UnseatHarper.ca
hy•poc•ri•sy
|
Hypocrisy
To say the least, we want government leaders who will say what they mean and mean what they say. Politicians have certainly erred in this regard in the past, and Stephen Harper campaigned on a promise of righting such wrongs. Did he deliver? Judge just a small portion of his record:
Coalition Government
On December 1, 2008, the Liberals and NDP signed an agreement in which they agreed to suggest to the Governor General the option of a Liberal/NDP coalition government as an alternative to holding a new election if the minority Harper Government were to fall shortly after the previous election.
The Bloc Québécois did not join the proposed coalition, but it agreed to refrain from voting non-confidence in the coalition for at least 18 months.
Mr. Harper expressed outrage at the proposed coalition. On December 1, the National Post reported that Mr. Harper told supporters at a Christmas party for Conservative staffers that, “We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power.”
A Toronto Star article that also appeared on December 1 included the same quote and went on to say that Mr. Harper said that “the NDP and Liberals have entered into an ‘unholy alliance’ with the Bloc Quebecois – ‘a party that is here in Ottawa for no other reason than to destroy the country we all love.’” The Toronto Star article quoted Mr. Harper’s aide, Dimitri Soudas, as saying on Mr. Harper’s behalf that, “Such an illegimate [sic] government would be a catastrophe for our democracy, our unity and our economy.”
On December 3, 2008, the day before Mr. Harper went to Rideau Hall to ask the Governor General to prorogue parliament so that a majority of the duly elected Members of Parliament would be deprived of the opportunity to vote non-confidence in the Harper Government, the National Post quoted Mr. Harper as saying:
 |
“Canada's government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party. At a time of global economic instability, Canada's government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together. And the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen.
“The opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent and without your vote. This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists.”
Without a doubt, it is exceptionally strange that Mr. Harper should feel so strongly that a coalition with the NDP, which had the support, but not the participation of the Bloc, would be “undemocratic,” an “unholy alliance,” and a serious threat to “our democracy, our unity and our economy.”
Why is it so strange? It is strange because on September 9, 2004, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Harper, along with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, put his name to a letter to the Governor General, then Adrienne Clarkson, stating the following:
|
“As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. 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. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.”
At the time, those three parties had consulted about forming their own coalition to defeat the Liberals. A Conservative/NDP/Bloc coalition was one of the options that Mr. Harper wanted the Governor General to consider.
It appears that Mr. Harper thinks that a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP is a wonderful idea when it will put him in power, but evil when it will remove him from power.
Hypocritical? We think so.
Taxing Income Trusts
In the election campaign leading up to the January 23, 2006 election, Stephen Harper lambasted the Liberals for just considering taxing income trusts. Talking about the issue on the campaign trail, he repeatedly made statements such as, “They [the opposition parties] showed us about their attitudes towards raiding seniors’ hard-earned assets. And a Conservative government will never allow these parties to get away with that.” You can see it here on this Global News report :
After repeatedly telling us how terrible taxing income trusts would be and what a threat it would be to seniors’ incomes, what did Mr. Harper and his Finance Minister do when they were in power? That’s right, they turned around and taxed income trusts. More hypocrisy.
Senate Appointments
Stephen Harper has often criticized the undemocratic nature of the senate. He is, arguably, right about that. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, not elected by the Canadian electorate. Back in 1996, Harper howled at Jean Chretien’s government for its
“disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation.”
Up to a point, Mr. Harper seemed consistent in his pronouncements on the subject. And in the 2006 election he campaigned on a promise to not name unelected Canadians to the Senate. John Ivison of the National Post has mused on how well and how often Mr. Harper has carried through with his promises. Mr. Ivison says: “how many times can a politician say something and then do the precise opposite before even his strongest supporters start to doubt him?”
But has his practice conformed to his promises? Not by a long shot. To date, Mr. Harper has appointed 38 people to the senate. His most recent appointments in the Fall of 2010 stacked the upper chamber in his favour. This majority comes despite the fact that the people of Canada did not give his party a majority in the House of Commons; despite the fact that a large majority of Canadians voted for parties other than his; and despite the fact that Mr. Harper promised the people who voted for his party that he would not appoint unelected senators.
Now, a stacked Senate can be a heady thing. Even before the last two appointments, the Senate did something that has never been done before. WITHOUT EVEN A MINUTE’S DEBATE, THE UNELECTED SENATE KILLED A BILL THAT HAD PASSED BY A MAJORITY IN THE ELECTED HOUSE OF COMMONS!
Moreover, as Rick Mercer pointed out, there hadn’t even been any debate in this chamber of sobre second thought!
More hypocrisy.
When he campaigned for our trust, Mr. Harper promised us better. He promised us open, accountable democracy. He promised a government that would keep its promises.What did we get? Hypocrisy.
Take a look too at this Rick Mercer rant on the double standard of our current government:
