Diuceppe recruits Parizeau!

[betsy]

This is a very, very bad move! This clinches it! Layton will become official opposition.

http://blog.decisioncanada.ca/uncategorized/going-for-broke-duceppe-recruits-parizeau-says-quebecers-want-a-country/

[nittanylionstorm07]

Looks like Helene Laverdiere will be the next MP from the riding of Laurier--Sainte-Marie

[cybercoma]

I have no idea how this will play out. What do people familiar with Quebec politics think about Parizeau's involvement?

[munsinger]

Probably re-excavated Parizeau...in order to attract money and the ethnic vote.....

[betsy]

If I'm not mistaken Parizeau resigned because of his bigoted views, something about "Pure Quebecers?"

[betsy]

In the 1989 election, Parizeau's first as PQ leader, his party did not fare well. But five years later, in the 1994 election, they won a majority government. Parizeau promised to hold a referendum on Quebec sovereignty within a year of his election, and despite many objections, he followed through on this promise. In the beginning, support for sovereignty was only about 40% in the public opinion polls. As the campaign wore on, however, support for the "Yes" side grew larger. This growth halted, however, and Parizeau came under pressure to hand more of the campaign over to the more moderate and conservative Lucien Bouchard, the popular leader of the federal Bloc Québécois party. Parizeau agreed and as the campaign progressed he lost his leadership role to Bouchard.

During the 1995 referendum he caused an uproar when it was reported by columnist Chantal Hébert in the La Presse newspaper that despite the guarantee of an offer of partnership with the rest of Canada before declaring sovereignty following a "Yes" vote, Parizeau had told a group of foreign diplomats that what mattered most was to get a majority vote from Quebec citizens for the proposal to secede from Canada because with that, Quebecers would be trapped "lobsters thrown into boiling water".[2] On the night of the referendum, Quebec came within only a few thousands of votes of separation, but the Yes side still lost. In his concession speech, Parizeau said sovereignty had been defeated by "money and the ethnic vote", and referred to the Francophones who voted Yes in the referendum as "nous" (us) when he said that this majority group was, for the first time, no longer afraid of political independence. 60% of Quebec Francophones (who represent 80% of all Quebecers) voted Yes. However, the sovereigntist side accepted the results of the vote which they had initiated.

Parizeau was widely criticized for the remarks, which he later characterized as unfortunate and as meriting the disapproval they received. Many suspected he may have been drinking. He resigned as PQ leader and Quebec premier the next day. The English-language media, as well as non-sovereignist newspapers such as La Presse and Le Soleil, associated Parizeau's resignation only with these remarks. As against which, the sovereignist-friendly media (notably Le Devoir newspaper) argued that he had made the decision beforehand, drawing attention to a television interview conducted on the eve of the vote with the Groupe TVA channel in which Parizeau spoke of his intentions to step down in the event of defeat. (This interview had previously been held under "embargo", which is to say that the station agreed not to broadcast it until the referendum was over.)

Parizeau was replaced by Lucien Bouchard as PQ leader and Quebec premier on January 29, 1996.

Parizeau retired to private life, but continued to make comments critical of Bouchard's new government and its failure to press the cause of Quebec independence. He owns an estate at his vineyard in France, a farm in the Eastern Townships of Quebec and a home in Montreal

From Wiki.

All Federalist leaders have to do is dig up his past. Creative ads resurrecting these comments put the nail on the Bloc's coffin.

Parizeau had told a group of foreign diplomats that what mattered most was to get a majority vote from Quebec citizens for the proposal to secede from Canada because with that, Quebecers would be trapped "lobsters thrown into boiling water".

In his concession speech, Parizeau said sovereignty had been defeated by "money and the ethnic vote", and referred to the Francophones who voted Yes in the referendum as "nous" (us) when he said that this majority group was, for the first time, no longer afraid of political independence.

Edited April 25, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Late in the evening of October 30, 1995, Jacques Parizeau states: "True, we've been defeated... at the very heart of it, by what? By money... and ethnic votes... essentially." National newspapers in Canada are not going to let anyone forget these words.

The "Yes" side started strong that evening and kept the lead for quite a while. It took some time before results from Montreal's West Island started to hurt that lead, more time than most Canadians from other provinces felt comfortable with. Before there was any sign of relief for the "No" side, commentators on both the CBC and CTV were openly hoping that the ethnic vote would save the day. They used the word "ethnic" candidly.

In his bitterness, Parizeau suggested that sovereignty could eventually be achieved without the new-stock Québécois. That was unfair to those who supported the sovereigntist option, but most and for all, it was misguided. Many Westerners displayed similar feelings toward the Québécois when Harper was stopped short of majority in 2008, but such behavior is unacceptable from a political figure of Parizeau's stature. His words hinted at alienating an important part of the province's population. Great politicians bring people together.

http://chroniclesofapurelaine.blogspot.com/2009/02/parizeau-is-racist.html

Harper will remind people that the Bloc is not for a united Canada. That this is the nature of the Bloc....the Party which both NDP and Liberals want to go to bed with.

I see more ammunitions for Harper - not that it will change many minds in Quebec (except for ethnic votes) - but will resonate all over Canada.

We're on the last legs of the campaign. Only 7 days to go. With NDP surging and hurting the Liberals badly, with the Liberals more focused in damage-control (what with that boo-ing incident in Mississauga), with factual reference to the economic state of Canada which is above other powerful nations plus being voted only second to Denmark as the happiest people on the planet....this Parizeau apparition could be the moment Harper is hoping for.

Edited April 25, 2011 by betsy

[jbg]

If I'm not mistaken Parizeau resigned because of his bigoted views, something about "Pure Quebecers?"

Nah, because he became a boiled lobster.

[Smallc]

Welcome to April 25th?

[Shwa]

Harper will remind people that the Bloc is not for a united Canada. That this is the nature of the Bloc....the Party which both NDP and Liberals want to go to bed with.

In 2004, didn't Prime Minister Harper write a letter to the GG offering a coalition if the Liberal minority government fell and that coalition included the Bloc Quebecois? Seems like the "nature" of the CPC is to go to bed with anyone.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Shwa

[jbg]

Welcome to April 25th?

Once in a while, while cleaning out old, unread e-mails I come across a gem that I was too busy to deal with at the time. This is one of them.

[jbg]

In 2004, didn't Prime Minister Harper write a letter to the GG offering a coalition if the Liberal minority government fell and that coalition included the Bloc Quebecois? Seems like the "nature" of the CPC is to go to bed with anyone.

It was a co-opposition, not a coalition. The NDP joined with the CPC and the Bloc in one of those during November 2005 if I recall correctly.

[g_bambino]

It was a co-opposition, not a coalition. The NDP joined with the CPC and the Bloc in one of those during November 2005 if I recall correctly.

The letter was actually even more vague than that. It merely pointed out to the Governor General that the opposition parties were willing to offer her an alternative to calling an election following the government's loss of the House's confidence. There's no detail about, nor even a hint of, what the arrangement between the opposition parties would be.

[c/e]

Edited October 24, 2011 by g_bambino

[Shwa]

The letter was actually even more vague than that. It merely pointed out to the Governor General that the opposition parties were willing to offer her an alternative to calling an election following the government's loss of the House's confidence. There's no detail about, nor even a hint of, what the arrangement between the opposition parties would be.

But there was an offer for an "arrangement" nonetheless. An "arrangement" that would have included the Bloc AND the NDP.

[Keepitsimple]

But there was an offer for an "arrangement" nonetheless. An "arrangement" that would have included the Bloc AND the NDP.

C'mon now.....you've seen and heard Stephen Harper for over 5 years now. If something had actually happened (which it didn't) and if the Bloc had agreed to cooperate in any fashion, do you really think that Harper would give them any say whatsoever? Truth is that the Bloc would never want to be seen to be in bed with Federalist parties unless they could clearly show Quebecers that they were taking us to the cleaners......and that's precisely what would have happened under the ill-fated Dion-led Liberal/NDP/Bloc signed agreement.

You're flogging a dead horse.

[g_bambino]

if the Bloc had agreed to cooperate in any fashion, do you really think that Harper would give them any say whatsoever?

The Bloc's agreement to cooperate was, in an of itself, a say in the arrangement.

[Dithers]

C'mon now.....you've seen and heard Stephen Harper for over 5 years now. If something had actually happened (which it didn't) and if the Bloc had agreed to cooperate in any fashion, do you really think that Harper would give them any say whatsoever? Truth is that the Bloc would never want to be seen to be in bed with Federalist parties unless they could clearly show Quebecers that they were taking us to the cleaners......and that's precisely what would have happened under the ill-fated Dion-led Liberal/NDP/Bloc signed agreement.

You're flogging a dead horse.

Pointing out blatant contradiction is not flogging a dead horse.

[Shwa]

C'mon now.....you've seen and heard Stephen Harper for over 5 years now. If something had actually happened (which it didn't) and if the Bloc had agreed to cooperate in any fashion, do you really think that Harper would give them any say whatsoever? Truth is that the Bloc would never want to be seen to be in bed with Federalist parties unless they could clearly show Quebecers that they were taking us to the cleaners......and that's precisely what would have happened under the ill-fated Dion-led Liberal/NDP/Bloc signed agreement.

You're flogging a dead horse.

"Something" already did happen, a letter outlining an arrangement was sent to the GG. You even admit it. If you want to mentally masturbate with alter-history, that is your concern.

[Keepitsimple]

"Something" already did happen, a letter outlining an arrangement was sent to the GG. You even admit it. If you want to mentally masturbate with alter-history, that is your concern.

Blind Harper-haters will nerver admit what the letter actually said. It was pretty simple - it asked the GG to "talk to us" before you dissolve Parliament. It didn't say we've agreed to step in and take over the goivernment. If you'd look at how government works, the committees have a lot of power. The opposition could have re-constituted the committees to give them more say and still allow the Martin government to survive. That's why you heard Gille Duceppe at the time saying that their letter had nothing to do with a coalition. It was all to do with re-arranging the committee structure. Nothing hypocritical in that approach at all.....unlerss you listen to the CBC.

[Shwa]

Blind Harper-haters will nerver admit what the letter actually said. It was pretty simple - it asked the GG to "talk to us" before you dissolve Parliament. It didn't say we've agreed to step in and take over the goivernment. If you'd look at how government works, the committees have a lot of power. The opposition could have re-constituted the committees to give them more say and still allow the Martin government to survive. That's why you heard Gille Duceppe at the time saying that their letter had nothing to do with a coalition. It was all to do with re-arranging the committee structure. Nothing hypocritical in that approach at all.....unlerss you listen to the CBC.

Harper wanted 2004 coalition: Duceppe

Duceppe says Harper called him and Layton to a meeting in Montreal in 2004 where they came up with new rules — rules now in use in the House of Commons — for running committees and some debate days.

"It was one of the most important meetings I had with respect to parliamentary democracy. And I'm not rewriting history here … we changed most of the rules of the House that day," Duceppe said. "They were important changes."

Oh. Wait. This is from a CBC source and, as everyone knows, are completely biased and illegitimate.

Ex-Harper advisor says Tory minority was 2004 option

OTTAWA — A key advisor to Stephen Harper during his days as Opposition leader says the “co-opposition” arrangement Mr. Harper negotiated with NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 was seen by Conservatives at the time as a potential avenue to a Harper-led minority government — without seeking Canadians’ approval in an election.

Tom Flanagan, the federal Conservatives’ former campaign manager and a one-time Harper chief of staff, told Postmedia News on Monday that the deal Mr. Harper described in 2004 as a “co-opposition” accord — but insisted then and insists now was not a formal coalition — was a “perfectly legitimate exercise” aimed at exploring whether there was “common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government.”

That is from the National Post. Oh. Wait. It's from an ex-Harper advisor, and haters gonna hate.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper wanted 2004 coalition: Duceppe

Oh. Wait. This is from a CBC source and, as everyone knows, are completely biased and illegitimate.

Ex-Harper advisor says Tory minority was 2004 option

That is from the National Post. Oh. Wait. It's from an ex-Harper advisor, and haters gonna hate.

Like I said, you appear to be one of the blind Harper-haters. Here's a Youtube video from back then - perhaps you can listen to their own words. It takes three to Tango and all three denied (back then) that there could ever be a true coalition. Were Layton and Duceppe lying then.....or did they lie later? The only guy who hasn't changed their story is Harper.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Shwa]

Like I said, you appear to be one of the blind Harper-haters. Here's a Youtube video from back then - perhaps you can listen to their own words. It takes three to Tango and all three denied (back then) that there could ever be a true coalition. Were Layton and Duceppe lying then.....or did they lie later? The only guy who hasn't changed their story is Harper.

Ah, the nice, neat little category of the "blind Harper-haters" because, you know, haters gonna hate. You risk bringing ridicule upon yourself via internet meme. (don't worry, you aren't the first)

Oh wait. Has it occurred to you that 'back then' they were making their statements in context of a political situation with regard to their own constituencies? Do you even know what that means?

Fact is, "the arrangement" has already been examined in a historical context and everyone is fairly certain what it meant.

Love is blind innit?

[Keepitsimple]

Ah, the nice, neat little category of the "blind Harper-haters" because, you know, haters gonna hate. You risk bringing ridicule upon yourself via internet meme. (don't worry, you aren't the first)

Oh wait. Has it occurred to you that 'back then' they were making their statements in context of a political situation with regard to their own constituencies? Do you even know what that means?

Fact is, "the arrangement" has already been examined in a historical context and everyone is fairly certain what it meant.

Love is blind innit?

I see - so you're saying that Duceppe and Layton were both lying when they categorically denied that they were thinking of entering into a coalition - because they were afraid their "constituents" would be opposed.....but later when they had a chance to seize power, they lied about having lied before? They said what they said....period.

[Shwa]

I see - so you're saying that Duceppe and Layton were both lying when they categorically denied that they were thinking of entering into a coalition - because they were afraid their "constituents" would be opposed.....but later when they had a chance to seize power, they lied about having lied before? They said what they said....period.

They didn't write the letter. Period.

So who knows what they were thinking? But we know what Harper was thinking.