Modeling Journey

Would Michael Ignatieff enter into a formal, written agreement between a minority Liberal government and (1) the NDP, (2) the Tories, (3) the NDP and the Bloc, or (4) the Bloc?

His statements are very confusing, and could lead one to conclude that he would never ever enter into any kind of formal written agreement with the Bloc, but would with "parties", which presumably include the NDP and Tories.

There is a conflict between past Ignatieff statements on coalitions and formal agreements with other parties, and his more recent ones.

In the past he was clearly defending the right of the Bloc to enter into agreements such as the supporting agreement signed between the LPC, NDP and Bloc giving the LPC-NDP coalition at least 18 months to govern. But recently, he seems to have done a 180 degree reversal and to have agreed with Harper's demonizing of the Bloc, by saying that he would never ever enter into an agreement of any kind with the Bloc.

The contradictions and reversals lead many Liberals to ask: Just what is the Liberal Party policy on formal written agreements with other parties represented in Parliament?

Read the following extracts with quotes from Ignatieff and see if you understand Liberal Party policy on this issue.

Try this one first:

"Q: So a coalition with the Bloc again, if circumstances present, is a possibility?
A: I've made it very clear that I have deep difficulty with the very possibility. What I said is that in a future in which there is a possibility of minority governments, I would not exclude making arrangements or agreements, public, transparent agreements, with other parties that will allow me to govern. But notice I did not use the word "coalition."

Q: I'm not clear what you're ruling out.

A: I think it's very difficult for me to do a deal with the Bloc. But let's be clear why: it's not because I doubt the good faith of Mr. Duceppe or his capacity to carry out his word. My issue is that they have different strategic objectives.

Q: But you won't rule it out categorically.

A: I am telling you I would not go into coalition agreements with the Bloc Québécois, period. That rules it out. In a situation of minority Parliaments, Canadians have to get used to the idea that it is responsible for political leaders to envisage the possibility of creating agreements or accords or political arrangements to govern in order to secure stable government, but not with the Bloc."

And now this one from an earlier blog of mine:

"He came out very strongly against the ridiculous notion spread by the Harper government that no MP should enter into any agreement with Bloc MPs. Ignatieff strongly defended the right of every Bloc MP to his or her place in Parliament, and said that they had as much right to their seats there as he had; they were our fellow citizens, and were entitled to participate in the governing of Canada. He slammed Harper for denying Bloc MPs that right, and for using arguments designed to cause national disunity over this issue."

And this earlier one, when he was still seeking the leadership of the party:

"Under Stéphane Dion, the Liberals and the NDP agreed last month to topple the government by voting against it in a no-confidence vote and form a governing coalition. The coalition also had the backing of the separatist Bloc.
Although Ignatieff has appeared lukewarm to the idea of a coalition, he has said he would support such an agreement if he believes the federal budget is not in the country's best interests."

And in this interview he seemed to clearly defend the rights of the Bloc and advised Canadians not to fear if any party entered into a formal agreement with the separatist Bloc:

"The son of a Canadian diplomat and the grandson of a Russian count, Ignatieff was a campaign volunteer for Lester B. Pearson in 1965, and three years later was a national youth organizer and party delegate for Pierre Trudeau.

Like them, he's a federalist, and said Canadians shouldn't fear the Bloc Quebecois' role in the opposition coalition, which also includes the New Democrats.

"Democracy hinges on there being confidence in the government, and there isn't any at present," Ignatieff said. "In fact, Mr. Harper has managed almost the impossible, by getting parties that disagree on fundamentals to join together.

"But there are limits to what the Liberal Party will allow. The Liberal Party believes in fiscal responsibility and a competitive business environment, but it will never trade away national unity or trade away the authority of government.

"What's outrageous is for a party like ours to seek to end a constitutional impasse caused by Mr. Harper, and to be discredited as traitors. That's terrible. He crossed the line when he did that.

"His rhetoric has to stop, and stop for good." … Ignatieff said his constituency office in Toronto received 2,000 e-mails one day this week from Canadians concerned about the current conundrum. He said it can be resolved by a government-run coalition.

"In our system, to govern, a government has to have the confidence of the House," he said. "We have to talk to each other, not past each other, and that isn't happening now. We owe that to the Canadian people.

"Canadians can have confidence in a coalition, provided they know certain things are on the table and certain things are off it at all times. And they have our iron-clad assurance they we will govern in their best interest.

"I think this is what Canadian people pay us to do. They pay us to get it right, and I think we have to find a way out of this for all Canadians. I am convinced we can do this. We are up to it.

"We are aware we are we are living historic moments. We are aware of the responsibility.""

Is anyone else as confused about exactly what the Liberal Party will or will not do and with whom, and whether the Bloc MPs are to be shunned in parliamentary dealings because they are separatists, as The Cat is?

And if you are, don't you think the Liberal leadership (all of them) should explain to Canadians just what our policy really is on this issue?