Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?

[Scratch_043]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/12/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4595068.shtml

IMHO that's the best way to deal with the automakers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hey, even the World Socialists think the coalition idea sucks!  Some highlights, shared with the usual disclaimer....

Canada: Liberal-NDP coalition would be a tool of big business
Richard Dufour, World Soclialist web site, 10 Dec 08
Article link

(....)

Whatever ultimately happens to the coalition agreement when parliament resumes at the end of January, one thing is clear: if a Liberal-NDP coalition government ever sees the light of day, it will be a right-wing government, that under the cover of “progressive” phrases would press forward with the anti-worker and anti-democratic agenda pursued by its predecessors, the Harper Conservative government and the Liberal governments of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.

The campaign that the NDP and their allies in the union bureaucracy are mounting to portray their alliance with the Liberals as a “coalition for change” is a fraud. Federal NDP leader Jack Layton saluted the outgoing Liberal leader “and the entire Liberal caucus” for “hav[ing] made a commitment to the coalition to get the economy on the right track for Canadians” and to “create jobs.” But an analysis of the coalition’s “policy accord” demonstrates that the Liberal-NDP alliance has nothing to do with defending the interests of Canada’s workers.

The policy accord’s starting point is the commitment of all three parties, the Liberals, NDP and BQ, to “fiscal responsibility—a euphemism for declaring their subservience to big business and its mantra of “international competitiveness” and their opposition to any serious redistribution of wealth in favor of working people. The accord’s second paragraph begins, “This policy accord is built on a foundation of fiscal responsibility.”

(....)

There are many key policy issues that the accord ignores. But the NDP has conceded that it abandoned two of its principal “progressive” demands, so as to secure a coalition deal with the Canadian bourgeoisie’s traditional party of government. These are the rescinding of the Harper government’s, five-year C$50 billion scheme to slash corporate taxes and the withdrawal of the 2,500-strong Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) contingent that is waging a colonial-style war in Afghanistan.

(....)

It is highly significant that both of the most recent Liberal prime ministers, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, have played an important role in the development of the coalition. It was Chrétien who along with NDP elder statesman Ed Broadbent initiated the coalition negotiations. Martin agreed to be part of a “wise men” committee that is supposed to advise the new government on economic policy.

The “coalition” for change is thus being mentored by the two principal architects of the dismantling of the welfare state. The Liberal governments of 1993-2006 imposed the greatest social spending cuts in Canadian history, including gutting the employment insurance program, then instituted massive corporate, capital gains and personal income tax cuts so as to redistribute national income to the most privileged sections of society. The Chrétien-Martin governments also initiated the revival of the CAF as an instrument of war, sending the CAF to war against Yugoslavia and in southern Afghanistan and launching a massive campaign to expand and rearm the Canadian military.

(....)

These questions of political principle have been swept under the rug by the supporters of the coalition in the NDP and its periphery—the union bureaucracy and community and protest groups. They are promoting the most vulgar and dangerous illusions concerning the purported common interests between working people and big business.

(.....)

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

I've said it before,  but I think this sums it up nicely.

Please forgive the short post but I'm not sleeping well since Ignatiff got the interim leadership....

 

[Rifleman62]

Sent to me:

THREE WEEKS BEFORE CHRISTMAS

T’was three weeks before Christmas, when all through the house
The opposition was stirring, even Layton - the louse.
The dealings were waved in front of noses in the air,
In hopes that a Coalition soon would be there.

The Blocs were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of separatism danced in their heads.
And Jack in his ‘kerchief, and Stéphane - the sap,
Had just settled down for a long winter’s nap.

When all across the country there arose such a clatter,
Dion insisted, it didn’t really matter.
Away out the window, he threw with a flash,
The results of the election, amid the backlash.

The moon on the breast of Elizabeth May,
Suggested she might still be able to play.
When, what to her wondering eyes should appear,
But a weasely Frenchman with promises dear.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it was Jack Layton, the dick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

"Now Dion! now, Duceppe! Now Mays - you vixen!
Let’s get together, It’s time to Listen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Let’s unite! Let’s unite! Separatists and all!"

And then, in a twinkling, they heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of Canadians, not aloof.
They drew in their heads, and turned around,
And down the chimney St Harper came with a bound.

He was dressed all in gold, from his head to his feet,
Letting them know he wouldn’t be easy to defeat.
A bundle of Tories he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a King, with nothing to lack.

His eyes-how they glared! his fists, how clenched!
He stands for democracy, and won’t see it trenched!
His droll little mouth was drawn up in a sneer,
For the governor-general soon would appear..

The promise of dissolving he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it caused encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a stern face and a little round belly,
And wanted to bury Dion in a bowlful of jelly!

Harper was elected by Canadians, voted in fair,
Not a Weasel, not a Separatist, not the guy with no hair!
With them getting together, it will have to be said,
Canadians will face the future with dread.

Harper spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
Shook his head in disgust, then turned to the jerk.
And laying his middle finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose!

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a shout,
Trying to teach Canadians, what this is about.
And I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,
"This is the end of democracy, C’mon lets fight!"

 

[Gunnar]

Redolet lvcernam, but it's still a good start.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And now for a "Tin Foil Hats and Black Helicopters" moment...

Who are the people currently pushing hardest for this coalition?  ???

Jack Layton, NDP
Bob Rae, NDP (let's not kid ourselves)
Ken Lewenza, CAW leader and NDP banker.

It has been established that the coalition was proposed if perhaps not actually organised prior to the official 'last straw.' Was it perhaps planned rather further in advance? Perhaps, as far back as when Bob Rae switched to the Liberals with the intent of going for the top job?

(Yes, Buzz Hargrove was the CAW leader then. I don't insist on the full thesis...  )

I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, but hey - I came up with this one all on my own, so there's a little pride of ownership happening!  ;D

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s National Post web site is a column that, generally, supports your thesis:
------------------
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/10/kelly-mcparland-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-that-ensnared-stephen-harper.aspx

Kelly McParland: The vast left-wing conspiracy that ensnared Stephen Harper

Posted: December 10, 2008, 3:36 PM by Kelly McParland

My reporting skills, which were never stellar, must be fading.

Listening to Stephen Harper being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge on Tuesday, the bit that struck me most (apart from the Prime Minister's unintentionally hilarious suggestion that “I’m not there to play political games”) was Mr. Harper's stated belief that the NDP and Bloc Quebecois were conspiring against him well before his plan to end public funding for political parties blew up in his face. I thought there would be headlines the next day: “Harper accuses opposition of conspiracy.” But not a word (not one I could find, anyway.) I guess everyone made the logical connection when Jack Layton, in his secretly taped conference call with NDP members, referred mysteriously to dealings he’d had with the Bloc Quebecois. But not me.

So here’s the transcript from Mansbridge:

Harper: “I think frankly after the election, if not before the election, the opposition parties decided that they would work against the government as essentially a unified front.”

Mansbridge: “You believe that there was a conspiracy right from the get-go?”

Harper: I think it’s absolutely clear that was their position.”

Mansbridge: “No matter what you’d put in that economic statement?”

Harper: “It’s absolutely clear that was their position. It’s clear from the statements of a number of the leaders themselves. It’s clear in the lead-up to that economic and fiscal update, if you look at the lines of attack they were using in the House of Commons.
"Mr. Ducepe and Mr. Layton made it clear they wanted to defeat the government no matter what ... Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton want to push the Liberal party into a corner where they vote against the government no matter what, or they’re condemned as sellouts.”

Harper was obviously alluding to Mr. Layton’s conference call, the weekend before the coalition was formally created, in which he detailed his frequent contacts with the Bloq, and hinted that co-operation had been going on for some time:

“Let’s just say we have strategies, this whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn’t have been made with the Bloc to lock them in early, because you couldn’t put three people together in one, in three hours. The first part was done a long time ago, I won’t go into details...”

I’ve never been a big believer in government conspiracies. A workable conspiracy requires a degree of competence and an ability to keep a secret that politicians simply don’t possess. But Mr. Layton’s words clearly indicate contacts of some sort had been made before the crisis broke, and some kind of game plan worked out, that would explain much of what happened. To wit:

• Mr. Harper’s failure to judge the push-back he’d get on his funding plan looks less startling. Much has been made of the shredding of his reputation as a tactician, but it’s possible he was set up. If the Bloc and NDP were had already agreed to pounce on the first chance to defeat him, the funding issue just happened to be the one that came along.

• Stephane Dion’s leadership looks even worse. (Editorial note: is that even possible?) If Mr. Harper is correct, the Bloc and NDP leaders saw Mr. Dion as a weakling who could be manipulated into supporting the crisis they planned to provoke, and were proved correct. Dion leapt at the coalition so fast he caught his own caucus by surprise, and never did catch on that he was teetering on a cliff edge.

• The outlook for the coalition becomes even bleaker. (Editorial note: is that even possible?) Mr. Ignatieff is unlikely to be as easily manipulated as poor Mr. Dion, nor is he as likely to sign on to a strategy he didn’t devise himself.

National Post
--------------------

This lends some credence to the theory that Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe outmanoeuvred both Dion and Harper.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is an article discussing Ignatieff’s tactics:
-------------------
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=1059689

Ignatieff backs away from cliff

John Ivison,  National Post

Published: Thursday, December 11, 2008

OTTAWA -Michael Ignatieff has mastered the vocabulary of politics, but not yet the body language. At a press conference to announce the dawning of the Age of Ignatieff yesterday, the new Liberal leader gave the game away after suggesting that he still supports the idea of a coalition with the NDP and Bloc.

"[Prime Minister Stephen Harper] miscalculated, with nearly catastrophic results for the country," he said, before giving a furtive glance toward his team of advisors, who were sitting nervously on one side.

What catastrophe would that have been then? A Liberal-led coalition under Stephane Dion, with the NDP's Jack Layton in Cabinet?

Mr. Ignatieff can threaten to vote no-confidence in January and bluster that he's still prepared to enter a coalition, in order to wring concessions from the government in the budget. But it is clearly not his intention to bring down the Conservatives, which will come as a surprise to his erstwhile coalition partners in the NDP, who still expect him to lead them into the promised land next month.

"The arrival of Mr. Ignatieff removes an impediment to the coalition," said the party's deputy leader, Thomas Mulcair, who pointed out that 160 MPs had signed the agreement, including the new Liberal leader. Dream on.

Mr. Ignatieff said that if the budget is, in his opinion, in the national interest, his party will support it.

Since Mr. Ignatieff said a team of Liberals will meet with Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, next week to submit ideas for a stimulus package, it would be safe to conclude that the budget will contain some measures the Grits can live with and the government will survive.

The new leader laid down what he called the "tramlines" for his party -- that is, nothing the Liberals will do will jeopardize national unity or fiscal responsibility. Since the Bloc is intent on shattering national unity and the NDP does not even know where fiscal responsibility lives, it is a good bet that this beautiful friendship will never be consummated. "We have different interests, different ideologies and different views," was how the Liberal leader characterized the relationship.

While Mr. Ignatieff's advisors chomped on fingernails as they looked on anxiously, hoping against hope that their guy wasn't going to blow it on day one, they do sit more comfortably than in days of yore. Back in the dark days of the 2006 leadership campaign, it was typical for media interviews, designed to correct the previous day's disastrous gaffe, to merely compound the agony.

But the Liberal leader has been in frontline politics for three years now and has learned the language appropriate for a political leader. Indignation, self-belief and resoluteness are in; anxiety, doubt and indecision are out.

He also understands the value of a heartwarming anecdote when you have nothing constructive to say on an issue. When he was asked about his plans for rural Canada, he launched into a rambling soliloquy about how he grew up in his uncle's barn in Quebec -- "born in a manger, no doubt," quipped one cynic.

Mr. Ignatieff's reminiscing capped yet another day of high drama on Parliament Hill. At noon, Liberals started spilling from their caucus meeting at which former leadership candidate Bob Rae had nominated his old college roommate as leader. MPs were in high spirits when they emerged. "I've never seen the party so united," gushed John McCallum. Which, frankly, isn't saying much.

Mr. Dion walked out, backpack slung over his shoulder, and wandered through the halls in apparent good humour. He said he wouldn't presume to offer Mr. Ignatieff advice. "He's a big boy," he said, as he left, presumably to clear his stuff out of Stornoway, the official residence of the leader of the Official Opposition. To add insult to injury, Mr. Dion also lost his chauffeur-driven car, which prompted him to say he would have taken the bus home if there hadn't been a transit strike in Ottawa.

Mr. Rae was the only Liberal who looked down in the dumps. He brushed by reporters without passing comment, a disconsolate, deflated figure, whose snowy locks blended into the backdrop as he wandered off Parliament Hill, apparently lost in thoughts of what might have been.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
--------------------


I think Iggy (and/or his handlers) have finally got it right: ”nothing the Liberals will do will jeopardize national unity or fiscal responsibility.” That, effectively, rules out active cooperation (à la a coalition) with the BQ or NDP.

I also suspect that it will be Harper’s choice of election dates, after the budget passes, not Ignatieff’s.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is Don Martin’s take on why the budget will pass:

--------------------
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=1059736

Harper braces to fork over bailout billions

Don Martin,  National Post

Published: Thursday, December 11, 2008

OTTAWA -It goes against every ideological bone in his body. An economist by education if not employment, Stephen Harper has an avowed belief in deploying widespread tax relief and letting free enterprise pick the winners and losers.

But the Prime Minister sounds like he's clearing his throat to sing the bailout blues very, very soon. He'll be handing out billions to prop up three chronically inefficient, unresponsive and perhaps unsustainable car manufacturing companies, a salvage operation that sources hint could roll out before Christmas.

With a wince in his voice -- although that might have been because the Peter Mansbridge interview was conducted inside CBC studios he views as akin to hell--Mr. Harper tried to clarify his government's position on handouts for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler on Tuesday.

Action will be taken, he vowed. The deal hammered out in Washington, D. C., is being watched closely and Canada will copy the U. S. moves to prevent competitive disadvantages from crossing the border, he added.

He even admitted the auto-sector bailout was so urgent, it couldn't wait until his prorogued Commons returns, although the "big stuff " won't be released until the Jan. 27, 2009, budget. Huh? A requested bailout from the Shrinking Three manufacturers estimated at roughly $6-billion isn't "big"? Gosh. Can you say $30-billion deficit?

Admitting the auto stimulus moves can't wait makes Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's fiscally vacuous update of just two weeks ago an even more laughable document than it first appeared, particularly now that Parliament's budget officer has raised suspicions about its delusional surplus projections. But I digress.

The Harper handout squeeze is coming from every side.

Feisty new Liberal emperor Michael Ignatieff appears to rank a bailout as one of the preconditions for allowing this government to survive a confidence vote in the Commons; manufacturers are responding to political pressure to roll out their Canadian rescue plans starting tomorrow; and yesterday's approval for a Congress-White House deal worth US$14-billion has quickly forced Mr. Harper to consider a costly matching giveaway scheme.

It's up to Industry Canada bureaucrats to devise the terms and conditions for Canada's rescue mission, but the ones imposed by Congress should be viewed as a starting point.

Union pay sacrifices are a must, executive compensation will be frozen or reduced, an equity stake for our investment must be secured, and there has to be independent oversight by a respected authority with the power to decide whether bankruptcy is better than continuing to turn our money into Detroit losses.

Mr. Harper has correctly sensed the danger of giving money away to an industry that may be beyond salvation, particularly since he has the option of instead diverting billions to bridge, highway or water treatment projects that would be of permanent benefit to all Canadians.

The estimated value of the bailout also seems off, even to a mathematical dyslexic like me. Canada's auto manufacturing industry is about one-10th of American production, which suggests our bailout should be a 10th of the US$14-billion congressional package. So what's with the $6-billion in loans and credit lines being sought by the Big Three for their Canadian operations?

And while it's doubtful Canada's workers are anywhere near the $73-per-hour cost attributed to their U. S. auto assembly colleagues (a figure, mind you, that includes wage, benefit and retirement costs), Canadian workers should not be handed a tax-subsidized cheque without sacrificing some of the best pay packages around.

But the greatest danger is how this could open wide a Pandora's box of handouts without precedent in Canadian fiscal history.

Relief for the auto sector will launch a lineup of palms-out industries far beyond our means to pacify. How will Mr. Harper argue taxpayer protection for a GM worker in Oshawa is any more pressing than help for a forestry worker in Quebec?

There are already unconfirmed noises that Nortel Networks Corp. will seek government help. Who's next? The banks, airlines, or even, if the age of the US$30 barrel of oil is indeed on the horizon, that last functioning piston of Canada's economic engine, the Alberta oil sands?

It's crunch time for Stephen Harper. He faces plenty of parliamentary headaches because of his foolish behaviour of the last month, but his greatest migraine is yet to come from going against his beliefs to finance the winners and sacrifice the losers in Canada's economic meltdown.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
--------------------

As Martin suggests, bailouts run counter to Harper’s evident beliefs but he needs to pass an attractive (to Ontario and Québec voters)  budget and then prolong the agony until the GG has no option but to drop the writs when, sooner rather than later, he engineers his own defeat in the HoC.

 

[Old Sweat]

If I was of a devious turn of mind, and this is based on the passage of the budget and the collapse of the coalition when Parliament resumes, the best time for the government to fall would be in March or April. This would have allowed about half a year to pass since the election, winter will be more or less over, the Liberals will still be in deep financial trouble and will not have had time to promote a platform or a sense of vision or even to 'select' their leader at a national convention. (The Grits, however, would be financially commited to the Vancouver convention and would face a large expenditure in cancellation fees.) In the meantime the media would have had a field day with the 'righteous outrage' of the NDP and the Bloc at the 'sabotage of working Canadians and the nation of Quebec' by the Liberal refusal to honour the coalition agreement.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don seems to be following Lawrence farther and farther down the same path these days......

First, re the "miscalculation":
It starts to look to me, if we take Harper and Layton at their word, and with the evidence of Rosemary Speirs, that when Harper saw that he was about to be defeated by a pre-planned "coalition" he threw in the party financing clawback as a political poison pill.  The Socialist Coalition would have preferred to paint the take-down as a matter of principle.  Instead Harper has successfully made the issue about self-interest, and although much of the public suspects that it was about his own self-interest, they now seem to "know" that it was also about Coalition self-interest.....and principle had little to do with it.

Those 60% polls indicate who got the better of the fight.

One area where Harper might have pushed too hard was on tackling the Unions, but on the other hand, it seems that the Unions have been a critical player in this coalition.....to the extent that they Unions are still advising the Liberals they will support them if they support the Coalition.  It may have been an irresistible target but it probably didn't play as well in the Information Operation.

Second, as to the Economic Statement:  It would have been foolish to offer anything until Obama's plan was known.  Wa are the 10% tail and we don't wag the US's 90% dog.

Third, as to the bailout itself:

The new numbers are still only talking a recession until second quarter 2009.  We are talking here about short term coverage.  If I were Harper I woudl be offering temporary EI expansion for the duration of the recession, cover tax cuts in the stimulus mantle and throw the Big Three a $1.5 Bn bone.  Not the $6 Bn that they asked for but 10% of what the US is offering.

Chrysler is likely not going to be saved but it has always struggled close to bankrupty.  That's how Lee Iacocca made his name.

All three companies have systemic issues and the recession just made those issues more apparent.  They need to resolve those issues one way or another and that requires a market cure.  They need to create  two new products: a car that appeals to consumers and a business that appeals to investors.

Finally, with respect to Old Sweat's observation on timing:

By April Obama's Hundred Days will be up - and there are already some indications that the gilding is starting to wear from the lily.
Centrist rather than Progressive appointments
Blagojevich and the Chicago Machine
Request to stay in Afghanistan
Protectionism?

Those Nationalists that are also Progressives, and that were allying themselves ideologically with the new Progressive guy are suddenly going to find themselves confronting  Progressive disappointment.

They will then have to decide between their hatred for the US and their hatred for Harper.

And as I am writing this CTV is reporting that the Supreme Court ruled on EI surpluses.  Effectively saying that there is nothing wrong with the Government collecting EI premiums and putting them into General Revenues but there is a problem with them setting the rates in Cabinet without consultation - an insurance then becomes a tax. 

This means that the Liberals illegally confiscated they Insurance Fund and used it to create the impression of a surplus.  The Supreme Court has now told the Conservatives to fix this.

The Conservatives have now been given cover to:
Increase EI benefits and coverage
To incur a deficit doing it
To blame the Liberals for it
To take away the Martin card for Financial acuity
And to tie the Liberals to the same type of accounting procedures they used to finance their party (Adscam).
Edited to add: And note that the Liberals, all the time they were making money from EI, and creating the surplus, they then spent the surplus on pet projects rather than writing down the debt or, better yet creating an asset pool to fund the future liability (and the future is now).

I think Mr. Ignatieff is going to have a long, hard uphill slog over the next few months.

Any takers as to whether he survives his coronation in May?

 

[Rifleman62]

Don Martin of the National Post is getting as lazy as James Travers of The Star WRT checking facts/research before putting his "thoughts" down. He cannot even read his own newspaper.
A 5 minute Google search, cut and paste as well as posting here uncovered the following 3 examples of many, to undercut Martin's "And while it's doubtful Canada's workers are anywhere near the $73-per-hour cost attributed to their U. S. auto assembly colleagues (a figure, mind you, that includes wage, benefit and retirement costs)......"

National Post Editorial: End of the Hargrove era
Posted: May 16, 2008, 5:52 PM by Dan Goldbloom

The average pay for assembly line employees is more than double the average industrial wage in the United States, and almost double the average here in Canada

CAW has had a key role in making the Big Three uncompetitive. The unionized North American car makers are often saddled with compensation packages 40% larger than those paid by their non-union, international competitors making cars in Canada and the United States.

Auto workers' wages trigger disputes
Posted By CANADIAN PRESS
Posted 10 days ago

Tony Faria, an auto industry specialist at the University of Windsor, said that once new contracts negotiated by both the CAW in Canada and the United Auto Workers in the United States. come into effect, Canadian employees of the Big Three will cost their employers about $27 an hour more than their American counterparts.

Before the last contracts were negotiated, the total cost of compensating a CAW employee for an hour of work -- which includes wages, benefits and the so-called legacy pension costs of supporting retired employees -- was approximately $77 an hour, according to both GM and the CAW. UAW costs were slightly less, averaging approximately $73 an hour. At that time, the U. S. and Canadian dollars were around parity.

However, UAW workers made several concessions in their latest contract, including the implementation of a two-tier wage system.
Under this system, current employees will keep their current compensation rates, but new workers will make significantly less in benefits and wages. These new workers will only cost their employers $47 an hour all-in, while non-assembly line workers will only cost $26 an hour. In another concession, the UAW will take control of health-care benefits as of 2010, meaning the all-in cost of the workers who were hired before the two-tier system was implemented will fall to $62 an hour.

Ford workers accept deal to freeze wages
CAW will ask GM and Chrysler to match historic contract after a more than 2-1 positive vote
May 05, 2008 04:30 AM
TONY VAN ALPHEN
THE STAR BUSINESS REPORTER

The Big Three calculated the labour cost for workers here had risen to $81.40 an hour including benefits and pension liabilities, which was $33.90 more than the amount for Honda, Toyota and Nissan workers in the U.S.
The three companies proposed wage cuts; elimination of the COLA; reductions in vacation time; and increasing costs for health care. CAW economist Jim Stanford said Ford and the union struck "a balance" so the labour cost gap won't increase between Canadian workers and their U.S. counterparts at the Big Three because of a productivity edge here.

$70 per hour, 35 hour work week eqates to $127.4 K

 

[Brad Sallows]

What makes the numbers more interesting is the fact that companies in Canada are mostly not on the hook for basic health care (they often pay the nominal provincial health care premiums as part of the benefit package.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

See here for an article in which Iggy says: "I am prepared to vote non-confidence in this government. And I am prepared to enter into a coalition government with our partners if that is what the Governor-General asks me to do … but I also made it clear to the caucus this morning that no party can have the confidence of the country if it decides to vote now against a budget it hasn't even read."

He’s a smart guy and he has just rescued his party from a potentially disastrous ‘coalition’ with the BQ and NDP and, simultaneously, elevated himself, in the eyes of most Canadians, to the status of a ‘reasonable’ guy – a status which Stephen Harper has, arguably, thus far, not managed to achieve.

But, Harper now has a level playing field. He can, de facto, negotiate in public with Ignatieff – leaking Ignatieff’s demands and countering them with his ideas and with the views of the experts he will call upon for semi-public advice. He’ll be able to present a budget that Iggy will be unable to refuse – or, at least, will have very great difficulty refusing while still appearing ‘reasonable.’

 

[TCBF]

- Watch for this: A radical proposal for the government stimulus package to only secure the Auto Sector pension funds and medical/other benefits while letting the company(ies) themselves fail.

 

[john10]

So what are the duties of the Minister responsible for Quebec?

To represent the interests of the province at the cabinet table I imagine. Certainly not to direct oversight of contracts signed by Public Works.

Judge Gomery said Martin had nothing to do with it. http://www.canada.com/national/features/gomery/story.html?id=7eb45c76-0206-4167-986c-40466ed354ef

Look, there are plenty of things you can criticize Martin for, but lying about his involvement in the sponsorship program? That simply has no basis in fact, so it's silly to keep digging yourself in.

 

[Edward Campbell]

- Watch for this: A radical proposal for the government stimulus package to only secure the Auto Sector pension funds and medical/other benefits while letting the company(ies) themselves fail.

I rather like the idea TCBF puts forward.

In my view there is nothing sacred about the Big Three. Iconic – yes. Vital to our (or America’s) national interests – no. We can survive with a new Big Three (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) or even a Medium 10 or 20.

While I do not accept that trade union greed is all or even most of the problem I cannot see how any resolution cannot involve some parity with non-union shops – parity with what we find in the Japanese car makers’ North American plants.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§9) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is the latest (as at 0203 Hrs EST, anyway):
--------------------
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.wautowrap1211/BNStory/Business/home
GM considers bankruptcy as bailout talks collapse
Senators' last-minute push to revive deal scuttled by workers' rejection of pay cuts

BARRIE MCKENNA AND JOSH WINGROVE

Globe and Mail Update
December 12, 2008 at 2:03 AM EST

WASHINGTON AND TORONTO — A refusal by the United Auto Workers union to accept swift wage cuts scuttled a $14-billion bailout of the Detroit Three auto makers Thursday night, as General Motors was said to have hired legal and banking experts to consult on bankruptcy protection and Chrysler warned it was nearly out of cash.

After a day of intense negotiations it appeared a deal was close on revisions to the bailout bill, first passed by Congress earlier this week. But Republican senators had earlier balked at the plan, instead demanding wage concessions and pension reform.

Those two issues led to the breakdown last night after UAW refused immediate concessions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

Mr. Reid said he was "terribly disappointed." He had hoped that a revised deal would be voted on last night.

"I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight," he said.

The collapse came after hours of marathon talks, as the bailout transformed into a clash over how far the U.S. government should go to ease the pain of the deepening recession. Senate Republicans refused to sign off on the House-approved deal, saying Americans are struggling to understand why the auto makers deserve bailouts when half a million workers are losing their jobs every month.

"This proposal isn't nearly tough enough. We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier Thursday in a speech on the Senate floor.

The bill passed by Congress specified emergency short-term loans to GM and Chrysler and put a government-appointed "car czar" in charge of making sure the companies become competitive.

Republicans had been pushing an alternative that would slash worker pay and benefits at the Detroit Three, force bondholders to take a bigger hit and fund auto workers' pensions with stock instead of cash.

Those demands proved to be the sticking point, angering Democrats supporting a bailout plan.

"In the midst of already deep and troubling economic times, we are about to add to that by walking away," said Senator Chris Dodd, the banking committee chairman who led negotiations on the package.

Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker, the point man on the Republican side, had proposed setting a strict March 15 deadline for GM and Chrysler to cut their debt, persuade bondholders to accept an equity swap and start labour renegotiations to compete with foreign auto makers' work rules.

Mr. Corker said GM and Chrysler had been "working with us. They like this."

While several Republicans had warmly greeted the idea, some Democrats viewed the proposal as demanding too much from the UAW, which Democratic congressional aides said earlier Thursday had still been willing to negotiate.

Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, a strong bailout supporter, said the UAW was willing to make the cuts — but not until 2011, when their contract expires.

The collapse came as two top Chrysler executives, vice-chairman Tom LaSorda and chief financial officer Ron Kolka, said the company is almost out of cash and wouldn't be able to pay its bills in the new year.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that GM was now considering bankruptcy protection.

In a statement issued after the collapse of the deal, GM said it was "deeply disappointed" that the bipartisan agreement faltered. "We will assess all of our options to continue our restructuring and to obtain the means to weather the current economic crisis," the company said.

Chrysler also said it "will continue to pursue a workable solution to help ensure the future viability of the company."

Ford says it's in slightly better shape, but could also falter if its competitors go bankrupt.

The rescue package has become a victim of growing bailout fatigue. In recent months, the U.S. government has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at banks, insurers and brokerages. Even so, credit markets remain dysfunctional and banks continue to tighten lending standards.

The political battle over the auto bailout has also exposed a growing geographic rift between Democrats and Republicans. Auto jobs are heavily concentrated in the U.S. Midwest, which voted heavily Democratic in the November election.

Republican opposition to the bailout is also crassly political. Most of the Asian and European car makers now have plants in the south and southwest staunchly Republican states. These plants are all non-union, and their workers earn lower wages, pensions and benefits than workers at the Detroit Three.

Mr. McConnell's home state of Kentucky, for example, is home to Toyota's first U.S. plant. And like other foreign auto makers, Toyota isn't seeking a bailout. Mr. Corker's state of Tennessee is home to a non-union Nissan plant.

The auto bailout issue gained urgency last week when the government reported the economy had lost more than a half-million jobs in November, the most in any month for more than 30 years.

"There's a lot of hardship out there. People are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their cars and losing their patience," Mr. Reid had said. "We don't need to pile on."

The Democrats hold a razor-thin 50-49 majority in the Senate. (There's one vacancy because president-elect Barack Obama has resigned his Illinois seat). To avoid procedural stalling tactics, the legislation would need 60 votes.

With no deal in place, the White House could dip into a $700-billion bank rescue fund to help the auto makers, although President George W. Bush has repeatedly said he won't do that.

The uncertainty leaves the fate of the Detroit Three's Canadian operations in limbo. They, too, are seeking government loans, but they are contingent on the parent companies also securing financial aid.

Mr. Obama, who supports a bailout, said he shares taxpayers' "anger and frustration" with the Detroit Three. But "at this moment of great challenge for our economy, we cannot simply stand by and watch this industry collapse," he told reporters in Chicago. "Doing so would lead to a devastating ripple effect throughout our economy."

With reports from The Associated Press
--------------------

Sen. Harry Reid is right: the DOW is set to open down about 3%. That’s “ugly” but nothing like as bad as the losses we saw in Sep and Oct 08. Most investors, even the ones who ‘invest’ based on panic, have already written down the value of the Big Three to near zero.

 

[tomahawk6]

The DOW is down 100 points right now. Many Americans dont support a bailout for the automakers and if they were smart they would decline any further money.The government wants to force the carmakers to build small green cars that Americans dont want to buy.Its Congress' meddling that is partly responsible in its CAFE standards.The Big 3 dont have to meet CAFE standards in its foreign operations and that part of their business is solid.The recession is going to hurt auto sales so an infusion of cash now wont do much good.Bankruptcy will allow Ford,GM and Chrysler to reorganize to include resetting their Union contracts.This bailout has been for the Unions that supported Obama and less to the benefit of the companies.At the end of the day their wage/benefit package costs them $72 an hour vs the non-Union competion $48 an hour. Bankruptcy wont mean these companies will go away they will get breathing room.

 

[a_majoor]

To represent the interests of the province at the cabinet table I imagine.

Not to mention the oversight of things like the Sponsorship program to ensure they benefit the sitting Government and the Party's electoral success.

Face it, there was ample evidence that Martin was aware of something; go back and start researching and you will see that there were Liberal MP's who wrote letters warning that something was amiss with the Sponsorship program. As collateral evidence, Paul Martin Jr's "Venetian Blind" trust, his non-arm's length sale of CSL to his sons and the exemption to tax laws that allowed one company to evade $700 million  dollars in tax liabilities (engineered while he was Minister of Finance; guess which company got the exemption?) tells me the man was a very smooth operator, not that he didn't know or wasn't aware. Anyway, he is history now, and will be a footnote in some future textbook.

The important question to think about now is will the "new" leadership of the Liberal Party think beyond seizing the keys to the treasury and actually work with the government, or will they stick to the plan that seems to have been in the works even before 14 Oct 2008 (according to some news sources. I also remember some opposition candidates hinting "something big" would happen post election)? There are dangers and opportunities in both paths, I would hope the path of cooperation is taken, since that can lead to long term renewal for the Liberals (as Edward pointed out, we as a nation need a serious "government in waiting" in the wings).

 

[Kirkhill]

......Bankruptcy will allow Ford,GM and Chrysler to reorganize to include resetting their Union contracts.This bailout has been for the Unions that supported Obama and less to the benefit of the companies.At the end of the day their wage/benefit package costs them $72 an hour vs the non-Union competion $48 an hour. Bankruptcy wont mean these companies will go away they will get breathing room.

Agreed and agreed.

Either the unions suck it up and move to Toyota wages and benefits, thereby allowing the Companies breathing room but preserving their membership, or else they stick to their guns (hoping that the Dems will rescue them in January) and risk the Companies going bankrupt. In that case they will lose their membership, have to re-sign their membership and end up working for reorganized companies at Toyota wages in any case.

Hobson's.......

 

[Flip]

end up working for reorganized companies at Toyota wages in any case.

They will more likely find themselves in a totally new line of work - "would you like fries with that sir?"- Toyota already will have a pool of employees and the last bloody thing they want is a bunch of former union members coming in and poisoning the air. 

Just as this should mean the end of the UAW as we know it, we should also see the end of executive hyper-salaries.