Repeat after him

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, March 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM - 46 Comments

The prepared text of Mr. Harper’s remarks to a rally in Brampton this morning, including no less than 21 instances of the word “coalition.”

“Friends, yesterday I reluctantly visited the Governor-General.  I say reluctantly because as much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, as much as I enjoy campaigning all across this great country, and as confident as I am in our team and our chances, this is not where I should be.

“Not where any of us: Leaders, Ministers, MPs, should be.  We should all be back in Ottawa.  At our desks.  And working!

“Working to protect our economic advantage.  Working to complete our economic recovery.  And working to keep your taxes down by implementing the budget that the minister of finance tabled on Tuesday.  That budget is the next phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, a plan by which this country, Canada, has been leading the global recovery!

“It is a low-tax plan of critical importance to jobs, growth and the financial security of hardworking Canadian families.

“But, as you know, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois Coalition had a different priority: an election the country didn’t want, an election the economy doesn’t need.

Continue…

Two questions for Stephen Harper

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, March 27, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 60 Comments

In light of all this confusion surrounding Mr. Harper’s previous practice and present stance on parliamentary cooperation, there are perhaps two questions that might (need?) be asked of the Conservative leader for the sake of clarification.

1. What “options” did you intend the Governor General to consider when you, along with Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton, wrote to her in September 2004?

2. In 1997, you said if the Liberal majority government of the day was ever reduced to a minority government, there would be an opportunity for one of the other parties “to form a coalition or working alliance with the others.” In 2004, during your news conference with Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton, you were asked if you were prepared to form government and said such a scenario was “extremely hypothetical.” You and your party now argue that only the party that wins the most seats can form government. Why and when did your views change on the functioning of our parliamentary system?

The summer of 2004

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 4:29 PM - 101 Comments

Gilles Duceppe again offers his version of events.

“When he says only the party that received the most votes can form a government, he said the opposite in this letter. He lied this morning.” The Bloc Leader said there was a key meeting in a Montreal hotel where the subject of the opposition parties banding together against Mr. Martin was thrashed out. “He (Mr. Harper) came to my office and said: ‘What do you want in the speech from the throne’?” Mr. Duceppe said.

Furthermore, via Twitter, Mr. Duceppe says that Mr. Harper “definitely talked about a coalition” when they met seven years ago. Add that to the accumulated testimony and evidence collected to date.

For whatever it is worth, here is what William Johnson wrote in his biography of Mr. Harper about the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election. Continue…

'We will choose between stable national government and a reckless coalition'

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 10:23 AM - 16 Comments

The prepared text of the Prime Minister’s statement outside Rideau Hall this morning.

“Good morning.

“In light of yesterday’s disappointing events I met with His Excellency the Governor General, and he has agreed that Parliament should be dissolved.

“Before I say anything else, I would like to begin by thanking Canadians for the confidence and trust they have given me and my colleagues over the past five years.

“It has been a privilege and honour to serve as Prime Minister of the best country in the world as together we faced the most difficult days of the global economic recession.

“At the same time, because of the great challenges that still confront us I understand that our job is not done.

Continue…

The rules of our democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM - 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.

Continue…

'The only course of action that remains'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM - 119 Comments

The Prime Minister’s statement to reporters after his government was defeated in the House.

Good afternoon.  I’ll be brief.  The global economy is still fragile.  Canada’s recovery has been strong but it needs to remain our focus. That’s why the economy has been and will continue to be the number one priority for me as Prime Minister and for all the members of our Conservative government.  This is what Canadians expect of us in Parliament, all of us.

Continue…

The Commons: Repeat after them

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 6:19 PM - 54 Comments

The Scene. Yesterday and again today, the Prime Minister apparently decided that it was in “Canadians’ interests” that he excuse himself from Question Period. If the House of Commons isn’t going to listen to him, it seems he isn’t going to listen to it. Indeed, given yesterday’s unpleasantness, it seems possible that he has decided to seal himself inside his campaign bubble a bit early.

In his place these last two days, Mr. Harper has sent John Baird, now seeming the human equivalent of a television ad. In the space of 45 minutes and 16 responses, Mr. Baird managed this day to use the word “coalition” nine times. This was followed in frequency by the words “unnecessary” and “unstable” with four appearances each. Not to be outdone were “risky” and “reckless,” which were each employed thrice.

But first, a word of support for the troops. Continue…

What was Stephen Harper up to in 2004?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 9:01 AM - 230 Comments

In response to the charge yesterday during Question Period that the Harper government had shown contempt for democracy, John Baird offered the following.

Mr. Speaker, it is the leader of the Liberal Party who is showing contempt for Canadian voters. He does not accept the fundamental democratic principle that the person with the most votes wins elections. He wanted to establish a coalition government with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP and now the coalition is back again. That shows utter contempt for Canadians.

Mr. Baird’s invoking of fundamental democratic principles was particularly noteworthy in light of what Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe had said two hours earlier in their respective news conferences. Continue…

The week ahead

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 16 Comments

The 40th Parliament began with a moment of unprecedented democratic intrigue and may soon end similarly. The House returns this morning at 11 and there are various pieces in play, or potentially in play: a budget, a contempt finding against the Harper government, a contempt finding against International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda, a budget amendment, a motion of non-confidence and a vote on the government’s financial estimates.

Oh, and there’s a military campaign against Libya to be discussed.

Greg Weston has a comprehensive accounting of what may happen when.

The Commons: Stephen Harper, ever undaunted

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 6:34 PM - 222 Comments

The Scene. Mr. Harper’s government, as the government of Canada is now to be known, stands accused of various breaches. Of violating electoral law when it won office. Of withholding information demanded of it by Parliament. Of employing a minister who has misled Parliament. Of employing a minister who has misused government resources for his party’s gain. Of paying an exorbitant amount of money to disappear a woman who once held the title of “integrity commissioner.” And yes, of renaming the federal government in the Prime Minister’s own surname.

And so, of course, the government side this afternoon was as gleeful and aggressive as it has ever been. It roared and cheered and mocked and jeered. It laughed and lashed at its critics, it delighted in itself. It was loud and proud.

Mr. Harper sat and smiled and shared the odd chuckle. He reclined as best he could in his chair and fiddled with the cord of his desk’s earpiece. When he stood to answer the Liberal leader’s charges, he shrugged and sighed. If he was the least bit concerned, a tiny bit chastened, it was impossible to tell.

But, of course, he hardly ever appears daunted by such stuff. Indeed, if there is one thing that defines this Prime Minister it is his unrelenting undauntedness, his undaunting relentlessness. He is a man of the post-shame world. Continue…

What was Stephen Harper thinking in 1997?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM - 153 Comments

Near the end of his TVO interview in 1997, Stephen Harper was asked who he thought would win the next election. You can advance to the ten-minute mark to see for yourself, but here is a transcript of his answer.

Well, it would really surprise me at the moment if the Liberals didn’t get the most seats. I mean, judging from all the, not just the polling data, but the fact they have such a wide coalition. 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.

See previously: The guardian of our democracy, How late is too late? and What was Stephen Harper thinking in 2004?

'The next election will be a choice between a coalition government … or a stable Conservative majority government'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM - 131 Comments

Fewer respondents than four years ago are completely comfortable with the prospect of a Conservative majority government—34% in 2007, 26% in 2011. If you combine the currently comfortable with the slightly comfortable and the uncomfortable with slightly uncomfortable, you get a tie—48% to 47.9%.

Add those figures as you see fit to previous attempts to poll Canadians on hypothetical options.

Idea alert

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 12:05 PM - 37 Comments

Brian Topp figures it’s time we figure out what the rules of our parliamentary democracy are.

A good place to start would be with the New Zealand cabinet manual. Developed incrementally under many governments over 30 years, with the fingerprints and agreement of all of that country’s political parties, this manual is a well-written, publicly-accessible rulebook setting out many of the basic rules the game in a multi-party Westminster Parliament, written from the perspective of the executive branch.

The British government is currently consulting the public about a similar guide. If you dote on the details of parliamentary government – and if you’re on this website reading stuff in this section, you probably do – it’s a good read.

It’s an idea that Peter Russell, the constitutional scholar, is apparently pursuing.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 9:02 AM - 80 Comments

Stephen Harper, December 2, 2008. The Canadian people made a choice to elect the Conservative Party to govern, without the support of the separatists.

The Globe and Mail, yesterday. The Harper government has agreed to split up one of its crime bills to obtain the support of the Bloc Québécois and scrap the law that allows non-violent offenders to serve only one-sixth of their prison sentence … Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe sat down with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to urge the government to take action. Officials from the two parties then negotiated an agreement.

We can't all just get along

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM - 52 Comments

No sketch today on account of other responsibilities. In lieu, here’s today’s exchange of ironies between Jack Layton and John Baird.

Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Prime Minister is involved in secret back room talks with the leader of the Bloc Québécois on the parole system. Is this the same Bloc Québécois that we see in the Conservatives’ nasty ads. Imagine this. We have the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc working together to design Canadian public policy and yet officials from both parties say the talks are going well. Is this some kind of a new coalition? Is he making the bloquistes the driving force behind government policy? How is it possible?

Continue…

We remain torn over hypothetical options

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM - 103 Comments

When Nanos polled a thousand Canadians in January 2009 about what should happen if that year’s federal budget was defeated, 49% favoured an election, 42% said the opposition should be invited to form a coalition.

About two weeks later, when Ekos asked a thousand Canadians to choose between a Conservative government and a Liberal-NDP coalition, 50% favoured a coalition government, 43% favoured a Conservative government.

Last June, when Harris-Decima surveyed a thousand Canadians, 55% of respondents indicated some support for at least some kind of cooperation between the Liberals and New Democrats.

And now, in a new Ipsos Reid poll of a thousand Canadians, 55% state a preference for a Conservative minority government, 45% favour a Liberal-NDP coalition.

What was Stephen Harper thinking in 2004?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 9:01 AM - 59 Comments

On September 9, 2004—two and a half months after that year’s federal election—Stephen Harper appeared at a news conference alongside Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP leader Jack Layton to announce what Mr. Harper would describe as a “co-opposition” agreement. The three presented a series of reforms intended to give the opposition parties more power in Parliament as Paul Martin prepared to lead Canada’s first minority government in more than two decades.

Mr. Harper, Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton had also sent a letter to the Governor General—Adrienne Clarkson at the time—to suggest that, should Mr. Martin seek to dissolve Parliament, she should “consult” with the three opposition leaders and consider her “options” before exercising her authority.

Below you will find an audio recording of that September 2004 news conference in its entirety.

At the 11:20 mark, the three opposition leaders are first asked to explain their request that the Governor General consult with them—specifically whether they are prepared to form a government. Continue…

Losing is in the eye of the beholder

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM - 39 Comments

In his chat with Mr. Mansbridge, the Prime Minister again asserts a rule for coalition government.

Of course, and David Cameron’s an interesting example because they had that debate there, and what I think the public concluded was undemocratic and not really legitimate was the coalition of parties that lost an election. Mr. Cameron won the election. And then was able to form a coalition.

It’s unclear if Mr. Harper intends this judgment of legitimacy to be applied to the governments of Israel, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, not to mention the Liberal government that oversaw the province of Ontario between 1985 and 1987.

How late is too late?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 8:53 AM - 74 Comments

At the risk of dwelling upon the Prime Minister’s words, it is probably worth noting all of the questions raised by Mr. Harper’s offhand remark last week about the December 2008 coalition—questions that might be asked of Mr. Harper and probably should be asked of the Governor General.

First, a useful reminder of events. The 2008 election occurred on October 14. On November 19, the House reconvened and the Throne Speech was presented. Eight days later, on November 27, the government presented its economic update. Shortly after, the Throne Speech passed the House.

On the evening of November 28, with that update facing mounting criticism, the Prime Minister announced that an opposition day scheduled for December 1, the following Monday, would be pushed back a week—thereby postponing a vote of non-confidence the Liberals intended to bring.

On December 1, the coalition accord was signed and Stephane Dion sent a letter to Michaelle Jean informing her of his ability to form a government. Three days later, on December 4, the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament and she granted his request.

All of which makes the Prime Minister’s contention that the opposition parties “waited too long” and were thus “too late,” all the more curious. Continue…

Oh, is that what happened?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 11:48 AM - 155 Comments

The Prime Minister explains how it was that a coalition government failed to replace his in December 2008.

Last time they waited too long and it was too late.

The guardian of our democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 4, 2011 at 11:29 AM - 266 Comments

Just before Christmas, Governor General David Johnston made an apparently caveat-free statement on the possibility of coalition government in a parliamentary system.

Johnston said Canada — like many democratic regimes — has had experiences with coalition-type governments in the past. “I think that most jurisdictions that have a system of first-past-the-post or proportional representation will from time to have time have coalitions or amalgamation of different parties and that’s the way democracy sorts itself out,” he said.

The Prime Minister has quibbled with the concept of coalition government on three counts. And as such there are three questions Mr. Johnston should be asked at the next opportunity. Continue…

The Commons: Just laugh it off

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 7:07 PM - 51 Comments

The Scene. Last week, the Foreign Affairs Minister called the Liberal foreign affairs critic to discuss the future of this country’s mission in Afghanistan. Yesterday, after an extension to that mission had been announced, the Prime Minister noted that “the decisions we have taken are very close to what the Liberal Party in fact recommended, so I am glad that we actually agree on this particular matter.”

And so it was today that the Prime Minister stood and identified the Liberals as enemies of the state. “The opposition is simply playing politics with the lives of Air Force members,” Mr. Harper cried this afternoon when Michael Ignatieff dared persist in asking him to justify the multi-billion-dollar purchase of new warplanes.

That the Prime Minister would, even indirectly, cooperate with anyone so treasonous as to show callous disregard for the lives of Canadian servicemen and women seems preposterous. Even that he would be comfortable finding himself in agreement with such scoundrels on something as important as the deployment of Canadian troops into a war zone seems beyond the realm of belief. So perhaps the Prime Minister is simply better than most of us at maintaining contradictory feelings for others. Perhaps he, possessing a generous understanding of others, believes that the Liberal side is capable of both making a responsible decision about the deployment of our military and being flippant about the lives of our soldiers. Perhaps there is no contradiction or disconnect between what this government did in one case and what Mr. Harper has said here.

Or perhaps the lesson here—the moral of this story, the message of this week, the theme of these last five years—is that it is counterproductive to place much more than passing importance on the words that come from the mouths of this government. Continue…

The Conservative-Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM - 16 Comments

The NDP says the Conservatives and Liberals have conspired to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Evangelical leader Charles McVety says someone in the government told him that the Conservatives and NDP have a deal to pass a bill on human rights for the transgendered. And the Hill Times says that the Conservatives are in cahoots with the Bloc Quebecois to keep the government in power and fund a hockey arena in Quebec City.

Thus are the Greens, the only party not presently said to be cooperating in any manner with any other party, well-positioned to benefit at the next election from an anti-coalition vote.

We have everything to fear but fear itself

By Scott Feschuk - Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 4:20 PM - 0 Comments

CP/GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCK/ PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY BRADLEY REINHARDT

Some leaders rule with an iron fist inside a velvet glove. Stephen Harper rules with the mask from the Scream movies.

Like many Canadians, I love being terrified of people and issues—it’s way easier than making the effort to understand them. But Harper wants us to be afraid of so much stuff that it can be hard to keep track. Here’s a useful primer of things the PM wants us to fear:

Continue…