The Future of the Coalition

[Wild Bill]

Doesn't matter when or where it was done. It was done. Why are they 'Separatists' and 'Socialists' now but comrades then? Hypocrisy. This is by far the most un-Canadian act by any Prime Minister in the history of this country, and just to save his job. Stephen Harper is NOT a leader.

However, the Coalition will turn him into one or send him packing. It's his choice from here on in.

I'm missing something here. Are you saying that since Harper may have done something similar as far as a coalition attempt that makes the present attempt morally justified?

That because Harper may have done something you consider bad that it's ok for the "other guys" to do exactly the same thing?

Wrong is wrong. If all parties have done evil then why should a tie go to the Liberals, Bloc and NDP? To my mind, things now cancel out. I have no pure choice. So I'm left in the usual position of having to decide who smells the least.

It will take a long time before the smell of Shawinigate, HRDC, the gun registry and AdScam gets out of my nose. Harper has a fair bit of rope left before he's in the opposition's class!

[Boydfish]

Thank you for the original posting. It serves as an interesting insight into the position taken in Ontario.

That said, did the discussion cover how the idea of a coalition government dominated by Ontario and Quebec kicking out a Western based government without an election is going to play in the west? While that might not seem to be too important to a pair of provinces that have enough seats to form majorities in the House of Commons themselves and nearly do so in the Senate, I'd suggest that it become a large part of the decision that all Canadians make, both Upper and Lower.

The simple fact is that Harper is seen in the west as being a westerner. The fact is that westerners do not see themselves as full members of your confederation. While there have been some small steps to address the institutional bias in the confederation against westerners, the fact is that Canada and it's government is viewed with mistrust by the western provinces. A big part of that western alienation is driven by the perception that Canadians would never allow a westerner to really be in charge of anything.

The way that this coalition of Ontario and Quebec seizing power from a western based government without even bothering to hold an election will be seen is nothing short of a kick in the groin towards the west. Without ratcheting up the drama needlessly, this action could be the very last crisis your confederation faces if you do this. If you don't like Harper's government, fine, nobody is suggesting that you have to vote for his government. The point is, however, that if Ontario and Quebec try to reverse the outcome of the last election without actually even holding a new election, the backlash they will face will quite likely include trying to bail out their collapsing economies without western petro-dollars.

[Smallc]

The fact is that westerners do not see themselves as full members of your confederation.

First, there is no institutional bias. Second, westerners are a full member of confederation. They should get over this idea that they are some how shafted all of the time.

[Progressive Tory]

I'm missing something here. Are you saying that since Harper may have done something similar as far as a coalition attempt that makes the present attempt morally justified?

That because Harper may have done something you consider bad that it's ok for the "other guys" to do exactly the same thing?

Wrong is wrong. If all parties have done evil then why should a tie go to the Liberals, Bloc and NDP? To my mind, things now cancel out. I have no pure choice. So I'm left in the usual position of having to decide who smells the least.

It will take a long time before the smell of Shawinigate, HRDC, the gun registry and AdScam gets out of my nose. Harper has a fair bit of rope left before he's in the opposition's class!

I'm saying that Harper using the 'Separatist' and 'Socialist' anti-Canadian campaign to save his job is hypocritical because he signed the EXACT same deal in 2004 with so-called 'Separatists' and 'Socialists'.

I'm saying that as Prime Minister of Canada you know or should know the Canadian Constitution and if you don't then you should not be the Prime Minister of Canada.

I'm saying that Stephen Harper knew or should have known that in Canada we don't elect Prime Ministers, we elect Members of Parliament. If one Party wins a majority of seats, their leader gets to lead. If no single Party gets a majority, then the leader of Party with the most seats only gets to lead if he can WIN THE CONFIDENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF seats in the House. He knew that, which was why he wrote that letter to Adrienne Clarkson in an attempt to become Prime Minister without an election. It was a perfectly legal thing to do then, and is a perfectly legal thing to do now. My point is not legality but hypocrisy.

In 2004, the GG refused him and since enough time had elapsed since the previous election, dissolved Parlaiment and instead we went to the polls. In this case it was only six weeks when Harper lost the confidence of the Majority. If he can't regain it, this GG may allow the perfectly LEGAL Coalition to take the reins, since we are in an economic crisis and can't afford the cost or time required for another election.

The LEGAL Coalition will remain in place until Stephen Harper does his job or steps aside. Let's say he's on probation.

[Progressive Tory]

Thank you for the original posting. It serves as an interesting insight into the position taken in Ontario.

That said, did the discussion cover how the idea of a coalition government dominated by Ontario and Quebec kicking out a Western based government without an election is going to play in the west? While that might not seem to be too important to a pair of provinces that have enough seats to form majorities in the House of Commons themselves and nearly do so in the Senate, I'd suggest that it become a large part of the decision that all Canadians make, both Upper and Lower.

The simple fact is that Harper is seen in the west as being a westerner. The fact is that westerners do not see themselves as full members of your confederation. While there have been some small steps to address the institutional bias in the confederation against westerners, the fact is that Canada and it's government is viewed with mistrust by the western provinces. A big part of that western alienation is driven by the perception that Canadians would never allow a westerner to really be in charge of anything.

The way that this coalition of Ontario and Quebec seizing power from a western based government without even bothering to hold an election will be seen is nothing short of a kick in the groin towards the west. Without ratcheting up the drama needlessly, this action could be the very last crisis your confederation faces if you do this. If you don't like Harper's government, fine, nobody is suggesting that you have to vote for his government. The point is, however, that if Ontario and Quebec try to reverse the outcome of the last election without actually even holding a new election, the backlash they will face will quite likely include trying to bail out their collapsing economies without western petro-dollars.

The Coalition has nothing to do with East and West and whether or not the 'twain shall meet'. It is simply about following the rule of law.

Chapter 2 'House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

"Simply stated, the convention provides that if a government is defeated in the House on a confidence question, then the government is expected to resign...The confidence convention applies whether a government is formed by the party or the coalition of parties holding the majority of seats in the House of Commons."

This was no doubt the clause that Stephen Harper used when he requested that then GG Adrienne Clarkson allow him to become Prime Minister in 2004, despite the fact that his Party did not win the election. Perfectly LEGAL since his co-signers Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton also had the LEGAL right to help him form a coalition against Paul Martin.

"The simple fact is that Harper is seen in the west as being a westerner. The fact is that westerners do not see themselves as full members of your confederation." I'm pretty sure Diefenbaker, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell thought they were fully part of OUR confederation.

Again the misconception in Canada is that we elect Prime Ministers. We do not. We elect members of Parliament and the guidelines I've already mentioned apply. All 143 elected Conservative MPs will still be 143 elected Conservative MPs. That DOES NOT CHANGE. The only one trying to overturn the results of the last election is Stephen Harper, by attempting to turn a minority into a dictatorship. He failed.

If vote splitting hadn't given the Conservatives enough seats to form a minority, would the MP in your riding that you voted for not be a legitimate member of the House of Commons?

[Argus]

Doesn't matter. Personally I would prefer the Coalition remains in the wings, as a constant reminder to Stephen Harper that he must act as Prime Minister of Canada and not the leader of the Conservative Party.

We are ready and we are prepared. Step up or step aside. There's a new kid in town.

If by "kid" you mean an immature, emotionally self-absorbed fool without much in the way of education, yeah okay.

[Argus]

The Alliance was and still is ripe with Albertan separatists you know it.

Your toaster told you that, eh?

[Argus]

AdScam involved bureaucrats and not one elected official was charged.

Absolute, total crap. No one who is so childishly naive as to believe a fairy tale like that should even be permitted to drive, much less vote.

In fact the investigation was ordered by the Liberals themselves

.

And manipulated by them, and canceled by them.

However, the "In and Out" scam involved 65 elected Conservative MPs and is being railroaded by the Conservatives. Big difference.

Yeah, big difference. Given the in-out thing has not yet been shown to even be against any rules while the Liberals' scheme was outright fraud, bribery and theft.

Besides, that's old news and tired logic. If you want to talk history, can you say 'Airbus'?

And the difference here is that no one from that era is in power today, while most of the Liberal party leadership and caucus were in office during adscam, and many of them knew about it.

Have the Liberals ever been willing to admit whose election campaigns that stolen money went to? Nope. Have they ever told us the names of the lawyers who provided them with free legal services in exchange for being given judgeships? Nope.

Not that corruption is ever a problem for a Liberal supporter, of course.

[Argus]

When tired and out of ideas, the Sponsorship Scandal is tossed out there to detract.

Talking about tired and out of ideas.. when was the last time the opposition had any kind of idea on anything other than gaining power? You want to be in power for the sake of being in power, but have no ideas on what to do if you were in power: no polices, no platform, no thoughts on economic, political or social reform, on how to fix medicare or anything else.

[Wild Bill]

I'm saying that Harper using the 'Separatist' and 'Socialist' anti-Canadian campaign to save his job is hypocritical because he signed the EXACT same deal in 2004 with so-called 'Separatists' and 'Socialists'.

I'm saying that as Prime Minister of Canada you know or should know the Canadian Constitution and if you don't then you should not be the Prime Minister of Canada.

I'm saying that Stephen Harper knew or should have known that in Canada we don't elect Prime Ministers, we elect Members of Parliament. If one Party wins a majority of seats, their leader gets to lead. If no single Party gets a majority, then the leader of Party with the most seats only gets to lead if he can WIN THE CONFIDENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF seats in the House. He knew that, which was why he wrote that letter to Adrienne Clarkson in an attempt to become Prime Minister without an election. It was a perfectly legal thing to do then, and is a perfectly legal thing to do now. My point is not legality but hypocrisy.

In 2004, the GG refused him and since enough time had elapsed since the previous election, dissolved Parlaiment and instead we went to the polls. In this case it was only six weeks when Harper lost the confidence of the Majority. If he can't regain it, this GG may allow the perfectly LEGAL Coalition to take the reins, since we are in an economic crisis and can't afford the cost or time required for another election.

The LEGAL Coalition will remain in place until Stephen Harper does his job or steps aside. Let's say he's on probation.

And instead of answering my point you do exactly the same thing again! You simply slam Harper but excuse the opposition.

Well, a bit more time has passed and the GG would likely indeed call an election rather than allow the coalition. The coalition may be legal but it is obviously unusual. We have almost ZERO history of such coalitions!

Iggy is not going to be so stupid as to force this issue. The polls have overwhelmingly shown that the biggest majority of Canadians hate the idea of a coalition instead of a vote. They may not be keen on early elections but the idea of NO election frankly pisses them off! You remind me of a driver who doesn't understand the old adage "He was right! DEAD right!" If the coalition was installed it would likely be the kiss of death to the Liberals the NEXT election! No one will care about your arguments about legality. They will simply vote against the Opposition for having done it.

Scolding people and lecturing them is a total waste of the coalition's time. With all the numbers games going on the coalition supporters have ignored simple math. They will be up against those who support the Tories PLUS those who are offended by getting a government without an opportunity to vote for or against it!

The only way around this would be to avoid ever having an election again. Hmmm...perhaps there's a secret agenda happening here?

[OddSox]

AdScam involved bureaucrats and not one elected official was charged caught.

Fixed it for you...

[Progressive Tory]

And instead of answering my point you do exactly the same thing again! You simply slam Harper but excuse the opposition.

Well, a bit more time has passed and the GG would likely indeed call an election rather than allow the coalition. The coalition may be legal but it is obviously unusual. We have almost ZERO history of such coalitions!

Iggy is not going to be so stupid as to force this issue. The polls have overwhelmingly shown that the biggest majority of Canadians hate the idea of a coalition instead of a vote. They may not be keen on early elections but the idea of NO election frankly pisses them off! You remind me of a driver who doesn't understand the old adage "He was right! DEAD right!" If the coalition was installed it would likely be the kiss of death to the Liberals the NEXT election! No one will care about your arguments about legality. They will simply vote against the Opposition for having done it.

Scolding people and lecturing them is a total waste of the coalition's time. With all the numbers games going on the coalition supporters have ignored simple math. They will be up against those who support the Tories PLUS those who are offended by getting a government without an opportunity to vote for or against it!

The only way around this would be to avoid ever having an election again. Hmmm...perhaps there's a secret agenda happening here?

How is reminding you that Stephen Harper tried to form the same kind of Coalition with the Bloc and NDP, slamming Harper? You've slammed the Coalition as being unDemocratic or whatever, but Harper's using the whole 'Separatists' and 'Socialists' thing is hypocritical. That's a fact. It can't be spun any other way.

You believe in Coalitions or you don't.

You believe that the the Bloc and NDP are legally elected Parties or you don't.

It's that simple. There's specualtion, not unfounded, that Jack Layton actually got the idea for this Coalition from Stephen Harper, who convinced him of it's legality in 2004. Go figure.

[capricorn]

Are you saying that since Harper may have done something similar as far as a coalition attempt that makes the present attempt morally justified?

It will take a long time before the smell of Shawinigate, HRDC, the gun registry and AdScam gets out of my nose. Harper has a fair bit of rope left before he's in the opposition's class!

In 2004, the Auditor General had just released her report on the Sponsorship scandal where millions of taxpayer dollars went missing. This came on the heels of other scandals. At the time the Liberals were viewed as corrupt. That is the backdrop in which to consider Harper's 2004 letter to Clarkson.

To be precise, Harper never signed a deal on governance and policy with the NDP and the Bloc. On the other hand, the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition does have such a signed deal in place.

IMO the two situations are not entirely the same and cannot be viewed as such.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Guess what people? It makes no difference what party is in power, all of the other parties want them thrown out because they want to be in power instead. All of them, with the exception of the Bloc, want to stir up crap and toss it into a spinning fan. The Bloc only cares about Quebec.

So whether or not who came up with a dirty trick first, or who should be able to use the trick second makes no difference at all. The simple fact is that all of these problems stem from partisan spin. They are all guilty as sin for so many things that it just isn't worth mentioning anymore.

The fact is that we need political leadership in these trying times. Harper or Iggy, makes no difference either one has to step up to the plate and arrange a political compromise in order to govern effectively. The citizens know that the government was only given a small mandate as a minority, which meant that the government had to function in the House of Commons with the consent of the majority. This isn't that complicated. Harper can either crap or get off the pot, but he cannot do as he pleases with the mandate he has, that is the reality of the political landscape he sits in.

Is it any wonder the opposition parties want to toss him on his ear when he refuses to govern with the consent of the majority? Is it any wonder that they are all ganging up on him? Is it any wonder that he said that the last Parliament was unworkable? Harper is no fool, just a bully. In fact he is a bully in a schoolyard where all the other kids just figured out that for one thing this guy isn't so tough and for another there is more of us than there is of him!

Look Harper can continue to govern, with the consent of the majority of members of the House or he can pack up his bat and pickup his ball and go home to Cowtown. No what is it that you folks think he wants to do?

[Progressive Tory]

Guess what people? It makes no difference what party is in power, all of the other parties want them thrown out because they want to be in power instead. All of them, with the exception of the Bloc, want to stir up crap and toss it into a spinning fan. The Bloc only cares about Quebec.

So whether or not who came up with a dirty trick first, or who should be able to use the trick second makes no difference at all. The simple fact is that all of these problems stem from partisan spin. They are all guilty as sin for so many things that it just isn't worth mentioning anymore.

The fact is that we need political leadership in these trying times. Harper or Iggy, makes no difference either one has to step up to the plate and arrange a political compromise in order to govern effectively. The citizens know that the government was only given a small mandate as a minority, which meant that the government had to function in the House of Commons with the consent of the majority. This isn't that complicated. Harper can either crap or get off the pot, but he cannot do as he pleases with the mandate he has, that is the reality of the political landscape he sits in.

Is it any wonder the opposition parties want to toss him on his ear when he refuses to govern with the consent of the majority? Is it any wonder that they are all ganging up on him? Is it any wonder that he said that the last Parliament was unworkable? Harper is no fool, just a bully. In fact he is a bully in a schoolyard where all the other kids just figured out that for one thing this guy isn't so tough and for another there is more of us than there is of him!

Look Harper can continue to govern, with the consent of the majority of members of the House or he can pack up his bat and pickup his ball and go home to Cowtown. No what is it that you folks think he wants to do?

Exactly. I'm all for him staying on as Prime Minister so long as he remembers that he is the Prime Minister of Canada first, and the leader of the Conservative party second. He has to regain the confidence of the majority of the house or step aside. For the record, Iggy never supported the Coalition but is quite willing to keep it in the background so that Harper remembers what (he thinks) he was elected to do. It's all on him now.

However the hypocrisy thing stands only because Harper says he would NEVER make a deal with 'separatists' and 'socialists', but the signed letter proves otherwise. Both attempts at a 'coup' were right or both attempts at a 'coup' were wrong. Iggy's the only leader who's 'Coupless' because he didn't support it.

[Progressive Tory]

In 2004, the Auditor General had just released her report on the Sponsorship scandal where millions of taxpayer dollars went missing. This came on the heels of other scandals. At the time the Liberals were viewed as corrupt. That is the backdrop in which to consider Harper's 2004 letter to Clarkson.

To be precise, Harper never signed a deal on governance and policy with the NDP and the Bloc. On the other hand, the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition does have such a signed deal in place.

IMO the two situations are not entirely the same and cannot be viewed as such.

The list of Conservative scandals is growing faster than the mold under my sink. Maybe the Coalition should take power immediately if it's scandals you're worried about.

[Smallc]

Iggy's the only leader who's 'Coupless' because he didn't support it.

''Although in fairness, he did sign his name to the coalition government.

[Jack Weber]

I would also add that Bob Rae,Dominic LeBlanc,and,The Iggster all made a very public appearance together to show that the potential leadership of the party was onside...I realize that was for public consumption,however,those optics are hard to deny...

[Progressive Tory]

''Although in fairness, he did sign his name to the coalition government.

Yes, once all Liberals realized that they had to be united, he joined the Coalition. Harper left few options.

[Progressive Tory]

I would also add that Bob Rae,Dominic LeBlanc,and,The Iggster all made a very public appearance together to show that the potential leadership of the party was onside...I realize that was for public consumption,however,those optics are hard to deny...

It was not the time for more public displays so for the good of the country they had to put their differences aside and stand united; and united they will stand until Harper can prove that he is capable of running this country. I have my doubts but I'm willing to give him a chance.

[Jack Weber]

I have my doubts,as well...My suggestion to The Igg Man is to let Harper and his Band of Buffoons wear this economy for another nine months to a year,and have him defeated in a federal election as opposed to the coalition idea.That would be the best way to have the Conservative party decimated like its Mulroney cousins almost 2 decades ago.It would also go a long way to getting rid of this scourge known as Reform Politics....

[Progressive Tory]

I have my doubts,as well...My suggestion to The Igg Man is to let Harper and his Band of Buffoons wear this economy for another nine months to a year,and have him defeated in a federal election as opposed to the coalition idea.That would be the best way to have the Conservative party decimated like its Mulroney cousins almost 2 decades ago.It would also go a long way to getting rid of this scourge known as Reform Politics....

Exactly. They were given a 13 billion dollar gift and spent through it during good economic times. A boondoggle tank scheme with equipment no one knows how to repair, and a bunch of junk tanks for parts that won't fit on any of the equipment, that no one knows how to repair.

I only want the Coalition to remain strong and united so that the Conservatives are forced to do their jobs. This will be a year full of Party scandals from the new revelations re: airbus scheduled for February and the possible convictions of 65 Conservative MPs who tried to defraud taxpayers with forged receipts and fraudulent documents in the "In and Out" scam.

I'm sitting back with Iggy and an apple martini to watch the show. It will be sweet.

[Boydfish]

First, there is no institutional bias.

Sure there is. The current bailout of the auto sector highlights that in extremely exquisite detail. Go tell the forestry workers in BC how they feel about the bailout of the auto workers. You might also note the issues surrounding the exclusionary hiring/promotion practices in government involving French creating a bias against westerners and the federal government's habit of lumping all of the west into one pile. A Manitoban can't be considered representative of British Columbian culture or vice versa.

Not only is it a little dishonest for Canadians to claim that there is no anti-westerner bias in Canada, the fact is that both Upper and Lower Canada are quite comfortable with it. Chretien ran on and won three straight majority governments based on running in Ontario on an anti-western platform.

Second, westerners are a full member of confederation. They should get over this idea that they are some how shafted all of the time.

Boy, it's a good thing Mike Pearson was running things when he was presented by similar feelings of alienation by the French. He brought in the "Three Wise Men" in the theory that the best way to combat anti-confederation sentiment in Lower Canada was to entrench French leadership into Ottawa's political infrastructure. Despite the general dislike that it caused in the west, the fact is that it was the smart move and Pearson isn't given half as much credit for it as he deserves.

No matter what you think, the fact is that the four western provinces are and have been historically mistreated by the Canadians. It's also how the people in the four western provinces tend to see their treatment from Ottawa. If it makes it difficult for your political position to have westerners feel that way, the solution to claim that they don't is ignoring overwhelming evidence.

[Smallc]

No matter what you think, the fact is that the four western provinces are and have been historically mistreated by the Canadians. It's also how the people in the four western provinces tend to see their treatment from Ottawa. If it makes it difficult for your political position to have westerners feel that way, the solution to claim that they don't is ignoring overwhelming evidence.

I don't really care how westerners feel. They are wrong. I don't see any suffering going on in any of the western province. What I do see, is constant bellyaching by the people that, for some reason, believe that they should have as much say as Ontario while having only a fraction of the population. They are thinking of themselves or their province before Canada. That's the real problem.

[Progressive Tory]

Sure there is. The current bailout of the auto sector highlights that in extremely exquisite detail. Go tell the forestry workers in BC how they feel about the bailout of the auto workers. You might also note the issues surrounding the exclusionary hiring/promotion practices in government involving French creating a bias against westerners and the federal government's habit of lumping all of the west into one pile. A Manitoban can't be considered representative of British Columbian culture or vice versa.

Not only is it a little dishonest for Canadians to claim that there is no anti-westerner bias in Canada, the fact is that both Upper and Lower Canada are quite comfortable with it. Chretien ran on and won three straight majority governments based on running in Ontario on an anti-western platform.

Boy, it's a good thing Mike Pearson was running things when he was presented by similar feelings of alienation by the French. He brought in the "Three Wise Men" in the theory that the best way to combat anti-confederation sentiment in Lower Canada was to entrench French leadership into Ottawa's political infrastructure. Despite the general dislike that it caused in the west, the fact is that it was the smart move and Pearson isn't given half as much credit for it as he deserves.

No matter what you think, the fact is that the four western provinces are and have been historically mistreated by the Canadians. It's also how the people in the four western provinces tend to see their treatment from Ottawa. If it makes it difficult for your political position to have westerners feel that way, the solution to claim that they don't is ignoring overwhelming evidence.

I'm originally from New Brunswick, and believe it or not many Easterners feel the same way; though their bias is mostly against Toronto for some reason. Maybe it's because our capital is in Ontario. Who knows? The fact that canada is so diverse culturally is one of the things I love about this Country. However, it also creates it's own set of problems. No easy answers I guess.

I do notice how opposed people in Alberta are to the auto bailout. This may be hard to justify. Good news for Alberta though. I just read:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0101?hub=Canada