Iggy would lead Liberal/NDP coalition

[FireFox]

What Dion and Layton had to say about each other before they agreed to form a coalition;

From the National Post, Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008

Dion on Layton

"I understand he has a coalition with the nudist party, with the marijuana party, and maybe now with the Sept. 11 conspiracists party."

" He does not understand the economy. I cannot think that Canadians will give their support to a man who will kill jobs everywhere in the country in raising the corporate tax....If you were worried about your savings, your pension, your mortgages, if you are worried about your jobs, then think twice before voting for Jack Layton."

" The NDP can promise you the moon. But they are trying to buy your vote with Monopoly money. They want to pay for all their promises by increasing the burden on our economy. Jack Layton's old-fashioned socialist mentality is as backward as Stephen Harper's ideology....I have no lessons to learn from Stephen Harper or Jack Layton."

Layton on Dion

"You can't walk away from 43 confidence motions where you supported Mr. (Stephen) Harper and claim somehow that you're now going to lead some kind of progressive group. It's not on. People won't buy it....His policies, your responsiblity....If you can't do your job as leader of the Opposition, I don't know what you're doing running for prime minister."

"I urge Canadians to also defeat Mr. Harper's best friend over the past year or so in Parliament - Stephane Dion. Now Mr. Dion is going around asking voters to do what he refused to do himself, which was to stop Mr. Harper. He says he wants Canadians to stop Mr. Harper when he had the chance."

[YYC I/C]

The Conservatives wanted to form a coalition in 2004, and according to the article below, in 2000 as well. Harper and his party have now been associated with 2 attempts at forming a coalition government with the Bloc and yet Harper, the Conservatives, and many Albertans have the audacity to call it illegal.

Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance

A document obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that the scheme would have propelled then Alliance leader Stockwell Day to power in the coalition. A lawyer who was described then as being close to Day, says he didn't discuss the matter with the MPs

DANIEL LEBLANC

Globe and Mail Update

December 3, 2008 at 2:07 PM EST

OTTAWA — The separatist Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper's government, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The scheme, designed to propel current Conservative minister Stockwell Day to power, undermines the Harper government's line this week that it would never sign a deal like the current one between the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc.

Bloc officials said that well-known Calgary lawyer Gerry Chipeur sent a written offer before the votes were counted on election day on Nov. 27, 2000.

According to prominent sovereigntist lawyer Eric Bédard, who received the proposal, Mr. Chipeur identified himself as being close to Mr. Day, the leader of the Canadian Alliance at the time.

“I never had the impression that I was involved in theoretical constitutional discussions,” Mr. Bédard said, adding he had never met Mr. Chipeur before.

A Bloc official said the link between Mr. Chipeur and Mr. Bédard was facilitated by Rodrigue Biron, a former Parti Québécois minister who was part of the unite-the-right movement in the late 1990s.

In addition to his discussions with Mr. Bédard, Mr. Chipeur said he also approached the chief of staff to Joe Clark, who was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The discussions were held about a two-page document entitled “Consensus Leadership for a New Century,” as well as a two-page proposal for a Speech from the Throne.

In an interview, Mr. Chipeur played down the importance of the offer, saying he never discussed the matter with Mr. Day or other MPs, and was simply getting ready in the event of a minority government.

“I was preparing for what might happen,” Mr. Chipeur said.

Still, the agreement included room at the bottom for the signatures of Mr. Day, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Mr. Clark, to be signed the day after the election.

At the time, the Alliance was ready to fly Mr. Day from his BC riding to Calgary to pick up Mr. Clark on the way to Ottawa, where the deal was to be presented to the Governor-General in the event of a minority Parliament.

The Alliance government promised in the event of a coalition to “respect the legitimate jurisdictions of Canada's provinces, including Quebec.”

“We agree that we will support Stockwell Day as Prime Minister of Canada,” said the draft agreement, which would have hinged on Bloc support.

The plan fell apart as the final result of the election in 2000 saw the Liberals win a clear majority with 172 seats. By comparison, the Alliance, Bloc and PC Party only had a total of 116 seats. The NDP won 13 seats.

However, the draft agreement raises questions about statements this week from senior Conservative ministers who are blasting a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support as a “deal with the devil.”

“The brutal fact here is that something has happened that has never happened before in Canadian history,” Mr. Day, the current Conservative Minister of Trade, said on CTV Newsnet on Tuesday. “And that is two federal leaders have actually signed a deal with a separatist party whose goal it is to destroy the country.”

Mr. Day was replaced at the helm of the Alliance in 2002 by Mr. Harper, who went on to oversee a merger of the Alliance and the PC Party.

Mr. Harper, now Leader of the Conservative Party and a minority Prime Minister, is waging an all-out fight against the proposed Liberal-NPD coalition, which includes Bloc support on confidence votes until June, 2010.

The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc hope to defeat the Harper government on Monday, but the Conservatives will likely attempt to shut down Parliament in a bid to survive until January.

As Mr. Harper defended his government during Question Period on Tuesday, his Conservative caucus gave him repeated standing ovations and pointed to opposition benches with cries of “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

“We will have [in a coalition] a mechanism of permanent consultation empowering the Bloc Québécois on every question of importance, notably concerning the adoption of the budget. This Prime Minister, this government, this party has never and will never sign a document like that,” Mr. Harper said.

While in opposition, however, Mr. Harper asked then-Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004 to turn to him if Paul Martin's newly elected Liberal government were defeated in the Commons.

“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,” Mr. Harper said at the time.

The release of the 2000 draft agreement from the Canadian Alliance is likely to bolster the coalition's arguments that the Conservatives are engaged in double-speak.

Mr. Chipeur was a prominent lawyer in Alliance circles and an official member of the legal committee of the United Alternative, a key element of the unite-the-right movement. He went on to represent the Alliance in legal cases after the 2000 election.

A Bloc supporter, who was informed about the talks with him at the time, said the Alliance was willing to provide increased transfers, as well as the management of the long-gun registry, to the provinces.

The Bloc official added that the discussions with Mr. Chipeur included compromises on contentious issues, such as a promise to respect a straight majority of 50-per cent plus one in the event of a future referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The move would have gone against the Liberal Clarity Act, which calls for a stronger majority.

But Mr. Chipeur said he simply looked at the public positions of the various parties in drafting his proposal and conducting the informal talks.

[handyman]

The Conservatives wanted to form a coalition in 2004, and according to the article below, in 2000 as well. Harper and his party have now been associated with 2 attempts at forming a coalition government with the Bloc and yet Harper, the Conservatives, and many Albertans have the audacity to call it illegal.

It's one thing to consider but another to actually do it!

The Bloc and NDP are not friends to Canada.

[Maverick]

As for what part of the West I'm in, why would it matter? Are you going to try and parse the country further down into a "Real West" and an "Other West" a la Sarah Palin? I can tell you that I'm probably as far or further west than you, and that if Harper walked down the streets of my neighborhood he'd be jeered at every corner.

Pete

Not sure how far west you are but I'm a long way west as well. In my neighbourhood Harper would probably get scolded for being stupid but the real jeering would be saved for dumb, dumber and their separatist cousin Le-only-smart-une.

Harper created this yes, but Canada is absolutely in the best economic shape of any country and they have the gall to say it's to save the country from ruin?

90210 is correct, the west won't stand for this.

[YYC I/C]

The Bloc and NDP are not friends to Canada. 

The Bloc is not a friend to Canada, agreed.

But although I don't have much time for the policies and views of the NDP, they are certainly federalists and friends to Canada.

[AME]

and many Albertans have the audacity to call it illegal.

Are you one of them?, that's a pretty broad brush you're using

[Mitch Cronin]

[..] and many Albertans have the audacity to [...]

[WHISTLE] PwhhhhhhhhT! [/WHISTLE] 2 hour penalty, to YYC I/C, for Regional CrapBashing. Time: 1527.

[Guest rattler]

YYC IC. Lest you forget...................

The split forced Day to call a new leadership convention, and, in April 2002, Stephen Harper defeated Day at the subsequent Canadian Alliance leadership election.

Once Harper assumed the leadership, most of the rebellious MPs rejoined the Alliance party. Two MPs did not rejoin, however: Inky Mark chose to remain outside of caucus, and eventually joined the Tories, and the scandal-plagued Jim Pankiw was rejected when he applied for readmission to the Alliance caucus.

So I it appears that you think politicians should be held responsible for what their predecessors did? If so do we hold Mr. Dion responsible for the actions of the party under Mr Chretian?????

[YYC I/C]

Are you one of them?, that's a pretty broad brush you're using

That's why I said many and not all.

I wish I could have taped the conversations taking place in the waiting of the Bowmont Medical Centre today where I was waiting with my daughter for her doctor's appointment. Many people were spewing ignorance as if it was fact in regards to the coalition, it was quite scary.

Alberta is now my home. I love the entrepreneurial spirit, the tax environment, the "I take resposibility for my own actions" attitude, but I could do without the in your face social conservatism.

[YYC I/C]

Rattler, I understand your point but what I wrote was:

The Conservatives wanted to form a coalition in 2004, and according to the article below, in 2000 as well.

In 2000 it was the Canadian Alliance, a founding merger partner of what is now the Conservatives. I did not write that Harper twice wanted to form a coalition.

But regardless of semantics, it is, in my opinion, hypocritical to call the idea of coalition illegal when it is in fact constitutionally legal. Furthermore, it is even more hypocritical to call it illegal when your party (and its predecessor), was twice involved in attempt to form a coalition government itself.

I don't want a coalition. If there's a lack of confidence in the house, I would prefer an election. The cost of an election would be much less, in my opinion, than the cost to the economy with those 3 bozo's running the show.

I yearn for the day the Liberals have a strong and right of centre leader.

[dagger]

That's why I said many and not all.

I wish I could have taped the conversations taking place in the waiting of the Bowmont Medical Centre today where I was waiting with my daughter for her doctor's appointment. Many people were spewing ignorance as if it was fact in regards to the coalition, it was quite scary.

Alberta is now my home. I love the entrepreneurial spirit, the tax environment, the "I take resposibility for my own actions" attitude, but I could do without the in your face social conservatism.

Funny, I was in physiotherapy for a sore shoulder when Question Period came on and everyone was riveted to it. If this has done one thing, it's make Canadians (briefly) pay attention to politics. I don't think people are enamored about the coalition, and Harper is even more despised, if that's possible. Right now, the best solution would be for Harper to resign and let a new Tory leader regain the confidence of the House. It's my preferred solution, although the Coalition taking power still rangs ahead of Harper remaining in power since I don't think anyone - even a lot of members of his own party - now trust him. The trained seals are clapping on the government benches, but the media seems to be finding a lot of Tories who didn't think this disaster had to happen.

[AME]

That's why I said many and not all.

I wish I could have taped the conversations taking place in the waiting of the Bowmont Medical Centre today where I was waiting with my daughter for her doctor's appointment. Many people were spewing ignorance as if it was fact in regards to the coalition, it was quite scary.

Alberta is now my home. I love the entrepreneurial spirit, the tax environment, the "I take resposibility for my own actions" attitude, but I could do without the in your face social conservatism.

I'd be willing to bet that the same conversations are happening all across the country, singling out Albertans is like calling everyone from BC a pot head, or anyone from Quebec a separatist or pointing out that everyone from Ont has their head up their butt (I like the last one) as for spewing ignorance just read most of these posts (mine included)

Relaxing in Montgomery

[YYC I/C]

I'd be willing to bet that the same conversations are happening all across the country, singling out Albertans is like calling everyone from BC a pot head, or anyone from Quebec a separatist or pointing out that everyone from Ont has their head up their butt  (I like the last one) as for spewing ignorance just read most of these posts (mine included) 

All good points and I am generalising for sure. That said, it is hard to discuss certain things on a forum such as this one without some generalising.

Surely we can agree that there are some general differences in the collective mind set of the citizens of different provinces.

[Fido]

Surely we can agree that there are some general differences in the collective mind set of the citizens of different provinces.

But in general:

If someone from Alberta makes a generalization about Quebec province it is racist.

If someone from Quebec makes a generalization about Alberta province it is insightful,

[chockalicious]

Funny, I was in physiotherapy for a sore shoulder when Question Period came on and everyone was riveted to it.

Did you hurt yourself carrying all that water for the Liberal Party?

I agree with your assertion that Harper should resign.

A coalition is certainly legal under the circumstances however I think a coalition sucks given the people involved.

[dagger]

The cost of an election would be much less, in my opinion, than the cost to the economy with those 3 bozo's running the show.

But you see, that's why we have this problem.

It should be clear what Harper was trying to do. Days after talking about the worst economic crisis in 70 years and how deficits are inevitable, he lets that twit finance minister of his issue an economic statement forecast surpluses - which nobody, and I mean nobody, says is credible.

He includes a poison dart for the opposition parties on party financing.

He includes a wage freeze for civil servants that the NDP and Bloc cannot accept under any circumstances.

Harper's intention was clear - to either humiliate and emasculate the opposition, or, if they stood up to him and voted no, to call an election that he would blame on THEM! And he could run against Dion one more time.

Except something happened that he didn't count on. Because he hadn't left at least one opposition some reason to vote for the Economic Statement - classic, classic error on Harper's part - the opposition decided not to commit hiri-kiri and fall into his trap. They may be strange bedfellows, but felt that cohabitation was a bit better than stretching out on their deathbed.

So, no, an election is not an answer because that was Harper's goal: to manufacture phony conditions to hold an election. You cannot blame the opposition for NOT falling into his trap. There will be no election now at least until the Liberals have a new leader.

And Harper who couldn't get more than 37% of the vote against Dion and the Green Shift, isn't going to do even that well against Ignatief. Harper has kissed off his dozen seat in Quebec, and I bet this farce will cost him 10-15 seats in Ontario. So with a ceiling of maybe 32% of the vote, there is no compelling reasons why the Conservatives would tolerate his continued presence. There are a half dozen Tories, excluding the Harrisites, who might be able to win a majority.

Furthermore, Harper has irrevocably poisoned this Parliament, so nothing he says can be trusted by this hyper-partisan schemer who has no sense of duty to the country, only to his power.

The only reasonable alternative to the Coalition is obvious - Harper must resign. Then the Tories, with a new interim leader can run affairs, call a formal leadership vote, and then we can have proper and fair elections later in the year when the two big parties have their new leaders in place.

Harper must go. He's disgraced the office to play out his video-game, destruction of the opposition fantasies.

[dagger]

Did you hurt yourself carrying all that water for the Liberal Party?

It was a bucket of Tory tears.

[Ex 9A Guy]

My vote (not that my last one seemed to count) would be for another election. As distasteful as that my be for many, myself included, I would rather have an election so the people of Canada can elect (or maybe re-elect) the government of their choice not a coalition of an inept wannabe PM, a socialist lunatic and a separatist.

I would rather spend another $30,000,000 on another election than allow an unelected coalition spend $30,000,000,000 (well 29 billion after Quebec gets their extra billion) on an ill conceived spend us out of the recession plan. Did ya count the number of zeros in that 30 billion.

30 million for another election is pocket change compared to the deficit we will all inherit if these 3 horsemen of the apocalypse get their hands on the purse strings.

[Guest woxof]

Except something happened that he didn't count on. Because he hadn't left at least one opposition some reason to vote for the Economic Statement - classic, classic error on Harper's part - the opposition decided not to commit hiri-kiri and fall into his trap. They may be strange bedfellows, but felt that cohabitation was a bit better than stretching out on their deathbed.

Sounds to me based on a recording that something happened between the opposition parties before the economic statement was read. Minor poison dart point of course.

P. S. I believe it is 300 million for an election.

[Fido]

But you see, that's why we have this problem.

It should be clear what Harper was trying to do. Days after talking about the worst economic crisis in 70 years and how deficits are inevitable, he lets that twit finance minister of his issue an economic statement forecast surpluses - which nobody, and I mean nobody, says is credible.

He includes a poison dart for the opposition parties on party financing.

He includes a wage freeze for civil servants that the NDP and Bloc cannot accept under any circumstances.

Harper's intention was clear - to either humiliate and emasculate the opposition, or, if they stood up to him and voted no, to call an election that he would blame on THEM! And he could run against Dion one more time.

Except something happened that he didn't count on. Because he hadn't left at least one opposition some reason to vote for the Economic Statement - classic, classic error on Harper's part - the opposition decided not to commit hiri-kiri and fall into his trap. They may be strange bedfellows, but felt that cohabitation was a bit better than stretching out on their deathbed.

So, no, an election is not an answer because that was Harper's goal: to manufacture phony conditions to hold an election. You cannot blame the opposition for NOT falling into his trap. There will be no election now at least until the Liberals have a new leader.

And Harper who couldn't get more than 37% of the vote against Dion and the Green Shift, isn't going to do even that well against Ignatief. Harper has kissed off his dozen seat in Quebec, and I bet this farce will cost him 10-15 seats in Ontario. So with a ceiling of maybe 32% of the vote, there is no compelling reasons why the Conservatives would tolerate his continued presence. There are a half dozen Tories, excluding the Harrisites, who might be able to win a majority.

Furthermore, Harper has irrevocably poisoned this Parliament, so nothing he says can be trusted by this hyper-partisan schemer who has no sense of duty to the country, only to his power.

The only reasonable alternative to the Coalition is obvious - Harper must resign. Then the Tories, with a new interim leader can run affairs, call a formal leadership vote, and then we can have proper and fair elections later in the year when the two big parties have their new leaders in place.

Harper must go. He's disgraced the office to play out his video-game, destruction of the opposition fantasies.

My the excuses have grown in number from the $1.95 we started with.

[Guest rattler]

Interesting side bar from the NDPs. Getting cold feet or just feeling left out?

JOSH WINGROVE AND GAYLE MACDONALD

Globe and Mail Update

December 3, 2008 at 5:42 PM EST

NDP Leader Jack Layton has failed in an attempt to secure his cut of the television airtime pie tonight, as the nation's broadcasters insisted he must speak alongside Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, within their would-be coalition, after Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper addresses the nation.

Mr. Layton made a late plea Wednesday for each party leader to receive national television airtime tonight, suggesting he'd like to appear independently of Mr. Dion, who would become Prime Minister if the coalition is successful in taking control of Parliament.

Only Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion, on behalf of the coalition that includes the NDP, have been granted airtime this evening. Despite Mr. Layton's request, the broadcasters have said that will remain the case.

But Mr. Layton's chief of staff wrote to broadcasters Wednesday evening to ask that “each of the three leaders of the opposition in Parliament receive equal time and treatment to address the people of Canada” after Mr. Harper's statement, scheduled for 7 p.m. eastern time.

“We respectfully remind broadcasters that the proposed coalition is just that: a proposal to the Canadian people by two of Canada['s] political parties with the backing of a third,” Mr. Layton's chief of staff, Anne McGrath, wrote to broadcasters in what appears to be a hastily typed memo.

“The proposed coalition for a co-operative government will, and could only, take effect [if] the House of Commons demonstrates its lack of confidence in the current Prime Minister and his administration of our country. Until such time, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Part are distinct and functionally separate caucuses in the House of Commons,” Ms. McGrath wrote.It's not clear what prompted Mr. Layton's request to appear separately from Mr. Dion

PM Harper made his address (didn't do what it should have done IMO) and it seems that Mr Dions rebuttal (taped according the CTV) has been lost (not delivered to the news outlets). These are the folks who are organized well enough to run the country through a coalition??????

Mr Dion's rebuttal came through at 1735 MST some 30 mins after the PM"s address and it was a canned announcement that did not address the position taken by the PM. Kind of sad.

[FireFox]

Bloc VETO

It's being reported in the press that the Bloc have been given a VETO over any major initiative, including the budget and all measures it deems of interest to Quebec.

[Guest rattler]

The NDP and the BLOC just presented a live rebuttal. You have to wonder why the Liberals were not capable of doing the same. Perhaps Mr Dion does not talk well except from well prepared notes??? (too harsh? Perhaps).

[J.O.]

On the CBC coverage, Peter Mansbridge explained (I am quoting here), "That's the way this is done when they want to pre-record their address." To me it sounded like he was saying that this is the way they do it when they're afraid to try it "live". Man, what a mess, and all so unnecessary, if we had real leaders instead of sandbox combatants.

[Guest rattler]

On the CBC coverage, Peter Mansbridge explained that the way it was done is (I am quopting here), "That's the way this is done when they want to pre-record their address." To me it sounded like he was saying that this is the way they do it when they're afraid to try it "live". Man, what a mess, and all so unnecessary, if we had real leaders instead of sandbox combatants.

Mr Dion reminds me of a Professor I observed who when he felt he had made his point would no longer respond to further live debate (would be waste of his valuable time).