This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Tag: Stephen Harper
A paper was released in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations this week, titled Conflictual behavior in legislatures: Exploring and explaining adversarial remarks in oral questions to prime ministers. The study compares the behaviours in the Parliaments of Canada, the UK, Australia, and Ireland, and how they dynamics can differ between them both in terms of tone, types of questions and attacks, and interventions by their respective Speakers during the oral questions. While it’s an ambitious project, it does nevertheless have a few of the limitations of doing a more quantitative analysis than a qualitative one, particularly because it relies on Hansard transcripts rather than in-person observation or observing the video broadcasts. As the only journalists in the Canadian parliament who has attended very nearly every Question Period over the past twelve or so years, I was interested to see what the paper has to say about the Canadian context.
One of the things I noticed first was that the Canadian portion was based on the 39th Parliament, from 2006 to 2008, being the first hung parliament of Stephen Harper’s government. This meant that Peter Milliken was the Speaker, so his particular style and temperament when it comes to the interventions he made in the Chamber are relevant to what was captured in the study, and there is very much a difference from Speaker to Speaker in terms of what sorts of things the Speaker will police within the Chamber and what he or she won’t (and if we’re talking about the current Speaker, Anthony Rota, well, he polices very little). This time period also means that Bill Graham was serving as interim Liberal leader and hence Leader of the Opposition for much of that time, and because this study doesn’t include the prorogation crisis of 2008, it doesn’t capture some of the absolutely explosive, drag-out exchanges between Harper and Stéphane Dion during that event.
One other observation I would make is that because this was a parliament that saw a new government, the prime minister was far more frequently available during QP, particularly in the early part of this Parliament, because everyone is so fresh and new, and full of energy. As time went on, Harper attended less and less, and you were lucky if he showed up twice a week, but oftentimes it was just Wednesdays, because that is caucus day. Something else that is particularly relevant to this study is that when Justin Trudeau formed government, he instituted a proto-Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesdays, whereby he answers every question on that day, with the intention that it allows anyone in the Chamber to ask him a question. That being said, it mostly gives opposition leaders more rounds to preen for the cameras rather than just the first round, but it can give more backbenchers the ability to ask questions, which is something that this study did look at.
With all of this in mind, one of the tables in the report looks at interventions by the Speaker, and on what grounds. The number of interventions around things like calls to order were fairly low, which surprised me, but it also could be that Hansard didn’t record nearly as many as happen live. In terms of interventions based on the content of the questions, Canada was second-lowest of the four, with only five recorded over the period studied, which seems unusually low in the current context, which could be an indication that MPs are pushing the limits more these days than they did back then. The other surprising statistic was that of directions to leave the Chamber, which only Australia had any, and they had a lot of them, in particular because of a rule that they gave their Speaker that allows him or her to oust someone for disruptive behaviour on a more explicit basis, and which their Speakers seem to exercise more frequently than what happens here.
As for questions containing conflictual remarks, Canada was the country that came out on top, with around 70 percent of questions containing such remarks. This compares to around 40 percent in both Australia and the UK, with Ireland coming in well behind at around ten percent of questions. Similarly, when it comes to questions that contain policy criticisms versus criticisms of the prime minister, government, or party, Canada ranked the lowest on policy criticism, where only about five percent of questions had policy criticism, but in this particular case, Ireland was not much better at around ten percent, while the UK was about 15 percent, and Australia close to 30 percent. And this one feels very true—we do focus more on personal failings than policy criticisms, which is one of the reasons why our Parliament has become increasingly less serious as time goes on.
One of the other interesting statistics tracked was the number of backbench questions to the prime minister that contained some kind of conflictual question. During that Parliament, there appeared to be a mere one in Canada (and now I’m curious to know what it was), which is unusual because the Conservatives, especially in the early days, were very, very restrictive in terms of message discipline and control, because they had seen how loose lips from candidates like Cheryl Gallant helped to sink them in the 2004 election, so in 2006, they clamped down hard on message discipline and haven’t much let up since. (Notably, in the past two elections, it was the leaders who largely helped sink themselves because of their own comments). The UK had much higher number of conflictual questions to the prime minister, but that’s also not surprising because of the culture there where a number of backbenchers in safe seats have the latitude to criticize the government, which is not the case in most Parliaments. Also of note was that Australia and Ireland didn’t record any such backbench questions in the study.
There is more to delve into with this study, but it does point to a much more adversarial political culture within Canada, and one with strong opposition. I would be curious to see if future studies differ in their results, both because of changes that Trudeau made to QP, and with different Speakers in the big chair, but this does start to help position how we treat our QP in relation to how it works in other similar Parliaments, and points to ways in which we can and must do better.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Hungarian Prime Viktor Orban tweeted out a photo with former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on July 6. The two men were shaking hands in front of some Hungarian national flags. Orban also wrote the following, “Had a great meeting today with @IDUAlliance Chairman @stephenharper. International cooperation between right-wing, conservative parties is more important than ever. Chairman Harper is a great ally in this respect. Thank you for your support, Mr. Chairman!”
Harper tweeted out the same photo almost two hours later. “As @IDUalliance Chairman I was pleased to meet with Fidesz Party Leader @PM_ViktorOrban today in Budapest. We discussed the IDU’s strong support for Ukraine and the importance of centre-right parties strengthening their collaboration.”
Pretty straightforward photo-op, all things considered. But if you perused some social media comments from well-known and unknown users, it was similar to Hell freezing over.
Words like “disturbing,” “evil,” “disgusting,” “appalling,” “traitor,” “disgraceful,” “outrageous” and “disappointing” were used on multiple occasions. Some wondered why the former Canadian PM would meet with a world leader they believe is nothing more than a “fascist,” “neo-fascist,” “authoritarian,” “racist,” “anti-semite,” “anti-Muslim” and several other descriptors.
Quite a few disagreed with Harper calling Orban “centre-right.” Several attempted to point out the Hungarian PM’s cordial relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A number of them wondered why Orban and Fidesz were still in the IDU. There were those who claimed this was Harper’s attempt to reframe conservatism for right-leaning parties and leaders, including current Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
On and on it went.
These quick takes (and others) about Harper’s photo-op with Orban were complete nonsense. Most people don’t understand the inner workings of modern politics. Blaming them for being oblivious to the obvious isn’t fair or justified. As for those who do live and breathe political vapours, it was nothing more than an intentional misrepresentation of what really happened.
Let’s go back a few steps.
The International Democrat Union is an alliance of various centre-right political parties around the world. Founded on June 24, 1983, some of its original members included prominent conservative leaders and politicians like Margaret Thatcher (Britain), George H.W. Bush (U.S.), Jacques Chirac (France) and Helmut Kohl (Germany). Canada has been a full member since the beginning. Erik Nielsen, who was Leader of the Opposition and had just stepped down as interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada after Brian Mulroney’s victory, was one of the 19 founding dignitaries.
Harper was elected IDU Chairman in 2018. Others who have held this prestigious role include former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, former New Zealand Prime Minister Sir John Key and former British Conservative leader William Hague. He works hand-in-hand with members, welcomes their input and guides the alliance during conferences, meetings and the like.
In other words, the IDU exists to promote conservative, classical liberal and centre-right principles and values. The purpose isn’t to create tension between various right-leaning parties and leaders. Rather, it’s to promote greater levels of intellectual discourse and find ways to agree on issues and work together.
Naturally, the IDU members don’t all think alike. There are political, personal and policy differences between conservatives in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and elsewhere. Some of them are minor, and others are more significant. That’s exactly what happens when like-minded Liberal, Socialist, Green and other parties and leaders get together for conferences and summits, too. It’s not a unique situation for one side of the political spectrum.
Orban and Fidesz are certainly different from other IDU members. They take centre-right and classical liberal positions on politics and economics, but also mix in elements of populism and nationalism. The Hungarian PM has also made controversial remarks on issues like immigration, press freedom and foreign policy.
Is Orban a fascist or anti-semitic? No. He condemned anti-semitism at the 2013 World Jewish Congress meeting in Budapest, stating it was “unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.” While Orban’s critics claimed his billboard campaign against George Soros and his NGOs reeked of Nazi Germany and the Second World War, it wasn’t that at all. It was clearly a campaign against Soros’s political and economic influence, not his religious background. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu realized this and backed the Hungarian PM.
As for Harper, one of his main goals in speaking with Orban was stated in his tweet, “We discussed the IDU’s strong support for Ukraine.” The former Canadian PM has strongly supported Ukraine in its war against Russia. There’s no love lost between Harper and Putin on this issue, as their memorable 2015 tete-a-tete showed. Orban is also one of the few Western leaders who has been able to maintain some semblance of relations with Russia and Ukraine during this conflict.
Why shouldn’t Harper, the IDU Chairman, take the opportunity to meet with Orban, a fellow IDU member, in Budapest about this contentious issue and find ways to work together? That’s what experienced politicians and leaders are supposed to do – and have always done throughout history.
These aren’t difficult things to understand. Unless you don’t understand politics, or don’t want others to understand how politics actually works in the real world.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently proposed an interesting political strategy for current Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre. His advice was to not only hold Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals to account, but let them lead the country and its policy discussions.
In other words, do the opposite of what modern politics has largely become.
“Our country is badly in need of a Conservative renaissance at the national level,” Harper pointed out at the Canada Strong and Free Network conference in Ottawa on Mar. 22. His main priority was to identify the best route for Conservative leaders like Poilievre to achieve this important goal. At the same time, they need to ensure that Liberals and other progressives don’t push the political narrative in a direction that will ultimately hurt the Conservative party and movement.
“I worry that that’s what the liberal media here wants Pierre Poilievre to do – make himself the issue,” he said during his fireside chat with former Reform Party leader Preston Manning. “The time to tell people about your alternatives in detail is in an election campaign,” he continued. “I can tell you from experience that once you get into office, you better have some idea of what you are going to do because it ain’t going to fall into your lap.”
Harper, according to the Globe and Mail’s Ian Bailey, also reportedly said to the audience at the annual conference that he tells Conservative opposition leaders they “should not be saying how they would run the country, but rather be making the government wear its mismanagement, corruption and incompetence.”
In the former PM’s words, “That’s the job.”
Some believe Harper’s advice for Poilievre flies in the face of what he accomplished in the shift from Leader of the Opposition between 2002-2005 to Prime Minister in 2006.
Here’s an example. Toronto Star columnist Susan Delacourt wrote on April 1 that Harper “seems to have developed a case of amnesia about how the Conservatives rode to power in 2006 on the strength of five big priorities, which they hammered home with incredible message discipline and clever marketing in the 2005-06 election campaign.” Moreover, he “has also forgotten…that he came into office as one of the most media-friendly politicians of his era. He was a regular on TV political panels. He frequently held long, answer-filled scrums as Opposition leader. He spoke often to journalists like me, on and off the record. It was only after he became prime minister that he became overtly hostile to the media – an approach that Poilievre has clearly adopted in opposition.”
Poilievre may want to take this advice “with a grain of salt,” in Delacourt’s view. “Elder statesmen of parties aren’t always the best strategists.”
That’s true in some instances, but not all. Harper, unlike most elder party statesmen, has always maintained a razor-sharp focus when it comes to policy, ideology, strategy and communications. You may not like what my old friend and boss proposes, but you would be unwise to ignore or disregard him – or simply take it with a grain of salt.
What’s my view?
I believe Harper is right as a rule of thumb for Conservative leaders and parties in opposition. If there’s a centrist or left-leaning government in power, the goal is to hold them to account with respect to policies, statements, speeches, ideas and the day-to-day operation of politics. Meanwhile, the same centrist or left-leaning government must always lead policy discussion and political debate, not the Conservative opposition.
The reverse is also true for centrist and left-leaning parties if a Conservative government is in power. That’s the way politics works, by and large.
I have no issue with Poilievre introducing small doses of policy from time to time. It’s all in the way you do it. The videos that he’s put out as an MP, cabinet minister, opposition critic and party leader have been crafted in this particular fashion. Look at them more closely. While there have been some light policy details, it’s mostly been a mix of history, language, imagery, buzz words, and how the Conservatives would do things differently from the Liberals.
Poilievre may be expressing his basic political vision a little more than Harper would have been comfortable with. The meat of the matter will seemingly remain under wraps until the next federal election. There’s also no doubt the liberal media would prefer that Poilievre led the way on policy to deflect attention from Trudeau, their preferred candidate and choice for PM. He won’t do this, of course – and the press corps won’t be able to change his mind.
It goes without saying that Poilievre has been a different type of Conservative leader than Harper. This isn’t surprising; all successful political leaders need to establish a unique political identity, footprint and leadership style to earn and maintain caucus support. At the same time, their basic models of leadership, policy development, strategic communications and means of achieving electoral success are quite similar.
When you put it all together, Poilievre has basically been doing what Harper suggested he should do. So far, so good.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
Recent federal polling might remind those with long political memories of the January 23, 2006 election, that first brought Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada to power in Ottawa.
To indulge briefly in a few too many numbers, take the January 22, 2023 update for the 338Canada opinion poll projections.
In a 338-seat Canadian House of Commons it gives Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives 152 seats with 35% of the Canada-wide popular vote. The Trudeau Liberals are assigned 129 seats with 30% of the vote. (In the minor but still numerically important leagues the New Democrats are given 25 seats with 21%. And the Bloc Québécois has 30 with 7%.)
Going back almost exactly 17 years to the real-world Canadian federal election on January 23, 2006 (with a 308-seat House) the Harper Conservatives won 124 seats with 36% of the popular vote. The Liberals took 103 seats with 30%. (The New Democrats here won 29 seats with 18% and the Bloc 51 with 11%.)
In both cases — the real-world 2006 and the polling-based 2023 — Conservatives won the most seats, but not enough for a majority government.
In 2006 a bare majority was 155 seats (170 in 2023) : Stephen Harper’s party had only 124. And the consequences 17 years ago arguably haunt the prospects for a federal election in 2023.
The January 23, 2006 “snap election” became inevitable when Jack Layton’s New Democrats finally joined the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois in seeking the end of Paul Martin’s Liberal minority government, in late November 2005.
Yet New Democrats could not be expected to keep a Stephen Harper Conservative minority government in office. (And in any case in 2006 Conservative and NDP seats combined were still not quite enough for even a bare majority.)
The Liberals could similarly hardly prop up a Conservative minority government. The reality of the House bequeathed by the Canadian people in late January 2006 inevitably pointed the Harper Conservatives towards Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc Québécois.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the consummate political strategist, may have been more prepared to work with M. Duceppe than some of his fellow Conservative MPs.
There was also nothing between Conservatives and Bloquistes in 2006 (or later) remotely like the formal supply and confidence agreement between Liberals and New Democrats in 2023.
Stephen Harper, however, did work with Gilles Duceppe after the 2006 election. The zenith of the resulting symbiosis arguably came on November 27, 2006, when the Canadian House of Commons voted on a motion advanced by Prime Minister Harper.
The motion read: “That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.” It passed by an overwhelming majority of 266 to 16.
Going back (or ahead) to the January 22, 2023 update for the 338Canada opinion poll projections, if a Canadian federal election were held today, the Conservatives would once again win the most seats but not enough for a majority government.
As back in 2006, neither Liberals nor New Democrats could realistically be expected to support a Poilievre Conservative minority government. Once again to remain in office any length of time the Conservatives would have to work with the Bloc (now led by Yves-François Blanchet).
What price, some might ask, would the Bloc demand this time? What further motion on the Québécois nation in a united Canada might loom in the Ottawa political air? And would this be a good thing? (As the November 2006 motion arguably enough was — and still is today!)
Questions of this sort may have lingered at the back of some minds during Pierre Poilievre’s recent Quebec tour.
As for Jagmeet Singh’s pulling the plug on the Justin Trudeau Liberals, as Jack Layton did in 2006, the New Democrats are at a healthy 21% of the popular vote in the latest 338Canada projection (compared with 18% in 2006). The March 2022 Liberal-NDP supply and confidence agreement is arguably working for the NDP.
Moreover, for the Canadian people at large the Liberals and New Democrats together, even on 338Canada’s latest Conservative friendly numbers, also have a 51% majority of the Canadian popular vote — as well as a majority of seats bequeathed by the latest 2021 federal election.
Diverse observers who do remember 2006 in Canadian federal politics might see several good reasons why it should not and in any case cannot quite be repeated (or even rhymed) in 2023.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
