News

"A week ago, all was politically calm in Canada," The Globe's Jeffrey Simpson notes today in his column What a difference five days make

"Today, five working days later, the government's economic statement and its aftermath have created a political crisis with a coalition of parties determined to defeat the government, creating a possible constitutional crisis involving the Governor-General and the beginning of a nasty national-unity crisis.

"To have created three crises – or dangerous situations, if 'crisis' is too strong a word – for the government and for the country in five working days represents a lack of judgment by a prime minister rarely, if ever, seen in Canadian history.

"Even if Stephen Harper escapes and slays the rickety coalition of Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Québécois arrayed against him – an entirely possible outcome – he has so tarnished his reputation that it is hard to imagine him ever winning a majority government.

"He has signalled to all those who worried about what he might do with a government majority that those worries were not necessarily misplaced."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative thesis. That's why we at globeandmail.com are pleased that Mr. Simpson was online earlier today to take your questions on the Harper government's future, the Liberal-NDP coalition plans, and federal politics in general.

Your questions and Mr. Simpson's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Simpson also wrote earlier this week:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper is fighting for his political career. Lose the government, lose the Conservative leadership," he added in his column Fighting for his career, Harper will use all weapons at his disposal

"When a prime minister's career is at stake, watch out. Almost anything goes. It's that simple."

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: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Jeffrey, thanks for joining us yet again today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com.

There's no better place to start today than the Governor-General's decision only a few hours ago to grant Prime Minister Harper's request for Parliament to be prorogued. What happens next?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jim, what happens next? You want me to answer such a question after the week we have seen?

Well, obviously with trepidation I suggest that the Conservative propaganda machine will continue working — ads, letters, fake rallies of "ordinary" Canadians, fundraising appeals to their base.

There will be a public relations war to break the will of the Liberals who are the weak link in the "coalition."

And, as I suggested in a column earlier this week, the government will repare a budget that contains some of the ideas of the coalition, claim them to have always been in the Conservatives' mind, and dare the Liberals to vote against the budget.

Andrew Goss: Will the Governor-General provide us with her reasoning for her decision?

Jeffrey Simpson: Andrew, likely not.

Elliott Gordon Youden, Ottawa: Good day, Jeffery. Two online discussions in three days! Your fingers must be getting tired!

I am curious to know how you think this crisis will affect the Liberal Leadership. Do you think there will be more of a push to unite the left? Given Iggy's distance, do you think he is keen to lead this type of government?

Jeffrey Simpson: Elliott, uniting the left is a mirage. The differences between Liberals and NDPers are significant.

The Liberals under their very bad leader have made a terrible mistake by aligning themselves formally with the NDP.

Elections are not won on the Liberals' left but in the middle of the spectrum.

Michael M., Ottawa: Mr. Simpson, as a proud Canadian political junkie, I should be enthralled by these days' events.

But, instead, I despair. Our country, full of promise, deserves much better the politicians than we seem to elect.

Do you agree? Why?

Jeffrey Simpson: Michael, I share your despair.

The miscalculations by Mr. Harper, quite apart from the damage done to himself, has exposed regional/linguistic tensions, and brought opprobrium on the political process.

The Liberal Party is not run any more by adults, but by the inexperienced and the opportunistic.

I shall have much more to say about both of these developments in a long piece in this paper on Saturday.

Daniel Lahey: Mr. Simpson, given that this entire political fiasco was instigated by gross errors of judgment on the part of the Prime Minister, will Canadian journalists finally stop depicting Harper as some sort of genius and a political strategist of Bismarckian proportions?

Jeffrey Simpson: Daniel: I can't speak for or about others. I never portrayed him that way.

I said he was learning to become a larger tent-builder. I was wrong.

By the way, it's healthy to admit error. I just regret that our political culture apparently neither allows nor encourages it.

D. Allen, Peterborough, Ont.: Mr. Simpson, do you think that Canada's political climate has been tarnished for years by the belligerence and lies that Harper and his cronies put into the public airwaves and media?

Jeffrey Simpson: Although one can never be certain of the future, I believe Mr. Harper will now never be awarded a majority government, because people have seen how ruthlessly (and carelessly) he wields power, and they will never want to give him a majority as a result.

Once the Conservative Party discovers this limitation, we shall see what effect it has on his long-term leadership.

After all, his Quebec "strategy" that consisted of appealing to and appeasing Quebec nationalism lay crippled after the election, and now it cannot even get out of bed.

D.C. Cook, B.C.: It has always been my understanding that the Canadian parliamentary system works this way: When a minority government loses the confidence of the House, the Governor-General first asks the opposition to demonstrate that it can take over. If the opposition is unable to demonstrate any possibility of governing, we proceed to a new election.

In this case, the opposition put in some effort to establish that it could indeed govern for at least two years. A request to prorogue parliament would seem to be the move that is unprecedented.

So I am puzzled about the frenzy, the charges of undemocratic procedure, etc. levelled against anyone except the Prime Minister, who was obviously willing to do anything to keep power, and whose party has an obvious flair for propaganda and a budget to support it.

Am I wrong in my understanding of the Canadian system?

Jeffrey Simpson: Your analysis is correct — except for the fact that the Conservatives did win one confidence vote on the Speech from the Throne and therefore had the "confidence" of the House, which meant Mr. Harper remained the Governor-General's first minister from whom she was obliged to take advice.

Had he asked for a dissolution, she would have had every right, with the coalition's paper in hand, to ask Mr. Dion to try to gain the House's confidence.

Alex Ferguson, Ottawa: Thank you, Mr. Simpson, for sharing your insights with us once again.

Do you think Mr. Harper's relentless criticism of the Bloc's role in the coalition has spoiled his chances for majority government?

Jeffrey Simpson: Alex, Mr. Harper has ruined, or at least badly sullied, all the work he tried to do in appealing to Quebec by whipping up antipathy to "separatists."

His party has gone backwards. The biggest winners in all of this, as I shall try to explain tomorrow, are the Bloc Québécois.

Mike Baker, Iqaluit: Is the Prime Minister creating a wedge issue over national unity at a moment when the issue of Quebec separation has reached its nadir?

And is he not stoking the fires of regional alienation in his home base?

I fear that a sitting government might be doing more damage to national unity than the Bloc.

I can only think that the PM is using this dormant bugbear to deflect attention away from what remains the absence of a coherent financial strategy in the midst of a recession.

Jeffrey Simpson: Mike, as I wrote several times, when the king is imperiled, the rule must be "Protect the King" by whatever means are necessary.

We have seen that in the last 48 hours, including playing the national unity card.

But, look, having the BQ in Parliament, election after election, as the preferred party of Quebeckers was a ticking time bomb.

You cannot have a group in Parliament whose primary allegiance is to another jurisdiction, whose members want to break up Canada, whose reason for being in Ottawa is to demand but never take responsibility.

That situation was corrupting for the federal political process, because it would tempt national parties to make deals.

What has happened now is that the main argument (although not a very effective one) against the BQ — that it could never get anything done — has been undone by the Libs and NDP making an agreement with the Bloc.

Alan Bonneau: How much support does Dion retain in his own party and can he maintain that support now that Parliament is prorogued and this situation is stretching out until January?

Jeffrey Simpson: Alan, Dion has two or three members who support him — I mean who really support him.

The rest would push him out tomorrow. Indeed, lots of them preferred to have Ignatieff to take over, but Bob Rae wouldn't allow it, and Iggy kept sending contradictory signals.

If that failed, MPs wanted an interim leader such as Ralph Goodale or John McCallum. In other words, anybody by Dion.

But Dion dug in his heels, insisted he wanted to stay, would negotiate the deal with the NDP, and that's what happened.

He has no control over the caucus. Their support for him is a matter of convenience. That is why the coalition will eventually crack.

Darryl Youzefowich, Edmonton: Dear, Mr. Simpson, is the Liberal brain trust thinking about bringing the date of the leadership contest to January or February despite the problems that it might cause (logistics, facility availability, insulting Vancouver if another venue is picked, closing the race to latecomers, etc.)? Is a phone vote or mail-in vote being talked about?

What would happen if the leadership was faced with an election campaign and leadership campaign at the same time?

Would the status quo (May convention) prevail even if it heavily damaged the party in the public's eyes?

Jeffrey Simpson: Darryl, you're asking some of the questions the Liberals should have thought through before they tried to execute this coalition strategy.

Either they will pull it off (doubtful) and Dion becomes prime minister (to the dismay of most Canadians), or the coalition falls apart, and the Liberals look stupid (again).

I don't think they can advance the leadership date, because there are constitutional rules within the party that require certain periods of time for selection of delegates etc.

Charles Raymond, Windsor, Ont.: Do you have any comments on how the coalition leaders communicated their position to the country over the past few days? Will the coalition hold until Jan. 26?

Jeffrey Simpson: Charles, the coalition will be under tremendous pressure. No, let me reframe that: The Liberals will be under pressure.

The NDP are in seventh heaven, because they have a slice of power, something they have never had and something no wise Liberal leader would ever have given them.

Will it hold together until Jan. 26. Maybe, but there are a whole lot of nervous Liberals right now.

Spurgeon Gillis: Mr. Simpson, in your discussion earlier this week, you were dismissive of the idea of the federal NDP having any power, stating that many Canadians would be "horrified at the prospect" and that the federal NDP is not "pragmatic" and knows nothing about governing. This seems premature to me.

The NDP election platform was hardly radical, though you do seem to be adamantly opposed to their call for elimination of the tax cuts to corporations. However, is it such an unreasonable policy? Is it not worthy, at least, of debate, rather than dismissed as "crazy?"

As for inexperience, could the same not have been said of the present Conservatives in 2006, few of whom had any real experience in government?

Furthermore, if you consider the platform of the coalition, it is in keeping with many of the policies being implemented by governments around the globe — even conservative ones.

Socialism may still be a dirty word, but we're seeing a raft of policies these days that look suspiciously socialistic to me . . .

Don't you think we should cut the NDP a little slack and not judge them prematurely?

Jeffrey Simpson: Spurgeon, whether I'm opposed to corporate tax cuts or not is irrelevant. There are not many profits left to tax, if you've been even glancing at the papers lately.

The federal NDP was and is completely inexperienced. As such, it has fallen victim to its own mythologies, which is what happens to parties that have never known the "discipline of power."

Les Patterson, Toronto: Mr. Simpson, thanks for responding to my question: Do you think Mr. Layton and Mr. Dion and the other conspirators took into consideration the potential for a massive backlash and a possible unity crisis when they planned to form a coalition with the separatists?

Jeffrey Simpson: Les, no, I don't.

They were so eager to drive a spike through Mr. Harper's heart that they didn't think through many of the consequences for the country.

Mike Szepv: My university student roommates (who are ecstatic about the coalition by the way!) and I are wondering something: If you add up the number of seats held by the Liberals and New Democrats, the tally is still lower than the Conservative seat count in the Commons.

Therefore, how could Stéphane Dion or any other Liberal leader who heads the coalition be named prime minister? Wouldn't the Bloc have to be officially included in the coalition for their seats to be counted toward making the coalition leader Prime Minister?

By the way, I very much enjoy your columns and applaud you for being one of the few Canadian columnists to recognize the importance of taxing pollution.

Jeffrey Simpson: Mike, they had the tacit support of the Bloc Québécois in a signed deal for a fixed period of time.

That would have been enough, I think, to indicate to the Governor-General that the three parties together could command confidence in the House.

Jim Maxwell: In the last election, I decided to become involved with a political party rather than just skimming the facts and voting. I became committed. I went to listen to the PM in a nearby city, I started reading and commenting on political columns online. I followed events on TV and attended the local all-candidates meeting, I volunteered to be a scrutinizer at the polls and I voiced my opinion to family and friends.

I read your book The Friendly Dictatorship and bought The French Kiss by your compatriot Chantal Hébert.

I had a love affair with politics. I got an education. But from what I have learned I don't expect to see a majority government again in my lifetime.

If we are therefore doomed to perpetual minority governments, what changes could be introduced to make them function better?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jim, I applaud your interest in politics, although I admit that these days it's hard to be idealistic. Thank you for reading my book.

As long as the Bloc wins the largest number of seats in Quebec, thereby removing 40-50 seats from national parties, yes, we will be more or less consigned to minority governments.

D.L., Toronto: Can it be assumed that all members of the Conservative caucus support the Prime Minister's strategy?

Jeffrey Simpson: D.L., the prospect of near death has brought the Conservatives all together.

Longer-term, they will know that their chance of ever forming a majority will be weakened.

None of them were consulted about this economic strategy, let alone the political stuff thrown into it at the last minute by the prime minister, yet they were made to carry the can. They were not amused.

Their leader led them to the brink, totally unnecessarily, such that they had to use this duck-and-run strategy with today's prorogation.

Norman Rae, Montreal: I personally would rather have leaders of the two main political parties replaced than go to the polls again in the near future. What are the chances of this happening?

Jeffrey Simpson: Norman, Dion will go, although if the Conservatives could ever manage to force an election with him still as Liberal leader, they would do so in a flash.

As for Harper, he's gone if his government loses a vote of confidence and if the coaltion lasts for a couple of years.

Matt Addley, Calgary: Hi Jeffrey, a quick question about prorogation: Isn't it true that when the GG prorogues Parliament, a supply bill has to be passed to allocate the funds to continue running the government? Couldn't the opposition defeat the supply bill and cause the government to fall?

Jeffrey Simpson: Matt, no, there are provisions for supply in the event that Parliament is not sitting.

Salem Shaworski, Ottawa: Mr. Simpson, it seems as though Harper has used the GG to subvert the rules of the House and to avoid accountability.

What's to prevent Harper or future PMs from doing the same thing again? Isn't this a dangerous precedent?

Jeffrey Simpson: Salem, you ask the pertinent question that those who wanted some conditions attached by the GG would ask.

In other words, what's to stop the PM if he thinks he will lose the vote on the budget from asking for another prorogation.

I suspect the answer is the force of public opinion, but you can never tell.

As I said earlier, the fact that the government had won one confidence vote didn't leave Ms. Jean much choice but to take her First Minister's advice.

It will now be for the people politically to judge whether the prorogation was justified, since every Canadian knows it was designed to avoid a confidence vote the government would have lost.

David Smith, Toronto: Hello Mr. Simpson.

Now that the PM will be spending the next several weeks crafting a budget, how much do you expect him to back down at this point?

I saw Ed Broadbent speaking a few days ago on CBC about how the coalition would focus on infrastructure spending, particularly affordable housing, beefing up unemployment benefits, money for research and development, and "Green Jobs," as well as help for the automotive, forestry and manufacturing sectors.

How much of that will actually make it into the next budget, and even if it does, will this government still fall?

Jeffrey Simpson: David, you can expect some of that stuff in the budget.

It will never be enough for the NDP. But enough for the Liberals? We shall see.

Tyler Bryant: Hi, Jeffrey. The coalition will likely continue to deck the halls of Parliament with their commitment to bring the government down but I anticipate that after the New Year's partying and subsequent sobriety, the Liberal Party will most likely want to nothing to do with the coalition and bringing the government down.

How do the Liberals back away gracefully from their position? Are they too invested to credibly do so?

Jeffrey Simpson: Tyler, the Liberal rank-and-file got all worked up about the chance to take power again and overthrow their devil, Harper. They will not easily be calmed down. Agreed.

But in the cold, albeit dim, light of late January, the Liberals will realize that they will be stuck with the NDP and the Bloc, that the Conservatives had done half of what the Liberals had demanded, and that they are still stuck with Mr. Dion who, if the past be any guide, will lead them an ineptly as ever, and especially as in the last two days.

I mean he got clobbered by Harper in the Commons. And did you see that amateur-night-at-the-fair video they put before Canadians?

Sorry to be harsh, but a political party that put that cheesy video before the people really does raise questions about its fitness to run the country.

Greg Macdonald, Calgary: So what does this mean for the Quebec election next week and the future of any federalist party in Quebec — particularly the Conservatives?

Jeffrey Simpson: Greg, federalism (again) has been hurt in Quebec, as Quebeckers rally around themselves in defiance against what they perceive as animosity from the rest of Canada. It's a reflexive reaction.

David Gay: Good afternoon, Mr. Simpson. In his addresses to the nation, Mr. Harper spoke of the Opposition as having "no democratic right" to propose a coalition.

In fact, they do, and what worries me here is the way in which Mr. Harper uses inflammatory and misleading words like "right" which, while making his case, also distort the realities of the parliamentary system. These events should make Canadians more aware of how Parliament can work.

Do you see long-term damage to that kind of collective awareness through what amounts to the language of partisan propaganda on Mr. Harper's part? Thanks.

Jeffrey Simpson: David, the coalition has all the right in the world to form a "coalition" under such terms and leadership as its members see fit.

The issue was whether it had the right to take power, and the answer to that constitutionally is, yes, provided the government lost a vote of confidence.

To avoid losing such a vote, Mr. Harper asked for and received prorogation, so that he could win in the court of public opinion eventually what he would have lost next week in the House.

He did not anticipate that the three parties with their yawning differences would ever form a coalition against him. But in politics as in war, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Permit me to quote a bon mot from a column a few days ago: The Liberals scared Mr. Harper with the coalition, now the Liberals will scare themselves with the coalition.

Heidi Croot, Campbellcroft, Ont.: What is your reading on Canadians' reaction to these events? (Has there been a valid and reliable survey?)

I'm curious to know if you think there's a gap between popular opinion and what the coalition and Conservatives assumed about Canadian support for their actions.

Jeffrey Simpson: Heidi, it's too soon to tell public opinion. It will be split, as you would expect, along partisan lines. What people who don't follow politics much, if at all, might think, I do not know.

I suspect most Canadians would be responding with anger at the whole lot of them.

I think outside the Conservative world and its obliging and truculent media (see National Post and The Sun papers), the anger will be directed at the prime minister whose bulldozer style and hyper-partisanship touched all this off.

David Gibson, Hamilton, Ont.: Mr. Simpson, does this situation play differently in Western Canada than it does in the Windsor-Montreal-Ottawa corridor?

Jeffrey Simpson: David, there is no such thing politically as the Windsor-Montreal-Ottawa corridor. Windsor politically is as different from Montreal as Calgary is from Edmonton.

Clearly, in parts of the country where the Conservatives are strong, the antipathy to the coalition will be greatest as will the takeup of the Conservative spin lines. In the West, or parts of the West to be precise, there will be some very loud evocations of the old grievance about Central Canada.

Ballin Munson: Mr. Simpson, many thanks for taking questions.

What are the odds of some Liberal defections to keep the Conservatives in power, perhaps with a Harper resignation as a sweetener?

Jeffrey Simpson: Ballin, he Liberals have in their caucus some flakes. The Conservatives know who they are.

Don't forget that Mr. Khan crossed the floor to the Conservatives in the last election.

I would not at all put it beyond the Conservatives to try to lure a few Liberals to them, or to appoint some Liberals to the Senate or some patronage positions.

Look, the king must be protected, and the king (Mr. Harper) will do everything legal, even if unsavory, to remain in power.

His career will be over otherwise. He is fighting for his political career.

Michael Kohn, Toronto: Mr. Simpson, is it possible that Prime Minister Harper has been hatching a plan to create this crisis, knowing full well that his chances of keeping his minority government alive will be greatly diminished once the Liberals have chosen a new, and likely more popular, leader in the spring?

Why else would he have driven the opposition parties to threaten a vote of non-confidence by asking them to vote on legislation that would strip public subsidies of political parties?

I think he was actually betting on the opposition forming a shaky coalition, from which he might be able to pluck enough unhappy Liberal backbenchers to form a majority government without another trip to the polls.

What do you think?

Jeffrey Simpson: Michael, I have wondered about this, and maybe when I talk to more people, it might make sense.

But for now, I think hubris, a certain prime ministerial style and character, and coincidence caused this, not some pre-formulated brilliant strategy.

Eric Fischer, Orangeville, Ont: Mr. Simpson, how does Mr. Dion feel justified in putting himself forward as Prime Minister when the people of Canada, whom he claims he forged this coalition for, resoundingly rejected him personally in the last election.

Do you feel that the coalition might be more agreeable to Canadians if another leader was appointed?

Jeffrey Simpson: Eric, if you were leader of the Liberal Party in this coalition, it would be better, because people wouldn't know you and therefore would not have formed a negative impression of you.

I told Liberals last weekend, and since, that they were daft to enter this coalition for a whole series of reasons, starting with having Mr. Dion as a possible prime minister.

They should have let the Conservatives govern through the worst recession since the 1930s, suffered political bruises as a result, chosen a new leader and considered their options.

But there were no adults around the party with a sense of perspective borne of years of experience.

Cory MacDonald, Toronto: Jeffrey, I know you don't know but, just for fun, could you speculate on what you think went on between the Prime Minister and the Governor General ֫ given that they met for over two hours this morning?

Jeffrey Simpson: Cory, they sure weren't talking about the color of the wallpaper.

That Ms. Harper went over — she and the GG do yoga — suggests she was needed to calm things down, just in case. (She's a very charming person, by the way.)

Her husband, as you know, has a fearsome temper and is quietly very aggressive when challenged. He is a much stronger, or at least more menacing personality than she is.

I would think — but this is pure conjecture — that the GG started raising the possibility of conditions, asked a lot of questions, and the PM just kept pushing.

These sort of meetings are usually over rather quickly. Its length suggests conflict, or at least an extended discussion.

Had I been advising the GG, I would have signaled in advance that the GG would reserve judgment for a day, even if she had intended to agree to prorogation, so that it would look as if she was reflecting deeply.

Jim Sheppard: Jeffrey, thanks again for joining us today. I'm sure the readers of globeandmail.com appreciated your insight and analysis. Any last thoughts?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jim, last thoughts?

(1) We (the country) need a breather.

(2) The PM acted badly from start to finish. He created this whole mess.

(3) The Liberals acted impetuously and therefore unwisely, and will regret it.

(4) The big winner: the Bloc Québécois. (Read my column in tomorrow's Globe for more on that.)

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers: Thanks for joining this conversation today.

You submitted almost 200 questions for Mr. Simpson. We're sorry, of course, that we can't get to all of them in the hour alloted for the discussion.

But we appreciate your interest and will certainly be asking Mr. Simpson to come back again soon to take further questions.