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

What he was trying to say

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:19pm - 32 Comments

Stephen Harper was apparently asked today about his comments in 1997 about a future “coalition or working alliance” among parties in Parliament.

“This clip was a clip of me discussing uniting the right,” Mr. Harper told reporters Tuesday. “I don’t think it was any secret we were trying to bring together the Progressive Conservatives, the Reform Alliance and the Democratic Representatives. We were very clear we were looking for mechanisms to bring us together – and we did create a merger as you know.”

He stressed: “I have never attempted to take office without winning an election. The other guys did.”

The TVO interview seems to have occurred shortly after Mr. Harper resigned in 1997 and, as Paul notes, the Democratic Representative Caucus wouldn’t come into existence for another four years. (When Mr. Harper spoke, five parties existed: the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Reform.)

That aside, his specific comments in 1997 about the future arrangement of our parliamentary democracy seemed to exceed both a simple merger of the PCs and Reform and his contention now that only the party that wins the most seats can form government.

The way the Liberals, I think, are eventually going to lose office, whether it’s in this election or the next one, is they’re going to fail to win a majority. They’ve basically lost Quebec and without Quebec the Liberal party has never been a majority party in this country. And that’s where I think you’re going to face, someday, a minority parliament, with the Liberals maybe having the largest number of seats, and what will be the test is whether there’s then any party in opposition that’s able to form a coalition or working alliance with the others. And I think we have a political system that’s going to continue to have three or four different parties, or five different parties, and so I think parties that want to form government are going to eventually have to learn to work together.

Tags: 1997, coalition, coalition government, election, Election 2011, house of commons, Parliament, Stephen Harper, tvo

More by Aaron Wherry

Jan

He should before he is forced into calling his former self a liar. His stubborness is going to finish him.
Olivier

the real question is will this get any traction in the population.

I think everybody knows that the CPC supporters will brush it off but will the swing voters be affected by this blatant hypocrisy or see it as a context sensitive situation.

I know which side I'm on, but I do believe the majority of people won't pay much attention this.

Reverend_Blair

That really depends on what the press does with it, Oliver. So far they've stayed on it, although I don't think they've been giving it quite enough prominence given that Harper's entire campaign strategy is basically based on a lie.

Jan

It's not the truth so I'm not accepting it. Harper has caught himself in his own web of lies ans deceit. No one is to blame for this but himself. He's been getting away with it for 5 years and it has finally caught up to him.
catherine

Yes, I must say the press has surprised me. I had written them off a while ago, but it is so nice to see the glimmers of a more feisty press and it seems to be spread over quite a few different news outlets. I'm happy to see them go after all the candidates, but really quite surprised they aren't playing dead with Harper.

D.D.S

yeah….except I wish they would challenge Harper on that "four questions(scripted no less) only" BS

Anon ABC

He stressed: “I have never attempted to take office without winning an election. The other guys did.”

We all know that is not what his two former amigos and his former mentor are saying. All three have said that the intention was to replace the Liberal government.

While we could argue that the two amigos are his political adversaries (although they apparently were friendly enough to share a hotel room and perhaps a bed in 2004), what motivation could Flanagan possibly have for contradicting his former protege about this?

Hopefully some journalist could ask Harper this question.
alfanerd

“I have never attempted to take office without winning an election. The other guys did.”

that is really the only relevant point here. the question was never whether coalitions are illegitimate in all cases.

tedbetts

Yes I agree that it is very relevant that on the main point he is outright lying. He was for losers getting to form governments before he was against them.

But he has also hanged himself on his own words about coalitions because he and his caucus have indeed railed against coalitions.
LdKitchenersOwn

Yes, but this latest insight makes us all aware that Harper's statement that "[He has] never attempted to take office without winning an election" is to be taken in the context not that he thinks such an act would be wrong, but in the context that he was never actually presented with an opportunity to do so. It's not that he WOULDN'T attempt to do so, he just HASN'T attempted to do so (yet).

And, technically, the "other guys" didn't attempt to take office without fighting another election either, as they were also never given the opportunity to do so.
wellwell

So it all depends on the motivation of the office seeker? What a load of rubbish. That's like Harper supporters saying reverently, "He never wanted to be Prime Minister when he was younger – he's not that sort of politician." Absolute hogwash, and totally beside the point, except that it reveals the level of hypocrisy and willing self-deception in Conservative circles.

tedbetts

I dunno, FV.

On the one side we have Say Anything Steve telling us that the words he said, and the letter he wrote do not mean what they mean, but something else (indeed something they could not possibly have meant).

vs.

On the other side we have Layton in 2005, Mike Duffy in 2004, Tom Flanagan now, Jack and Gilles now saying that no, Stephen Harper meant what he said back in 1997 and in 2004 and you, and others, are just not willing to accept the truth of that.

But that's Harper's self-created problem. It can only be solved within by him admitting the truth, not by trying to find hiding in another haystack.
FVerhoeven

It suddenly came to me what Aaron was trying to say:

tedbetts

I think Wherry is saying nothing at all. He is merely quoting Harper in his own words and seeing if they stand up to other known facts.

And clearly they don't.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

From John Geddes post:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/28/an-odd-underst…

Here’s what Desserud flaty says would have transpired: “First, had Martin requested an election in 2004, he would have been granted his wish.” But what if—and this is unlikely—Clarkson thought an election premature, as her predecessor Lord Byng did in the famous King-Byng affair? In that case, Desserud says she would have asked Harper if he was able to form a government.

“At that point, we are supposed to believe Harper would have said, ‘No, I can’t—I just want the PM to cooperate more.’ Then the GG would have said, ‘Okay, since there is no viable alternative, I hereby grant Martin’s request’.”

tedbetts

Exactly!

Patchouli

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean –neither more nor less."

Lewis Carroll

D.D.S

Humpty didn't meet a very happy end…..makes me smile this morning

Garnet

When he refers to "parties that want to form government" it's reasonable to assume (but hard to prove) that he was meaning to exclude the Bloc. Really, it's only their presence in the theoretical left coalition that makes it upsetting to any voters. (Many leftish voters want the Grits and the NDP to flat-out merge, after all.) In those hard-to-recall days before minority government, too, no one really imagined that the Bloc could have any role in a government.

wellwell

The Bloc was the Official Opposition in 1997. Remember?

Thwim

How good of you to know the GG's mind for him.
Stewart_Smith

You know that things are getting a little subtle when even the brilliant Wells can't keep up with our Super-gewaltige politische Betreiber PM.

Ok, so think back to the supposed Laurier gaff that Aaron made Olympic sport of. Ha, Ha: How could Laurier possibly have known about the winter Olympics 5 years before they were started.

Now lets consider the case above. Sure it is possible that he is simply lying but really the most straightforward explanation is that already in 1997, Stephen Harper had a clear vision of 2001. You will note this is a likely explanation as to why the Conservatives are now proposing policies for 2015 during the 2011 campaign.

I cannot believe I am the only one to recognize the advantages of having a clairvoyant PM. The last time we had this type of opportunity was when Doug Henning was running for the Natural Law Party during the 90's.

[youtube CIS788uf0cA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIS788uf0cA youtube]

Anon ABC

Harper certainly is clairvoyant alright. In 1997, he was talking about forming a coalition among the PC, RA and Democratic Representatives. Only a small detail (that no real Canadians pay attention to): the latter, DR, was not formed until 2001. Here is the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seco…. Enjoy !!

filturk

Harper's response to the undisputable fact that he supported 'coalitions' back in 1997 and again in 2004 kind of reminds me of his response to the Bev Oda fraud allegation : as a minister, she has every right to overrule any decision on funding.

A perfect example of Con spin via red herring.
E_B_

…and this reality check exposes the big lie Mr. Harper has been making since 2008.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/r…
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

But they did win an election. They won election to the House of Commons where our government lives. If a party cannot command the confidence of the House, they do not get to direct the Government. The Government, the House of Commons decides that.
McC_

"They won election to the House of Commons where our government lives." what an adorable turn of phrase! for some reason it reminds me of The Little Old Lady Who Lived in a Shoe.
Gregory

Prime Minister do you remember on December 16th 2003 when you cheated, deceived, lied and back-stabbed the PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE members by signing up the reformers in the PC Party and voting twice both as reformers at Reform party and as PC members at PC party?

Do you remember the following day on December 17th with Peter (no merger candidate) MacKay both of you ran to the offices of elections Canada and got Kinsley to open the office and break the laws of Parliament of Canada to merge the 2 parties without the 30 days cooling off period necessary by elections Canada ACT?

You see, the foundation of your Neo Cons party was built on cheating, lies and deceit and you never stopped till today. Still you are doing the same.

Your misery hasn't started yet and when eventually you lose your own seat and history judges you, you will be synonymous with everything bad and the worse Prime Minister Canada ever had.

The final thing you need to remember is you went through the backdoor to get the party made and you did not care about what the PC Party members wanted and therefore you stacked the ridings with Canadian Alliance members. Therefore since the PC members never had a say the PC party should be around today.

this is what needs to be reported.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

She had so many children, some of them were Blue,Who would ignore the meaning of a word if it were true.”It means what I mean, nothing else! It's what I want to do!” She chopped them up and chopped them down and dropped them in the stew.
LdKitchenersOwn

"This clip was a clip of me discussing uniting the right".

That's the best part of the quote I'd say. He's explicitly saying that he thought that a coalition of right-leaning parties taking power without an election would have been fine. So, it's not "unelected" coalitions he's got a problem with, it's "unelected" coalitions that he doesn't agree with ideologically that are the problem.
Proud canadian

Harper and his seals dont know what to say without a script! Watch him and his trained seals fall apart as this campaign proceeds.
filturk

he'll get caught in his own game