Does Stephen Harper agree with Stephen Harper?


The Liberals have an opposition day on Tuesday and they have tabled three options for the motion they will move that day, the first of which is just a little mischievous.

That the House agree with the comments of the Right Honourable Member for Calgary Southwest on March 25, 1994, when he criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles and dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill; and that the House instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study what reasonable limits should be placed on the consideration of omnibus legislation and that the Committee report back its findings, including specific recommendations for legislative measures or changes to the Standing Orders, no later than December 10, 2012.

The first bit is reference to a point of order raised by a young Stephen Harper, in which the rookie Reform MP lamented for the abusive nature of omnibus bills that include various and unrelated measures. (I asked Peter Van Loan about the views of Young Stephen Harper at the time of the last budget implementation bill.)

The second part of the motion repeats the motion tabled at the Procedure and House Affairs committee by Marc Garneau. That motion mysteriously disappeared from the committee’s agenda last week.

The Liberals may well, of course, decide to pursue one of their other options—the motion on food safety, for instance, might be deemed more immediately relevant. But with a second budget implementation bill due anytime now, this could be a way to restart the debate on omnibus legislation.


Does Stephen Harper agree with Stephen Harper?

  1. stephen harper is a two faced twit. He says and does many things that got his hide when he was opposition… but now that he’s lied, cheated and done whatever it took to gain power he is merely a shell of his honorable old self.

    CON – convict / criminal. swindler & liar. Hmm, sounds like the Federal Conservative party was named the CONs for good reason.

    • “…….but now that he’s lied, cheated and done whatever it took to gain power he is merely a shell of his honorable(sic) old self……..”

      I cannot comment on the validity of the alleged prevaricating, grifting and/or other power-gaining prestidigitations you ascribe to Mr. Harper – I do not know the man. I can, however, attest that if Mr. Harper indeed possessed an old self, an old self of which you assert he is merely a shell now, it would not have been honorable – perhaps honourable though – him being a Canadian and all.

      • “…him being a Canadian and all.”

        Since we’re into correcting grammar here, I believe you mean “his being Canadian and all”.

        Think nothing of it.

        • Thank you, but, still, “Oh dear!”
          A deliberate flouting of standard grammar and syntax constructions is a recognised rhetorical device.

          Think nothing of it.

          • Then you might wish to show a little forbearance when others use such devices.

          • To use, effectively, that rhetorical device, one must be otherwise proficient in the use of The Queen’s English elsewhere.
            Is the person unlettered by design or by necessity?

            Your use of the word ‘forbearance’ above, however, leads me to believe that present company should be excluded.

    • Don`t play with words—you may hurt yourself.
      Actually, if you would continue you research you will find that the most flagrant examples of recent con, convict, criminal, swindler, behavior involve the Federal Liberal Party in Quebec and the Quebec Provincial Liberal Party recently.

      • If your reference about the federal Libs is to Adscam,

        (a) none of those involved are still around;

        (b) the CPC has committed a number of acts that have led to court convictions, other ongoing investigations (e.g. Pierre Poutine) and clear abuse of power and taxpayer dollars (gazebo, anyone?)… I could make a more complete list but it would take quite a while.

        Try focussing on what the current government is up to; they are the ones who are presently doing all the damage and in need of being held to account. What the Libs did a decade ago is history; nice to study if you’re an historian but otherwise not too relevant on a daily basis.

        • “none of those involved are still around”
          Yes, everyone who was involved in Adscam is now dead.

          • Words, Mouth, Stuffing. Thanksgiving was last weekend.

      • Actually, the most flagrant example is the one where the CPC admitted guilt to abusing in-and-out campaign financing to get more taxpayer refunded dollars than they were allowed under the law.

  2. When I saw the title of your book, The Righteous Mind …..

    I chose that title in part because we all think, you know, morality is a good thing, justice, ethics. And I wanted to get across the sense that, let’s just look with open eyes at human nature. And morality is, makes us do things that we think are good, but it also makes us do things that we often think are bad. It’s all part of our groupish, tribal, judgmental, hyper-judgmental, hypocritical nature. We are all born to be hypocrites. That’s part of the design.

    And as Machiavelli told us long ago, it matters far more what people think of you than what the reality is. And we are experts at manipulating our self-presentation. So, we’re so good at it, that we actually believe the nonsense that we say to other people.

    • “……..And as Machiavelli told us long ago, it matters far more what people think of you than what the reality is……”

      And as Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus told us more than 1,400 years before Machiavelli even passed his meconium, “Oderint Dum Metuant”

      The God trumps The Prince any day!

  3. Harper would vote in favour of the bill and take no questions from any media, completing the circle of the CPC post-truth world.

  4. Regardless of which Harper is speaking, you can count on the likes of Poliverre, Del Mastro and Hoeppner to bray in agreement. Consideration of ethical hypocrisy does not fall within their purview: spewing empty, jeering platitudes in support of maintaining their positions certainly does.

    • A platitude is not empty if it can be considered jeering, now is it?
      There are empty platitudes and there are jeering platitudes, but there cannot be empty, jeering platitudes.

      If the gay folks go on “Gaycations” and the old folks go on “Greycations”, would the folks above go on “Braycations”?

      • Given the subservient nature of the CPC benches, It sure as hell won’t be a “Straycation”

        • “Straycation”?
          Nyuck, nyuck
          Why didn’t I think of that one?
          I hate you!

  5. The Conservative Party continues with the governing of the Nation while the Liberals play mischievous and silly games in Parliament—-looks like Justin is influencing Liberal strategy already, on the road to irrelevance.

    • party above country for ever and always, CPC supporters!

  6. That Q&A with Aaron and Vanloan is well worth another read. At times it verges on close proximity to a game of whose on first? The eventual VL takeaway….in a time of global change and unrest we must plan going forward – ergo, it is self evident Canada’s Parliament cannot afford the luxury of inefficient debates that result from breaking up budget omnibus bills. As a kicker the ever ambitious minister goes on to say he doubts if the previous govt got much forward planning done either. So, clearly Omninbus overrules democratic scrutiny looking back and forwards. I’d like to see Vanloan try to sell that on the electoral doorstep; which, come to think about it would constitute quite an irony in itself…we need your say so, in order not to allow your Parliament to have its say so.Why doesn’t he simply come out and say having a majority simply makes Parliament moot in his opinion, and save us all the BS explanations?
    Edit: At times it closely resembles a game of who’s on first…

    • “……….At times it verges on close proximity to a game of whose on first?…….”

      “verges on close proximity”?

      “Close proximity” is a redundant tautology and the verb “verges” is wholly inappropriate in this grammatical context.

      “Whose on first”?

      And are you referring to the Abbott and Costello “Who’s on first?” baseball sketch from the 1945 film “The Naughty Nineties”?
      Dear oh dear.

      And instead of pixellating “BS”, why not try “Sterculian rhetoric”. Sounds real classy I think.

      • Thanks, i knew i shouldn’t have added “close”, and the whose was pure sloppiness.
        As i said yesterday, who [whom?] appointed you grammar nazi here? Was the job even posted.[ not that i mind someone having a little fun, if that’s what it is?] To which you replied, if i’m not mistaken: i am paid to be here. So, self admitted troll, i’ll ask again. Who’re you trolling for and why?

        • I do not troll. My voice is horrid.
          You may consider me to be a ‘trawl’ though. If you must consider me at all.

          “……..As i(sic) said yesterday, who [whom?] appointed you grammar nazi here?……”
          It is “who” and it was Wednesday, last, not yesterday. I was not appointed, but hired after exhausting ‘couch’ interviews with Maclean’s Management and some custodial staff I think, oh and the intra-office mail guy too. The job posting was not tendered and cronyism and nepotism played only a minor role.
          Ask not for whom the ALTF trawls. She trawls for thee.

        • Haha, in this case, “who’re” does not require an apostrophe!

          • Think you’re funny, doncha?
            It pains me to admit it, but you are right.

    • I read that interview again. Peter On Loan sure can talk. When he babbled this…

      If you’ve got parts of the country with very high unemployment yet we’re
      having to bring in temporary workers because local people won’t take
      jobs … that speaks to a system that’s broken.

      well, I snapped. I thought there might be a free market solution to this, but NO, we have a Temporary Worker Program that allows big employers to pay a workforce who are afraid to speak out 15% less than the locals. Just ask XL foods, they are experts in this area.

      This government is totally beholden to big bidness.

      Rick Mercer Report – New Jobs


      Rick’s Rant – Meat Recall

      • And then there’s the plan to eventually bring in around 2000 foreign workers to open up coal mines in Northern BC. Leave aside the issue of whether we even should be opening up coal mines, is VL seriously claiming that it isn’t possible to round up and train a couple of thousand BCers to train for those jobs – it’s ludicrous, not to mention a flat out lie. Young people are about to pay big time in this country for opting out of the political process in recent decades. But not even they could have imagined that their own govts would betray them in this manner.
        Wake up young people of Canada, contrary to what you’ve been told or may just have assumed, you do have the power to demand better and make them take notice. It’s is your country, your future too.

  7. So Harper politely asked the Liberals to “fix” Parliament nearly 20 years ago. The Liberals ignored him since they liked omnibus bills just fine when they were the government.

    Now that Harper is PM, he is playing by the rules the Liberals wrote, and suddenly the Liberals no longer like their own rules.

    The shame is not on Harper. The shame is on the Liberals.

    The media is also being hypocritical, since they have said hardly anything about McGuinty’s giant omnibus budget implementation bills in Ontario.

    • No one is being hypocritical.
      These folks to which you refer are behaving exactly the way they are paid to behave. Until such time as you are able to understand why it is, exactly, no one is being hypocritical you are doomed to live in perpetual angst and poor Mr. Wherry and I will have to endure your dullardry.

      • These folks to which you refer are behaving exactly the way they are paid to behave.

        It’s profoundly depressing to me that there are people who think that we pay opposition MPs to lie about what they’d do if they got in to office and then do the opposite, and that we’re paying government MPs to ignore what they said they’d do if they ever got in to office and do the opposite once they get there.

        When you go in to a voting booth do you just always vote for the party who’s platform is the opposite of what you’d like to see in government?

        • It is profoundly depressing for me to think there are people who do not recognise hyperbolically sarcastic and satirical irony when they read it.

          I am a citizen of a country which does not practise democracy – at least not for the vast majority of the citizenry who are deeply stupid. I do not enter ‘voting booths’ as you would understand them.
          We in the ruling class of my country know what’s best and the happy citizens go about their lives and let us get on with the arduous task of governing and trust us not to enrich ourselves too much at their expense while we do so. We have social harmony the likes of which the hapless Canucks have never experienced. Well, at least they haven’t since the First Nations really screwed up with their terribly unenlightened immigration policy regarding the European Caucasoids 500 years ago..

    • It has been pointed out before on this page that the Liberal omnibus bills that Harper bemoaned were pathetic wimps compared to the monstrosities the Harperites have been shoving down our throats.

      Regardless of whether the Liberals are being hypocritical in protesting these megaOmnibus bills, the fact remains that Harper was consistent the entire time he was in opposition in pushing for more open, transparent and accountable government – and has led the most opaque government in Canadian history since taking office. Now that, my friend, is true Hypocrisy in action.

      • The Liberals and the NDP had 5 years of minority government (7, if you include the Martin minority) to change the omnibus bill rules, but they were too cowardly to do so, or thought that they would be quickly back in power and liked the rules just fine.

        • Well then, thank God the TORIES are in power now and can finally fix what they’ve always said was broken.

          Oh, wait…

      • “…….the fact remains that Harper was consistent the entire time he was in opposition in pushing for more open, transparent and accountable government…..”

        That was his job! And I reckon he did it well.

        “……and has led the most opaque government in Canadian history since taking office…….”

        This is his job! And I reckon he is doing it well.

        Are you new?
        Are you ignorant of the ways of Parliamentary Democracy?

        • No; just not a cynical pain in the …

          A democracy only works well if the people we elect respect the system and the voters. Harper is the poster child for what is wrong with Canadian democracy.

          I expect better; I fight for a system that works. I don’t just
          throw up my hands and say “Waddya gonna do?”

          • You are not cynical.
            You are the antithesis of cynical.
            Here is why…….

            “…….A democracy only works well if the people we elect…….”

            You assume the ‘we’ in your above excerpt , the people who are ‘doing’ the electing, are competent. They are not. They are deeply stupid.

            A people get the Government they deserve.

            Deeply stupid people deserve deeply stupid Government. BUT, Canadian Governments over the years have been far brighter than my emboldened idiom above would have predicted.
            Expect better from the electorate, not the elected! Stupid people elect idiots and then moan and whinge when those elected reveal themselves to be, well, idiots. The current system works exactly the way it was/is meant to work. That old adage: ‘Garbage In. Garbage Out’ is a truism here.

            You have no choice but to throw up your lunch and your hands and exclaim “Waddya gonna do!” Evolution has seem fit to arrange for the average IQ to clock in at a dismal 100.
            Humans are deeply stupid. But maybe, just maybe, they can be trained.

            How’s that for real cynicism?

          • It was YOUR cynicism I was referring to…

          • Oooops!
            You’re right.
            I misread.

            Still, my word salad is not altogether malapropos.

            And I am not just a cynic, I am a superultramega pragmatic cynic. AND I do not consider cynicism to be a character flaw. The 99, who are taught by the 1, believe this about cynicism – and this is by design.
            I do, also, wallow in the bliss of knowing I am a pain in the …….Anal sphincter muscle? Bifurcated gluteus maximus? Sigmoid colon?……

            And it’s:

            “It was YOUR cynicism to which I was referring”

            Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which Sir Winston and I will not put.

          • Ending sentences with prepositions is (or can be) perfectly grammatical. You are incorrect.

            ‘On what did you step?’–this is grammatical insanity. 99% of English speakers do not use English this way, ergo, it is not proper English grammar to insist that sentences not end in prepositions. The language belongs to its speakers; it is not a museum piece.

          • Oh dear.
            You do not appear to me to be particularly thick, perhaps you are just not trying hard enough?

            The following is a very humorous quote from Sir Winston Churchill,

            “Ending a sentence in a preposition is something up with which I will not put”

            Research the reason he wrote it.

            “……..’On what did you step?’–this is grammatical insanity…….”

            No it is not. It reads ‘insane’ to you because your English is colloquial in origin – pedestrian even.

            “…….99% of English speakers do not use English this way…..”

            You have empirical data to support this assertion? Not all in the Anglosphere speak like unlettered rubes. Perhaps they do in your neighbourhood though?

            “…….ergo, it is not proper English grammar to insist that sentences not end in prepositions…….”

            Might Makes Right in political matters but not in proper English grammar. The Queen’s English is what it is and it is proper whether you like it or not.

            “……..The language belongs to its speakers; it is not a museum piece…….”

            True enough, but if communication is the primary goal of language use, it is important that we all agree to the same set of rules. Ever wonder why Legal documents read as they do? Exact communication!

            Besides, the prohibition of ending a sentence with a preposition is a manufactured constraint. English is a Germanic language and these languages have no problem with ending sentences with prepositions. The Victorians in England decided that their British Empire was the rightful heir to the perceived march of civilisation from Egypt through Greece and Rome to their own. Accordingly, they ‘adapted’ English to reflect a faux-Latin origin where ending a sentence in a preposition resulted in the offender being thrown to the lions.

    • “Now that Harper is PM, he is playing by the rules the Liberals wrote… The shame is not on Harper. The shame is on the Liberals.


      Sure, fine, the Liberals who used to think this was fine now think it’s bad. However, the government that used to think this was bad now apparently think that it’s fine. It’s the EXACT SAME HYPOCRISY only in the opposite direction.

      It never ceases to amaze me that the government that once argued that we should “demand better” now consistently admonishes us for demanding better, and their supporters just trot out the tired old “the Liberals always used to do this, so what’s the problem?!?!?”.

      Well, I’m sorry, but “this is just par for the course” just doesn’t come off as a reasonable argument when it’s coming from the people who spent years and years telling anyone who’d listen that the course needed to be redesigned. Harper can’t go from treating the Chretien Liberals as the embodiment of everything that was wrong with government in Canada, to treating the Chretien Liberals as his model for how to run a government in Canada and expect no one to call him on it.

      • but, but…..but a blue shit sandwich tastes better than a red shit sandwich?……. or maybe they’re both shit sandwiches.
        I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of this menu

        • We have a new French chef. May we recommend le sandwich merde. C’est nouveau.

    • The shame remains exactly on Harper. The excuse of “Waahhh! But mooommmm! The Liberals Did It First!” means absolutely jack and squat coming from the party that promised, as the centerpoint of when they first got elected, that they would do government differently from the Liberals.

    • Now that Harper is PM, he is playing by the rules the Liberals wrote…” would be a defensible excuse for the conduct of this government, had they not campaigned relentlessly on the promise to change all that nefarious Liberal abuse of democratic principles.

      The fact that the Cons are not only emulating the hated Liberals but actually refining their techniques makes the Cons 1) no better, perhaps worse 2) liars 3) hypocrites

      • This. Exactly this.

    • This is just stupid. The “Liberals did it too” routine does not excuse moral failings. These guys promised to be better, not to outdo the Liberals in skulduggery.

  8. Hey Steve Thanks for taking my wifes job away in service canada to pay down your debt,
    our families in northwestern ontario will never forgive you

    • It was for your own good.
      No one should even live in North Western Ontario much less partake of the Government teat there.

    • bob, I’m sorry to hear about your wife losing her job. I hope something turns up and that everything will be ok.

  9. Mr. Wherry,

    Could you post an article explaining to your flock how a Parliamentary Democracy works?
    Something like:
    It is the role of the Opposition to “Oppose everything and propose nothing”. It is the role of the Government to do what it likes. Can we now get over this and get on with things?
    And while I’m at it; The penis, it is about the size of a dill pickle. Can we now all get over that too?

    • Thanks for giving us all an idea of how big a d!ck can be.

      • Delightful double entendre my friend. There is a slight problem though.
        I am a girl and girls can’t be dicks!
        I did not suggest a size maximum. I spoke in generalities.

        • Self-contradictory.

  10. Harper’s Gaylea Mentor

    Harper left Toronto and fled east due to his struggles with not being able to accept his

    was virtually told to hire him, but I did. And he was a very troubled
    boy when he came. I think what upset him the most was rebelling against
    what the family wanted him to do.

    “But he wanted to do his own thing. He didn’t want to just toe the party line.”

    Glenfield was a noted amateur director in local theatre, known as a
    kind man with a talent for helping others gain confidence and realize
    their potential on stage. He took on a similar nurturing role with
    Harper, talking to the young man endlessly, often coming home late for
    supper because Stephen had sought him out for a discussion.

  11. lol @ Aquairians Love To Fook… and apparently, some Aquairians love nothing more than the sound of their own voice…. aren’t you quite the li’l grammar nazi….. try saying something that doesn’t involve badly-disguised i’m-better-than-you insults, and feeling o-so-high-and-mighty because other people typed one wrong letter by mistake.

    If you were half as smart as you think you are.. meh, your not… never mind.