In 2004, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper was not happy with the current state of Parliamentary Affairs and he wrote a letter to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in which he said, in part:
“We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.”
But today, outside the residence of the current Governor General David Johnston, Harper said an unhappy official opposition leader has only one option:
“First of all you don’t try and form a government if you lost the election. That is not legitimate. If Canadians elect the other party, even by a minority you respect that judgement. It is illegitimate to attempt to overturn that and if you want to overturn it, you go back to the people and get a mandate to do so. “
What Harper actually did in 2004 is very different than what Dion actually did in 2008.
But Harper in 2004 had “lost the election” and yet was seeking some kind of “options” other than an election to supplant Martin as prime minister. In 2011, Harper seems to say there is only one thing an Opposition leader can do if he doesn't like the government — “you go back to the people and get a mandate.” But in 2004, he was cautioning Clarkson that before “a request for dissolution”, she should consider “all your options.”
If I remember correctly, in 2004, Harper, Layton and Duceppe all said there was no coalition. Now both Layton and Duceppe are “threatening” Harper with the letter they all signed. Does this mean that Duceppe and Layton weren't telling the truth about a coalition back in 2004?
Good point, Anonymous (Sat 26 Mar 2011 06:00 PM EDT)
Major differences between 2004 & 2008
• In 2004, all three opposition leaders said they were NOT in a coalition.
In 2008, the 3 opposition leaders signed a coalition document — which BTW has a deadline of June 2011.
• In 2004, the 3 opposition leaders called their action a “co-operative effort” before the cameras, and the (in)famous letter was a vague call for the GG to consider all her options.
In 2008, the opposition leaders repeatedly denied there was a possibility for a coalition, yet revelations came out showing a coalition was already in the works (Brian Topp's six-part series in the Globe & Mail, plus the NDP caucus conference call taped by the Conservatives)
• In 2004, an election had taken place on June 28 and Paul Martin was hoping to have a snap election sometime in the fall, perhaps to avoid more Gomery Commission fall-out.
In 2008, an election had taken place a mere six weeks before (Oct. 14) when the coalition losers decided to unseat the government at the end of November.
• In 2004, the Liberals had 36 more seats than the Conservatives.
In 2008, the Conservatives had 66 more seats than the Liberals.
• In 2004, there was no arrangement of cabinet seats going to the NDP.
In 2008, the NDP was promised (sealed and delivered in the coalition document) 6 cabinet seats + 6 parliamentary secretaries, by a leader who had said he was resigning as leader of the Liberals.
• In 2004, the Liberals had lost 37 seats, down from 172, whereas the Conservatives had increased their count from 88 in 2000 (combined CA + PC) to 99 seats.
In 2008, the Liberals again lost seats; added to the 37 lost in 2004, they lost 26 more seats to end up at 77. In 2008, the Conservatives instead gained another 19 seats, adding to their 2006 gain of 25 seats.
goodness, do you think maybe the previous two commentors are Conservatives? Of course Harper was asking the GG to consider a Conservative minority, and or coalition. And given the fact that the second largest Party in Parliament will not be invioted to form a Government unless they demonstrate that they can command the confidence of Parliament, the purpose of Harpers letter was obviously to apprise the GG of the fact that the Conservatives, Bloc, and NDP were prepared to collaborate. Do the previous commentors imagine Harper was asking the GG to consider anything else? The intent was and remains clear. I know it doesn't take an election to banish common sense from the comments section of political and current events blogs, but I am afraid we are in for a torrent of sophistry of this (low) order now that the writ has been dropped.
“goodness, do you think maybe the previous two commentors are Conservatives?”
I can only speak for myself; I've never denied the fact I am indeed a conservative and proud of it.
Engaging in sophistry? I don't think so. You can choose to believe what the three leaders said in 2004 — Harper, Duceppe, and Layton — or what the same three leaders are saying today. The only one who is completely consistent is Harper.
The 2004 agreement was NOT a coalition. You can watch the entire 2004 press conference here, where the three of them explained what their agreement was all about: http://bit.ly/esfGqP.
If that's too long (about 45 minutes) then go here: http://bit.ly/iaD7FO
Duceppe can be heard saying: “But in no way are we a coalition and we won't be a coalition.” Straight from the horse's mouth.