Coalition gov't agreement concluded

[Peter Puck]

I'm 110% against this coalition.

I find it ridiculous than someone who was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters 2 months ago get to be PM thanks to a backroomn deal.

I find it even more ridiculous than a party who dont even care about 77% of the canadian population and who doesnt even believe in this country get to have a veto over anything the governement of Canada does.

Are you really telling me than Liberal voters wanted to give a veto to separatist , than bloc voters wanted to hand the keys to Mr. Clarity Act and than anyone who voted NDP was in fact voting Liberal? The fact is, we never voted for a coalition.

I hope the GG does the right thing and call an election instead of allowing this bloddless coup d'état to proceded. The coalition should get elected as such or else they have no democratic mandate.

The fact is "we" voted for a situation where the Bloc has a veto over the government. Regardless of whether the coalition or the Conservatives form the government, it will be a minority government with the Bloc holding the balance of power. If "we" didn't want this "we" should have elected fewer Bloc members and more MPs from the other parties. In a democratic election we decided not to do this.

This is not a coup, it is the way our government works and has worked since 1867. As I pointed out a few posts up, Harper tried to take power by the same method 4 years ago. If you think this is a coup then you are supporting someone who led a failed coup 4 years ago.

Also I don't buy this that Dion with 26.2% was overwhelming rejected in the election but Harper with 37.6% was clearly chosen to be PM.

[CerebusClone]

the real compromise here is dump Harper, it is his stupidity that caused all of this . The opposition do not nor do I believe they ever will trust him again. The more reasonable of the cons (and there are some) should kick his ass out and negotiate in a responsible way to end this nonsense. If Harper prorogues parliament for the sole purpose of keeping his job then this country will be in even more trouble than it is now, since nothing will be done, the government can't act, and the economy down the sewer. Get rid of Harper everybody happy

I don't think this has anything to do with trust, despite their numerous attacks and attemps to portray the Conservatives as villains who hate francophones, women , peace, the environement, and everything that is good in this world, the Conservatives actually gained in popularity since the previous election, and were very close to getting a majority. This is about the Liberals breaking Harper and his party, the NDP getting a first taste of power, and the Bloc gaining a whole lot of veto power which will help their own agenda.

If this coalition initiave really cared about Canadians, they would listen to Canadians, and give this Conservative party at least one chance, and not overthrow it at the very first occasion... or at the very least give Harper a chance to adjust his plan based on their suggestions. As Obama mentioned this is a time of crisis, and political parties need to set aside their differences, and work together to find solutions.

Besides for all we know Harper may have the right solutions, maybe the current Canadian economy is already robust enough to survive this crisis without throwing billions out of the window with no guarantee it will do any good. Is it really a terrible thing for Canadians that political parties make some sacrifices with less subsidies in a time of crisis? Is it really terrible for the country as a whole that the government gets some form of cost certainy and stability for a few years during this crisis without having the spoiled puclic sector employees with already great job security going on strike every other week (didn't people applaud the NHL for getting their cost-certainty during the lockout)?

Again I'm not a big fan of the Conservatives... but I don't think they have done anything since the election to warrant a coup d'état...

[habs rule]

I don't think this has anything to do with trust, despite their numerous attacks and attemps to portray the Conservatives as villains who hate francophones, women , peace, the environement, and everything that is good in this world, the Conservatives actually gained in popularity since the previous election, and were very close to getting a majority. This is about the Liberals breaking Harper and his party, the NDP getting a first taste of power, and the Bloc gaining a whole lot of veto power which will help their own agenda.

If this coalition initiave really cared about Canadians, they would listen to Canadians, and give this Conservative party at least one chance, and not overthrow it at the very first occasion... or at the very least give Harper a chance to adjust his plan based on their suggestions. As Obama mentioned this is a time of crisis, and political parties need to set aside their differences, and work together to find solutions.

Besides for all we know Harper may have the right solutions, maybe the current Canadian economy is already robust enough to survive this crisis without throwing billions out of the window with no guarantee it will do any good. Is it really a terrible thing for Canadians that political parties make some sacrifices with less subsidies in a time of crisis? Is it really terrible for the country as a whole that the government gets some form of cost certainy and stability for a few years during this crisis without having the spoiled puclic sector employees with already great job security going on strike every other week (didn't people applaud the NHL for getting their cost-certainty during the lockout)?

Again I'm not a big fan of the Conservatives... but I don't think they have done anything since the election to warrant a coup d'état...

suggest you read my previous post and maybe you can realize we are long past negotiating. One way or the other harper is out.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

This is bull. None of them have my support. Good or not I don't care for this garbage! It might not be logical but I don't care

[RobRock]

However this turns out, I don't see how Harper wins in this situation.

If he gets the prorogued Parliament he wants, then he merely puts off a non-confidence vote that he'll have to face when he delivers his budget in January. At that point, he'll either have to eliminate some of the programs that Flaherty put forth, which the Opposition can use against him, or the budget will fail on first reading and we'll have a spring election.

If the GG allows the coalition to take over, then the Liberals will get an opportunity to put forth a platform that just might work, or worse, be popular. It will also give their new leader a chance to audition for the job full-time.

If the GG dissolves Parliament and a January-February election is called, Harper will almost certainly have to win a clear majority this time in order to keep the backing of his own party. The Liberals and NDP will almost certainly hammer home the fact that Harper brought about 2 elections in less than 6 months. If Harper wanted a majority government, he would have needed at least another 2 years to do something to get the swings votes. The current situation will not help him in this area, and may in fact turn many votes against him.

[Trizzak]

Sooooo apparently Harper is trying to turn this into a nationality crisis? He's calling the coalition un-Canadian because the Liberals and NDP are in bed with the seperatists.

He is of course not mentioning he kept the bed warm by trying to do the same thing in 2004 that the Liberals are doing now.

How does this guy sleep at night?

[Quebecois]

I really liked how Mansbridge and Newman pointed out several things that weren't true immediately after Harper's address.

[KoZed]

Kozed, I agree with you if the issue is absolute sovereignty but the issue is much bigger then such a black or white picture. The Bloc is looking for incremental changes too...those incremental changes, over time, eventually lead to a more and more independance for the Quebec government. A move that puts Quebec priorities ahead of other provinces...which will eventually, at some future time, lead to a head. I have no real problem with decentralizing power and putting it in the hands of provinces...but if those changes are around fundamental/constitutional issues then it will only create a future firestorm.

I dont really know how to put it very succintly. I dont want to get into a huge Constitutionnal debate. Basically it comes down to a very simple choice: it's either incremental changes or sovereignty. More independance for the government of Quebec is inevitable one way or the other. If not now, then tomorrow, but its inevitable. It's been a constant M.O. for every Quebec Government since the day the Federation was founded. That issue will never die until one or the other happens. This is probably the most benign way you could ask for it to happen, and also the way that is the most detrimental to the sovereigntist cause. "Federalism doesnt work" has been sovereigntists' chief arguement for 30 years, and now it would be disproven.

As far as this current context is concerned right now, the only demands that the Bloc made that can be considered as a "more idnependance for Quebec" is the program for families with a fully compensated opt-out option; which is Constitutionnal since "social" programs are of provincial jurisdiction in the first place. No change there. More like re-equilibirium after years of Federal abuse. The rest of the Bloc demands could be Liberal demands and no one would see the difference. The Bloc was the official opposition years ago and everybody was waving the same scarecrow. Nothing happened. Harper try to use the Bloc for 2 years now and nothing happened. Because as much as the Bloc can be pro-Quebec, they're also center-left politicians with a whole damn lot in common with the Liberals and NDP on policies.

The rest is all superfluous details.

[JoeLassister]

I just can't believe how much Haper insists on the importance of the Bloc's presence in the coalition !

The Bloc clearly said that they approve just to see the Tories out. They will not ask for any minister and will even get out of the coalition after 18 months.

Their only big request is a massive reinvestissement (400-500M$) in post secondary education.

[Mont Royale]

However this turns out, I don't see how Harper wins in this situation.

If he gets the prorogued Parliament he wants, then he merely puts off a non-confidence vote that he'll have to face when he delivers his budget in January. At that point, he'll either have to eliminate some of the programs that Flaherty put forth, which the Opposition can use against him, or the budget will fail on first reading and we'll have a spring election.

If the GG allows the coalition to take over, then the Liberals will get an opportunity to put forth a platform that just might work, or worse, be popular. It will also give their new leader a chance to audition for the job full-time.

If the GG dissolves Parliament and a January-February election is called, Harper will almost certainly have to win a clear majority this time in order to keep the backing of his own party. The Liberals and NDP will almost certainly hammer home the fact that Harper brought about 2 elections in less than 6 months. If Harper wanted a majority government, he would have needed at least another 2 years to do something to get the swings votes. The current situation will not help him in this area, and may in fact turn many votes against him.

You're right. This has been a miscalculation of epic proportions by Harper. I agree with habs rule that the best scenario sees a change of Tory leadership and they continue to hold power; unfortunately this doesn't seem like one of the likely scenarios. The autocratic way that Harper has governed would surely cause many Conservatives to get rid of him if they could, but they're somewhat united right now in their bid for survival. A change in leadership would likely only happen if the coalition becomes the government; at that point, there will be nothing left to lose and Harper will suffer an inglorious political death.

I wanted a Conservative government and voted for them (if only for lack of better alternatives), but I have no sympathy at all for Harper's plight. This is democracy in action. It's ironic that someone who belittled Joe Clark for governing as if he had a majority back in '79 is now facing the same fate for the same reason. Harper's actions (both the recent election and the fiscal update) speak to his lust for power and desire to destroy the opposition. This, combined with his centralized rule within his party, convinces me that he's uninterested in the accomodations necessary for democracy to prevail; basically, he's a wanna-be dictator, and would be if the circumstances allowed it.

On the other hand, I'm concerned about the coalition. Having the support of the BQ isn't so much a concern (the Liberals have national aspirations and won't allow the BQ to advance anything too outrageous if they want to see power again, after all). I'm more concerned about their $30 billion stimulus package. Is this something that the country needs, or is this a scheme to be seen as doing something significant in these troubled economic times? In my opinion, it's the latter, and I'd be more comfortable with the Tories at the financial controls, with a minority so they're kept in check too. Y'know, how it is now.... minus Harper.

[JLP]

In Harper's address to Canada he used the word "souverainiste" not "séparatiste" in the French version; but then in the English version he didn't say "sovereigntist" but rather "separatist."

Was this to soften the message for French Canada while using a more negative word for English Canada?

[Mont Royale]

Harper is meeting with Michaelle Jean now. At the very least, I hope she makes the bugger's eyes water.

[Quebecois]

Sounds like Harper is going to get his delay.

[JLP]

Harper is meeting with Michaelle Jean now. At the very least, I hope she makes the bugger's eyes water.

More than two hours now, maybe she's making him a bundt cake . . .

[JoeLassister]

See you in january.

[KoZed]

I just can't believe how much Haper insists on the importance of the Bloc's presence in the coalition !

The Bloc clearly said that they approve just to see the Tories out. They will not ask for any minister and will even get out of the coalition after 18 months.

Their only big request is a massive reinvestissement (400-500M$) in post secondary education.

Where did you get that post-secondary education thing?

Taken from the SRC website:

• Un plan de soutien pour les secteurs manufacturier et forestier
• La restauration du financement des organismes économiques pour les régions du Québec
• L'annulation des suppressions de programmes en culture
• De l'aide pour les retraités touchés par la crise
• La création d'un programme de soutien pour les travailleurs âgés
• L'utilisation de la caisse d'assurance-emploi uniquement au service des travailleurs
• Un mécanisme inspiré de Kyoto qui correspond aux demandes québécoises
• De l'aide pour les familles avec un droit de retrait avec pleine compensation pour le Québec

I dont see post-secondary education in there.

[simonus]

God may save the Queen, but the Queen just saved Harper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/world/am...tml?_r=1&hp

OUST THE MONARCHY!

[habs rule]

On the other hand, I'm concerned about the coalition. Having the support of the BQ isn't so much a concern (the Liberals have national aspirations and won't allow the BQ to advance anything too outrageous if they want to see power again, after all). I'm more concerned about their $30 billion stimulus package. Is this something that the country needs, or is this a scheme to be seen as doing something significant in these troubled economic times? In my opinion, it's the latter, and I'd be more comfortable with the Tories at the financial controls, with a minority so they're kept in check too. Y'know, how it is now.... minus Harper.

there is no 30 billion dollar stimulus. that was the press and harper that made that up

[habs rule]

I am amazed that people have not reacted to the stuff harper had in his economic update.

remove the right to strike for govt employees? What was he planning to do that would cause them to strike? They have been very low key in recent years.

Limit a woman's right to claim pay equity? that ought to get some votes.

cut 40 to 50 billion dollars from govt spending? in a recession?

cut the 1.95 per vote subsidy? well there went fair elections. This was put in because the cons used to get most of their funding from big business and the NDP got it from unions. we took that away from them because it meant the guy on the street really had no say. It was all up to who had the most money big business or the unions. Now he's got the money so screw everyone else. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MR HARPER HAD A MAJORITY? OMG

[JoeLassister]

Where did you get that post-secondary education thing?

Taken from the SRC website:

• Un plan de soutien pour les secteurs manufacturier et forestier
• La restauration du financement des organismes économiques pour les régions du Québec
• L'annulation des suppressions de programmes en culture
• De l'aide pour les retraités touchés par la crise
• La création d'un programme de soutien pour les travailleurs âgés
• L'utilisation de la caisse d'assurance-emploi uniquement au service des travailleurs
• Un mécanisme inspiré de Kyoto qui correspond aux demandes québécoises
• De l'aide pour les familles avec un droit de retrait avec pleine compensation pour le Québec

I dont see post-secondary education in there.

took that from cyberpresse a few days ago. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/20081...es-demandes.php

[Zowpeb]

I am amazed that people have not reacted to the stuff harper had in his economic update.

remove the right to strike for govt employees? What was he planning to do that would cause them to strike? They have been very low key in recent years.

Limit a woman's right to claim pay equity? that ought to get some votes.

cut 40 to 50 billion dollars from govt spending? in a recession?

cut the 1.95 per vote subsidy? well there went fair elections. This was put in because the cons used to get most of their funding from big business and the NDP got it from unions. we took that away from them because it meant the guy on the street really had no say. It was all up to who had the most money big business or the unions. Now he's got the money so screw everyone else. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MR HARPER HAD A MAJORITY? OMG

A number of government employees have seen pay increases far above the average in recent years...especially at the provincial and municipal levels (though I assume the budget affected federal government workers only). They may have been "low key" but the increases were still above average and above inflation.

I never saw the womens right to claim pay equity...if so, I agree, that just ain't right.

I have no problem with cutting government spending if it's done in the right areas...spending for the sake of spending has NEVER worked. Have stimulus packages helped Japan and their 5 recessions since the early 90's? Nope...

Your comments on big business and unions is way off base for a couple reasons. First off, big business has long supported the Liberal party. That's well documented. Second, contributions are now capped at $5,000...there are no major contributions anymore. That was instituted by Chretien which was funny given that they were the biggest recipient of the large big business contributions. The Conservatives have tended to make their funding at a grass roots level. The NDP just don't canvass for funding very well. The Liberals have been lost ever since they couldn't get those big contributions and scandals from the late Chretien/Martin years started destroying their grass roots.

At the end of the day the Conservatives would have lost the most money from the $1.95 per vote cut. They were comfortable with it because they knew that they had better fund raising ability with their supporters...and remember, it's limited to a $5K cap. The NDP, Bloc and Liberals were upset because they aren't set up to fund raise nearly as well...

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but before Chretien put the $1.95 per vote in place there was no public funding for votes...which means that the Conservatives were simply cutting the program of a recent government. Sure, it was a strategic move to hurt their opposition. Yeah it was a stupid move and a slap in the face of the opposition. Yeah they should have known what it would lead to. But it's hardly the end of the world or anit-democratic or any other nonsense. It was just a bad political move that has started an unnecessary bonfire when it should have been a candle.

[JoeLassister]

A number of government employees have seen pay increases far above the average in recent years...especially at the provincial and municipal levels (though I assume the budget affected federal government workers only). They may have been "low key" but the increases were still above average and above inflation.

I never saw the womens right to claim pay equity...if so, I agree, that just ain't right.

I have no problem with cutting government spending if it's done in the right areas...spending for the sake of spending has NEVER worked. Have stimulus packages helped Japan and their 5 recessions since the early 90's? Nope...

Your comments on big business and unions is way off base for a couple reasons. First off, big business has long supported the Liberal party. That's well documented. Second, contributions are now capped at $5,000...there are no major contributions anymore. That was instituted by Chretien which was funny given that they were the biggest recipient of the large big business contributions. The Conservatives have tended to make their funding at a grass roots level. The NDP just don't canvass for funding very well. The Liberals have been lost ever since they couldn't get those big contributions and scandals from the late Chretien/Martin years started destroying their grass roots.

At the end of the day the Conservatives would have lost the most money from the $1.95 per vote cut. They were comfortable with it because they knew that they had better fund raising ability with their supporters...and remember, it's limited to a $5K cap. The NDP, Bloc and Liberals were upset because they aren't set up to fund raise nearly as well...

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but before Chretien put the $1.95 per vote in place there was no public funding for votes...which means that the Conservatives were simply cutting the program of a recent government. Sure, it was a strategic move to hurt their opposition. Yeah it was a stupid move and a slap in the face of the opposition. Yeah they should have known what it would lead to. But it's hardly the end of the world or anit-democratic or any other nonsense. It was just a bad political move that has started an unnecessary bonfire when it should have been a candle.

The fire was more lighten up because Harper played a political game instead of acting in a financial crisis mode. This economic plan had NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING related to economy, it was a 100% political move.

[fromage]

can they just decriminalize marijuana, already ?

Edited December 5, 2008 by fromage

[Zowpeb]

The fire was more lighten up because Harper played a political game instead of acting in a financial crisis mode. This economic plan had NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING related to economy, it was a 100% political move.

Of course, all along they'd been saying this was primarily supposed to be an economic report card and update more then anything.

You, or anyone else, still hasn't said why this country needs a stimulus package...and I've been asking for a couple weeks now. I find that greatly amusing considering all the "sky is falling" comments you imply. I'm not saying that I disagree that something needs to be done to some regional economies either...I just think most of the people crying for a "stimulus package" are either sexually frustrated (small joke) or just think money should be splashed everywhere without really knowing why or how...they just want something done so that it appears they've done something.

Historically, has any economic stimulus package ever helped turn a recession around? Not many economists can point to it being overly helpful...at some future point YOU AND I will pay for it through our taxes.

Besides, they have ramped up infrastructure spending which most economists would tell you, IF you want to increase government spending that's the most productive place to spend it. It creates a lot of jobs and proper increases in infrastructure tend to create good future business investments.

I have a few questions for those who want to see a big spending package:

1) WHY should they implement a big economic package? And like mama always said: saying "everyone else is doing it" is an excuse not an answer...lol

2) If they do so, WHERE should they implement it?

3) If they do so, HOW should it be implemented?

4) If they do so, WHAT should the value of a package be? An arbitrary 2% that the IMF kindly blanketed every country with spending with no regard to individual countries? Or something less? more? You must have an opinion if the bank bailouts and infrastructure ramp ups are not sufficient in your mind.