22

Read Her Lips (AKA never say never)


 

 

From a story in today’s Post about the federal government’s push for a federal regulator: 

“The political opening was created in the past two weeks following urgent appeals for federal relief from provincial ministers and financial institutions, including Desjardins, the biggest lender in Quebec.

“A breakthrough came this week after face-to-face negotiations between Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Monique Jerome-Forget, the Finance Minister of Quebec, the biggest stumbling block to a single regulator.

“The federal Finance Minister agreed to belatedly include Desjardins in a national plan to backstop banks, but attached conditions, according to people familiar with the dialogue.

“As part of the deal to guarantee new borrowing in international markets by Desjardins, Quebec softened its opposition to moves toward a federal regulator that would include a seat for each province on its governing board, people close to the process said.”

My, my how times change. Why, it seems like it was just last winter that Jérôme-Forget told me unequivocally, for a piece by our own Colin Campbell, that she would never allow for such a thing. From the transcript of our conversation.

Last question. Is there any conceivable way you will go along with a national regulator?

Never. Is that clear?

I think so.

Must be freezing in hell these days.

 
Filed under:

Read Her Lips (AKA never say never)

  1. “a federal regulator that would include a seat for each province on its governing board,”

    McGuinty would have to be nuts to agree to this.

  2. And with a Quebec election to be called in a couple of days, Charest will say yes??????????

  3. You have to understand that in politiko speek! Never just means ‘ until it becomes politically profitable for me ‘….

  4. Harper:

    -I’ll never run a deficit
    -I’ll never raise taxes.

    My bet is that both occur within 24 months.

  5. – Or – LPC politiko speek! = the Conservatives will never get a majority because of the strength of our leadership and team – ROFL LMAO . Countdown 12 seats to go

  6. Right Wayne–that makes absolutely no sense (it isn’t a government policy decision). Beyond that, I am astonished how little you expect from your government in terms of principled policy positions.

  7. Just a second Andrew I was dumbfounded that you actually used the term principled policy decision. Brrr it’s getting cold down here.

  8. So, you don’t expect that from Harper? Why exactly do you want him in power?

  9. I’m sorry Andrew but your questions make no sense whatsoever it’s almost as if A: you didn’t read the issue or B: Have no sense of humour Therefore any further response is as they say in latin : Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant.

  10. That’s right, Wayne. Harper wasn’t elected to enact positive change in Ottawa, making things more open, accountable and transparent. He’s just a different quarterback to root for, playing the same old dirty game. And the idiots stand on the sidelines cheering one team and booing the other….

  11. One reason to have voted Conservative is that odds are the Liberals would have run a higher deficit under Stephane Dion.

  12. That’s a new one. Too bad Harper didn’t use it, while he was shrieking that Dion’s economic plan would “screw everybody.”

  13. “One reason to have voted Conservative is that odds are the Liberals would have run a higher deficit under Stephane Dion.”

    Liar. Go sell some smokes.

  14. Yeah, fool me once.
    A reason last time was because “the Conservatives would not tax Income Trusts.”

  15. Norman, odds calculated on what basis? This deficit is a Conservative creation. Worst case estimates put the size of the deficit next year rather conveniently at more or less the size of the GST cuts.

    And Mr. Harper said only a matter of weeks ago that we should never run deficits. Turns out never is next year.

  16. Andrew,

    Whoever won the election would have been confronted with the same fiscal and economic situation (no matter how we got to this point).

    I imagine that a fair number of Canadians voted Conservative because, independent of what the leaders said, they believed that the Conservatives would run a tighter ship.

    Others might have felt differently and voted Liberal, notwithstanding Bob Rae’s tried and tested political dodge that their government would examine the books upon taking office.

  17. DR-

    Take a breather, please. Personal attacks, especially behind an alias, are cowardly and boring.

  18. Besides, Norman Spector is not a liar. That’s takes cunning.

  19. Norman, the Liberals were honest. They said they would not cause a deficit. I take that to mean they wouldn’t set the country on a fiscal course that risks deficit. Harper categorically denied that they would ever run a deficit. I suppose the only word to describe that is too indelicate for these forums. I know you think Harper is swell, but I think no matter how you spin it, this whole episode doesn’t look good for Harper’s credibility or integrity.

  20. “Others might have felt differently and voted Liberal, notwithstanding Bob Rae’s tried and tested political dodge that their government would examine the books upon taking office.”

    And you’re right–it’s much worse to ‘dodge’ by giving a pragmatic, measured promise than say, outright lying about deficits.

  21. ***This is a post from Norman Spector, who had some trouble posting on our comment section (he isn’t the first.) mp/

    Andrew

    I agree with both your observations.

    Lorrie Goldstein captures the problem quite well in this column (though it would have been better had he included the media’s role in bringing about the current level of dishonesty in public discourse):

    http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/2008/10/29/7234601-sun.html

  22. In the eve of an electoral campaign, the Charest Govt would be flirting with political suicide by agreeing with a “single regulator” especially if it sounds like surrendering to the pressure of the federal govt in exchange for help to Desjardin.

    If the Harper Govt decides to help banks it would only be fair to include Desjardin since it is the biggest financial institution in Quebec.

    Leaving Desjardins out of a deal to help Banks would be, in short, helping all the other provinces financial sector except Quebec. Pauline Marois would never dream for a better argument for Quebec’s secession.

    If the deal goes out that Harper forced Charest to accept centralization in exchange for including Desjardin in a federal plan to help banks, we might as well get use to say “La Premier Ministre, Pauline Marois, organisera bientôt un référendum”.

Sign in to comment.