kimmy

First off, no way in hell is support for separation 60% in Alberta. It's probably not even 6% in Alberta. This whole topic is pretty pointless. Isn't there some sort of legislation that specifies the rules under which separation could be begun? I seem to recall something about. What are you? 12? That sort of tantrum represents what a lot of Albertans suspect central Canadians really think. -k

And would people have accepted that? I doubt it. You know what? They'd have been crucified as soon as the public got a chance to vote. It would have been a blunder of history proportions, that the Conservative party would have never recovered from. Your guys have been desperately trying to make all of these arguments, and the public has just not been receptive. Maybe it would have been different if Team Dion were not so inept at the communications side of things, but who knows. I've said before, if they didn't recognize from the very start that the BQ aspect of this was going to be a challenge to sell to the public, then they're simply *too dumb* to be in charge of the country. They had to have understood that the BQ aspect was going to be a hard sell, and yet, they don't seem to have had any coherent plan to articulate their side to the people. I thought Chretien was helping out behind the scenes. Surely Da Little Guy, of all people, should have had some insight into how to take this to the people to avoid the kind of disaster it has turned into for the Liberals. There has never been a perception that the Conservatives were being propped up by the BQ. The perception has been that the Conservatives have been free to do as they wished because the opposition, collectively, had no interest in attempting to defeat them. Generally speaking, the public believes the Liberals have been the party that most made it possible for them to do so. Layton was quite vocal on this point during the election, as you'll recall. Harper has not been beholden to any single party to get stuff passed. The new coalition is a little different. With just 114 seats between the two parties, they're beholden to the BQ on every single vote. Your side has been free to make all of these arguments to the public, but the public has simply not bought in. They had the numbers to do it if they wished, yet the history books have nary a word to say about the great coalition government of aught-four. If they had been considering it, they must have had a sober second thought. Yes, accepting the amendments to the thrown speech would have made the defeat of the government seem like an unnecessary grab for power. Y'know, your guys did get all of the changes they wanted... -k

Personally, my favorites are "fuddle-duddle", "why should I sell your wheat?" and "It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there." -k

Agreed. Solid piece by Mr Manley... my only complaint is the timing. If somebody had stood up like this a lot sooner, a lot of this insanity could have been avoided. I thought the comment that keeping Dion on as leader may have emboldened the Tories was an interesting thought. I'm also intrigued by the claim that Dion entered into this without the approval of Rae or Ignatieff. Manley contends that Dion took this course of action without consulting the leadership candidates, leaving them with a regrettable choice: either support this unpopular coalition, or betray the party. If Manley is correct in claiming that this was done without the approval of the leadership candidates, then Dion is truly a spectacular idiot. Y'know, Dobbins, I think that if Day or Harper had ever actually attempted to form a government with the BQ, it would have been a political mistake that they'd have never recovered from. Either they were very fortunate to have not had the opportunity, or they did not intend to form a government. Either way, if they'd actually made the attempt to form a government with the BQ, it would have gone over like a brick balloon (as your guys are now finding out.) When you and Miata provided me the letter that Harper and Duceppe signed, I noticed that the date was just before Martin's throne speech in 2004. I read some news articles to try to figure out what was going on on in Parliament at that time, and sure enough it turns out that the opposition parties had forced the Liberals to accept a bunch of amendments to the throne speech. I think what they did was sign the agreement to keep Martin from calling an election. Martin could either accept the amendments, or take the chance that they defeat him and go to the GG with their little letter and form a coalition. Martin decided to go for the amendments. It would have been awfully interesting if he'd called their bluff. If he had, he'd have campaigned against a coalition that includes the BQ in the same way that Harper has. Why? Because Canadians dislike the BQ. Which is something the Liberals used to know. Remember how often attacked Harper for working with the BQ to try to force an election in 2005? -k

Well, maybe not, but our emissions reduction targets do stop at our border. Keeping green electricity in Canada might not reduce the amount of emissions going into the atmosphere, but our commitment is to reduce made-in-Canada emissions. The Americans could make up the short-fall by burning humpback whales, baby harp seals, and spotted owls if they wanted, and it would still be Good, since we've come nearer to meeting our emissions reductions targets. But that's not even what I was getting at. The point I was trying to make was, as Argus put it: A federal assault on one province's resources is great public policy; a federal assault on another's would be unthinkable... and the difference between the two provinces? 47 MPs and a credible separatist threat. -k

No, Mr. Guyser, not like your narrow-minded provincial electrical concern. I mean, a National Electrical Program. I am talking about this country's future. I am talking about nation building, Mr Guyser. Your OPG has some hydroelectric capacity, but most of its generating capacity is nuclear and coal plants. Do you imagine your coal smoke stops at Ontario's borders? And where does your radioactive waste go when you're done with it? Continuing to operate these coal fired plant flies in the face of our commitment to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. And nuclear power, it goes without saying, is icky and scary. My National Electrical Plan will phase out these unacceptable relics of the cold-war era, and replace them with the Green Electricity of the Future ™ ! How? What we need to do is leverage the massive hydroelectric capacity of your friendly neighbors! Did you know that if the electricity Quebec sells to the United States were directed to Ontario, OPG could shut down most of its coal plants right now? Of course, Hydro Quebec could not be allowed to charge Canadian consumers the full export price they've been receiving from American customers. We need a made-in-Canada price. The difference between the fair market price charged to consumers and the discount price paid to Hydro Quebec would be used to establish a federal fund to fund green energy development all across Canada. New hydro sites, solar, wind, bioreactors, technologies we haven't even thought of yet, you name it. And the federal fund would upgrade Canada's electrical infrastructure, which desperately needs investment. Before too long, every province could have huge renewable green energy capability! Every province could be making big profits exporting power to American customers! What I'm talking about, Mr Guyser, is nothing like your "OPG". I'm talking about the opposite, a national plan that will make Canada the world leader in green energy and show the world how to move away from fossil fuels and use clean renewable energy sources. I'm talking about a plan that will shut down OPG's dirty coal plants and icky nuclear plants. It might seem as if this plan places a huge burden on Quebec in the short term, but how selfish would they be to stand in the way of Canada's Energy Future ™? -k

Which seems to be a recurring theme when Mr Dion is involved. -k

Preston Manning was saying all of this 20 years ago, and a lot of people still believe in it. I believe Paul Martin's ideas for "democratic renewal" (or whatever he called it) also called for more free votes in Commons. And I think that a lot of the motions that hit parliament are, in fact, not "whipped" unless they have budgetary items attached. -k

I'd like to have a Canada where the kind of all-out assault on the energy industry we saw from 4 of the 5 major parties during the election would be recognized to be just as outrageous as Kimmy's National Electricity Program. -k

To attempt a more serious answer... During the boom times, Alberta has counted on other Canadians to come on along and join in. Without the help of workers from the east, things couldn't have grown the way they have. It works both ways... Albertans who aren't part of the energy industry or trades have been able to go to other parts of the country when there were better opportunities elsewhere than at home. We benefit from trade agreements that Canada has made, and we benefit from unhindered access to labor and transportation and resources within Canada. And although your views are no doubt rooted in current dollars-and-cents thinking, and although it might sound trite, it has to be said anyway that there are sentimental and historical reasons why most Albertans continue to reject separation. Alberta's history with the federal government might be pretty rocky, but it hasn't been all bad. The federal government did support the province when it was the poorest in confederation. It did build the railway. It did recruit hundreds of thousands of immigrants to build the prairies. While Ottawa's involvement in energy usually makes westerners cringe, Diefenbaker's National Oil Plan was a great nation-building program at a time when the country needed nation-building. The same arguments apply, to varying degrees, to the other western provinces. All might have historical grievances with the federal government, and some might have have a current dollars-and-cents motive to want to leave, but it's not just about dollars and cents. -k

I have to point out that it's not me in the picture. I just don't have the pom-poms to pull it off. -k

3 words. Rick Mercer Report. huh? huh? -k

(because she was hot, right? ) As I think everybody knows, I've been probably the biggest Harper cheerleader on this forum for a long time. This latest fiasco has strained even my faith in the man, which says a lot. I have voted in 3 elections, and in 2 of them I have voted Green. However, I did so only because at each election, I was living in a riding where a Conservative landslide victory was inevitable. Adding to the size of the landslide was not particularly useful, and both times I voted Green were because I thought a likeable young candidate had done a good job, deserved some encouragement, and at the very least deserved to get their election deposit back. (Helping the Green Party reach the voter threshold to qualify for federal party funding and continue to drain votes from the NDP and Liberals would have also been part of my thinking, were I the Machiavellian sort.) -k

... You guys are upset about a political leader in Canada attacking his opponents based on an unpopular leader and vague allegations about their agenda and their associates instead of putting forward a positive message about policies? Holy cow, what party have you guys been supporting for the past decade? -k

I want to take a moment to mention how civilized this forum has been during this unusual time. We have had a ton of discussion and for the most part it has been thoughtful, open-minded, and respectful. We have had a lot of new members appear, and while some where obviously just trolls, some of the new members have shown themselves to be very bright and well spoken people who have contributed great thoughts to the board and hopefully they'll stay around after this current situation has played out. As well, there has been a number of trolls, a number of temper-tantrums, and I think Charles Anthony deserves some appreciation for doing a good job of keeping that aspect from spiraling out of control. A number of times during the time I've been on this board, controversial times in Ottawa led to this forum becoming just as nasty and partisan as the floor of the House. This time, somehow, things have been much different. I just wanted to take a moment to recognize how people from east and west, urban and rural, red provinces and blue provinces, right and left, up and down, have all come together in this time of crisis to make MLW work and get this message board moving forward. -k {yes we can!}

Chick, VMG... ...the Liberals *had* to realize that there were elements of this coalition that were going to be very challenging to sell to the Canadian public. They *had* to have understood that. I mean, how many times did Paul Martin accuse the Conservatives of sneaking around with the BQ in 2005? They understood then that it was something that would rankle Canadian voters... did they somehow think that's just different now? They *had* to understand that installing a Prime Minister who's just gotten stomped down in a general election was going to be controversial. They had to realize that before they plunged ahead with this plan. (If they didn't, then they're simply too stupid and naive to hold public office.) They had to have understood the challenges of communicating this plan to Canadians. And yet... it seems as if they were unprepared to do so. It is almost as if they just assumed that people would buy into their side of things without explanation. How could they go into this without being prepared to fight a battle of public perception? And complaining that the media should advocate their side of things for them? WTF? Maybe if this was 1980 and we were in Moscow, then Pravda would explain things for them. In Canada, in 2008, no. We expect that our media will at least try to maintain an appearance of impartiality, and we expect that our politicians will state their own case to the people. Somebody (blueblood?) was saying last week that "they brought a knife to a gunfight." If anything, it now seems like blueblood was being charitable. It seems more like they brought a spork to the gunfight. -k

I think this is the essence of it. Will he learn anything from this fiasco? Or will today's polls give him the mistaken idea that Canadians will back him on some kind of vendetta? I think the essential message from today's polls is that Canadians want the politicians to STFU and get to work. The politician that ultimately comes away from this looking the best will be the one whose actions are most in keeping with that message. -k

http://www.bourque.org/ They're on the front page of the Bourque news blog, which has been a busy source for the latest on this situation. -k

This is only one poll (edit: ok, it's 2 polls now) but it has to be extremely worrying news for the members of the coalition (save for Duceppe, who has nothing at stake and is probably finding this to be tremendously entertaining regardless of how it ends.) Obviously Dion is part of the problem. And I think bringing the Bloc Quebecois in has turned out to be a move that is extremely hard to sell to Canadians outside of Quebec. In 2005, when the opposition parties were trying to force an election (Cadman, Stronach, all that stuff...) Paul Martin kept accusing Harper of conspiring with the Bloc to bring down the government. He sensed that it was something that Canadians would resent. He knew that just the words Bloc Quebecois were poison outside of Quebec. But but but, Harper signed an agreement with Duceppe in 2004! But but but, Day signed an agreement with Duceppe in 2000! Maybe so. And if Harper or Day had brought the BQ into government at that time, it would have been political suicide for them, too. -k {"We 'ave de partie at Stornoway, and you know, Gilles, 'e is not such de bad guy! He 'ave many good story and joke, 'e enjoy darts and de billiards, and 'e play very well at de Trivial Pursuit. I t'ink that if the Canadien get to know Gilles, maybe dey warm up to 'im de same way dey warm up to me when dey get to know me..."}

that's hilarious (though also rather grisly. ) Do you think that the plan all along was to create a nightmare scenario for Canadians, then provide a much better alternative later on? And if so, do you think Dion knew he a human sacrifice, or did he honestly believe he was going to be PM all along? -k

Jim Karygiannis was on my radio the morning after the election ripping into Stephane Dion so viciously that even I felt bad for Dion. These comments aren't terribly surprising. However, it's obvious that Dion's personal unpopularity is a huge detriment to the coalition, and that embarking on this plan under his leadership was a mistake. I believe (and desperately hope) that saner Liberals will be vigorously searching for a resolution to this escapade that restores stability to parliament and ditches this turkey in on fell swoop. -k

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/548207 Nice of Dion to lighten the mood a little in these tense times. Someone has posted it on Youtube. -k

You may be referring to Frank Valeriote, who is (to my knowledge) the only Liberal to openly express doubt about the plan. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/st...html?id=1029156 Liberals Irwin Cotler and Keith Martin are also quoted in the article, expressing the view that a compromise could still be reached, which would be at odds with the official coalition position that no compromise with Harper is possible. -k

Great job breaking this story, Mr Cronkite. -k {I think there might be another thread on this somewhere...}

aww, you guys... Yes, that's what I was kind of getting at. One was a great idea that people just didn't get, the other is political suicide. The real difference between Trudeau's National Energy Program and Kimmy's National Electricity Program? About 54 seats in Parliament and a credible separatist threat. We will have to see... but I think there is plenty of time for some serious White Knight type action from either or both of the Liberal leadership contenders. Arriving at a coalition with the Conservatives rather than the NDP and BQ would show the kind of qualities that Albertans would respect in a Liberal leader: integrity, willingness to listen to the whole country, the ability to rise above partisanship. If Ignatieff (or Rae) made this happen, I think it would probably be an excellent start on rebuilding the party's fortunes in the west. I suspect that it would also put him on a short road to the Prime Minister's office, which is why Harper might be reluctant to participate. -k