News

Globe national affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson took your questions Tuesday on the new Harper government and on his column about the two controversial new ministers
Different party, same old tricks .
The questions and answers are at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Simpson has won all three of Canada's leading literary prizes — the Governor-General's award for non-fiction book writing, the National Magazine Award for political writing, and the National Newspaper Award for column writing (twice). He has also won the Hyman Solomon Award for excellence in public policy journalism. In January 2000, he became an Officer of the Order of Canada.

He joined The Globe and Mail in 1974. His career with the newspaper began at City Hall in Toronto and with coverage of Quebec politics. In 1977, he became a member of the paper's Ottawa bureau, and eighteen months later he was named The Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau chief. From 1981-1983, Mr. Simpson served as The Globe's European correspondent based in London, England. He began writing his national affairs column in January, 1984.

Mr. Simpson has published six books — Discipline of Power (1980); Spoils of Power (1988); Faultlines, Struggling for a Canadian Vision (1993); The Anxious Years (1996) and Star-Spangled Canadians (2000). His most recent book, The Friendly Dictatorship: Reflections on Canadian Democracy (2001), was nominated for the Donner Prize as the best book on public policy.

Editor's Note: The same rules applied to this live discussion as normally apply to the "reader comment" feature. globeandmail.com editors read and approved each comment/question. Not all comments/questions could be answered in the time available. Spelling and grammar errors were not corrected. Comments/questions were checked for content only. Comments/questions that included false or unsubstantiated allegations, personal attacks, vulgar language or libelous content were rejected. Preference was given to readers who asked questions under their full names, rather than pseudonyms.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Good morning, Jeffrey, and thanks for joining us on-line today to answer questions from globeandmail.com readers. In your award-winner book The Discipline of Power, you chronicled how the last Tory minority under Joe Clark self-destructed in nine months. What does Prime Minister Harper have to do in the current minority Parliament to avoid the same fate? Do you see any major similarities or differences between 1979 and 2006?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jim, the Harper Conservatives have to learned how to count, something the Clark Conservatives failed to learn. That's glib actually. The Clark Conservatives misread the election results, believing they had majority support for change even if they didn't have the parliamentary seats. The Harper Conservatives have to know that they got only 36 per cent of the vote (the same share as Clark) and are a long way from a majority — further than Clark was. So that will mean compromises.

Having said that, there being no disposition for an election in the next 18 months, the Harperites should be able to get rather easy passage for their two or three most popular promises, such as the Accountability Act and the GST tax cut — or what I call bribe. Clark, by contrast, bravely but foolishly started with contentious policies such as an 18-cent-a-gallon tax increase on gasoline. The Harper Conservatives won't make that mistake. They're focused on things that they believe are popular, and only those things.

Michael Banner, Calgary: Mr. Simpson, thank you in advance for your time. Since the Big 3 cities (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) have no Tory representing them (other than the switch by David Emerson), is it typical protocol to name an unelected political staffer to a cabinet position for representation? If so, then why not appoint someone for P.E.I.? Has this ever happened in the past? I don't remember Trudeau appointing anyone from Alberta to represent their interests.

Jeffrey Simpson: Michael, appointing people to the Senate as cabinet ministers is rare but it has happened. Diefenbaker appointed Toronto businessman Wallace McCutcheon to cabinet as a minister without portfolio in 1959, I believe, because his party lacked representatives from that sector of Canadian life. There have been other instances. I'm going from memory here but Bud Olsen from Alberta was in Trudeau's cabinet as a senator with responsibility for the Wheat Board, I think. What makes this appointment of Fortier unusual and controversial is that Harper had promised only to elect senators, although he had given himself a little wiggle room on that in an answer he gave late in the campaign.

Stephen McCullough, Richmond Hill, Ont.: Dear Mr Simpson, one of the perceived weaknesses of Mr. Martin's government was a lack of leadership and direction — a sense of reaction to events rather than policy-making. With an eye on a probable election within 24 months, Mr Harper seems certain to create a perception of velocity, of direction and purpose. Since it will take a new Liberal leader at least 12 months to settle in and create a solid impression with voters, it seems that Mr Harper is well-placed to gain voter traction as a real leader, even amongst those who disagree with some of his policies. Do you think the electorate is seeking a government with a real sense of leadership and direction, and that even the perception of action will have a big impact?

Jeffrey Simpson: Stephen, the Harper government is more focused than the Martin one, in the sense that it intends to do less, which is not necessarily bad, provided you do things well. There won't be any of Martin's talk of "transformative change," whatever that meant. Here's what I predict — although my track record of predictions is bad. The Conservatives will and should be at 42-44 per cent in the polls a year from now. Why? As you said, the Liberals will be self-absorbed. The Conservatives are going to spend this year doing popular things, although rather dubious ones, such as the GST reduction, the Accountability Act and maybe some of the minor tax changes they spoke about in the campaign. They'll also bring in some "tough on crime stuff." All of this will be popular, so their standing in the polls should rise.

Joe Ryan, Bayonne, N.J., U.S.A.: Will Mr. Harper's decision to have no Deputy Prime Minister have a significant impact on the way he runs his Government? Do you believe he will designate a Deputy Prime Minister in the future if he and the Conservatives win the next election?

Jeffrey Simpson: Joe, I was a bit surprised he did not name a Quebecker as Deputy Prime Minister for symbolic reasons and also because Quebec has fewer cabinet ministers than the province is used to having. Deputy prime ministers aren't absolutely necessary. Some have been figureheads (Sheila Copps). Others have been very powerful (Don Mazankowski).

Terry Quinn, Oakville, Ont.: What do you think about Harper opening every announcement in French first (as he did yesterday when he was sworn in as PM)?

Jeffrey Simpson: Terry, little things sometimes get noticed, and you picked this up. Harper's ability in French — okay for reading a text, much shakier speaking without one — has nonetheless been appreciated in certain circles in Quebec. They're impressed in a limited way that somebody from Calgary picked up what he has in French. So he's sending a little signal. Remember: His No. 1 objective in turning this minority into a majority is to win 20 more seats in Quebec.

David Bird, Fernie, B.C.: The acceptance of David Emerson into the party not to mention into the cabinet has to be seen as an appalling lack of judgment on the part of Mr. Harper. Mr. Emerson can be seen as nothing but an political opportunist for jumping ship so soon after the election, to date he has nothing he can pin a protest on. Mr. Harper, on the other hand, has campaigned on cleaning up government and is repeatedly on record as saying that defectors from one party should be required to sit as independents until a byelection can be called. By accepting Mr. Emerson, Mr. Harper is usurping the right of Mr. Emerson's constituents to choose the party they wish to have represent them. I believe that by exacting this petty revenge against the Liberals, Mr. Harper loses much more than he gains and this will haunt him for some time. Please comment.

Jeffrey Simpson: David, I have known Emerson for many years in various capacities: deputy minister of finance in B.C., first head of the Vancouver Airport Authority, head of Canfor, cabinet minister. He's a man of intelligence and experience. He was a great catch for the Liberals and became their leader in B.C. Nonetheless, I was shocked at his decision. As I wrote this morning and will elaborate upon in tomorrow's column, this is a profoundly undemocratic act to betray the people who worked and voted for you. This just deepens cynicism that politicians will say one thing during a campaign and do another thereafter.

Bill Camie, Kingston, N.B.: Please comment on the appointment of Vic Toews as Minister of Justice. Does he or does he not represent the very right wing of the Conservative party? What will his impact likely be?

Jeffrey Simpson: Bill, the biggest cultural clash the Conservatives will have with the civil service will come in the field of justice. The Justice Department is very — call it what you will — liberal, progressive, activist, pro-Charter. They culturally disagree with many Conservative approaches such as same-sex marriage, reviewing judicial appointments in Parliament, minimum sentencing, the elimination of the gun registry, spousal support guidlelines. And Toews has been the party's point man on all these, and other issues, that will now put him against the prevailing norms of the department.

Moreover, some of what the Conservatives wish to do in the field is unconstitutional. Everyone knows that a parliamentary resolution upholding the "traditional" view of marriage will be of no force or effect because we live under the Charter. Only by using the notwithstanding clause can the courts' work be overturned. And the Conservatives, for political reasons, have not had the intellectual courage to say so. Similarly, look at their promise to take away prisoners' rights to vote. That, too, was decided the other way by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (with which I strongly disagreed.) The Conservatives just can't change that without using the notwithstanding clause. And there are other areas where what they want to do is prima facie against the Charter.

Finally, Toews is going to find himself in a pickle because he is obligated as part of his job to advise the cabinet as to whether what it proposes to do is legal/constitutional, and if he does not so inform them, he will not be doing his job.

Jennifer Taylor, West Vancouver: What immediate effect will the Harper government have on the Canadian federal bureaucracy?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jennifer, he will change shortly the Clerk of the Privy Council. Alex Himelfarb will be replaced, likely by Peter Harder, now at Foreign Affairs, or another. It is possible that Derek Burney, who headed the transition team, might be asked to serve as clerk for a year or two while they settle in. Over time, there will be other deputy changes, but I don't think Harper will adopt an off-with-their-heads approach. He'll find out that pros work at the top of the public service, and many of them that I know didn't like the Martin crowd at all. Harper will, I predict, set up some kind of expenditure review process because the civil service numbers have been growing by leaps and bounds and he'll want to arrest that. He'll also need likely to cut spending to pay for his election promises, despite what he said during the campaign. The Conservative platform — if you read it carefully and know something about government — is full of holes.

Janice Braden, Ottawa: The Liberal riding association from Vancouver-Kingsway must have spent and fundraised to get David Emerson elected. Will he reimburse them? Can the Conservatives (I seem to recall Elections Canada rules which would disallow it). How much are they on the hook for, for electing someone they would normally oppose?

Jeffrey Simpson: Good question, Janice. I don't think there's a legal requirement for any refunding of money.

Michael M., Ottawa: I realize that as a former leader of the Alliance and the Official Opposition, Stockwell Day was virtually assured an important Cabinet position. Still I am surprised by the decision to make him Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It is one of the key areas where we need to improve our bilateral relations with the U.S.A. What is your take on it, Mr. Simpson?

Jeffrey Simpson: Michael, Day wanted Foreign Affairs but he wasn't going to get it. Given that he had to be given something, this is fine. It's low-profile stuff and largely administrative. Oddly, however, the previous government stuck the Parole Board under Public Safety, so given the Tories "tough on crime" package, he might play on that issue. By the way, if you're going to be "tough on crime," and put more people in prison, you're going to have to build more prisons and run them and that will cost money. Money that doesn't appear in the cost estimates in the Conservative platform.

Andrew Newton, Halifax: Will having a defence minister who has recently retired from the army put more pressure on the Harper government to follow through on its defence promises? Will having someone who knows the job from the other end of the scale allow the new defence minister to work more effectively to provide the CF with the tools it needs? What were the possible reasons for appointing the new defence minister?

Jeffrey Simpson: Andrew, the minister, as a former military man and lobbyist for the defence industry, knows the field. Nobody else did. The Conservatives also elected, by the way, someone in Anne McLellan's Edmonton seat, who spent his career before politics as a fighter pilot. He's a very solid, knowledgable person. So, yes, they will do what they promised in defence.

Peter McAllister, Niagara Falls, Ont.: Given Tony Clements' predisposition towards privatized (for profit) health care as he had shown in his previous appointment as Ontario's Health Minister, do you believe that the Canada Health Act is under more significant threat? Do you believe that we will see more privatization of health care services under the new government?

Jeffrey Simpson: Peter, you're right about Clement's preference to allow more private health-care. But, of course, the Conservatives for political reasons outbid the Liberals in defending the Canada Health Act, in that they have called for the Patient's Wait Time Guarantee that they must negotiate with the provinces. The negotiations will be tough, since the provinces will want more money and they won't want Ottawa butting into their areas of jurisdiction.

The Wait Times Guarantee is a sideshow. The real issues confronting Clement and the government will come fairly soon when Alberta and Quebec both allow more private delivery, or in Quebec's case, private savings for private delivery of long-term care later in life. This will be the political test for the Conservatives: Will they take on the provincial governments in their bastion (Alberta) and in the province where they hope to make gains by respecting provincial jurisdiction (Quebec). I doubt it. So look for the Canada Health Act to be the centre again of a big debate, and Clement's instincts will be to let the provinces go ahead and expand private delivery and payment.

Graham Carter, Winnipeg: Harper has said he wants to change how judges are appointed to the Supreme Court. In view of Mrs. McLaughlin's statement about reform to the Supreme Court, do you think he will propose any legislation before he fills the vacancy that currently exists?

Jeffrey Simpson: Graham, the previous prime minister had a list of possible Supreme Court appointments from Saskatchewan and Manitoba before him, but the decision was put off because of the campaign. Clearly if the Conservatives want to develop a new oversight process, it will take time to develop one. They were apparently unhappy with the one the Martin Liberals suggested. How far the Conservatives are prepared to go, I don't think they know. Should Parliament have a veto, like the U.S. Senate? Vic Toews keeps talking about a tougher review process, but we shall see. Judges everywhere, with few exceptions, recoil in horror from any public process, as the chief justice said.

By the way, I always wondered what would be the reaction of the opponents of any kind of review of judicial appointments if a Reform/Canadian Alliance/conservative became prime minister convinced that the courts had become far too "activist" and deliberately appointed the most deferential/conservative judge that could be found. Wouldn't the opponents of a review process die to have one under those circumstances?

Shawn Currie, Charlottetown: I am from Prince Edward Island, and I voted Liberal in the last election. I knew, given that we elected no CPC MPs, that we would not be represented in Cabinet by an Islander. That was fine, since we knew what we were doing when we voted, and Harper had said he would not appoint Senators. But now that he has appointed a Senator to represent the interests of a city, what does it say that he did not do the same for an entire province?

Jeffrey Simpson: Shawn, P.E.I. has only four seats. I take no pleasure in saying that's the answer.

Peter Kay, Ajax, Ont.: Many Conservatives are upset by Harper not including Diane Ablonczy, yet including a Liberal and an unelected party hack. It is hard to believe that it was just a simple matter of being too many people from Calgary — was there problems between Diane and the Conservative leadership team?

Jeffrey Simpson: Peter, Diane wasn't particularly close to Stephen. She was a Manning-ite and you remember the tensions between Preston and Stephen (although Stephen graciously invited Preston to his suite on election night to watch the returns). But she did get caught by numbers, as did Jason Kenney and James Rajotte. Once the prime minister decided to shrink the cabinet to 26, it meant there couldn't be as many from Alberta.

Dave Szewczyk, Lansing, Mich., U.S.A.: What do you see as the probability of further defections from Liberal party or the Bloc for that matter, to the Conservatives? Furthermore, which individuals would be most likely to defect?

Jeffrey Simpson: Dave, after Emerson's betrayal, I can't say definitively that there couldn't be more defections. Opportunism seems to come with politics. I could see some Bloc people getting nervous if the Conservatives gain 10 points in Quebec. Remember, a couple of them jumped to the Liberals prior to the 2003 election when it looked like a Paul Martin juggernaut would roll across Quebec.

Martin MacKinnon, Halifax: Managing diverging interests is no doubt one of the greatest challenges of any Prime Minister. The diverging interests come at all levels, the public, the party, the caucus, the cabinet and indeed his own office. Mr. Harper's reported difficulty with interests other than own have been a source of many of his problems in opposition. Presumably this will get amplified now that he is PM. Do you see this as one of his major problems? If not what characteristic do you think will be a major source of his problems?

Jeffrey Simpson: Martin, managing diversity is what cabinets and government is all about. Harper is very sure of his own judgment, to put things mildly, and every minister around that table owes his or her position there to him. So the prime minister will not just be first among equals, he is first, period. He has a game plan, believe me, to make the Conservative Party into the natural governing party of Canada, so he will make the compromises necessary. I am impressed that he has a steely sense of purpose. He's going to focus on only a few things, unlike Martin who drove himself and others to distraction by being involved in too many files. I wrote a book many years ago with the title, Discipline of Power. There is a discipline to the exercise of power, and the Conservatives by being usually in opposition, have often struggled to understand it. We shall see with this crowd of Conservatives. Remember, Clark never learned, and it took Mulroney at least two years to get a grip.

F.M., Toronto: In your column, you infer that Harper risks becoming a "head waiter to the provinces" but maybe that's what is good for the country. To be fair, our political structure reflects more the way that the country was assembled as an agglomeration of separate British colonies (over time) and not as a way that any intelligent person would want to run the country today. Admittedly, we should probably reduce the number of provinces, but that is unlikely to occur anytime soon, and probably is impossible to achieve without violence. So reducing the power of ANY level of govt in Canada is advisable, in my opinion, and in doing so, Harper could be onto something here. In effect, he could be "voting himself off the island" and it would encourage him to go further and have the feds exit the business of collecting income taxes AT ALL — that would leave the provinces with all the power they lust for, no?

Jeffrey Simpson: There's a way of approaching the so-called "fiscal imbalance" that is sensible, Conservative and understandable — namely to say that, yes, there is a fiscal imbalance, not between Ottawa and the provinces but rather between Ottawa and the taxpayers. Ottawa's surpluses mean they have been taxing too much. Therefore, the Conservatives could reduce taxes by $10-billion or so (cutting spending in the process), thus vacating tax room and inviting the provinces to fill it. After all, provinces have all the taxing power that Ottawa does, except for duties on imports. Provinces by raising taxes would clarify accountability, in that taxpayers would know more clearly than they do now which level of government is taxing them for what. Of course, the premiers would hate this, since they would be held accountable for raising revenues. It is much easier politically for them that Ottawa raises the money, takes the heat, then turns over the cash. If Harper turns over money and tax points directly to the provinces, as I predict/fear he will, he will find (a) provinces will give him no thanks, (b) taxpayers won't care, (c) provinces will always demand more and (d) he will have permanently weakened the federal government. Mind you, as an Alberta and a conservative/Conservative, Harper has always wanted this. Whether Canadians elsewhere do will be an interesting question.

Patrick Johnston, Toronto: Hello Jeff. Most of the commentary from the "chattering masses" on globeandmail.com and other websites seems to have focused on the appointment of Emerson. I wonder, however, whether it is the story of Michael Fortier's appointment to Cabinet that will develop "legs" and have longer-term implications for the new Harper government? If it is true that Fortier doesn't plan to seek a seat until the next general election, he could serve in Cabinet for 2 or 3 years without ever having been elected. Seems to me he will serve as a lightning rod that the opposition parties and others will use to continually mock Harper's pronouncements on accountability, ethics and Senate reform. Is the potential boost to the Conservatives by having a Montrealer in Cabinet worth it? I'd welcome your reaction and your assessment of what you think is the Conservatives underlying strategy behind Fortier's appointment to the Senate and Cabinet.

Jeffrey Simpson: Patrick, Fortier's appointment was greeted generally positively in the Quebec papers this morning. Quebeckers are all about political leverage, and having Fortier there enhances their clout. That's what they are about for understandable reasons. The rest is theory for them. An elected Senate was never popular in Quebec and never will be for obvious reasons: Quebec would lose seats vis-a-vis the appointed one and the provincial government would be weakened if the federal institutions had more legitimacy that would come with electing people.

C. Ralph, Toronto: Mr. Simpson, in light of all the negative reaction to these controversial appointments — something I am sure Mr. Harper anticipated — what action do you think he will take? Do you think he will simply try to "ride it out?" Surely, backtracking, a la Sheila Copps submitting to a by-election after the GST gaffe, would be highly embarrassing for the new government. Thank you.

Jeffrey Simpson: He'll ride it out. He's sure not going to backslide.

Breanna McLeod, Waterloo, Ont.: Stephen Harper will likely be including the cancellation of provincial day-care agreements with the rest of his first batch of changes. With all the other parties against trading national day care for tax credits, and many of the provinces concerned about losing the money, couldn't this be a more contentious issue?

Jeffrey Simpson: Brenda, you bet. Premier Charest is already saying Harper should respect the deal the Liberals signed with his province that essentially gave Quebec cash. Other provinces won't want the deals undone. So there will be big squabbles on this between the two levels of government. Similarly, handing over tax points to the provinces will be popular in big, rich provinces and in Quebec for nationalistic reasons, but unpopular elsewhere in provinces without internal fiscal capacity. Believe me, Harper has opened a can of worms here. What Canada really needs is a cool-headed assessment of fiscal federalism that is now so mixed up even most of the experts have trouble figuring it out and almost no politician understands it.

Jeffrey Simpson: Thank you all for your questions. We continue to live in interesting political times.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thank you, Jeffrey. I'm sure the readers of globeandmail.com appreciated the time you took today to answer their questions.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers, as always, it was not possible to answer all the questions you submitted in the time alloted. If you have any comments on the format of these discussions, please feel free to e-mail me your views .

Editor's Note: The same rules applied to this live discussion as normally apply to the "reader comment" feature. globeandmail.com editors read and approved each comment/question. Not all comments/questions could be answered in the time available. Spelling and grammar errors were not corrected. Comments/questions were checked for content only. Comments/questions that included false or unsubstantiated allegations, personal attacks, vulgar language or libelous content were rejected. Preference was given to readers who asked questions under their full names, rather than pseudonyms.