Canada remains a model of stability and progress. Two years ago I wrote that our government was a “Grand Coalition” modelled on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s in Germany. The two main centrist parties, Conservative and Liberal, ensured that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s legislative agenda would pass. Fringe parties didn’t like it but could only grumble. Harper’s junior coalition partners, the Liberals, were steadfast in their support for the major elements of the Harper agenda.

Today, little has changed, at least in Canada. In Germany, an election led Merkel to replace her Grand Coalition with an off-balance one, centre-right and further-right, and its inherent instability is making her life complicated. In Canada, an election had no such effect. Harper and his junior coalition partner, Michael Ignatieff, are too smart to be thrown off balance. So, just before he welcomed the world’s leaders and southern Ontario’s riot police to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Harper permitted himself to revel in the Conservative-Liberal coalition’s latest accomplishments. “I think in the end we actually got some pretty good results,” Harper told reporters from Reuters. “Particularly in the closing days. As you know, we got the budget implementation bill through.”

One bill? That’s all he has to show for a year’s strife? But this was no ordinary bill. “The budget bill was wide-ranging legislation that had a lot, not just of important budgetary measures, but important measures for the Canadian economy. So I think the passage of the budget bill, in and of itself, made the parliamentary sessions productive.”

He listed other measures the opposition had caved on, like refugee-system reform and a measure making it harder for convicts to get pardons. (The opposition never fails to collapse in the face of each new Conservative tough-on-crime measure. Harper should recognize their contribution by hanging photos of Ignatieff and Jack Layton in every new federal prison.)

But the budget was the main ingredient. “I know we’ve been criticized for how much was in that budget bill,” Harper said. “But putting a lot in that budget bill effectively ensured—passing it ensured a productive parliamentary session.” This was a slip-up, I believe, for it marked the first time Harper admitted he used the implementation bill to smuggle a bunch of other stuff into law.

And what an impressive list of achievements it was. Bill C-9 enabled all the usual taxing and spending, but it also removed new energy projects from the purview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and gave the job for assessing them to the National Energy Board. To make that move even while the world’s attention was transfixed by the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was quite a feat. Harper couldn’t have done it without the Liberal members of his coalition.

Throw in provisions for the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and an end to the Canada Post monopoly on overseas mail. The Canada Post plan was introduced as a separate, stand-alone bill in 2008 and 2009, only to die on the Order Paper when Harper called the 2008 election and prorogued Parliament a year later.

When the 900-page Budget Implementation Act, with amendments to five dozen laws, passed the Commons early in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it, Liberal Sen. Pierrette Ringuette swore it wouldn’t be the same story in the Senate. “The Liberal senators are not rubber-stampers of the leadership,” Ringuette said. “We have a mandate to do sober second review of legislation for Canadians, and we will fulfill our responsibility.”

Then the Budget Implementation Act passed the Senate later in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it.

So even though Ottawa is rife with rumours this summer, yet again, that Harper will contrive a reason to trigger an election in the autumn, there’s no reason to doubt something else that he told Reuters, which is that he doesn’t want one. If an election goes really well for him, he’ll be Prime Minister when it’s over. But he’s Prime Minister already. And he’s really the Prime Minister. Another evergreen Ottawa myth asserts that Harper is somehow unfulfilled without a parliamentary majority. But he has had a majority for four years, thanks to a succession of not-ready-for-prime-time Liberals. Every budget he has ever whipped up has passed with Liberal votes.

And in concert with the Liberals, Stephen Harper is changing this country. He was able to gut environmental oversight of energy projects in the middle of a historic energy-sector environmental disaster. He is stuffing the nation’s prisons like Christmas geese. He spent $1 billion turning the country’s biggest city into a demonstration of the necessity (if not, ahem, the effectiveness) of tough policing against thugs, rabble, bicyclists and other miscreants. Inside the riot zone, with the world watching, he stared down Barack Obama in a debate over continued fiscal stimulus vs. relative budgetary restraint. He gets to name Supreme Court justices. He gets to name a new governor general. He’s in charge of nominations to every board and agency.

So when Liberals debate the wisdom of coalition government, it would be well for them to remember they are already in one. And when they debate the worth of Michael Ignatieff to Liberals, they will perhaps be heartened to learn that Conservatives are tremendously fond of him.

Bookmark and Share
  • SpenBC

    And then of course there are all those Liberal supporters who come on sites like this and fuss, fume, flail and curse the conservatives while at the same time failing to comprehend that the conservatives could have been toast at any time if only the Liberal MPs, who support them at every turn, would vote them down in the house. Hey Liberals here is an idea. If you hate the current government so much get on the horn to your Liberal MPs ant tell them they are out of office if they don't vote out the conservatives at the earliest possible opportunity. But of of course you won't, and they won't. Why, because you lack the dedication to see something like that through. You would rather just bitch on this site. They won't because they know you won't support them in an election financially. And there in lies the difference between conservative voters like me and Liberal voters like you. I am willing to organize, give of my money and go door to door to keep Liberals out of government. So either put your money where your mouths are or for God's sake STHU!

  • Out There

    Both Ignatieff and Harper have the same problem: according to the polls, an election would result in another Conservative minority – which means that an election would be a waste of time and money. Any party leader who forces an election will lose ground with the voters.

    Given that Canadian political parties have essentially turned into regional fiefdoms, I don't see how this is going to change in the short term.

    • jarrid

      Except Paul's obvious point is that the Conservatives keep governing and advancing their agenda – and the Libeals continue to bleed.

      So somebody seems to have a bit of a bigger problem contrary to what you say.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

      Your analysis is correct. However, let's say there's an election within a year from now (not unreasonable, since minorities only last 2 or 3 years anyway), and it leads to the status quo. Excluding a coalition/merger on the left, that means Harper's PM for another 3 or 4 years. This would send a sense of panic and hopelessness within the Liberals, worse than the one we're currently seeing.

  • Eugene Parks

    Mr. Wells,

    Are you enjoying the trashed economy and democracy that you are getting from Mr. Harper? Are you enjoying blaming Liberals for what Mr. Harper is doing?

    Cheers, Eugene Parks

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

      I think he's enjoying us sniping back and forth – silly aren't we?

    • Calgary Junkie

      "trashed economy and democracy"

      This is the classic example of Liberal rhetoric being too over-the-top, and thus losing credibility. Plus, there is the incosistency of the Liberals wimpy actions contradicting their doom-and-gloom rhetoric–i.e., if Harper is so bad, why are you guys keeping him in power ?

      So Libs shouldn't be surprised when a guy like Wells mocks them with this kind of article. Their incosistence and incoherence is just too tempting of a target.

      I will concede, however, that this tough talk probably plays well to the Liberal base, keeping their spirits up. So it serves some useful purpose.

  • Mulletaur

    "He spent $1 billion turning the country’s biggest city into a demonstration of the necessity (if not, ahem, the effectiveness) of tough policing against thugs, rabble, bicyclists and other miscreants."

    Oh yes, the bicyclists must be crushed. I am looking forward to the day when the new mayor of Toronto stages an event where he takes a steamroller and crushes a mountain of bikes into flat scrap metal. And all the major streets in Toronto have their bike lanes painted over and cars restored to their rightful place in the universe. Goody.

  • TheLeftIsRight

    The sooner the left can pull their heads out of the sand, stand tough and actually vote on key issues – criminal justice reform, Afghansitan, maternal health – the way their constituents put them into power for, the sooner Harper's bluster can be shown for what it is: a lot of wind.

    He's only running this government like a majority because nobody has the balls to stand up and make him take it on the chin for his stupid neo-con, anti-socialist agenda.

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    Wells has been writing this same column for years now.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Again…….here we go, a summer of anti-Iggy columns.

    Just what do the journalists expect under the circumstances anyway.

    Oh, well – the pro-Harper folks will love it and stop claiming Macleans' Liberal bias for a while.

  • Emily

    Meanwhile important things take place, and we're the last to hear about it. For example…how many knew about this?

    There is some good news. Canada has made progress over sovereignty issues by resolving the dispute over Hans Island and the Lincoln Sea. But Canadians are still outraged that the government gave the U. S sovereignty over 60 per cent of the contested area in the Beaufort. As it turns out, this area is four times as productive in producing oil and gas as the area that Canada was left with.

    Canada, however, does get one concession from the United States for sacrificing so much: The U.S. gives up its claim that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway.

    The bad news is that China and Russia have indicated that they will challenge this.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/uneasy+…

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

    OntarioTown……Yep every negative column, opinion piece on Ignatieff is music to my ears. You can crap over Harper all the time so fair is fair.

    If Ignatieff could simply think in terms of "the Canadians" he could pull himself up in the polls. However, he has no ability to do this because he does not understand the country and its people after having been away for 34 years.

    It would have been interesting being a fly on the wall when he met Clegg. Ask Ignatieff how the deficit was covered he would have had to say I have no idea I wasn't living in Canada at the time. Hence the problem with the Russian Count.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Any time you Libs want to heed the message in it…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

    That'll happen when the news stays the same. At least he's had a variety of Liberal leaders to write it about.

  • Kaplan

    Yeah, the "Harper likes being Prime Minister" thing I've never quite understood. Of course he does; he's Prime Minister. It's not exactly stunning insight, but Wells apparently thinks he's onto something.

  • Emily

    And any new proposals for this country get ripped apart by the same media.

    The status quo is very useful you know. It allows for no end of 'gotcha' stories without any effort.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Read closer, Emily. That stuff is from a "futuristic essay" — a bit of fiction about the possibility of what might happen in the Arctic. The article uses such a huge piece from that essay it's hard to tell, but if you go down a paragraph or two from the part you quote, you'll see they end the quote there, and follow it with "Far-fetched as this all might seem today, the authors remind critics that no one anticipated the voyages of the Manhattan or the Polar Sea. Nor did they imagine that a Russian cargo plane would land in Churchill in 1998 and take off with a newly built helicopter to territory controlled by black-market lords. Or that the Russians would resume Cold War trans-polar flights in 2008."

  • Emily

    None of it is 'far-fetched' or imaginary.

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

    Thwim…..are you suggesting that Emily tried to mislead those of us who post and read the comments on this blog. Say it ain't so!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    None of it is imaginary? Seriously? You really want to argue that? Here:

    "After Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011 and a decade-long economic slump that followed the recession in 2008-10, security requirements in the Arctic have been shortchanged."

    We've actually gone through a decade long economic clump following the recession of 2010? Wow. I was unaware of that.

    "The long-awaited icebreaker and patrol boats for the Canadian Coast Guard and the military have been finally delivered after many delays. "

    A new icebreaker as well? Wow.. that slipped in quietly. Amazing that the government didn't promote that.

    "Worse still is the deep port at Nanisivik, which has burned down. "

    Holy hannah! Not only did they complete the deep port 5 years early, it burned down since they completed it.. I guess that's what happens when you short the contstruction time by nearly 80%..

    You still want to argue that none of it is imaginary? Come on, Emily. You can do better than that. Stick to the truth, it's bad enough as it is.

  • Emily

    Focus here please.

    Are you aware of what is going on in the Arctic? I doubt it. None of us have been kept informed.

    Which is what leads to future scenarios like this.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Focus yourself on telling the truth, and it becomes harder for people to divert the focus.

    When you skew off into hyperbole, as you did in your original post about the arctic, you make it easier for people to dismiss everything you say as falsehood. You essentially become hollinm, just shrieking for a different philosophical side, and, like hollinm, you make it harder for us who hold some of the same ideas to demonstrate that they're reasonable.

    Or in otherwords, stop giving them ammunition to declare us liars. You do that, we've got no issue.

    So.. sorry, your example *is* imaginary, and I suppose that's fine, but if you're more interested in spreading fiction to bolster your points, kindly take it to Feschuk's column. At least there you don't tar those of us who are interested in truth.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    I also wanted to comment on the continuing passage of Harper's crime agenda. This is one issue where the so-called "centre" happens to be on the right. Basically, the Canadian public agrees with social conservatives on how criminals should be dealt with. The left-of-centre parties' yielding on crime bills is clear evidence of this, isn't it?

  • Emily

    No, have you seen Toronto lately?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    No, I've seen what the opposition parties let Harper pass on a routine basis.

  • Emily

    No, you've seen polls that show both parties are in the dog house…so nobody is interested in an election.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    So, the opposition parties haven't let Harper pass his crime agenda? Am I watching the wrong country, or reading the wrong Paul Wells article? Or are you just trying to change the channel, for some bizarre reason?

  • Emily

    No, you are confusing a lack of interest….from all 3 parties….for an election… with enthusiastic support.

    But it doesn't exist. In the Opposition, or in the country.

    What Harper has done can be undone.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    But they've ceded to his crime agenda throughout for four years now, Nola.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

    Emily's friends will be very annoyed at your insinsuation that imaginary events and people are somehow untruthful. Mr. Bun-Buns is particularly irate.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

    LOL!

  • Oliver

    I'd say Dennis is, unfortunately, right. The general population has absolutely no understanding of the law or the penal system and the CPC is using this to promote their agenda.
    The CPC has said it before: they thrive on the fact that a lot of people look down on both groups of people who can make informed decisions about these law changes: the educated and the people enforcing them. Ignorance is bliss and this situation is a great reminder that information is a powerful tool, but that it goes both way: misinformation is equally powerful.
    My main beef with the way the CPC handles this is that they can simply label anyone who opposes them as being soft crime, and people buy it.

  • Emily

    Gosh…and what has happened in that time, Fred?

    The perfect storm for the Liberal party.

  • Emily

    Amazing how Cons get excited over imaginary problems isn't it?

    You can't post anything lengthy here…in fact I'm always getting the notice that my post is too long…..so I cut it to fit…and then Cons claim I haven't read the whole article!

    The url should have clued them in there was more to it…in fact it clearly says 'In this futuristic essay, a strategic analyst is writing about a security crisis unfolding along the Northwest Passage in 2040.'

    However, some posters are unaware of what's going on up there, and that such alarming scenarios are being written….it's easier to blame me.

  • Emily

    I'm sorry, but Canadians are appalled by this, and know that since it's a multi-year deal….to cost a fortune we don't have….that it will all get cancelled.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Ah, modern liberalism in a nutshell. People are too "ignorant" to know what's good for them, so they need "educated" leftists to make their decisions for them, whether they like it or not.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

    "Meanwhile important things take place, and we're the last to hear about it. For example…how many knew about this?" The obvious answer, by the very next poster, is nobody because it hasn't happened.

    By all means, talk about the Arctic – the Conservatives will be happy, maybe thrilled, to quote the Government's Arctic strategy back to you. And their wild imaginings about the Arctic will easily compete with the Edmonton Journal's.

  • Thwim

    Lying again?

    Please explain how the url: "uneasy passage northwest passage central canadian identity future remains uncertain/3133386/story.html#ixzz0sXEtaEa2" should have somehow clued people in that you were just citing the fictional part of the article which is less than a quarter of it?

    And yes, it does clearly say that it's a futuristic essay that they're quoting from. Something that you "conveniently" left out from your initial posting, and which is buried 2/3rds down in the article. Stop the BS, Emily. You're just another hollinm, except on the other side.

  • Orson Bean

    "Canadians are appalled by this"

    Have you got polling data or other evidence to back that up?

  • Emily

    Sorry, if you're too stupid to have understood the article in the first place, don't try fobbing it off on me.

    Old Con trick I've long been familiar with.

  • Emily

    Like I said….have you seen Toronto lately?

  • Emily

    Really? Well that's interesting since it has nothing to do with your partisan nonsense.

  • Orson Bean

    Maybe you need to take a course in fundamental logic, but "Torontonians" is not a synonym for "Canadians".

    And in any event, it's not clear whether the "this" to which you refer is the specific behaviour of the police and other authorities during the G8/20 meetings, or the Harper govt's so-called tough on crime agenda.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Why comment at all if you're not going to address the topic at hand?

    This isn't the old Bourque boards. One-line responses to everyone threatening your agenda is not supposed to happen here, Nola.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    She sounds an awful lot like Nola the troll from the old Bourque Newswatch boards, who constantly agitated on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. Try not to take her too seriously. Of course what happened in Toronto has nothing to do with Harper's crime agenda, which is precisely why she's bringing it up. Better that than discuss the actual state of Liberals, isn't it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    LOL, doesn't take much to get you going does it…LOL

    Hey, did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps, just maybe, Ignatieff found out Clegg was a cousin and he wanted to talk about that? Na, coalition conspiracies all over the place.

    He probably understands Canada better than you do. Again, jumping to conclusions is the only exercise some people get. You don't know if he paid attention to what was going on, which he probably did.

    Don't know if Wells is playing a game here with a smirk on his face or not, but it sure got the righties going.

    Heaven forbid anyone should criticize Harper.

    Too funny

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Actually, the one pulling old con tricks here is you, I'm afraid. Quoting out of context, leaving out vital pieces of information in order to give an impression quite different from the point of a piece. That's all the crap that I give them hell for usually.. now here you are justifying them using those type of tactics.

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

    Thwim…..the truth does not matter to Emily. She is an old Liberal partisan hack who will say anything just like her party to lie, cheat and steal their way back to power. Thanks for holding her accountable.

From Macleans