Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Conservative-Bloc Coalition Watch

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:25pm - 91 Comments

The Conservatives might be ready to cut a deal with Quebec, which might be enough to pass the 2011 budget with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, with whose support the government was able to pass the last implementation bill of the 2010 budget.

All of which would, at the very least, appease Conservative concerns about a “needless” election.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    Shouldn't this post be titled "Unholy Conservative-Bloc Coalition Watch".

    • Dave

      I think coalitions are only unholy when they combine both separatists AND socialists.

  • Mike T.

    Better not tell Stephen Harper – if there's one thing he was clear on, it's that votes passed with only the support of the Bloc are illegitimate because they're separatists and not Canadian.

  • Emily

    Buying off Quebec?

    Um…wasn't that supposed to be 'evil'?

  • psiclone

    at least this would give an opportunity for Iggy and Jack to stand up and talk tough – otherwise all you would hear from them would be GULP !!! – with all of the latest poll numbers there is no way any of the parties want to go the polls especially the Liberals. Harper is doing Iggy and favour and holding him up for a round or two much like Ali used to do as Iggy is turning out to be the best friend Stevie boy ever had what with a good chunk of liberal members actually wanting an election so they could hurry up and lose and then have a real leadership convention … ROFL!

    • MostlyCivil

      So, you're good with the Evil Separatist-Conservative Coalition thing though?

      • psiclone

        absolutely theer is only one criteria ABL – like a lot of us out here in Canada the only real thing we do not want is incompetence and if you don't know what ABL is (anybody but liberal) .. hahahahaha …

        • Jan

          "Out here in Canada? Interest turn of phrase.

          • psiclone

            as opposed to – in here in web forum frustrated left wing nut land !!!!!

        • E_B_

          The UAE debacle is an example of $300,000,000 worth of incompetence. You seem to be OK with that.

        • MostlyCivil

          The maniacal laughter at the end was a nice touch.

          BUt ABL…so that includes Jack "I hate the troops and love the Taliban" Layton and Gilles "Cheese Hat/Traitor/I hate canada" Duceppe?

          Added bonus? You've just admitted it's a coalition. Isn't that against the moral laws of the universe or something?

  • Richard_S_Argent

    Why does Harper hate Canada? Doesn't he know that the BQ should be quarantined lest their evil separatist agenda infect the body politic?

  • Joffré

    The Québec government, at least, is very pessimistic that an agreement will happen in time for the budget.

    That's not to say that, if the CPC decides it really wants to avoid an election, negotiations couldn't magically advance, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

    • Jan

      Trust me, negotiations magically advanced out here in B.C. At least that's the story from both sides.

  • McC_

    That's funny, La Presse is saying the exact opposite today: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canad…

    • danby

      Appearing soon at a Tim Hortons near you…….

      Stephen Harper tried to reach out to Quebec, but they are pirates, incapable of being reasonable or fair.

      That's why it is no surprise that the Liberals are ready to join them in an unholy coalition of plunder™.

  • Elmer Mackay

    Wait, wasn't cooperating with the Bloc supposed to bring about the total destruction of Canada…OMG FUNDY HARPER'S TRYING TO SPARK THE RAPTURE!

    • barpuckbar

      Only to prorogue when The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit attempt to form a coalition afterlife.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    In other words then – "Don’t you see that this is all a big game? This is how politics works. Stop pretending you’re not in on the joke."

    • Crit_Reasoning

      Isn't Wherry playing games here, though? There's no reasonable basis to suggest that the Bloc will support the 2011 budget, yet based the flimsiest of conjecture Wherry blogs about a "Conservative-Bloc Coalition Watch".

      Wouldn't this mean that Wherry is "in on the joke", so to speak?

      • Richard_S_Argent

        Not really. I've been reading from various sources that the BQ is fully expected to side with the Conservatives on the budget. At this point precisely no one would be surprised if that happened.

        The joke is how easily yesterday's rhetoric is relegated to the trashbin. And that we're all supposed to recalibrate and forget what used to be said in favour of what is being said *right now*.

        …and yes, that applies to all parties.

        (man, am I ever feeling hellaciously pessimistic of late. Damn winter ;)

        • Crit_Reasoning

          I've been reading from various sources that the BQ is fully expected to side with the Conservatives on the budget.

          That's not the impression I've been getting from stuff that I've read. Could you link to some of these sources? Thanks in advance.

          You're not alone in feeling pessimistic lately. I've been feeling that way too. I'm sure part of it is seasonal, as you suggested. ;-)

        • Jan

          Hard not to feel like we're stuck in some sort of purgatory. But did we have to get stuck with this set of characters, they're not even very interesting…

          • David_M.

            I think thats the point of pugatory.
            Clowns to left, jokers to right and if you're lucky… Gerry Rafferty will discuss philosophy and politics with you.

          • A_logician

            "Hell is other people." J-P. Sartre

          • Richard_S_Argent

            "Hell is Jean-Paul Sartre" – S. de Beauvoir.

            (saw that retort written on a stall at university. How I miss that ridiculous place :)

          • Jan

            Having read her memoirs, I'm forced to agree with her. Can't wait until Laureen writes hers.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Ha! I just love to see Harper dangling attached to his own petard!
    I want this to be super highlighted by the MSM – so Iggy has no way to backslide and dodge – if I may use the expression in this currently heated atmosphere – a bullet!

    • Jenn_

      No, you really can't.

  • Steve M

    Case-by-case cooperation among opposing parties is NOT a Coalition. It's necessary in a minority gov't. A Coalition is an ongoing agreement of support, like the Lib-NDP-Bloc sprung on everyone in 2008. Now they have to live with the taint of "Will they do it again" for a while. Too frikkin' bad. The Liberals are just kicking themselves because they didn't think of this strategy after the Con-NDP-Bloc coalition attempt years earlier.

    • hollinm

      Lets repeat it again for the lefties on this blog. Case-by-case cooperation among opposing parties is NOT a coalition. However, the lefties are so terrified that the coalition discussion will work that they have to try to suggest that Harper is trying for his own coalition. Watch for it to be repeated again and again. If Harper satisfies the NDP the next accusation will be a coalition between Harper and the Dippers. Its damn right hilarious the desperation of these folks.

      • Jan

        Translation – 'We get to throw the slime balls – nobody else is allowed to', Harper, making the rules as usual.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I just don't understand how it's apparently fine for a federalist government to get the Bloc to agree to support legislation on a case by case basis, but somehow it's anathema for a federalist government to get the Bloc to agree in advance to support ALL of their legislation (well, all of their legislation on confidence matters anyway).

        To me, the only difference between what the Tories are doing here and what the dastardly coalition proposed is that the dastardly coalition managed to get the Bloc to agree to support a federalist government's agenda not on a single piece of legislation, but on ALL confidence motions for TWO FULL YEARS, and without even having to show them any specific pieces of legislation first.

        • hollinm

          I know you know this. You are a pretty smart person. However, agreeing on specific pieces of legislation is quite different than having the Separatist party who wants to break up the country sitting as part of the coalition government. To deny they were not an integral part of the coalition is to deny reality. They would pretend to be an opposition party but in behind the scenes would control what comes before Parliament..
          Confidence or otherwise if the Bloc didn't see it serving its own interests or that of Quebec it would never see the light of day. Can you imagine Separatists in the Senate? It is already dysfunctional. Can you imagine Duceppe blackmailing its partners in providing more funding to Quebec for whatever the trumped up reason?
          Duceppe did sign an agreement to support for two full years. Equally if things didn't go his way he could withdraw his support as well.
          When will you anti Harper people on this board realize that the Bloc is not some benign party looking out for all of Canada. They are a party who wants to see the federation dysfunctional. Thats how they can sell their separation meme to Quebecers. The country doesn't work for Quebec. Time to separate.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I know you know this, but the Bloc was never part of the proposed Coalition. The Bloc agreed to support the confidence legislation that the Coalition put forward, not the other way around. It was the BLOC's hands that were tied by the agreement, not the proposed Coalition's. Is it possible that the Coalition might have modified some legislation to address certain concerns of the Bloc? Of course. And guess what? THE TORIES DO THAT TOO!!!

            The only difference between the Tories negotiating with the Bloc to get them to support the budget and keep the government afloat and the proposed Coalition negotiating with the Bloc to get them to support their budget to keep their government afloat is that Duceppe couldn't force the Coalition out of office without breaking a promise he signed on live T.V. Coalition negotiations with the Bloc would be the same as Tory negotiations with the Bloc in all aspects accept that the Coalition had a little more leverage over Ducceppe than the current government does.

          • AT1

            LKO, you should read the actual agreement. It's not quite as clear cut as you mention.
            (http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf)

            Here's the offending section that mentions the Bloc and confirms in writing a consultation mechanism. Presumably, the consultation goes both ways, and is distinct from consultation in, say, the HOC…

            "3. A “no surprises” approach
            Within the limits of common sense and the needs of cabinet government, the two parties agree they will work together on a “no surprises” basis.
            Furthermore, upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois."

    • madeyoulook

      Interesting misnomer of a "coalition." I guess Aaron just doesn't take his words seriously.

      Ahem.
      http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/12/do-we-take-our…

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I believe you've misread the title of the post. This is the Coalition "Watch" not the coalition "Found". To my mind, these various "Watches" that Aaron has are posts meant to get people watching for evidence that something might happen in the future, not as evidence that something has already happened.

    • Mike T.

      And the coalition Harper proposed in 2004.

      • MostlyCivil

        But…it's NOT a coalition! It's not!
        *angry stamping*

      • Steve M

        Yes, that's why I mentioned it in my post.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      I guess I just don't see how a federalist party (or parties) going to the Bloc for support on a case-by-case basis is somehow "better" than getting the Bloc to agree, IN ADVANCE to support a federalist party (or parties) agenda for two full years.

      If convincing the Bloc to support one piece of legislation written by a federalist party is fine, what's wrong with convincing the Bloc to support ALL of the legislation written by a federalist party for a two year period?

      • AT1

        Depends on what they get in return!

      • madeyoulook

        Because if you actually believe that you have convinced them to play along for a full two years, you are dreaming. They have no particular reason to keep their end of the bargain.

        If they support you for one piece, that's all you've got, but that's all you expect. If they agree to support you for two years, you can't count on it.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Sure, but who says the Coalition was going to take Ducceppe at his word anyway? Sure, the Bloc could go back on their word and take the Coalition down. They could go back on their word and take the Tories down on the budget. My point is that whether the written promise binds Ducceppe with the power of Zeus or is utterly meaningless is irrelevant to the fact that the Bloc agreeing to support the Tory government is no different from the Bloc agreeing to support a Liberal-NDP government.

          The main distinction seems to focus on the fact that the Bloc made their commitment to the Liberal-NDP coalition on paper, whereas their commitment to the Tories is less formal. If, as you assert, the paper is meaningless and we should ignore it, then there is literally NO DISTINCTION WHATSOEVER between the Bloc agreeing to support the Tory government, and the Bloc agreeing to support a hypothetical Liberal-NDP government.

          • madeyoulook

            No distinction whatsoever except in the minds of the gullible federalist parties who got that meaningless signature on a piece of paper.

            You are putting in all sorts of new words now, but you originally asked what was wrong with getting a two-year promise, and I've answered you: What's wrong with it is actually believing it.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Sure, but now you're answering a different question. You're essentially saying that BELIEVING the promise is "wrong" not ELICITING the promise. I didn't really comment on whether or not anyone should BELIEVE a promise from the Bloc (honestly, I think they're no less inclined to keep their promises than any other party, which is to say I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them…) just that there's no difference between the Tory government getting legislative support from the Bloc and a Liberal-NDP government getting legislative support from the Bloc.

            We're using two slightly different meanings of "wrong" as well I believe. People (Tories) who have characterized the Bloc's agreement to support the Liberal-NDP Coalition as "wrong" aren't saying that it's naive, they're saying it's UNPATRIOTIC. Perhaps immoral, or unethical. They're making a MORAL judgment against the Coalition for getting the Bloc to agree to support them, and my point is simply that in terms of morals, ethics and patriotism, there is no real difference between a separatist party agreeing to support a piece (or pieces) of Tory legislation and a separatist party agreeing to support a piece (or pieces) of Liberal-NDP legislation. The fact that one group got Ducceppe to sign a piece of paper and the other didn't is meaningless. The fact that one group negotiated support for multiple votes and the other negotiates support on a vote by vote basis is meaningless. The two cases are morally equivalent.

          • madeyoulook

            Well, if you think it's fine and dandy to elicit a promise that you would have to be too stupid to actually believe, remind me not to bring you along as I haggle for the best deal at Liar's Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC.

            They (the CPC) weren't making a "moral judgment." They were adopting a political posture that they hoped would resonate with as many Canadians as possible. That turned out rather well, as it resonated with the incoming Leader of the Opposition, too.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            OK, but wasn't their political posture essentially "When the Bloc agrees to support us it's fine, but if they agree to support the Liberals and the NDP it's a threat to national unity!!!" And isn't that bollocks (don't get me wrong, they successfully got the majority of the public to BELIEVE their B.S., so kudos to them, but it's STILL B.S.!) I guess I agree that they weren't really making a moral judgment, they were just posturing, I just wish people would stop acting as if their posturing made a valid point, when it obviously didn't.

            I'm also not sure that the Tories would be any less stupid to believe the Bloc if they say they're going to support the budget, but I think we need to leave the smart/stupid, politically savvy or idiotic discussions aside until everyone can agree that on the "right/wrong" scale the Tories and the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition are in essentially in the same place on this issue.

          • madeyoulook

            If you cannot see any difference between (A) the minority government already in power, with the plurality of seats and of popular support, passing a budget because the Bloc voted in favour, and (B) the remaining federalist parties wandering over to Rideau Hall rehearsing the Gilles-is-still-parking-the-car-but-he's-very-enthusiastic-about-this charade in order to assume power, then I am not sure I can help you any further.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I'm not saying there's no difference exactly, more that they're much more similar than the "Thank God we stopped the attempted coup!" crowd would have Canadians think.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I'd also argue that the Tories' posturing didn't resonate with the Leader of the Opposition so much as the fact that the public was BUYING their B.S. resonated with him.

          • madeyoulook

            Funny. That's not exactly how he described it.

            :)

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            :-)

            Sure, but you can't exactly say to the public "You've fallen for the PMO's B.S. hook, line and sinker!!!" can you? Especially if the public has!

            LOL

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Wherry, I think you may have been reading too much into Ivison's column. Negotiations with Quebec's provincial government regarding a HST deal have been going on for quite some time. There's nothing new about Duceppe threatening to vote against a budget if his demands are not met. Finally, while Harper obviously isn't trying to trigger an election, I don't think he'll be going out of his way to avoid one, either.

    • ZestyMordant

      "Harper obviously isn't trying to trigger an election"

      Is this obvious? You may be right, but it's certainly not obvious, especially before we know what's in the budget. It wouldn't surprise me too much if Harper triggered an election with a poison pill in the budget.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        If there is a poison pill in the budget, I would be very surprised. As Paul Wells and others have pointed out, Harper isn't spoiling for a fight, and he'd prefer to continue governing rather than trigger an election.

  • M_A_D_world

    "Duceppe added that the inclusion of a payment to the province doesn’t guarantee the Bloc will vote for the budget after all."

    Hardly motivating toward concessions.
    Just table the budget and start from there.

  • http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ Open_Democracy

    As shown in this speech, Mr. Harper could not give one whit about the federation that is Canada:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-…

    • Orson Bean

      Wow, the "Harper Hates Canada" thing. How original.

      • frobisher

        Wow, the ""Harper Hates Canada" thing. How original." retort to someone actually quoting the Prime Minister diminishing the greater nation in favour of who-gives-a-hoot ramshackle regionalism. How predictably lacking in constructive response.

        Why not address the points OD made in his own blog post? Was Harper right back then? Is he disingenuous now? Did something happen on the road to Damascus between then and now? The PMs past utterances could and maybe ought give many pause about his commitment to the country. But, hey, let's all marvel on his middle-proficiency ivory-tickling.

  • Liz

    It is all about Harper all the time. Election please.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Left-wing knee-jerk coalition accusation watch.

    • D.D.S
      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        I don't get it. The three oppositions have formally signed a coalition agreement. The Bloc supporting a Tory budget is hardly a coalition. You know that, don't you?

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Actually two opposition parties signed a coalition agreement, and a third opposition party signed a promise to support that coalition's confidence motions for two years.

          I guess what I don't get is how it's supposedly perfectly acceptable if someone can show the Bloc a piece of legislation and get them to agree to support it, but it's somehow a death blow to Canada if someone can get the Bloc to agree to support multiple pieces of legislation without even having to show them the specific legislation in advance.

    • MostlyCivil

      Channel change alert!

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        So, I'm not allowed to point out the fundamental flaw in this blog post, am I? Geez.

        • psiclone

          Absolutely NOT !!!! what were you thinking are you trying to engage in open minded discourse on this web forum ? – any attempt to support the CPC and or Harper in any way is NOT acceptable in this forum and will only earn you thumbs down – ROFL! which I love as I have been having a gas for the last almost 5 years now reading how Harper haters will twist logic and emotion to extremes rarely seen before in their pathologiocal dislike of the man and party – it is a a form of social sickness called partisanship much like choosing a sports team and becoming emotionally attached to it way beyond where a person should go. This is why forums full of Harper haters are so enjoyable to read as Harper has a unique talent to drive frustrated left wing nuts absolutley crazy !! which is why he has my vote, support, time and money :)

  • McC_
    • McC_

      and Delacourt searches Harper's words for tea leaves here: http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2011/01/pm-sets…
      she concludes that:
      "Overall, I think this interview does a pretty good job of laying out how Harper will be campaigning in the next election — promises to end public subsidies to parties, the threat of the scary coalition, etc. And it's just my hunch, but this sounds like a Prime Minister who wants that election sooner rather than later."

      • madeyoulook

        But this is a Prime Minister whose party has been pretty effective at baring teeth and demonstrating a willingness to eat opponents for lunch… to PREVENT elections.

        In this climate, for Harper, one of the best ways to not have an election is to demonstrate just how ready you are to have it. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    On the one hand, you most definitely had a formal coalition agreement that the Bloc signed onto.

    Yes, there was a Coalition agreement between the Liberals and the NDP and the Bloc agreed to support that government on confidence motions for two years. I agree that what the Tories are doing on the budget isn't a "coalition" with the Bloc, but then the Bloc weren't part of the Liberal-NDP coalition either. The Bloc negotiated the terms of their support for the legislation of the Liberal-NDP coalition just the same way they negotiate their support for Tory legislation with the Tories. The only difference in that sense is that the Tories work on negotiating with the Bloc one piece of legislation at a time, whereas the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition got the Bloc to agree to support their government on MULTIPLE pieces of legislation, in advance.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      Can you please tell me where a coalition is involved in the Bloc supporting a government budget? God.

      • Jan

        What part of 'depending on the Bloc's support in order to govern' are you having trouble understanding?

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          The part where it's supposed to be anything resembling a coalition.

          Now everything is a coalition to you lefties, is it? Man.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        It's not, I agree with you on that one (perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I wrote "I agree that what the Tories are doing on the budget isn't a 'coalition' with the Bloc" above).

        However, if I'm not allowed to call the Bloc's support of the Tory budget a "coalition between the Tory government and the Bloc" (because it isn't) then you and the other Tory supporters aren't allowed to call the Bloc's support of a Liberal-NDP budget a "coalition between the Liberal-NDP government and the Bloc" (because it isn't). The Bloc agreeing to support Liberal-NDP legislation is NO DIFFERENT from the Bloc agreeing to support Tory legislation. NEITHER ONE involves a "coalition" with the Bloc.

        God.

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          The Bloc formally supported the COALITION, right? Without that formal support, there is no COALITION. Comprendez? The Tories are in no way involved in a COALITION with anyone. Right? Geezus.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            The Bloc formally supports the Tory budget right? (or will, it would seem). Without that formal support, there is no Tory government (if the Liberals and NDP vote against the budget). That the Tory government would be unable to exist under certain circumstances without the support of the Bloc is no different from the fact that the Coalition government would be unable to exist under certain circumstances without the support of the Bloc. The Tories are in no way involved in a Coalition with the Bloc just because there are scenarios in which their government would fall without support from the Bloc, just like the Liberals and NDP were in no way involved in a coalition with the Bloc just because there are scenarios under which their government would fall without the support of the Bloc.

            Your objection here seems to be to the fact that while the Tories are willing to trust that the Bloc will support their legislation when Ducceppe says that what he's going to do, the Liberals and NDP apparently felt it was important to get that commitment in writing first. The only difference between the Bloc being the only other party supporting a piece of Tory legislation, and the Bloc being the only other party supporting a piece of Liberal-NDP legislation is that the Coalition partners made Ducceppe make his commitment of support on paper, in front of everyone.

        • AT1

          Actually, the two arrangements are quite different. The Bloc were specifically named in the coalition agreement, making them party to the agreement whether or not their members hold cabinet posts.
          http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            That document mentions the Bloc precisely once (they'll be "consulted" by the coalition as part of the "No surprises" clause) and in no way does this one appearance of the word Bloc make them a "party to the agreement" in the sense you imply here. I know this because there are two signatures at the bottom of that document, and neither of them is that of Gilles Duceppe.

            My understanding is that the agreement by the Bloc to support the Coalition on confidence motions for a period of two years was an entirely separate document.

            This objection to the Bloc's support of the Coalition (versus the Bloc's support of the CURRENT government) seems to be that the Tories are apparently willing to accept the word of Gilles Duccepe going in to a vote that he intends to support their legislation, whereas the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition had the temerity to ask him to make such a commitment in writing.

  • BlackRedVixen

    I wouldn't count on the Bloc supporting the budget, even if the 2.2 billion in HST payments are offered:

    http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/20…

    I apologize for the language, had google translate it.

  • Dan

    Hard to believe it's already been four years since the Conservatives bought the Bloc's support for Budget 2007 by sending $2.3B extra to Quebec.

  • MostlyCivil

    Rented, really.

Previous

Next

From Macleans