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

Stephen Harper's constitution

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:29pm - 167 Comments

Peter Mansbridge interviewed Stephen Harper today—on a hockey rink no less—and, as expected, the conversation turned to the spectre of opposition parties uniting in some way to defeat the sitting government and form a new government.

Here is the exchange that follows Mr. Harper’s insistence that, short of a Conservative majority, the “other guys” would try to form government.

Mansbridge: But they have the absolute right to do that, do they not?

Harper: Well, we can have a constitutional, theoretical discussion. I think it’s important the people of Canadian understand these are the choices. Becuase I do think most Canadians would still be very surprised if they elected a Conservative minority and found out they had some completely different kind of government. I think that would be a big shock to people. I don’t think…

Mansbridge: But they would have that right.

Harper: I don’t think people know where such a government would lead. You know, we can point to tax increases they all agree on, a few other things, the reopening the constitution…

Mansbridge: No, I appreciate all that, but they have that right.

Harper: Well, that’s a question, a debate of constitutional law. My view is that the people of Canada expect the party that wins the election to govern the country. And that’s what I think people expect. And I think anything else, the public will not buy. That’s my personal view.

Mansbridge: Well, they bought it in Ontario in ’85, when the second-place party formed with the third-place party and became government. When the first-place party didn’t win the confidence of the House.

Harper: Well, Peter, we shall see. I think you’ve got an unusual situation here that such a government would rely on the Bloc Quebecois, which is a party dedicated to the break-up of the party, in order to govern. And you’d be effectively in a position where instead of the party winning the election governing, the Bloc is effectively picking the government, which I think is enormously problematic for the country down the road.

Mansbridge: What if the situation was reversed and Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Layton was in first place, with the most seats.

Harper: They will form the government.

Mansbridge: They will form the government?

Harper: Yes.

Mansbridge: And they…

Harper: I shouldn’t speculate on that because I’m in this to win and I think we’re going to win.

Mansbridge: No, I appreciate that, but you’ve raised the issue of the hypothetical situation so that’s one as well. Whichever of those two parties does not gain the confidence of the House, the Governor General comes to you, because that’s the way it has to happen, and says, ‘Mr. Harper, the second place party, the first place party couldn’t achieve the confidence of the House, I’d like you to try.’

Harper: Well, look, I think if the other guys win, they get a shot at government. And I don’t think you challenge that unless you’re prepared to go back to the people. And I think one of the reasons…

Mansbridge: So you would say no to that?

Harper: Yeah. I think one of the reasons…

Mansbridge: You’d say to the Governor General…

Harper: Yeah, absolutely.

Mansbridge: … ‘No, I wouldn’t do that.’

Harper: No, because I think one of the reasons, people don’t want another election. That’s another thing about this whole discussion…

Mansbridge: No, but that would be a way of preventing another election.

Harper: … These guys throwing up these scenarios. Where the party may win, but ‘we’re not going to let the government govern.’ We’ll be into another election before too long. That’s why I think we need a majority mandate. I think this has gone on long enough. I think we’ve got a good record, so we’re obviously appealing to the people to get behind us and let’s move the country forward. We have some pretty important economic challenges that remain in the world and this country. And I don’t think we can afford to continue to go around in circles like this, with any kind of minority.

Tags: democracy, election, Election 2011, house of commons, Liberal-NDP accord, ontario, Parliament, Peter Mansbridge, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Warren

Ah yes, Dennis speaks condescendingly for the Timmy's crowd: better to bask in ignorance then actually understand how a democracy works. The very sound of cynical power, and it speaks proudly.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You should learn to write more coherently before accusing others of ignorance. I certainly know how democracy works. Why do you have to accuse Canadians of not knowing how it works? This is what you think of the very people you want to rule over, is it? I don't have any power. I have faith in voters, actually. Thanks.

E_B_

Of course you know how democracy works. You just don't like how it works. Terribly inconvenient, wot?

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

There is nothing undemocratic about thinking winners should govern, or disagreeing with the left-wing. God. Next.

Thwim

There is something undemocratic, however, in thinking that the majority of the seats in the house should not be able to choose who leads them.
Thwim

Pedantically you may be correct. We have a system where the prime minister is chosen by the GG as the person who has the best chance of maintaining the confidence of the house.. that is, of the majority of the house choosing that person to lead them.

As for the name calling, you have my pity that you feel that impotent.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I just get tired of people who falsely believe they're the smartest people in the room. You were wrong on this point, you're wrong on many points on this issue, but you turn around and hurl all kinds of vicious accusations at your opponents. It's not that I feel "impotent." It's that I feel some people rightfully deserve it.
Thwim

Most people aren't pedants and understand context. Have you considered getting tested for mild Aspergers? They may have some medications that can help you.

danR

.
I won't be 'shocked' Mr. Harper. But I'll be disappointed if Jack forms a coalition with that burnt-out husk of a party.

Let the Liberals form a centre-middle coalition in the middle of a grave-yard with the rest of its ground-temperature neighbours.
.
shouldIsellyourwheat

Mansbridge set a trap for Harper also, just like for Ignatieff, but Harper cleverly avoided his, unlike Ignatieff who walked into his trap.

The trap for Ignatieff was on "coalition". And we all know the fallout.

The trap for Harper was on "spending cuts". Mansbridge attempted to trick Harper into saying that he wanted/needed a majority so he could cut spending programs (social programs) to balance the budget.

Mansbridge's preamble. Advisor's to Chretien and Martin have said that they couldn't have made the tough decisions to balance the budget in a minority situation. Paraphrasing…Is this why you need a majority? Harper didn't let Mansbridge walk him down that rat hole, like Ignatieff let Mansbridge walk him down on "coalition".

Mansbridge is one sneaky ba%^$&$.

I don't recall a trap for Layton. I may have to go back and replay that interview.

But I complain about CBC a lot, but in this instance, I thought Mansbridge was fair in his sneaky ruthlessness towards both Ignatieff and Harper.

PJP

It's interesting that when a politician answers a question directly, he has fallen into a "trap" – and when a politician successfully avoids and evades a clear answer, he has "avoided a trap." What does this say about our exceptions for honesty in politics?

McGee

Although in this excerpt he pushed for answers, in the rest he kowtowed to Harper so much a lot of people are outraged to the point they're leaving angry messages on Mansbridge's facebook page. I scrolled down for a while and never got to the end of it. It's especially galling after he was so tough on Ignatieff and Layton. And what's with playing along with the whole hockey rink set-up? He's helping Harper exploit our national sport for his own political purposes, hoping that by associating himself with something we love we will be stupid enough to love him by association.
gottabesaid

Mansbridge: But they have the absolute right to do that, do they not?

Harper: Well, we can have a constitutional, theoretical discussion.

Well, NO, we can't. They can do it. We can debate the wisdom of it — and I can think of lots of reasons why it would be a stupid idea — but we can't debate the legality of it. There's no debate.
gottabesaid

Harper: Well, look, I think if the other guys win, they get a shot at government. And I don’t think you challenge that unless you’re prepared to go back to the people.

Well then what was that 2004 letter all about?

Sheesh.

Thwim

Obviously, that was Mr. Harper telling the GG, you don't have to just go along with Martin and have an election, you can come to us first so that we can tell you you should have an election too.

hosertohoosier

The responses to this thread, and indeed its very essence reflect precisely why the coalitionistas will fail if they try again. The issue at hand is not whether or not a coalition is legal. It is. The question is whether a coalition is something that Canadians will want and accept. Just because you CAN form a coalition, doesn't mean that I, or say, a right-leaning Liberal voter is going to want one.

So you can call Canadians stupid, and lament the lack of civics education (incidentally, this position is incorrect – most Canadians accept the legitimacy of a coalition). In fact, as an opponent of a coalition, I really hope you continue on this stupid and unproductive line of argument. Or you can start making a positive case for a coalition. Why would coalition rule be better than a Harper majority/minority? What is so important, that it requires an alliance with the separatists?

Harper's comments reflect that he understands that the real question of substance is whether or not Canadians WANT a coalition. Harper was pretty careful not to say that it would be unconstitutional for the opposition to form a government. If you notice, his arguments have to do with whether the public will accept a coalition government, and whether a coalition would be good for the country. By emphasizing the legal argument (we CAN do it), you guys are conceding the practical argument (we SHOULD do it) to Stephen Harper. Please, keep it up.

Just looking

You must have the confidence of the house to govern and Mr. Harper does not… Contempt of Parliament mean anything to you!!!
The GG can ask the second place party to try and form a government and if it can present a Throne Speech and a budget that the House can accept, then they should be allowed to govern. There does not have to be a 'coalition' for this to happen, but "cooperation" amongst parties.

hosertohoosier

Fine, you can change the word coalition to accord everywhere in my post. The point remains that you need to make the case for an accord, or whatever arrangement you choose, to the Canadian people. As for contempt, you have the same problem. Voting for a contempt motion is very different from convincing Canadians that Harper is contemptuous, and so far the opposition doesn't seem to have been winning the argument on that front. Substantively, a contempt motion is meaningless – it is like Apple telling me that PC's are bad.

Northcott

"Substantively, a contempt motion is meaningless – it is like Apple telling me that PC's are bad."

No. No, it isn't. It's nothing like that at all. One company telling you that another is 'bad' is subjective. What Mr. Harper did was a blatant violation of Parliamentary procedure, and an undermining of the very pinnings of our system. We put MPs in place to represent our views. As such, when they are denied information — or fed false information — the very process that we put them there to achieve is sabotaged. For Mr. Harper to fail to recognize this is a failing as a Prime Minister that I cannot forgive.

This is compounded by his comment after his government's fall. From the Globe & Mail: Mr. Harper, who moved the final motion to adjourn Parliament, said he would be visiting Governor-General David Johnston on Saturday morning to “take the only course of action that remains.”

An election was not the only course of action that remained. The Governor General could have spared us millions of dollars of expense and wasted time in listening to hollow political speeches, trying to sort lies from the truth, by simply offering the opposition a chance to form the government. The number of seats would not change, the representation would not change, the issues would not change, and the backstabbing and haranguing of parties would not change. All that would have altered is who was expected to herd cats/get politicians to actually agree on something. There are no Supreme Court appointments coming up that I know of, so Mr. Ignatieff could not have made a dent in that regard, and Mr. Harper ensured that the Senate is full to bursting with his (promise-breaking and record-setting) patronage appointments.

In short, it would have been business as usual, and a saving for taxpayers.

I'm of conservative leaning, myself. My family have been inclined toward conservative support for a good three generations back. I cannot, in good conscience, support a neo-con who has undermined the democratic process, thrown out the values of traditional conservatism, and practices fear-mongering on our very political system in an attempt to cling to power.

Thwim

Yes, but what hoser is saying is that most Canadians are ignorant, therefore, nothing should be done to disabuse them of that and we should allow Mr. Harper to do as he pleases, regardless of what the house thinks.
Fix the House

CONTEMPT! WHO IS IN CONTEMPT!
The party that loaded the committee. That voted before the briefs were finished?
The retired liberal speaker.?

PJP

I agree that many Canadians would agree with the gist of this post – that "losers don't get to form government." I recognize that a situation where a second-place party forms government might be politically unsavoury (Note that this is NOT a coalition, and an executive-sharing arrangement has been emphatically ruled out by the Liberals) – and I think that this reflects the rather contorted understanding by most Canadians about how parliament works. It's the product of decades of majority rule, where we take for granted that a single party clearly and without question "wins" an election. But we need to remember that in Canada, voters DO NOT elect governments. Voters elect a parliament, that in turn "forms" a government. It's more than a technicality of constitutional law; it's the very foundation of responsible government (which we had a rebellion in Canada to achieve). It's unfortunate that practicing this very basic function of our system has evolved into something grotesque and politically unwise.

hosertohoosier

I have no idea where you got the idea that I think "losers don't get to form government". Legally they can, as I accepted in the third sentence of my post.

My argument is that nobody onside with a coalition/accord/whatever is making a specific, positive case for a coalition/accord/whatever. The essence of what they are saying is: just trust us. That is bad for them on two levels:
1. it hurts them in the election
2. it harms the legitimacy (in terms of the voters) of whatever program the coalition/accord/whatever is to implement, since it was never put in front of the voters

"We CAN" is a different argument from "We should". We can, for instance, try to eat 50 eggs in an hour. There is no law against it or anything. But you need something more substantive if you are going to convince me that I should eat 50 eggs. Nothing in your post, and almost nothing Michael Ignatieff has said on the issue, addresses that essential debate.

PJP

Again – I don't necessarily disagree that an arrangement where a second-place party would form government would be politically unwise… Rather, I'm noting that this reality is a sad reflection of our evolved popular understanding of our system of government. Compromise and consensus-building are core features of a parliamentary system, so it is necessary that whatever government ensure its policies and legislation have the agreement of the majority of Canadians' representatives. It seems to me that what you're illustrating – and what I think most people would unfortunately agree on – is that whatever party wins a plurality of seats has licence to implement the platform "put in front of voters," as you say. We should emphasize instead that the government always needs to ensure that a majority of the representatives elected by the Canadian people concur with legislation (that after all is the primary check and balance on executive authority in our system) – no matter what the particular dynamics of that government be (majority, minority, coalition, accord, etc.). The whole coalition buzz has become a diversion from the more basic fact that in our system, the majority rules. Period.

hosertohoosier

You are still not answering my question, of why Canada would be better off with a coalition/accord/whatever, or with this coalition/accord/whatever specifically. I suspect you are afraid to engage that question, so instead you set up a straw man of right wingers that do not believe in parliamentary democracy.

Let me re-iterate. I AGREE with the legality of majority rule. Most Canadians do too. The reason people care about "the whole coalition buzz", is that we kind of have a stake in what our government does. If that (or an accord or whatever) is the route by which Michael Ignatieff is going to take power, we need to know what is going to happen.

Electing MPs isn't very meaningful, unless they campaign for things that they actually intend to do. A significant feature of elections, is to allow a debate on different platforms of government. Voters can get the chance to decide which one is closest to their beliefs, and vote on such a basis. We know politicians don't always implement the policies they promise, but at least they present documents to which they can be held accountable.

In a shadow campaign like this one, that doesn't happen. Parties make promises which are essentially fantasy depictions of what they would do with a majority – a majority they aren't going to get. The real substance of policy formation in a world of coalitions/accords/whatever takes place after the election, and is negotiated. As such, the negotiating positions of the parties are legitimate issues that should be aired in the election. Should a group of parties take power without ever discussing the actual things they plan to do, or even their plans to form a coalition/accord/whatever, Canadians have a right to be very angry, and indeed, to question the legitimacy of what they just voted for.

Thwim

Well, I'm ready to admit that ideally we shouldn't have the second, third, and fourth largest pluralities in parliament take government from the first party.

Of course, ideally, we have a first party that isn't contemptuous of the House and is willing to cooperate.

This not being the case, you want to blame the other guys? Why not blame the one guy who's forcing us all into this position?

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Intolerant zealots like you hardly have a monopoly on principles. Who in the world do you think you are? Fidel Castro?

Thwim

I note you don't refute his point.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

The point that only people who agree with him have principles? lol. Next.
http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

I note he never does. He thinks making a sound because someone else did counts as a conversation.

OriginalEmily1

Note to GG Johnston….find a crowbar, you're going to need it.
iSmellA-Rat

Are the rats jumping ship?

When I saw the article below I was astonished: TWO cabinet ministers contradicting Harper, and going after his spokesman. In the papers that day also, someone (G&M) published all of Harper's competition for party leader. And there were stories and questions about whether Harper would quit if he got a minority.

But then, was it yesterday? Giorno contradicting Harper also. Another rat jumping ship?

And then, most recently, Brad contradicting Harper, although I suspect with less a rat with a strategy than one just jumping.

And then, another minister today, Peter Kent, going against Harper by saying the "terrorist supporter" running as a conservative should never have been permitted. Another very senior rat jumping ship?

All of this when Harper is on record as saying quite the opposite.

The wildest thing in this election is that it is the National Post that is doing the most critical pieces on Harper, and the most objective and comprehensive on Ignatieff.

What gives, folks? Are the progressive conservatives fighting back? Do they smell blood? Are are they just trying to save their own skins?
FVerhoeven

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Write me another chapter in that work of fiction. You could be Ms.Atwood, posing as iSmellA-Rat!!
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Or else what? Are you going to round up dissidents and ship them off to a Cuban prison or something? Man. Next.
Thwim

The candidate I vote for will have, at most, one seat in Parliament. No more.
Once again, parties are not elected, MPs are elected, parties are just a convenient way of seeing which MPs views are compatible.
Jenahlin

And the candidates are not required to have a signature from their leader allowing them to run for the party, dont get funding from their party, dont refer to themselves as a member of a party, never bring in their party leader, dont announce their party on their signs and promotional materials, never sit with their party in the house, never vote as they are told to vote by the party whip.
I get it!. We elect 308 independents with no party affiliation
Thwim

Oh they get all that.. but ultimately it's people like you and I who can fire them.

That you don't remember that is sad.

That they don't remember that is disgraceful.