Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

The rules of our democracy

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, March 26, 2011 9:07am - 52 Comments

The Prime Minister will momentarily arrive at Rideau Hall to ask that Parliament be dissolved. Meanwhile this morning, Michael Ignatieff has released a statement on how he would handle a minority government.

This election is not just an exercise in democracy, it’s about democracy.  So as we begin the campaign, let’s be clear about the rules.

Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.

If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament.   If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge.  That is our Constitution.  It is the law of the land.

If, as Leader of the Liberal Party, I am given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide me:

  • We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election.  What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.
  • We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work, and deliver sound policies – even the Conservative Party in opposition.
  • We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties.   In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option.  However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.
  • We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.
  • If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like Liberal Prime Ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did:  to provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum.  These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan.  With the right kind of leadership another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.

That is my position.  Now I have a few questions for Mr. Harper:

  • Does he agree with how I have described the workings of our democratic system?
  • Why does he insist on fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false?
  • Will he tell Canadians the truth about his secret hotel room meetings in 2004 with the Bloc Quebecois which resulted in a signed letter of agreement to the Governor General, proposing a Conservative-NDP-Bloc coalition?
  • Will he finally acknowledge the unprecedented finding of contempt against his government yesterday in the House of Commons?

Bookmark and Share
  • NorthernPoV

    If the media insists on asking only one question then the best Iggy answer from here forward:
    I have answered that, now lets talk about F-35s – have you asked Mr. Harper what they will cost? There's a question HE will not answer.
    (etc – with various issues)

  • Tceh

    Did anyone catch Harper's News Conference? He seemed nervous, like fighting for his political life nervous.

    • D.D.S

      Perhaps it just news Conferances themselves that make him nervous?

      • John D

        Microphones are a little phallic and it makes him afraid he might marry a gay.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    That sound you just heard? That was the central plank of the Conservative attack on the Liberals being kicked out from under Harper.

    Those "evil coalition" commercials have just been rendered moot. I'm sure they'll run with the line for a while longer, but now they're plainly and obviously lying…we'll see how that works for them.

    • John.K

      I regret to say, it's been working really well for them so far.

  • Wilf_Day

    "If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament. If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge." Corollary: If the Conservative Party wins the most seats but cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Ignatieff will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge. Quite clear.

    Now, how will he operate as leader withou a majority? "these are the rules that will guide me." Guide? "In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function." Best? But not only?

    • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

      You seem extremely skilled at parsing the language. Go parse five years of harper.

      • Wilf_Day

        Hopefully those five years will end, provided that Mr. Ignatieff is prepared to work with other parties. I expect the Conservative Party will once again fail to win a majority. The normal democratic response to such a result would be a coalition, rather than let Harper carry on as Ignatieff chose to do in January 2009. I hope.

  • charles

    That promise not to form a coalition sounds strangely similar to the Liberal promise in the very last election.

    Because of this, there will be a very live issue as to whether Mr. Ignatieff would repeat this very recent history. Either way, starting out a campaign defensively promising your party won’t repeat a very serious broken promise is not the optimal way to start….now that the Liberals have told us “trust” is the most important issue.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Obvious questions still remain:

    a) Iggy supported that last coalition, why in the world wouldn't he do it again if it gave him the power he came back for? In fact, he has routinely been open to personally leading a coalition for many months now. Why is he saying he's changed his mind right now, especially since he wouldn't say anything on it as of yesterday?

    b) Interesting to see some on here think Iggy did the right thing when they're clearly in support of the idea of a leftist coalition in this country. So, when Harper says there's a hidden agenda here, why isn't he onto something? Iggy just seems to be saying it now, but his strongest supporters want that coalition because they think it's right. That also doesn't add up to me.

    • John D

      He supported the last coalition AFTER the Conservatives were given the chance to win the confidence of the House. They had the right to form a government, and will again, but they also have the RESPONSIBILITY to win the confidence of the House.

      • noob_goldberg

        Well that answer was only a day late. Where was that succinct response yesterday when he could have really used it?

        EDIT: Gah, beaten to the punch by MYL. *shakes tiny first*

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        So you're saying Iggy will vote non-confidence again and try to form a coalition?

        • Andrew (notPorC)

          He's said he won't. However, he has said he'd be willing to seek the confidence of the House on an ad hoc basis. He doesn't need to form a coalition in order to do so. It's really quite simple.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            If it's "really quite simple," then why was your post so confusing? He said he won't, but he once did. He'll do things ad-hoc, whatever that constitutes, etc. What a mess.

          • Gayle

            Harper has been ad hocing it for the past 5 years.

          • Andrew (notPorC)

            He didn't create the coalition after the '08 election, although he supported the then-leader in signing the letter to the GG. Even still, coalitions are perfectly legitimate, he's just made a commitment not to form one in the next Parliament.

            As far as ad hoc confidence, it's what Harper's been doing for the last five years, by turns relying on the support of 1 or 2 of the opposition parties, including the dastardly baby-eating separatists and socialists.

    • Gayle

      They may be obvious to you, but will they be at all interesting to any but the partisan conservatives who want this to be an election issue? That is the question. And if they are interested, they may also be interested in the fact that Harper's position on coalitions is exposing him as the hypocrite he is. And since trust in Harper is going down, that may not help him.

      Just not sure this issue is going to play out well for the CPC in the long run.

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        Oh, I think it's the coalition supporters who have been out to lunch on this issue ever since they tried to grab power after the last election. Canadians weren't with you then. Why in the world do you think they'd be with you now? It's precisely why we're talking about it on the first day of the election, and why Iggy has already changed his position, once again, on the matter.

        This election has turned beautifully for Harper because his argument is a simple and correct one. The only truly stable Parliamentary configuration after the next election will be a Conservative majority. That is the choice facing Canadians. They might reject that choice. However, this is the first time that Conservatives have been so quick and open to talk majority, so it obviously appears to be in the cards, and is probably why Iggy has already flip-flopped on the biggest issue to start the campaign.

        • Gayle

          I see. I am so glad that it only took you 3 hours into the election to conclude it has "turned beautifully" for Harper.

          Why even bother with the next 5 weeks then?

          ha ha ha ha ha

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Iggy and the Liberals behind him today basically laughed in a reporter's face at the suggestion that it took so long for them to finally say they're against a coalition. They seem to think that the issues facing the electorate started today and today only. Hardly.

            My comment was about how the start of the election has been set up. Despite this nonsense contempt motion passed by the coalition, we're talking about Conservative majority vs. Parliamentary instability/coalition, etc. My guess is that Liberals want to get off this track ASAP, hence this 24 hr flip-flop on the issue of coalition.

            You suggested it's going to go away. How can it? Whether or not Canadians want a Conservative majority is a major issue in this campaign, and comparing it to other scenarios and possibility is unavoidable. As Paul Wells has said over and over again, the opposition set themselves up for this when they formed a coalition the last time. They won't be able to just laugh it off.

          • Gayle

            Well, at least you and Harper's supporters are "talking about Conservative majority vs. Parliamentary instability/coalition, etc".

            Day 1. What were we talking about Day 1 last time?

            Sure, it might stick and hurt the LPC. It might also stick and help the LPC (I think more people support a coalition than you may believe). It might stick and hurt the CPC (Harper has already been called out as a liar about his own attempt at a coalition).

            Or, it might be the flavour of the day for a couple days and then fade away. It could do this because Ignatieff has ruled it out, and Harper's attempt to say he is lying may grow tiresome, especially when it is so easy to point out promises he made and broke within days of being elected.

  • Ann

    "YES. Let us be very clear about the rules" PLEASE, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG…….
    —–In order for a person (or party) to qualify for a Federal job in Canada, are they not investigated by the RCMP & a security check done on them?? The higher the position they seek the security checks become more,……In depth??
    —– Are the finances of an individual (party) past&present, not part of this investigation??
    My question is…..How can the LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA, qualify to run for the “highest position in our country”, when in fact they still owe the Cnd Tax Payer ($ 140,000,000,00) dollars which is part of a THEFT of ( $ 355,000,000.00) they were involved in re the “SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL” that they participated in the last time they were in power..

    • Gayle

      140 million?

      It is interesting how this number keeps going up and up and up for you guys.

      Why don't you just say the liberals stole billions and billions of dollars and be done with it? You have as much evidence for that as you do for the 40 million claim you guys started with.

  • madeyoulook

    There's the type of answer he should have been ready with, oh, 48 hours ago.

    Canada has a National DayCare Plan? I thought it was the Great National Liberal DayCare Head-Fake. Can anyone point me to the National DayCare Plan currently warehousing tens of thousands of Canadian children?

    • bergkamp

      "Canada has a National DayCare Plan?"

      I was wondering about that as well.

      Also, I thought Kelowna Accords did not make it into law either.

      Maybe Iggy is confused between promises/pledges and actually doing something.

    • auntie-em-m

      'warehousing'?

      any experience to share, myl?

      After 38 years in primary education, I have only heard Reformatories talk like that, never the users.

      • madeyoulook

        Childcare can be individual, or small groups, or in bulk.

        And if I want to stock up with 144 rolls of toilet paper, I go to Costco, not to Mac's.

        • EeeOar

          144 rolls? That's gross.

          • noob_goldberg

            You're not thinking long-term. When the doomers are proven right and the economy collapses, a stockpile of two-ply and tampons will be worth its weight in gold.

          • EeeOar

            Ahhh, the old "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" school of thought.

  • aNN

    RARRR BLARGH SNARF!

  • Ann

    What are the intentions of the Liberal Party of Canada;…..are they planning to “pay back” the ($ 140,000,000.00) million dollars they stole, prior to entering office, or are they going to write it off once they take over the Prime Ministers job???

    WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FINANCES OF THE LIBERAL PARTY NON DONE – PRIOR TO YOU MAKING APPLICATION FOR MR. HARPERS JOB??
    ______________________________________________________
    (CTV.ca News Staff (SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL – TOTAL AMOUNT OF THEFT )
    2. Date: Wed. May. 25 2005 7:43 AM ET
    The total amount of money lost in the sponsorship scandal now appears to be $355 million — $100 million more than was originally thought.
    "If you didn't like the sponsorship program to begin with, you've now got about a hundred million more reasons to not like it," CTV's Jed Kahane said Tuesday.
    The new figure of $355 million is from the forensic accounting firm, Kroll Lindquist Avey, which was hired by the Gomery commission to examine sponsorship spending between 1994 and 2004.)

    • brooster2

      Um…I think you're fighting the wrong election. The one on which you seem to be perseverating happened several years ago, under a different Liberal leader.

      You've got some catching up to do. Try to stay current.

      • noob_goldberg

        The Liberals can only hope that Harper decides to use Adscam as a plank in this election. Of course, the CPC can only hope and pray that the LPC defaults to the "reform/hidden-agenda boogeyman" as their main platform plank.

        Hopefully we'll see a bit more creativity from both sides.

  • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

    Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.
    The party with the plurality of seats must seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament. If that party cannot win the support of the House, then the second place party will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge. That is our Constitution. It is the law of the land.

    And how can the CPC, with a non-confidence vote over contempt of Parliament, win the support of the house?

    • Mr. King

      Exactly. One part of Harper's argument is true: if he doesn't win a majority, Michael Ignatieff will become prime minister.

    • SirJohn_Eh

      Good point, I can't see it being possible that a minority Harper Govt returning after the election can convince another party they have reformed after 5 or so weeks. Even if the Conservatives had changed every one of their MP's running minus Harper, Harper is the threat to our democracy. I suppose the other parties in that case should give him the benefit of the doubt – and unfortunately I predict we would have an extremely short lived Parliament.

  • Tony

    Enough of this ‘coalition’ garbage! Go after the first government to be held in contempt of Parliament in Canadian history. Now THERE’S a story!

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    a) lol, now use of the term "Iggy" is a personal attack to you, is it? I mean, can anyone say anything against your precious leader? lol. Which raises….

    b) Who in the world is denying anyone their "individual opinion?"

    This election campaign is gonna be funnnnnn…….

  • sourstud

    Submitted without comment

    [youtube 4o0IEq_1kto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0IEq_1kto youtube]

    • Gayle

      Great point.

      Now I take you back to the Pacific Rail scandal, and Schreiber.

      See the same party with a different leader did something once, and that means that every other leader is going to do the same thing.

      ha ha ha ha ha

      • http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

        Notice that the statement's talk about "no coalition" only covers what he'll do if the Liberals win the most seats. It says nothing about what might happen if there's another Conservative minority.

        So, as far as we know from Michael Ignatieff's and the Liberal Party's public statements, the door is still open to a coalition agreement like the one in December 2008.

  • canon70

    I don't think he should hold his breath waiting for Mr. Harper to answer his questions.

  • bergkamp

    I wonder if anyone other than partisan Libs will believe Iggy does not have plans to form coalition. Canadians have memories, unlike pols, and in recent times we have Dion, Orchard and MacKay denying they would do something they quickly did after election.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Pull the other one, Iggy.

    And does 'our constitution' really say that party with most seats on election day forms the government? I am skeptical about that claim, to say the least.

  • John.K

    Any particular reason you left Harper off your list of those "denying they would do something they quickly did after election."?

  • Thwim

    So you say he should deny wanting to form a coalition, and then when he does that, you say you don't believe him.

    This despite his first act at becoming leader of the Liberal party basically shutting down the coalition.

    And amongst that, you completely ignore Harper appointing Fortier, despite him saying that he would not appoint unelected senators. You ignore Harper sending a BILLION dollars of our lumber industry's money to the US despite him stating shortly before the election that he would demand they follow the NAFTA agreement.

    To be honest, if we're going to be skeptical about claims, yours are a prime candidate for that skepticism.

  • bergkamp

    "Any particular reason … "

    Yes, there is. The reason is that Harper hasn't said he would not join coalition, or form new party, and then do exactly that a few weeks later.

    All pols say one thing, and do another, but I was thinking of specific instances when it comes to governing with other parties.

  • noob_goldberg

    When it comes to governing, instead of saying one thing and doing another Harper prefers to do one thing and then deny he did it.

  • Gayle

    OK. But he did say he would not appoint senators that were not elected, and then appointed a senator as his first act as PM in 2005.

  • claudia

    no past go to scohol and yes comprendeintion

From Macleans