Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
It was barely a month ago that the Harper Conservatives were returned to government with a strengthened minority and politicians of all stripes were pledging to work together to steer Canada through the global financial storm. But after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered an economic update yesterday that promised to end pay-equity programs, suspend federal employees' right to strike, and eliminate the subsidy for political parties (a move that would financially cripple the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc, but not the Conservatives), all three opposition leaders declared that either the Tories would have to blink or the government falls.
Although defeating the government usually entails a trip to the polls, it looks like the Conservatives' opponents are considering banding together in a coalition instead of dragging Canadians into a fourth election in as many years. According to reports, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent are holding talks today on the feasibility of a Liberal–New Democrat government, a sign that such a coalition is a serious possibility and not just a progressive pipe dream. And who would be prime minister in that situation? Jack Layton has apparently ruled out Stéphane Dion as PM, which means that the Liberal caucus could be forced into prematurely ending the Grit leadership race and immediately handing the crown to one of the frontrunners, namely Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae.
A prime minister from Toronto leading a united centre-left government? What a sight that would be.
Photo by Steph & Adam.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Toronto has never had a prime minister.
When Turner was PM, he was a member for Vancouver Quadra.
It's been a decades-long "thing".
Most of the leaders came from Quebec and now
it's Toronto's--not Ontario's--turn.
Most of the leaders came from Quebec and now
it's Toronto's--not Ontario's--turn.
Why bring talk of entitlement into the way that political positions are filled? Surely democracy should be about satisfying the will of the people and not some affirmative action pipe dream.
Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson (the guy we named the airport after) were both from Toronto. And that awful Harper fellow was born and raised here.
But you're right. In recent memory they've mostly been from Quebec.
Who gives a f*** where the PM is from?
If this actually happens, and it can be a stable coalition, (big IF) it would be Canada's most progressive government ever AND would finally represent the will of the vast majority of Canadians who rejected Harper's far-right ideological stance in the past election. Almost 1 million more Canadians voted NDP or Liberal than Conservative on Oct 14.
ah, finally things begin to make some sense...a government that actually would have the support of the majority of the people who voted in the last election...why coulnd't they do it right after the darn election?
LOL.
The Liberal party is very desperate, so it looks like they are finally swallowing their pride and doing what the Conservatives did with the Reform party. They were seriously fractured this last election so this looks like they are looking to compromise to gain common ground. They need serious restructuring.
So the three opposition parties are pissed that a Canadian government is finally deciding to cut spending rather than run a deficit.
I'm not a fan of Harper, but Flaherty's proposed course of action is a good one. The opposition parties would want the government to spend like a drunken sailor and balanced budget be damned. My only disappointment is that Flaherty should have done this two years ago.
...a government that actually would have the support of the majority of the people who voted in the last election...
But it would really have that much support? If a coalition were formed it's likely that it would be ideologically dominated by the Liberals. Wouldn't really only just represent 26%?
i think i just heard the TSX plummet
...a government that actually would have the support of the majority of the people who voted in the last election...
But it would really have that much support? If a coalition were formed it's likely that it would be ideologically dominated by the Liberals. Wouldn't really only just represent 26%?...
A coalition government is the slave to all and the servant to none. I am saying that no one will benefit from a coalition made up from Bloc, Liberal and NDP Members. The three opposition parties do not have a common agenda outside of being critical of the Conservative Government (and this is their job). It is time to stop funding political parties. It's also time to get away from entitlement and earn our positions.
According to an e-mail I just got from the lovely 680 News, "The Liberals are plannning a confidence motion Monday to bring down the government. They say they have a viable alternative government. "
The three opposition parties do not have a common agenda outside of being critical of the Conservative Government (and this is their job).
Exactly! Which is why some ideological sacrifices would have to be made in the event of a coalition (with the Liberals most likely calling the shots). The end result of that would be a Government which represents even less of the population than the Conservatives currently do, despite what all the Torontoist rhetoric would have you believe.
The opposition parties would want the government to spend like a drunken sailor and balanced budget be damned.
And in a recession - which is what we're already well into - that's what you do, in order to create spending which the private sector isn't generating due to a lack of capital availability. That's why running a surplus in times of economic growth is a good idea; it allows you to generate the money you need to spend when things go bad.
Every other government in the world is prepping public spending programs, using the crisis as an opportunity to get massive public infrastructure overhauls completed - but not us. Flaherty seems determined to repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover.
The Canadian Press is now reporting that Stéphane Dion will lead a Liberal-NDP coalition government should the Conservatives be defeated in a vote of non-confidence.
Christmas has come early this year.
It seems that Stephen Harper has now moved to delay any motions until until December 8th.
A coalition government would likely be a logistical nightmare. Yet, I still really want to see one, if just for the novelty.
Harper's announcement only pertains to votes on motions related to the economic statement, though, or at least that's my understanding. Monday is still a Liberal opposition day in the House of Commons, which is where the Grits' proposed non-confidence motion comes in. The Conservatives can, however, postpone the opposition day, so who knows when the Liberal motion will actually come up, if at all.
Looks like the opposition day has been cancelled after all. Also, forming a coalition would be an attack on democracy. So says the prime minister.
The TSX closed more than 500 points up. Either the markets don't believe this will happen, or they aren't upset by the thought that it will.
According to at least one article, the rise is due to enthusiasm about U.S. stimulus initiatives, which the opposition would like to see here as well.
The Cons were supposed to be the economically sound party but it doesn't look like they know what they're doing. What would they do if faced with a deficit next year? You can't sell the same property twice, Joe.
You know what's an attack on democracy? Cutting tax-payer funding for parties so they have to turn to special interests and corporate/union donations to make ends meet.
Wouldn't creating a coalition to better serve the needs of the general electorate kind of be.. y'know, the definition of Democracy?
And Rek has it again. Selling off capital assets to alleviate an economic crisis is the most boneheaded solution I've ever heard from to an economist. Meanwhile, Harper is sabotaging the other political parties by cutting their funding and not his own? That sounds like Tyranny to me.
dcooper said: Harper is sabotaging the other political parties by cutting their funding and not his own? That sounds like Tyranny to me.
Just to clarify: the elimination of the subsidy to political parties would indeed affect the Conservatives, but not nearly to the extent that it would hurt the finances of the other four major parties.
CBC News explains it pretty well:
But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party's total revenues.
By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals' funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc's, 57 per cent of the NDP's and 65 per cent of the Greens'.
Sorry, the formatting on my last comment came out all weird. All three of the final paragraphs are from the CBC article (even though not all of them are block quoted), which can be found here.
rek: You know what's an even bigger affront to democracy? Forcing me to donate to political parties I don't support!
Isn't the funding proportional to popular support? In that case you're only "donating" to the party you voted for.
Pickletoes, first of all, if you vote Green then 1.95 goes to their party. If you vote Con, 1.95 goes to the Cons. Your vote gets money for the party of your choice.
Second, public financing of political parties preserves democracy. If a party cannot convince 2-5% of the electorate that they are viable, they get nothing. Better than convincing corporations that you will scratch their backs in parliament if they donate thousands of dollars to your party.
http://tinyurl.com/5r6dd7
Long live public financing!
Hah. Harper's finally clued into the fact that he doesn't have a majority. This is what minority government is -- you have to work together and compromise; you can't just go around doing whatever the hell you feel like doing. If we had wanted Harper to do that, we'd have given him a majority. I say suck it up, Stevie. And if he can't play nice, the opposition OUGHT to bring him down. There is nothing undemocratic about that.
I think you'll see Harper compromise a bit to hold power, it's not like these were dear issues to his heart.
It would be fun to watch Iggy and Bob maneuver to get the leadership behind the Dion's back though.
Isn't the funding proportional to popular support? In that case you're only "donating" to the party you voted for.
rek: Yeah, but seeing as there are a significant amount of people who, one way or another, avoid paying taxes it's inevitable that some of my money would go to a political party I don't support.
...public financing of political parties preserves democracy. If a party cannot convince 2-5% of the electorate that they are viable, they get nothing. Better than convincing corporations that you will scratch their backs in parliament if they donate thousands of dollars to your party.
Tuds: Okay then, let's level the playing field. Let's get rid of the subsidies, but also limit private contributions to $1.95/year per individual. That would seem to solve both of our concerns.
momo: If this is the same momo that I think you might be: Go back to Lawbuzz. haha
PickleToes: Yes yes, we're all familiar with the right's position of "I know best how to spend my money (and it's not on hospitals, universal health care, libraries, public school, public transit, or welfare)", why would it differ here?
rek: You're very intuitive.
This coalition concept is what Maude Barlow had been demanding happen for years-only now do the Liberals even consider it! Is this just desperate stupidity or what?
How much of this crisis is the product of media excitement/hysteria? The novelty of the situation has resulted in a lot of breathless coverage and I think that's encouraged the opposition more than the practical benefits of a coalition.
I don't believe harper would be irresponsible enough to lose government over something so trivial, I suspect he'll quietly withdraw the poison pill over the next week. He'll likely introduce it again at a more opportune time. Short term tactical loss, and the Liberal's (and the others) would be smart to use it as the catalyst to create a better fundraising system (the Victory Fund is sort of a lame idea).
pickletoes = regulus?
What's Lawbuzz? Must be some other momo, sullying my good name. :)
Yeah that's democratic - replace the party most people voted for with a "party" no one voted for.
Anyway, the coalition option works both ways. Suppose some day the NDP gets a minority and commences with the usual set of political purges, sending business owners to forced labour camps, withholding resources from non-compliant provinces, curtailing freedom of the press, etc. Well, then the Liberals and Conservatives could form a coalition to stop it.
Yes, spacejack, exactly. That's how every other parliamentary system in the world works, why not us?
Also, I totally called the outcome.
spacejack - Most Canadians did not vote for the Cons, obviously. The combined popular vote of 44.4% (26.2% + 18.2%) is higher than what the Cons got (37.6%). Add the Bloc as supporters on the floor and you bring it up to 54.4%.
The great irony is that Bob Rae is currently at the bargaining table to form a coaltion between the Liberals and NDP. Except he's on the Liberal side of the table this time!
The three opposition leaders just signed an accord to make the coalition official should the Harper government fall. The Liberals and NDP will sit together as a government until June 2011, with support from the Bloc until at least 2010. Dion will be PM until the Grits pick a new leader in May, and the New Democrats will have six cabinet seats.
For details: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546315
I think that Bob Rae should be the one to put forward the non-confidence motion. He'd probably go straight into the Political Hall of Fame for toppling three different governments.
Things just got awesome on Parliament Hill.
A Harper majority is now inevitable.
I guess it's too late for Harper to back down, he could even institute the NDP platform and it wouldn't matter now that the opposition got a whiff of the powerful scent of power.
Let's see how long Harper will prorogue Parliament now.
Harper doesn't deserve to be Prime Minister. He is the epitome of the bureaucrat politician - all he wants is power and his actions over the past few months years- in fact, his actions have ALWAYS demonstrated this. He panders to pundits, distracts voters by sabotaging other parties and their leaders, and layers lies on top of lies all to STAY IN POWER. That is his only goal. It's about time that Canadians recognized this and did some housecleaning. I'm not saying our other options are that much better, but collaboration could help maintain checks and balances for an honest Government, and Canada would benefit from a spirit of cooperation instead of incessant hot air.
Politicians are elected based on what they say they will do once they get in power. Unfortunately, in our current system we don't have a lot of power over their actions once they've been elected. What good is a well-spoken liar? Would you not rather a genuinely trustworthy politician with more temperate (pun sort of intended) goals?
dcooper: If it weren't for the first sentence I would have thought that you were talking about the Liberals.
Svend - Harper's already backed down on the more scandalous plans, but it's the lack of a stimulus plan that the coalition has sunk its teeth into.
PickleToes - The Liberals aren't known for their anti-media hostility or the PMO controlling all public statements by party members.
I just hope the GG has the sense to disregard whatever Harper's suggestion will be (traditionally the GG asks the PM for advice in this situation) and lets the coalition form the government.
Rek: And the majority of Canadians didn't vote for either the Liberals, NDP or Bloc. With our first past the post system, it is seats that matter, not popular vote.
PickleToes: You assume that Harper will be around when the next election is called. Even people in his own party are questioning his ability to lead the CPC. Harper has not done the Conservative brand a favour with this stunt.
Look I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I agree with Flaherty that Canada does not have to rush in with a stimulus package. Deficit financing should only be used when all other options have been fully explored.
That said, when you are in a minority government position, you don't cut public spending on political parties. It's suicide. Wait till you have a majority.
Harper didn't have to suspend the right to strike for federal workers - given the economic climate it was unlikely that they were going to strike anyways. And it's questionable what exactly the government would gain from this move. Border officials were not too stringent with collecting taxes and duties while they were without a collective agreement.
it's like a constitutional coup... so canadian
During the last, most recent election, the idea of a coalition was the best case scenario for progressive Canadians. I mused about it, but fluffed it off as wishful thinking. Now - it looks like it's going through and despite what we know Harper is going to do - which is likely to dissolve Parliament before tabling the economic update, the coalition agreement will still stand over the Xmas holidays & they will bring down the gov't first thing when Parliament returns. A coalition gov't is really & truly the best to govern Canada during perhaps tough times ahead.
My only regret is that Peggy Nash wasn't returned, because she would definitely have been appointed a Cabinet Minister.
Sayonara Harper! Your neo-con, Reform/Alliance true colours are showing loud & clear and the majority of Canadians ultimately don't want it.
Vincent - And in seats the coalition outnumbers the Cons 163 to 143. Harper has a minority and minority governments can be toppled by seat count. That's what's happening here; pointing out the popular vote only goes to show that the coalition does have a mandate and it's larger than the Cons'.
Blocking federal employees from striking, and banning party funding with public money were ideologically driven.
Why do I suddenly feel like democracy doesn't count any more...
People don't seem to understand that proceeding in a fashion where several parties collaborate to more fully represent the views of an entire nation is in fact far more democratic than having one "ruling party" and ignoring the pressing non-confidence in the Prime Minister simply for the sake of maintaining the status quo. I hate how this supposedly democratic system has become so much more about parties and "leaning left/right" than individuals' personal opinions and beliefs.
Democracies currently governed by coalition: India (13 party coalition!), Israel, Finland, Japan (since 1993), Australia (two party "permanent" coalition), Belgium (since 1958), Switzerland (since 1959), Germany, Ireland (since 1989), and Netherlands (since 1973). Italy was governed by coalition until April of this year.
Only morons think parliamentary elections are a win/lose situation, or that coalitions are undemocratic. Stop being morons, morons.
CBC Newsworld (I forget the name of the program itself) had Gerard Kennedy talking about the "difference" between Harper's 2004 coalition proposal with the Bloc and the Liberal/NDP's. The host of the show smacked down Jim Prentice when he regurgitated the party line.
How about anybody who DOESN'T agree with this coalition, find your Liberal or NDP MP's constituency office, take a walk down there and share your feelings. I'm in no way advocating violence, but let's not forget that they are slapping us in the face. They shouldn't get away with short-circuiting the democratic process without consequences.
Links to find Canadian Elected Officials:
Federal Government – find your Member of Parliament (MP) by going to
www. gc. ca
• Under “Resource Centre” click on “Contact Your MP”
• Click on either “
Short-circuiting? This is perfectly legitimate, just rare and has the added bonus of saving us another $300,000,000 and an election in the new year. What do you want? Harper lost the confidence of the house. It's not like nobody voted for the other parties — in fact the majority did.
rek: Yeah but they didn't vote for a coalition, something which, despite your assumptions otherwise, is really quite different.
I guess we'll just have to wait for Michaëlle Jean
PickleToes - It's only different in the sense that it's better: the NDP and Bloc were never going to get a majority, now their constituents are going to be represented in government instead of opposition; the Liberals couldn't muster even a minority, but in the coalition their voters are also represented by the government. In all three cases the parties have to make compromises to work together, but compromised trumps zero influence whatsoever. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc are all undeniably centrist-to-left and collectively represent the most Canadians with the most political positions in common.
This is all beside the point though, because a coalition doesn't need to be on the ballot for it to form the government in the case of non-confidence.
As I understand it, polls indicate 75% of Canadians don't care who does it, just that someone provides a plan for economic stimulus. If parliament is prorogued that won't happen until sometime in January. If the coalition is permitted to take over next Monday or Tuesday, they could put forward their package that day and/or extend parliament further into December to make time for it to be done.
Too bad the Liberals and NDP don't have enough seats between them, it's the part about making a deal with separatists that makes this hard to swallow for many people.
Good thing they aren't part of the cabinet, but you know Quebec will be getting a truck load of money in some way.
Harper will address the nation tonight at 7 p.m. Wild speculation on his plan to defeat the coalition forces commences now.
He wants to address the nation but I don't think
it's binding on broadcasters to carry the address.
So, it'll be telling to see just what networks and services carry the broadcast.
Will Global and CTV forgo their entertainment programs for Harper? I hardly think so.
I predict lame rallies, sparsely attended, with plenty of outrage, bad 3 word chants, the usual assortment of kooks and zealots, trite speeches, and a lot of people wishing they hadn't shown up but had gone Christmas shopping instead.
@David Toronto: Call me crazy, but I can think of a number of good reasons why news channels might want to upend regularly-scheduled and easily-shuffled entertainment programs for live breaking news.
Personally, I think both options suck.
A coalition, on the surface, takes us back to essentially a two-party system. Except for one thing.
The Bloc is only allied in terms of votes of confidence. In other words, they won't topple the government, but they'll vote on their own on other votes. This effectively gives the Bloc veto power on everything since the Liberals and NDP don't have enough seats to outweigh the Conservatives.
Talk about a sweet deal for Duceppe.
A new election will likely have terrible turnout (so close to the last voter-malaised one AND in the middle of winter), and result in not much change.
It's time the Conservatives blinked. Selling assets and cutting public funding of parties needs to go. Infrastructure investment COULD be added as a stimulus, and maybe some deeper cuts have to be made elsewhere to keep a deficit minimal. Direct stimulus would be a mistake, and one the coalition would doubtlessly make. At the very least, Harper will be able to say he was forced to run a deficit by the opposing parties.
I'm not a fan of the Harper government, but the current options are less palatable.
Rather than present a (non-existent) rational justification for his actions or a solution to the stalemate, Harper and his Republicanites have been trying to manufacture outrage just as they did during the election (art gala welfare!) so I expect his speech to be more of the same. It will be one-sided and the opposition probably isn't entitled to respond. And he won't mention he tried forming a coalition with The Evil Separatists back in 2004.
Rek stated:
Democracies currently governed by coalition: India (13 party coalition!), Israel, Finland, Japan (since 1993), Australia (two party "permanent" coalition), Belgium (since 1958), Switzerland (since 1959), Germany, Ireland (since 1989), and Netherlands (since 1973). Italy was governed by coalition until April of this year.
Only morons think parliamentary elections are a win/lose situation, or that coalitions are undemocratic. Stop being morons, morons.
you are stating some misleading statistics. let's use Israel for an example.
true that Israel's government is almost always a coalition government. but...Israel's government is always being threatened with non-confidence votes or with parts of the coalition walking away from the government. so the government ends up being a treadmill government - going nowhere and trying to pander to all of the multiple parties' (and when i say multiple, i don't mean a 3-party coalition. its usually more than that) whacko requests. hence, the right-wing religious parties get what they want, and the minority gets equal laws and bills passed as the majority does (which kind of goes against what a true democracy is).
but the key point: when you vote in Israel, you are voting for a political party. the % of total votes a party receives is then converted into parliamentary seats. you are voting for a party, not for a member running in your riding.
there are a # of reasons why the coalition isn't democratic. the biggest one is: we voted for MPs - regional representation. our votes did not go towards party representation. this is why one can argue that Jack Layton won a seat in a Liberal province - people voted for him because they like him and what he would do for his riding.
Finally, a coalition government that involves a political party that wants to leave this country is completely absurd. how can this coalition make decisions that are best for this country? you will get the Israel Effect - the government will make decisions that will try to satisfy the coalition members and not necessarily the greater good of the country.
in essence, this coalition will result in more government headaches, infighting, power struggles and poor economic decisions. this country will seriously be headed down the shitter faster than you can say "je me souviens"
As I said in the coda, the reason I pointed out all of the coalition-governed democracies was to stamp out any doubt anyone has about whether coalitions, parliaments, and democracy can coexist.
We may not vote for the party as a whole, but that doesn't change the constitutionality of what the coalition is attempting.
re: Prorogued parliament
Boo. I think she made the wrong choice and if anything Harper will just get worse now that he thinks he is invincible.
Former Torontoist editor Ron Nurwisah replies.
This sets an awful precedent for the future. Any PM may now ask the GG to prorogue for any reason and avoid a confidence vote.
Maybe Mr Nurwisah could design us a banner jpeg (or better yet a bumper sticker) with the CPC logo and the tagline "These Colours Do Run"
Hopefully the time off from the power high will allow all parties to realize that what Canadians want from them is action on the economy and other issues of the country, rather their pathetic struggles for their own power and to fill their party coffers.
But all this makes me think that maybe it is time for a Ontario Block party, that is concerned about nothing but Ontario and grabbing up as many Federal grants as possible. Maybe we could also have a referendum to kick Quebec out...
As someone mentioned, proroguing (?) Parliament might have the benefit of proving to the Canadian public that the proposed coalition can remain strong over time; if it's still around to bring down Harper in January, it will seem like a more reliable choice.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to be thankful that Canadian Politics finally edged out American Apparel for general interest.
I don't think waiting (and complaining) will be much of a test of the coalition -- trying to govern sanely while paying all the pipers would have been. I still have more hope, or perhaps better to say wishes, for Harper to learn his lesson and ditch the partisan nonsense for some intelligent compromises.
John Baird's already announced the Conservative Party will be spending their suspension on spin, NOT on efforts to work toward any real economic solutions. Especially with the other parties.
I'd like to think that there was a sincere belief on the part of Michaelle Jean that the Conservatives would spend the time reworking their mandate in a more cooperative fashion. Given that within moments of the suspension being granted one of their cabinet ministers is admitting the plan is to out-live the coalition partnership, it's clear that parliament has been subverted.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that 2 hr meeting.
So we can expect an election the first week of April, or the coalition holds together and they take over.
I am so ashamed of Mme. Jean. She should have disallowed the prorogue and let the coalition take power...now, over Xmas, we get 6 weeks of freefalling, nothing, no government no descisions made, noone to turn to as the econo-shizz continues to hit the fan and an inevitable budget vote in January. In the meanwhile we will be tormented with campaign-style propaganda from the Tories & the Coaltion until that budget vote....not impressed Mme. Jean not impressed at all.
I am so ashamed of Mme. Jean. She should have disallowed the prorogue and let the coalition take power
Maybe after a non-confidence vote, but why should that ever be an option before a Government is formally defeated?
Iggy as coalition PM?
Dion just released a statement saying that he will resign as Liberal chief soon as a new leader is chosen, which could happen as early as Wednesday in a caucus vote.
Bob Rae in my opinion is the more capable of the two, but people are still focusing on his past mistakes which is tainting his credibility. Ignatieff probibly has a much higher chance of getting in, as long as he doesn't put his foot into his mouth while talking to the media again.
They just wouldn't be Liberals if there wasn't the imminent threat of some back stabbing wrecking everything, now would they?
They wouldn't be politicians.
Rae's out. Time for Iggy to get his crown fitted.