That’s awfully patriotic. For a traitor.


Some further clarification on what the Bloc got for its hypothetical support of a hypothetical coalition government—or, rather, what Marlene Jennings says they didn’t get.

The Bloc Québécois were prepared to keep a Liberal-led coalition government alive for two years, if the coalition allowed Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated companies in Quebec. But Marlene Jennings, left, the veteran Liberal MP in charge of negotiating the coalition deal for the Liberals, said “no way” to the Bloc…

Another coup, she said, was that the Bloc agreed, in writing, to take sovereignty off its agenda for the 18-month period, which was deemed long enough to see if the economic stimulus program the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc proposed was working.

That last bit might be more interpretative than literal (unless she’s referring to an agreement beyond this).

No word yet on whether this will have any influence on Conservative Bob Dechert’s interpretation of sedition in the case of these traitorous conspirators.


That’s awfully patriotic. For a traitor.

  1. Sovereignty was on the Bloc’s agenda?

  2. The more canadians hear about the backroom dealings on this issue the less they are going to like it and I am sure that even more bad news will be coming out no small wonder that this whole thing will end up becoming the worst political play since Meech Lake! I almost feel sorry for the LPC then again maybe not. If the Igster is smart he will start jet packing this whole thing to planet nowheresville and deny deny deny evade evade evade.

  3. Say it enough times Wayne and it just might become true.

    “I am sure that even more bad news will be coming out”

    More bad news, like the BQ backing down on assorted positions and even agreeing not to push sovereignty for 18 months? Bad news indeed!

  4. Any reasons why Marlene Jennings word should be taken as the gospel?

    • She was on the negotiating team.

    • Any reason why it shouldn’t?

      • You are right, Ti-Guy. The Liberals have never lied to us.

        • I don’t think the “X has never lied to us” argument is a safe one for *any* party.

          Should we just agree that it’s some information that’s not independently confirmed, but there’s no obvious reason for her to make it up and attach her name to it?

        • You forgot the to include: *roll eyes*

          All politicians lie. I caught a completely demoralising podcast a couple of weeks ago featuring some academic from Berkeley advancing the thesis that they lie and that it’s a good thing…that it keeps us on our toes by fostering an adversarial relationship between the governors and the governed, thus protecting us from tyranny.

          If you think Jennings is lying, then it behooves you to challenge her directly on that. Otherwise, you’re being an irresponsible citizen and mentally preparing yourself to accept fascism.

    • This is not “new” news. It’s been out there for a while. I’ve read it in a couple of places and no one has ever disputed it.

    • Or any reason why we are only hearing what the Bloc didn’t get? Because obviously that’s great PR to be able to show how they “stood up” to unreasonable BQ demands.

      I’d like to know what the Bloc DID get out of the agreement (or would get, if it were implemented). Clearly, they were negotiating (hence the need for a negotiator), so they must have “negotiated” something. What was it? Any of you intrepid journalist types bother to ask her, now that we know who the chief negotiator was? Obviously whoever wrote the linked-to article didn’t care…

      • Well, maybe a chance to get rid of the strangest, nastiest, most unstable PM since Paul Martin.


        An NHL team for Quebec City.


        Since your comment leaves so many blanks, fill them in yourself.

  5. Fighting separatists was always Dion’s strength. The BQ would have been wise indeed to tone it down while he was acting as PM.

  6. yeah. i believe what Liberals say.

    • Well, she didn’t call Harper a fascist dictator (the analogy to Conservatives calling the coalition a ‘coup d’état’ to form a government with separatists, two blatant falsehoods that were swallowed open-throated and repeated by Conservatives everywhere) so I think, in this instance, Jennings, at least, occupies the moral high ground.

  7. Why are people so hung up on the word “coalition”?
    I mean, it’s not as if they had proposed something as sinister as a “united alternative” or a “merger” or something.

    • Well it’s clearly unCanadian, foreign or somethig. If SH had gone through with his deal he would have called it…a..let me see…not a deal with the devil… nope nope. How about a coalition, that’ll work.

      • “Canada’s New Government”?

  8. “take sovereignty off its agenda for the 18-month period,”
    So despite what the Bloc said in the last election, sovereignty WAS on the agenda.Funny there was no mention of it in their platform. I think they even went as far as saying noone in Quebec was interested in it talking about it.
    So if the coalition, led by Ignatieff fails, that means we are heading for another soverignty showdown this year. Non?
    I wonder what the Bloc/Quebec get’s for it’s cooperation? Nothing? Would that make Quebecors happy?Maybe they were happy only if Canada is dysfunctional.
    Still there has been no answer and nooone in the MSM seems to want to ask.

    • It’s always on the agenda, even when it’s not on the agenda. Sort of like that old joke:

      Rule #1: bla
      Rule #2: when not bla, see rule #1

      In other words, those 18 months would have been used to accomplish goals that would make sovereignty easier to achieve when it comes back on the agenda.

Sign in to comment.