It all comes down to this. (Or maybe the next one.): Liveblogging the first confidence vote of the fall season

by kadyomalley on Friday, September 18, 2009 9:50am - 72 Comments

Spoiler warning:  The government will survive, thanks to grudging support from the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, but ITQ will still be there, perched in the gallery to witness this not-so-historic moment, so check back at 10:15 for all the off-camera action.

And be nice to the NDP, y’all. After smugly voting nay on 79 previous occasions, this can’t be easy for them.
9:42:01 AM
Greetings, fans of rise-and-shine democracy!
A brief programming note: The vote itself isn’t actually scheduled to happen for another half hour or so, but the powers that be at OLO — bless their obliging media-hungry hearts — have seen fit to send Ujjal Dosanjh and David McGuinty out to the Foyer to provide a little preemptive spin. Which is why ITQ is currently pacing the marble hall outside the Chamber, alo

9:51:51 AM
And here’s David McGuinty! Who says that the Liberals will go into the House of Commons this morning and “do their job,” and demonstrate that they simply don’t have confidence in this government. Gosh, it’s disorienting, this whole behaving like a proper official opposition.

Asked whether the Liberals plan to rub the NDP’s collective and respective noses in this fall from sanctimonious smugdom, McGuinty is — surprisingly gracious, actually. The NDP, he notes, will do as it sees fit; his party has taken a “principled position”, and that’s what they’ll be following. Not surprisingly, he gets pressed on the issue, but manages to stick to his line in both English and French.

9:55:49 AM
And here’s Dosanjh, who is apparently here to scrum on — vaccine availability, as it turns out. Where are Canada’s vaccines? How much did this government cut from pandemic funding — he recalls that, during his tenure as minister, they were on the verge of signing a contract that would ensure an adequate supply, so what happened?

9:57:26 AM
After a quick back and forth over the minister’s response to his leader’s demand that she apologize for the body bag incident, Dosanjh heads into the House. Wow, that was — succinct.

9:58:33 AM
And there go the bells! Just the first chimes. I’ll meet you back here in a few minutes. Cross your fingers that I manage to stake out a good seat in the gallery.

10:04:01 AM
I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned his before, but can I just repeat, for the record, that I absolutely *love* being in the House of Commons for a vote? All the MPs scurrying back and forth from the lobbies, milling in the middle aisle, chatting and backslapping and occasionally throwing a fleeting glance at the press gallery above to see if anyone is watching. They’re such antisolipsistic creatures, our parliamentarians; if no one is paying attention to them, they fear they may no longer exist.

10:13:10 AM
Galleries filling up nicely — well, for a Friday, at least — a half dozen journalists, give or take a late arrival, and a strong turnout in the Liberal staffer section. Meanwhile, the government section — which usually boasts at least a duty flack from PMO — section is curiously empty.

10:19:29 AM
Let the desk banging begin!

10:20:40 AM
And here we go! The Whips are marching down the aisle, accompanied by a hearty round of applause from the Liberals; not to be outdone in enthusiasm, someone on the other side of the House — either government or NDP, I couldn’t tell which — yells “Let’s go!” At least it wasn’t “Let’s roll”.

10:22:07 AM
In response to the traditional question — yeas pour? — the Conservative caucus begins the slow motion wave; the PM is here, but seems entirely preoccupied by a briefing note. He doesn’t look particularly relieved at holding onto power for another day, really, but he’s downright gleeful compared to Jack Layton, whose glum demeanour is unmistakeable even from way down here at the other end of the chamber as he votes in favour of the bill.

10:27:19 AM
79-1.

10:27:29 AM
All those opposed? Why, thanks for asking! The Liberals are practically falling over each other to vote against the government on a matter of confidence for the first time in — decades, actually. Wow, maybe this *is* historic-ish after all.

10:30:48 AM
And that’s it — the government survives, with just 74 voting nay, but looking pretty darned delighted to be doing so. Who were those absent three Liberals, though — and how long before we get a flood of anonymously sourced reports of internal caucus turmoil? Let’s start a pool!

10:32:29 AM
Okay, Ignatieff is supposed to scrum at 10:45, so I’ll meet you back here in a few.

10:34:57 AM
Or I’ll meet you back here *right now*, as we join a Jack Layton scrum already in progress. He seems — sombre, but as though he thinks the worst is over. After all, once you’ve folded once, it just keeps getting easier, right? Actually, that didn’t seem to be the case with the Liberals, who seemed more doleful with every hand-sitting vote, but maybe it will be different for the NDP.

10:36:50 AM
“What was it like voting for Harper,” Julie Van Dusen demands. Turns out not so bad, if you lie back and think of home renovations, or so Layton is gallantly attempting to explain. “We were focusing on what people want,” he says — and that isn’t an election.

10:41:41 AM
Jack really seems to think that he can get amendments to the EI bill. He’s also trying to pretend that he doesn’t really believe the Liberals will introduce a confidence motion — “it’s so hypothetical, based on our experience with that party” — which makes me think that he doesn’t yet have a backup plan if the bill *doesn’t* get bogged down in committee.

10:43:21 AM
Okay, that seems to be it for this scrum, but Ignatieff will be here within minutes, we’re told. Such an unexpectedly frantic Friday.

10:44:43 AM
And there he is, as promised, and looking like there are more than a few empty canary cages littering the Opposition lobby. After confirming that it felt somewhat satisfying to vote against this government since 2007 — I think it’s been longer, at least as far as confidence questions, but that’s something worth checking — he goes on to remind us that he spent the summer talking to Canadians anxious about their future, and that really, this is his job.

It’s true, really. Her Majesty *does* need a Loyal Opposition; we’ve just gotten so used to the surreality of not having one that it’s taking some getting used to.

10:49:03 AM
Asked whether he thinks the Conservatives will accuse him of holding up the home reno tax credit, Ignatieff wrinkles his nose, and avers that we should “stop these games” – using tax credits as legislative hostages and that sort of antic. Nobody cares about any of this outside of the “bubble,” he says. Also, it “feels good” to stand up for those Canadians who, like the Liberals, have lost confidence in this government.

10:50:52 AM
Oh, and asked to clarify his apparent conflict with Dalton McGuinty over the HST: “I’m the leader of the opposition; I have no position to clarify.”

Huh. I’ve got to think that there were more than a few furious phone calls between Ottawa and Queen’s Park that would suggest otherwise.

10:55:48 AM
Oh, for heaven’s sakes, now Jim Flaherty is scrumming. Stability is important, as is staying the course, and carrying on, and any number of other vague platitudes to that effect. One reporter asks him what it feels like to be “propped up by socialists and separatists,” and he smiles before noting that he’s been asked the same thing about being a fiscal conservative running a deficit.

He’s also quizzed about EI, and whether there may be more money available; “the view the opposition parties have that there can always be more” is, in his view, not overly helpful.

Oh, and those amendments that Layton and the Bloc want to see? Doesn’t sound like he’s planning a major rewrite of the bill. “The opposition parties should work with the government,” he suggests.

No amendments? “No, we don’t plan to amend.”

In other words, this legislation? Not a fixer-upper, Jack.

Hey, look! Things got interesting again! I love it when that happens. Anyway, since the scrums seem to be over for the moment, I’m going to sign off for a bit and, you know, try to make sense of it all. Check back later today for the resulting musings!

Bookmark and Share
  • cynical to the end

    Watching the NDP humiliate themselves should be great fun.

    • Gawd

      it was

  • jarrid

    Everyone knows the Liberals are releived that there will be no election this fall. They are nowhere near ready for one, don't have a narrative to lead them into one and the polls have gone south on them.

    In a hard-hitting column today about Liberal fortunes and especially those of their leader, Chantal Hebert says what everyone knows: if an election were held now, it would be a case, to quote Chantal of "Dion redux".

    Her conclusion, also bang on is that:

    "Ignatieff's ratings have been on steeper decline than his party's since summer's end. He has yet to articulate a compelling narrative, not only for an election campaign but for his own leadership.

    Having forced voters to give him a reluctant second look, the Liberal leader is so far failing to reintroduce himself to them on winning terms."

    So while Liberals mock the NDP, we all know they themselves don't want an election. Indeed, they've been consistently scared to go to the polls since Martin's election call of 2004.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

      ..and yet, they did what they should of done back in June. Make the first move and force the NDP to run for cover. As I said, its only step one, and not necessarily a harbinger of things to come, but voting non-confidence in the govenrment gets a pretty big monkey off the Liberals back. This re-positioning was a necessary first step, and now its up to the Libs to take a step forward and start looking like a government in waiting.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        However, one of the criticisms I have of Iggy's tactic is that he's essentially locked himself into opposing the government on all confidence measure from now on.

        Ideally, all opposition parties should have the flexibility of examining all issues before them on a case-by-case basis. For political and policy reasons. Iggy no longer has that flexibility.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

          Fair point, but not a huge deal from my perspective. Not many opposition parties get punished for voting against things in this context, and if the Liberals get whooped at the polls next time it won't be because they were forced into precipitating what was viewed as an unneccessary election. The Liberals are, for the first time in years, doing any normal opposition party has done since 1867, namely oppose the government.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Well, they've actually done more than that. They've locked themselves into a position of opposing the government no matter what. So, they've gone from one irresponsible stance to another. This is not what responsible opposition parties have done since 1867, at least not all of them.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

            Mabye, but most Opposition parties don't have three plus years of history to rid themselves of before going to the polls.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            I agree with this, at least the spirit of what you're saying. On the other hand, the number of bills Harper sets as non-confidence votes is the real problem. If one can approve a bill without saying they have confidence in the government, I'm sure Ignatieff would be willing to look at the substance of the bill. But if you don't have confidence in the government, you don't have confidence in the government. You may like a bill that, I don't know, provides stiffer penalties for polluters, just as an example. But if Harper makes it a confidence vote, that makes the issue of the bill irrelevant.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Well, in our Parliamentary system, you're supposed to vote on matters of confidence on an individual basis, aren't you? In fact, this notion that a party now no longer have confidence in the government, regardless of specific issues at hand, doesn't make much sense. For example, the Liberals voted for the budget, but are now voting against its implementation.

            It's all political posturing, and probably based largely upon how the media frames these things in the end.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

            You're thinking of votes on matters of conscience — capital punishment, abortion, same-sex marriage — not confidence. Confidence votes are as whipped as you can get; if you vote against your party on one, you're very likely out of caucus — cf Bill Casey.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            No, I'm not. I'm thinking of the need to coherently make the case for why, as a party, you're voting one way or another on any matter, especially those involving confidence.

            Correct me if I'm wrong, but the one vote of confidence that exists in which you can actually declare a unilateral lack of confidence in the government is to put forth such a motion on an opposition day.

            But on issues like budgets and ways and means motions, the party is voting on specific measures, which happen to be matters of confidence.

            So, in our present example, if Iggy were to be consistent and adhering to strict Parliamentary principle, he would have kept voting for the budget he originally approved, while waiting for the opposition day to declare a general lack of confidence arising from some other justification.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

            A party can indicate that it has lost confidence in the government at any point in time. berried, bien sur.
            From: IntenseDebate Notifications

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Of course they can, given today's politicking through the media. But, based on parliamentary procedure, are budget measures meant to be treated as unilateral declarations of non-confidence?

            Let me use another example. Let's say that Iggy uses the breakdown of the EI panels as a justification for losing confidence in the government. What does that have to do with budget implementation? Especially a budget that the Liberals approves themselves. Is there something about the budget itself, or the implementation, that is being used as a basis for losing confidence in the government? Not from Iggy's public utterances that I've been hearing.

            In other words, parties have become accustomed to using all matters of confidence as hammers with which they can bash each other's heads in, and I believe that this is done in part because of the way that the media covers these things, or the way that parties manipulate that coverage.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

            Unless a professor blames the PM for being (fill in blank), the professor has given a "one time" pass to some fans of Danny Williams.
            Dion booted out a Thunder Bay-Superior North MP Joe Comuzzi's for voting for budget that contain a substantial benefit to his riding.

            Some leaders have a difficult time making decisions.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

            Unless a professor blames the PM for being (fill in blank), the professor has given a "one time" pass to some fans of Danny Williams.
            Dion booted out a Thunder Bay-Superior North MP Joe Comuzzi's for voting for a budget that contain a substantial benefit to his riding against the wishes of the Liberal Party.

            Some leaders have a difficult time making decisions.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            You were gracious enough to give me the diplomacy point, and I shall agree with you here. Yes, in spite of not having confidence in the Harper Conservative government's direction as a whole, I too see no reason why they cannot vote for a specific measure, such as this EI bill. Except only if they actually support it, and I don't think it addresses the concerns the Liberals have put forward on this file. But I haven't read the thing, nor do I know specifically what the Liberals were asking for (I've at last learned not to rely on what politicians say in a sound bite). The theory of voting for a particular bill while not having confidence is one I can support, however.

            Hey Dennis, see how easy this is? We won't agree on everything, and probably won't agree most of the time, but as long as we are civil and reasonable, we may agree on more than we initially imagine. Now if only we could get our respective political parties to follow our example.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            lol, agreed, although the parties have more at stake than debating manners, of course. I should also say that, technically speaking, the Tories aren't my party, although it probably wouldn't surprise you which way I tend to lean.

        • the realist

          He is (finally) the leader of the opposition. Admittedly we havent had one for a couple of years but our system works better when we have one. He has done quite an amazing job of building a party that can now oppose the government. I suspect many people may be underestimating him. I also suspect he likes it that way.

          • wilson

            He ws always the leader of the opposition,
            and Canadians wanted Liberals to prop up the Cons and provide stable government.

            The minute it looked like the Liberals were going to force an election, their numbers rocketed downward.

            IMO, this latest Liberal game of tiddly winks will help Dippers.
            We all expect Dippers to be a pain in parliament, but when they actually put a stop to the games, they look more responsible than the Official Opposition.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

            I think you're overstating how much Canadians outside poli-watchers are paying attention. I don't think it's a ballot issue. The ballot issue for the Liberals will be giving Canadians a reason to vote for them and their vision (something they should probably come up with btw). This move by the Liberals, allows them to shed any sort of attack from the NDP/BQ for propping up the Tories. As I said, it's a first step – with no immediate payoff (in fact they take a hit in the polls), but for the long-term, this was the right initial move. Of course it will all be irrelevant if they go into another campaign thinking the skies will simply re-align like they should again and they'll win. They certainly need a compelling reason to vote for them, as the 'throw them out' mentality hasn't creeped into Canadian's minds in regards to the Conservatives – even if very few get overly excited about the job PMSH has done.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

      Forgive me if I find it a little hard to take this article seriously when she spent the better part of two years telling everyone within earshot how Dion was The Most Despised Man In Quebec…yet now he was the benificary of a Native Son Bump.

      • jarrid

        Chantal Hebert is one of the best political commentators in the country today with a particularly good feel for the pulse in Quebec.

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

          Chantal Hebert is to Canadian Conservatives as Joe Klein was to American Republicans. She's the liberal most Conservatives LOVE to quote.

          (I know you think you're scoring points by quoting someone who is ostensibly Liberal, but you're not. She predicted abject failure for the Liberals in Quebec in 2008, it was her favourite topic to write about – and yet they actually gained a seat and increased their popular vote total in that province – something I have yet to see her account for. Frankly she's far too susceptible to finding a narrative and running with it until she drives it into the ground.)

          Furthermore her complete 180 on Dion (from Pariah to Native Son) is perplexing at best, dishonest at worst.

          • jarrid

            It took the english-speaking media a long time to realize that Dion would flop in Quebec. Chantal and the french-speaking media harboured no such illusions. The LIberals were an abject failure in Quebec last election and were routed in the rest of Canda, their worst election defeat in terms of percentage of the popular vote in 100 years. The breakthrough in Quebec, the one seat you are talking about was Justin Trudeau winning his seat and bucking the national trend. Being

          • jarrid

            "Frankly she's far too susceptible to finding a narrative and running with it until she drives it into the ground."

            RA – I'll concede that is her achilles heal and once and while she does miss the boat because of it.. But she's human after all.

  • Anon Lib

    Yeah, the Libs are so scared that they are trying to convince the other parties to rush through the half-assed EI measures to remove the NDP's flimsy excuse for supporting the Cons.

    Whoops! Flaw in Jarrid'd narrative.

    Bring it on dude. Everything that has happened so far has been completely predictable (Con attack on Ignatieff, with help from their corporate media shills), but elections are full of surprises. Again, BRING IT ON! I can't wait to get my hands on PM Bodybag!

    • Check The OR

      "the Libs are so scared that they are trying to convince the other parties to rush through the half-assed EI measures to remove the NDP's flimsy excuse for supporting the Cons."

      So – the Liberals are going to assist in ramming through bad legislation so that they can feed their bloodlust sooner? And they have so little faith in the government, they're going to vote against it, yet fast-track it's half-baked legislation through? Does no one see the irony in this?

      Maybe the Liberals aren't scared of an election, but they kidding themselves about their chances in it. They should be secretly thanking their lucky stars that the Dippers caved in to instictive self-preservation.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/IanBC IanBC

        So – the Liberals are going to assist in ramming through bad legislation so that they can feed their bloodlust sooner? And they have so little faith in the government, they're going to vote against it, yet fast-track it's half-baked legislation through? Does no one see the irony in this?

        But the Conservatives has said they won't amend this legislation. So, whether the Liberals think it's bad or not if the NDP supports it then it's going to pass. Waiting won't make it better, so they might as well get it passed now. If the "half-baked" legislation is going to be fast-tracked or slow-tracked they logically picked the former.

    • jarrid

      "Bring it on dude. (…) BRING IT ON!"

      Look how brave anonymous Liberals speak, hiding behind Jack Layton's coattails. (Shakes head and ponders the Liberal partisans on-going self-delusion.)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    So then what to make of the NDP's recent and sudden cold feet on the EI proposals. An attempt to prolong the process? Or a genuine effort to seek more concessions?

    By the way, can someone please finally explain to me the Liberal logic of wanting to fast-track the IE proposals? Is it simply the "alibi" gotchya game that Iggy taunted about yesterday? How can it be squared with the Liberal opposition to such proposals?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

      I think it's because they will get crucified if the Conservative and NDP during an election campaign accuse them of causing EI to stall by having an election. By requesting it's fast-track, they prevent, or at least blunt, that line of attack.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

      I think it's because they will get crucified if the Conservatives and NDP during an election campaign accuse them of causing EI to stall by having an election. By requesting it's fast-track, they prevent, or at least blunt, that line of attack.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Wait a minute. Are the voting for or against the specific measures in question regardless of how fast they're passed?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/IanBC IanBC

          They can't stop it from passing (if the NDP support it) and the government won't change it, so waiting doesn't accomplish anything for the Liberals and it hurts the few Canadians that this legislation would support.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Why are liberals so enthusiastic that their party's number one priority is now nothing more than embarrassing the NDP? I'd like to see them sell that to voters.

    Hi, I'm Michael Ignatieff. During the last session of Parliament the Liberal Party of Canada got the job of making the NDP look bad done for you. Vote for us and we'll turn this, our number one priority, into a full time obsession.
    This message paid for by the Liberal Party of Canada.
    We Can Do Better; We Just Choose Not To.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      To be fair, wasn't it the NDP's number one priority to embarrass the Liberals until the second that Iggy said enough is enough? Clearly, Jack felt there was an audience for it, just as the Liberals do now.

      As Chantal Hebert points out in her column, if Iggy's won anything with this, it's being the unquestioned leader of the opposition again. At the same time, however, his quest to become PM may have suffered a few setbacks along the way – for now.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        To be fair, wasn't it the NDP's number one priority to embarrass the Liberals until the second that Iggy said enough is enough?

        No it wasn't. The NDP certainly leveraged the situation to their advantage and partook in the gamesmanship. But they never let it their gamesmanship interfere with their agenda; unlike the Liberals and Conservatives who foisted a budget nobody wanted on us because they couldn't set the games aside.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        To be fair, wasn't it the NDP's number one priority to embarrass the Liberals until the second that Iggy said enough is enough?

        No it wasn't. The NDP certainly leveraged the situation to their advantage and partook in the gamesmanship. But they never let their gamesmanship interfere with their agenda; unlike the Liberals and Conservatives who foisted a budget nobody wanted on us because they couldn't set the games aside.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        To be fair, wasn't it the NDP's number one priority to embarrass the Liberals until the second that Iggy said enough is enough?

        No it wasn't. The NDP certainly leveraged the situation to their advantage and partook in the gamesmanship. But they never let their gamesmanship interfere with their agenda; unlike the Liberals and Conservatives who foisted a budget nobody wanted on us because they couldn't set the games aside. And now the Liberals are letting their desire to embarrass the NDP guide their actions (ie. fast tracking the EI reforms simply to strip the NDP's alibi away).

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

          No?
          Would it be in the top 2 or 3?

          When Jack declared his intention to vote against the Economic Action Plan without even reading it, how was that putting his agenda ahead of gamesmanship?

          Jack is basically a decent person, but he dances at the political balls just like everyone else.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

            When Jack declared his intention to vote against the Economic Action Plan without even reading it, how was that putting his agenda ahead of gamesmanship?

            First of all, he didn't blindly vote against the budget. The Conservatives leaked a number of details about it in advance of actually releasing it. Secondly, common sense alone is enough to decide that a party that doesn't believe in economic stimulus–as the Conservatives don't–can introduce a budget with an economic stimulus package. And that proved to be true when the Conservatives released their stinker of a budget that nobody liked.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

            When Jack declared his intention to vote against the Economic Action Plan without even reading it, how was that putting his agenda ahead of gamesmanship?

            First of all, he didn't blindly vote against the budget. The Conservatives leaked a number of details about it in advance of actually releasing it. Secondly, common sense alone is enough to decide that a party that doesn't believe in economic stimulus–as the Conservatives don't–can't introduce a budget with an economic stimulus package. And that proved to be true when the Conservatives released their stinker of a budget that nobody liked.

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

          No?
          Would it be in the top 2 or 3?

          When Jack declared his intention to vote against the Economic Action Plan without even reading it, how was that putting his agenda ahead of gamesmanship?

          Jack is basically a decent person, but he dances at the political balls, just like everyone else.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Why are liberals so excited that their party's number one priority is now nothing more than embarrassing the NDP? I'd like to see them sell that to voters.

    Hi, I'm Michael Ignatieff. During the last session of Parliament the Liberal Party of Canada got the job of making the NDP look bad done for you. Vote for us and we'll turn this, our number one priority, into a full time obsession.
    This message paid for by the Liberal Party of Canada.
    We Can Do Better; We Just Choose Not To.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

      Yes, I agree that is odd, particularly since the NDP don't need any help on that front.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

    "Jack really seems to think that he can get amendments to the EI bill."

    Yep….probably based on his recollection about how famously his green proposals were implemented by the CPC ;)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

    “I’m the leader of the opposition; I have no position to clarify.”

    Wow. He really does have a penchant for swallowing his shoe.

    • Calgary Junkie

      Does he think the media is now going to drop the HST issue ? I suspect the media will now press him on it even more. But we shall see.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

    I don't they care and it's all about optics.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

    I don't they care and it's all about optics. Not a 'principled' approach per se.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Iggy says: "“stop these games.”

    This coming from someone who keeps referring to an another party's stance on legislation as an "alibi." And from someone who wants to fast–track legislation he doesn't support.

    I guess whatever smarts Iggy has does not transfer well into consistent political messaging.

    • wilson

      “stop these games”
      from the man who passed the budget and then refuses to support the implimentation of it….
      Canadians are not stupid.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      I'm not so sure what's wrong with wanting to fast-track legislation you don't support. If you know you're not going to support it, why on earth would you want it hanging around draining time and attention away from other issues. Push it through to vote quickly so that you can be rid of it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    …"Asked whether the Liberals plan to rub the NDP’s collective and respective noses in this fall from sanctimonious smugdom, McGuinty is — surprisingly gracious, actually."

    Are you sure it was David McGuinty and not an actor sent out to imitate him? That doesn't sound like David, who usually is one of the more abrasive MPs….

  • William

    3 weeks ago I said that the Bloc would vote with the gov/t because they had nothing to gain by going to an election—-same with the NDP—–same with the Libs. Kady looked at some poll and thought the Bloc would gain seats and would go for an election.

    I think it/s time to stop looking at polls and understand why opp. parties force elections The only reason for the Bloc and NDP would want an election is if they thought it were possible to revive the coalition and acquire cabinet ministers and vetos (Bloc ). That appears to be off the table now with Iggy or maybe not if he gets desparate for power.

    So you have 3 guys in a room with loaded guns—-they all would have been punished for an unnecessary election. But only the Libs were crazy enough to pull the trigger—-the Conservatives won/t let the electorate forget that.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      In this loaded gun scenario–where was Harper? Psst, William, you Conservative guys are the ones in power. Yes, you're not only in the room, you've got the biggest gun!

      • William

        Well as you guys keep reminding the rest of us, the CPC may be in power but it is still their job to get the confidence of the house. So PM Harper is just trying to convince the three guys not to pull the trigger at the same time.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

          Yes, but instead of insulting the three parties to a greater or lesser extent depending on partisan circumstances, perhaps he might be moved to use diplomacy to further his goals–if he had any actual goals other than sticking it to the opposition, that is.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            That he's governed for almost four years now, been elected twice, and passed an extensive legislative agenda in the process, would suggest, of course, that he does have goals that extend far beyond "sticking it to the opposition."

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

      You think the electorate is going to care about an election that never happened?

      • William

        Well they will care if Iggy continues with this inconsistent pattern of his that involves voting against good policy supported by the rest of the House just so he can get a shot at power before his best before date ( BBD ) is up.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

    Anyone have a timeline to mail out a 10% ads from the NDP, Bloc, CPC pointing out only the Liberals voted against the home reno tax credit?

    • Calgary Junkie

      I expect the non-LPC parties (at least the Tories) will send those 10 percenters right away. It's a pretty simple, obvious, irrefutable message–"Your Liberal MP voted against blah blah …". I suspect Duceppe could see that kind of message used against Bloc MPs, and so they voted accordingly.

      One never knows what issue will grab voters attention during a campaign, as we saw when the arts funding issue in Quebec got torqued up out of all proportion. There is danger lurking here for the Libs, IF the three other parties AND the media gang up on them during the campaign. A big IF, of course.

  • jarrid

    Trudeau's son may have had something to do with it.

  • William

    OK—I will go along with the more diplomacy thing.

  • Ken S from Ramara

    What a waste of a week in Parliament! I wonder, was government in France this F/up before they tore up their constitution and started work on the 5th draft? Maybe it's time for a constitutional bowel movement for Canada!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

    What kind of official opposition doesn't feel the need to take positions on issues like the HST?

    Are they a government in waiting, or a political sideshow?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Oh, and asked to clarify his apparent conflict with Dalton McGuinty over the HST: “I’m the leader of the opposition; I have no position to clarify.”

    That should be his mantra. No positions to clarify, no ideas to put forth. Just Narnia, "we can do better", and "we'll make Canadians proud of our flag again".

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    I have to believe that his handlers cringe when he talks like that. For a guy who's trying to shed the image of being arrogant, he seems to sound arrogant without even trying. That can't be good.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

    Iggy stepped in it that time.

  • Calgary Junkie

    Remember the kerfuffle over thegreenshift.ca ? The good news for Iggy is that bigcanada.ca IS available. Not that he will use it.

From Macleans