The Impending Trudeau-Scheer Grand Coalition?

radiorahim wrote:

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

Rubbish.  But perhaps Stephen Lewis could shed some light on his motivations for having carried Bill Davis' PC government for the full four years 1977-81.  

How many times did the Liberals vote to support the Conservatives during the Harper era? If I recollect it was in the hundreds Mouseland anyone

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgOvzUeiAA

radiorahim wrote:

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

The reality is once the election is over the Liberals are a lot closer to the Conservatives than the NDP. 

It is only during election campaigns that the Liberals exhibit any progressive interest.

As Chretien often said said the Red Book gets thrown out after the election campaign is over. 

I don't think it would be a formal coalition, just that whichever the Liberals or Conservatives had the most number of seats they would govern with the assistance of the other, just like the way the Liberals supported Harper when he was in a minority government situation. But for all intents and purposes they may as well have been in a coalition.

Conservatives and Liberals advance corporate Canada's nuclear dreams

​

Conservatives and Liberals advance corporate Canada's nuclear dreams

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Ole Hendrickson

September 18, 2019

ENVIRONMENT

POLITICS IN CANADA

Ignoring the advice of her own expert panel, Trudeau's environment minister Catherine McKenna has exempted more projects and further gutted Canada's environmental assessment regime.

The Trudeau government's controversial Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) and its key regulation (the Physical Activities Regulations, better known as the "project list") came into force on August 28 -- slipped through during the summer season.

In 2012 the Harper government slashed the number of projects requiring environmental assessment, arguing that only the biggest projects have an impact on the environment.

Under the Impact Assessment Act, many nuclear projects can now proceed unimpeded by impact review requirements to assess effects on the environment, health, social or economic conditions; effects of malfunctions or accidents; or impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The Harper government's 2012 project list did require assessment of new uranium mines or mills. The new list requires assessment only if a uranium mine or mill has a capacity over 2,500 tonnes per day.

The 2012 list required assessment of new nuclear reactors. The new list allows reactors generating up to 200 million watts of heat to be built anywhere without assessment. 

Furthermore, the new list allows nuclear waste storage facilities to be built on the sites of any of these so-called "small modular reactors" without assessment.

This paves the way for a Canadian landscape dotted with mass-produced nuclear reactors -- the vision of a "roadmap" released by Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi in November 2018.  

Canada's nuclear industry giants -- Cameco and SNC-Lavalin -- were deeply involved in these developments. The nuclear industry has long been the darling of the federal government.

Cameco operates the world's largest uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan, the world's largest commercial uranium refinery in Blind River, Ontario, and the Port Hope, Ontario uranium conversion facility. But it has been losing global market share to facilities in Kazakhstan. 

Competition is fierce. Uranium markets dried up after the Fukushima disaster. Rapid growth of renewables has virtually halted reactor construction. 

Under a secret 10-year, multi-billion-dollar contract put in place during the fall 2015 election period, the Harper government gave SNC-Lavalin, in alliance with two U.S. companies, ownership of "Canadian Nuclear Laboratories" (then a subsidiary of the Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited).

The contract allows the alliance to carry out commercial activities -- including small nuclear reactor development -- at the federal government's heavily subsidized research facility in Chalk River, Ontario.

According to the federal lobbyist registry, Neil Bruce, former president of SNC-Lavalin, met with Michael Binder, former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), to discuss "environment, climate, energy, infrastructure" on July 12, 2018.

The following week, on July 19, Tim Gitzel, president and CEO of Cameco, met with Christine Loth-Brown, a vice-president in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), and with Jason Cameron, a CNSC vice-president. On July 26, Gitzel again met with these same two people, plus another CEAA vice-president. For that meeting he was accompanied by Pierre Gratton, president of the Canadian Mining Association.

On November 11, 2018, Gratton met with the following people, at the same time: Rumina Velshi, president, CNSC; Ron Hallman, president, CEAA; Christyne Tremblay, deputy minister, Natural Resources Canada; and Stephen Lucas, deputy minister, Environment and Climate Change Canada. 

Canada's senior bureaucrats gutted environmental assessment after this series of meetings.

The SNC-Lavalin affair has ripped the veil off the domination of Canada by a corporate oligarchy. Government departments, regulatory bodies such as the CNSC and CEAA (now the "Impact Assessment Agency"), and elected officials behave like corporate lapdogs.

The Conservatives handed the federal government's nuclear research facilities over to SNC-Lavalin and its partners, along with a juicy multi-year, multi-billion-dollar contract. The Liberals pulled out all the stops so SNC-Lavalin could continue to hold federal contracts, despite fraud and corruption charges. 

Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi released a road map promoting new nuclear reactors. 

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna exempted these reactors and their wastes from impact assessment.

The 2015 Liberal election promise to restore public trust in environmental assessment has been broken.

Ole Hendrickson is a retired forest ecologist and a founding member of the Ottawa River Institute, a non-profit charitable organization based in the Ottawa Valley.

Image: Chema Martínez Broncano/Flickr

RELATED ITEMS

With Bill C-69, a weak environmental assessment system is about to get worse

Canada needs an environmental assessment regime focused on positive impacts, not one that ignores even more projects and their environmental impacts.

How can we counter corporate capture of government?

The SNC-Lavalin affair rips the veil off the hidden world of corporate influence on government decision-making.

New federal environmental review laws fall short of promises

C-69's top-line principles and commitments are laudable, but their execution falls short.

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2019/09/conservatives-and-liberals-advance-corporate-canadas-nuclear-dreams#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5d94db2a84b743e5&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=5

R.E.Wood wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 But for all intense and purposes 

Intents and purposes.

Intensive purpose.

Lying before you even get into office is grounds to never to be allowed into office

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The NDP has already said they will not work with the Conservatives. Given Liberal mis-steps on things like buying pipelines and First Nations issues, the NDP may not be able to work with them either.

This really bothers me. The NDP shouldn't work for the NDP and they shouldn't work for NDP voters either. They should work for ALL Canadians. NDP, Green, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Independent.

We all pay taxes and we all live in this country together.  Not everything the Liberals or Conservatives do is bad. Liberals and pot is a good example. Once Canadians pick a government ALL governments should work together to make Canada better and that doesn't mean trying to road block every decision the government in power makes.

You would think the Liberals would remember what four years of keeping the Harper government in power in a minority, and turning down the chance to replace them at the head of a progressive coalition when most of the country would have cheered them on for leading that coalition, did to them in 2011.

You'd think they'd also remember what such a coalition did to the British Liberal Party in the 1922 and 1924 elections.

You are just perpetuating the big lie.

There is one thing you can count on though - right-wing Liberals will not be bringing down right-wing Conservatives, and Canadian political history confirms it. 

Ken Burch wrote:

KarlL wrote:

  

Ken Burch wrote:

You would think the Liberals would remember what four years of keeping the Harper government in power in a minority, and turning down the chance to replace them at the head of a progressive coalition when most of the country would have cheered them on for leading that coalition, did to them in 2011.

You'd think they'd also remember what such a coalition did to the British Liberal Party in the 1922 and 1924 elections.

And in the 2017 UK election. 

But then again, this whole idea is ridiculously fanciful.  Based on current voter intentions, the Conservatives and the Liberals are going to be the only two parties within sniffing distance of forming a government.  Unless the next 2 1/2 weeks changes things dramatically, everyone else will have a Corporal's Guard-sized caucus. 

The Liberals will therefore either form the Government or form a sizeable opposition.  I don't see any prospect of an outcome like that from Stephane Dion 2006-08 or Michael Ignatieff 2008-11, or for that matter the NDP's Stephen Lewis in Ontario 1977-78 and Michael Cassidy 1978-81 when they propped up the Davis Conservative government.  In each of those cases, the opposition parties were enfeebled and broke. They did not want to precipitate an election because the likely outcome was going  to be a majority Conservative government, which was indeed what happened in both instances at the very next election. 

Organizationally and financially, the Liberals' capacity to campaign is now much closer to that of the Conservatives than it was in 2006-11 and Liberals would be much less concerned about walking into a meat grider if they were to bring down the government, if indeed it were to be a Conservative one. 

Also, in the early days after the election, the likely outcome will be a Liberal minority government with negotiated NDP and/or Green support - even if there is a Conservative plurality of seats.  Unless that is, you are saying that the NDP wouldn't support the Liberals or you think that the Greens and Bloc will be numerous enough and willing to prop up a Conservative government - or that it will be a Conservative majority, in either of which cases, the matter will be out of the Liberals hands.

I was thinking more of how it would play out in the election after this if the Liberals formed a grand coalition after this one.  The LPC will almost certainly not have an Ignatieff-type collapse during this campaign if they've held their vote together up until now.

There is no precedent for it and no pointers toward it.  But if you would like a historical analogue, it is 1979-80.  A Liberal majority led by a flamboyant but polarizing leader was replaced at the next election by a Conservative minority led by a bland nonetity, only to have the Liberals lead the defeat that Conservative government within less than a year (sorry about that inconvenient bit of history, North Report)

R.E.Wood wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 But for all intense and purposes 

Intents and purposes.

That was likely autocorrect that did that.

Red Tory

Plus...in all liklihood Clark wanted the no-confidence motion to pass that night.  He may have thought he could replicate the conditions which produced the 1958 Diefenbaker landslide-a PC minority government facing a Liberal opposition in which a long-standing francophone leader was replaced by a Anglo-Ontarian with limited or rusty party political skills, who made a huge rookie mistake, combined with the Tory prime minister finding a way to form a working alliance with the Quebec premier.

In 1958, it was Diefenbaker facing the newly chosen Lester Pearson, who demanded that the Tories turn over the government without an election, thus giving Dief a pretext to fight a snap election on Liberal arrogance with the backing of Maurice Duplessis.

In 1980, it could easily have been Clark facing off against a badly out-of-practic John Turner-he was always presented as Pierre Trudeau's certain successor when PET did finally retire-with Rene Levesque doing what he could to help the PC's simply in the belief that a PC landslide would create the conditions for a successful independence referendum.

If PET hadn't gone back on his promise to retire, Clark could have pulled that off.

For evidence, look at the way the '84 election played out, with Mulroney as the new Tory leader facing Turner and the PQ clearly doing everything it could to help the PC's in Quebec.

Ken Burch wrote:

Plus...in all liklihood Clark wanted the no-confidence motion to pass that night.

I remember that budget night pretty clearly. We had television even then, and I watched the vote in the HOC. There was no indication at all that Clark intended to lose the vote on his budget. What all those who were present said was that he had included provisions that were unpopular enough that the Liberals decided to go for an election. Mainly, it was an increase in the gasoline tax. It was reported at the time that Clark had simply failed to count votes and brought down his budget without a committment from the Creditistes to support it, although he fully expected that they would.

The election campaign that followed was the funniest one of my lifetime. Trudeau had already resigned as leader and the convention to replace him was scheduled for a few months later. (John Turner was the favourite.) But when the writ dropped, Keith Davey and the other Lib powers decided that Trudeau had to come back for one last great. PET even promised that he would not serve out the full term and run again, but would resign before the next election. John Crosbie, a right winger but very witty, described Trudeau's campaign pitch as "Vote for me, and I'll resign."

I remember like yesterday that smug bastard Trudeau coming out after he had been pronounced the winner, and smilingly saying "Welcome to the nineteen eighties." Sigh. We did get the Charter out of it, though.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The election campaign that followed was the funniest one of my lifetime. Trudeau had already resigned as leader and the convention to replace him was scheduled for a few months later. (John Turner was the favourite.) But when the writ dropped, Keith Davey and the other Lib powers decided that Trudeau had to come back for one last great. PET even promised that he would not serve out the full term and run again, but would resign before the next election. John Crosbie, a right winger but very witty, described Trudeau's campaign pitch as "Vote for me, and I'll resign."

I remember that budget very well too.   A very young version of me was a newly minted  member of my local NDP federal riding association executive.

We had held an executive meeting at a member's house the night before the vote.   While we knew Joe Clark's government was going to fall eventually, we didn't know when and under what circumstances.   We were just starting to make plans for the inevitable "next election" and joked about "unless the government falls tomorrow".

The very next day, to our surprise, the government did indeed fall and we were into a winter election!   And, we won our constituency for the NDP in February, 1980 (we had lost by a hair to the Tories in 1979).

Our canvassers during that election campaign all wore orange toques, and yup, it was bloody cold being out campaigning at times.    But it was worth it.

Wasn't Stanfield off in Syria on some sort of diplomatic mission that day?  

Ken Burch wrote:

Wasn't Stanfield off in Syria on some sort of diplomatic mission that day?  

He wasn't in Parliament, but I think he was sent to the Mideast to clear up the Jerusalem embassy mess.

An electoral arrangement between the LPC and CPC could happen and could be popular. Here is one way it would come about:

The Conservatives and the PP total is not a majority.

The Liberals, Greens and NDP total is not a majority.

The BQ have the balance of power.

In this circumstance many Canadians would prefer a LPC-CPC arrangement than any deal with the BQ. The BQ likely would have difficulty making an arrangement in any case given the feelings towards Singh.

The LPC would prefer to keep the Greens, BQ and NDP out: Liberals would not want to help any of these parties and they would not want to be forced on issues relating to the pipeline. Keeping the BQ out of balance of power would be a publicly workable excuse to work with the CPC.

Scheer would be able to say he was saving Canada from BQ extortion and saving the pipeline. He would exact a price but the Liberals could pay it.

The BQ, the Greens and the NDP  would likely have a very difficult time cooperating on anything even though they agree in terms of opposition to the pipeline. Without a partner in the Liberals they have little incentive to paper over differences. I think both the BQ and the NDP would face severe political consequences if they were to work together given the obvious human rights incompatibility. Both would rather be in opposition.

If the Greens, Liberals and NDP formed a majority - without the BQ, this is the nightmare scenario for Trudeau and would be less easy to predict. Trudeau would not be able to easily justify not working with them but the price would be the pipeline among other things. Trudeau has more political cover generally to work with the Greens and NDP but none on the pipeline. His party would suffer serious damage and the election that would follow (quickly) could be devastating. The one consolation prize for Liberals would be that the Greens and NDP could be near bankrupt at a new campaign in less than a year.

The NDP and Greens would have no problem backing the Liberals politically if this were the way to stop a CPC-LPC government and to stop the pipeline. They would both enjoy Trudeau bing dragged off the fence leaving either them in opposition or working with them losing the Liberal's right flank. This would be enough for NDP and Greens to be civil with each other when absolutely necessary for a few months.

A plurality of Canadians would be reasonably happy with a CPC-LPC government for a short time to keep out the BQ and a differentl plurality would be okay with an LPC, Green and NDP government.

Green and NDP supporters would be delighted to see what happens to the Liberals if they either join the Greens and NDP and lose their centre right support or join the Conservatives and lose any progressive credentials.

KarlL wrote:

radiorahim wrote:

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

 

Rubbish.  But perhaps Stephen Lewis could shed some light on his motivations for having carried Bill Davis' PC government for the full four years 1977-81.  

This is a federal election WTF are you on about. Oh wait you are a Liberal who is here to attack the NDP. Oh well you seemed intelligent at first.

I think there is less than a 1% chance of a Liberal-Conservative “grand coalition” and more than 99% of Canadians, not including some Babblers, know this.

The NDP are slowly showing they still do have a pulse and according to the latest poll are only 4% out of the support they received in 2015 If Singh continues to exceed expectations the NDP might bounce back to their 2015 levels of support at last I also think the Liberals yesterday challenging the compensation to Indigenous children will hurt the Liberals because of their double speak

It is obvious that some Liberals here are trying to convince others (using insults) that the Libeals are not pro-pipeline. Everyone who is not Liberal here knows they are. That is why this coalition (by that I mean loose short term arrangement not actualy coaliton) is possible. I think it is only likely in the event of a BQ balance of power. But the Liberals are in a desperate spot in a minority situation given the pipeline split in this country. That is not stupidity - that is a fact.

I think that the Liberals would not work with the BQ easily. First they lose the pipeline which is too big of a loss for them. Second Trudeau's seat is in Quebec. I think there is no chance that he would want to raise the obvious controversy of a Quebec Liberal aligning with a Quebec separatist party -- this would not appear to be a big issue here but between potential Conservative-Liberal switchers it could be devastating. Also, Trudeau is doing all he can not to be drawn in to the Constitutional debate in Quebec. The BQ would drive this home without mercy and Trudeau is not compatible with a compromise here- his brand as son of the PM who brought the Charter would not recover.

Either Trudeau finds a face-saving compromise with the Conservatives for a few months with a government that does next to nothing but a handful of things they agree on or Trudeau opts for the risk of a new election hoping the Liberals, NDP and Greens do well enough to form a government (an agreement with the Conservatives might be preferable as I explain below). A few years ago an agreement with the BQ was thinkable due to the moderation and pragmatism of Duceppe and the proximity of the BQ to Liberal, NDP and Green interests. Now, I think the BQ are extremely difficult to work with since on pipelines and environment they are incompatible with Conservatives and on immigration and race they are incompatible with the Liberals, Greens and NDP. The only reason I think a Conservative-Liberal agreement is possible is that the other options for both parties (including forcing an election) may be worse this time.

I will explain why a pact with the Conservatives is better for the Liberals. It does not involve an alliance but rather a cease-fire. An option for the Liberals and Conservatives is a pact not be involved in government but, for the interest of the nation, an agreement not to bring down the government for a fixed term. The advantage these parties have in working with each other is that they would not have to vote for each other ever. Whichever got the most seats, the other could simply abstain on all votes as the remainder of the House would not be strong enough to bring them down.

This is different than situations where the votes of partners would be required to have confidence. So either Trudeau or Scheer could even remain in place and in opposition to each other but the one with fewer seats could refrain from a confidence vote for the period of one year, for example. It would not take all that much agreement for that and may not taint the parties all that much. This is the only door open for avoiding a formal arrangement to an uncomfortable situation. Working with the NDP, Greens or BQ would not only require those parties not voting against but would need them voting for the government. I cannot see that being workable right now. That is likely much harder to do for all sides.

BTW we may see how even with FPTP we can get a situation where a government is almost impossible.