Canadopers -- Will Jean Brault testimony bring down CDN govt?

[Standup Karmic]

Quick background for int'l Dopers who may not know the basics. The sponsorship scandal (or Adscam, as it's affectionately known) is an ongoing scandal in Canada revolving around the alledged siphoning of government money to ad agencies friendly with the government-forming Liberal Party. More thorough background is available at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal).

Jean Brault, president of ad agency Groupaction, one of the prime ad agencies at the centre of the scandal and who is himself facing criminal charges revolving around the scandal, testified at the Gomery inquiry last week. In order to preserve the integrity of his yet-to-take-place criminal trial, a publication ban was put into place covering his (and some others') testimony. Of course, it's virtually impossible to have a meaningful publication ban in place these days.

The Canadian media has been abuzz over the weekend about his testimony last week. It was said to be so explosive that the information has the impact to potentialy bring down the minority government.

For those who have come across the American blog that has published the details of last week's testimony, what's your impression. Is there enough there to crumble the minority government? If an election is called, do you expect the Libs to be crushed in the ensuing election? What happens next?

[RickJay]

I admit it's difficult for me to understand how this necessarily changes anything. It was obvious to me before the last election that the Liberal Party was rotten to the core and had stolen millions of dollars of taxpayers' money; I mean, you had to be lobotomized to not know that. They could not have been more obviously criminal if they'd been brought down by sheriff's deputies on "Cops." They still got enough votes to win.

If there is another election, the Liberals will be wise to simply play the same cards; say the Conservatives are racist and plan on destroying Medicare, and a huge number of people will vote for them. They'll be annihilated in Quebec, but can still form an Opposition with some good campaigning elsewhere. If there was a good opposition leader this might not necessarily work, but as long as there's no inspiring leader on the other side of the House, why would people vote against them based on stuff that didn't cause them to vote against them last year?

[Standup Karmic]

My speculation is that most Liberal-voting Canucks were not convinced of the Liberal Party's depth of involvement in the scandal. This new information from Brault speaks not of creative accounting, nor the malfeasance of certain individuals, but direct involvement from the highest levels of the Liberal Party (PM Cretien?) in creating a mechanism whose sole purpose may have been to enable massive embezzlement.

It certainly feels different than past information.

[borschevsky]

If there is another election, the Liberals will be wise to simply play the same cards; say the Conservatives are racist and plan on destroying Medicare, and a huge number of people will vote for them.It really is amazing how well this seems to work. No matter what comes up, just call Harper an extremist, problem solved.

"Mr. Libereal Guy, how do you explain the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars?"
"Well, I should point out that Mr. Harper is an extremist. I call him Extremely Extremerson!"
"Ah yes, good point, nobody wants an extremist, clearly."

[RickJay]

My speculation is that most Liberal-voting Canucks were not convinced of the Liberal Party's depth of involvement in the scandal. This new information from Brault speaks not of creative accounting, nor the malfeasance of certain individuals, but direct involvement from the highest levels of the Liberal Party (PM Cretien?) in creating a mechanism whose sole purpose may have been to enable massive embezzlement.
Ah yes... but not Paul Martin, from what I've been able to ascertain. The scandal will be played in English Canada as being the work of a bunch of guys with funny-sounding French names who aren't in the government anymore.

This is a bit offtopic, but I sense we're entering an era of absolutely entrenched politics. It was once the fact that half the people always voted the same way and you fought for the other half. Now, it seems, almost EVERYONE always votes the same way, and any information that suggests you're unwise to do so is dismissed.

Consider: If you're a Liberal voter, it seems, the tales of graft and corruption are simply ignored. Millions of Republican voters in the USA will absolutely not be swayed by any facts you can muster from the belief that Saddamn Hussein was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs.

I would imagine we can find the same sort of things for Conservative voters or Democrat voters, but it's not as obvious to cite them when they didn't win the last one. I can think of one out of power example though: I still have relatives who are die-hard NDP voters who still honestly think free trade will result in Canada being fully absorbed by the US and losing all its jobs and having a massive trade deficit. It's been seventeen years now, we're still independent and our trade surplus with the USA has shot to astounding levels - economically, the result has been precisely the opposite of what the NDP claimed would happen - and everything from that point to now is just blithely ignored.

I predict the Liberals will win another minority government if an election takes place this year. I know dozens of people who voted Liberal and not a single one will change their vote or will be swayed by any amount of evidence. That's just anecdotal evidence but I cannot see any other party taking votes away from them. Stephen Harper has done an awful job, and Jack Layton is still a slimy weasel and (fatal west of Oakville or north of Barrie) a Torontonian.

[Sam Stone]

I have my doubts that the revelations of this inquiry will amount to anything. You have to understand that the Canadian people are incredibly apathetic/cynical about our government. As Rickjay said, the Liberals seemed to skate through the last election despite much of this already being known.

This is just one of many, many scandals that get treated with yawns in Canada. Scandals that would bring down any politician in the U.S. Graft, corruption, patronage, sweetheart deals to companies that have children of politicians in high positions, revolving doors between government and industry (with said industry receiving bafflingly good deals).... This is day to day life in Canadian politics.

And if the government does fall, it may not change much. The Conservatives could wind up in power with their own minority government, and collapse in a non-confidence motion in a few months, then we'll elect the old bastards right back in again, and it will have been 'proven' that the Conservatives are not able to govern and they'll be marginalized for another generation.

I'm very cynical about Canadian politics. We don't have a federal party - we have a bunch of regional parties. The Bloc in Quebec, the Liberals who control the major population areas in central and eastern Canada, and the Conservatives who rule the west. Since none of these parties seem to make huge inroads into areas outside their region, we wind up being ruled by the party that represents the most populous region, and that's the Liberals. It will take an act of God for our government to fundamentally change.

[Gorsnak]

It's all Mulroney's fault. (Not Adscam, but the regional fracturing of Canadian federal politics.)

I'm more or less a Liberal supporter, though not because I'm apathetic or cynical. I voted NDP last time round (strategically, trying to unseat the Conservative incumbent), but my current preference is for a Liberal government. It's not that I refuse to consider evidence against them, but a question of political ideology. Should I prefer to have the country led in what I think is the wrong direction over a quarter billion dollars? No, I say. Yeah, it's criminal, and yeah, it's rather a lot of money (though a lot more has been blown on the whole navy helicopter replacement fiasco, or the gun registry, or...) and yeah, if evidence came to light that the current leaders of the party were heavily involved I might well want them out. But what's the alternative, hmm? The Conservatives are still pushing the social conservative side of their agenda, and I will not support that, never, ever, not in a million years. So that leaves me voting NDP, and hoping they don't ever actually get into power (not a big worry, granted) because I think their economic policy is ass-backwards. So we end up with a Conservative minority (cuz they have no chance in Quebec) that can't get anything done, and that's supposed to be an improvement on a corrupt but reasonably competent government?

See, I would love if there were a party that could win seats in every province in the country that held roughly the same political ground as the old Tories. Fiscal conservative, social progressive. Oh wait, there is. It's the Liberals. And they're apparently crooks, but I'll probably vote for them as the lesser of three evils.

My sister was once at a (Stan's brother) Garnett Rogers concert shortly before an election, and Garnett said, "If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."

[RickJay]

This is just one of many, many scandals that get treated with yawns in Canada. Scandals that would bring down any politician in the U.S...
Pfft. Why must you always suggest things are better in the States? They're just as bad; voter apathy is WORSE, not better, and Congress is a haven of porkbarrelry. Let's stop talking about the USA.

And if the government does fall, it may not change much. The Conservatives could wind up in power with their own minority government, and collapse in a non-confidence motion in a few months
Having looked at the electoral map, I now realize you're right, and I was wrong in saying the Liberals would automatically win; actually, a new election COULD result in a Conservative government. Assuming the Liberals are utterly devastated in Quebec - the virtually certain result - the Conservatives actually would not have to gain very many seats to "win."

Presently the score is 135 to 99. That includes 21 Liberal seats in Quebec; it is entirely possible that could be reduced to just six or seven in a new election. Assume the Liberals lose 11 and are left with 10; the Conservatives would then have to convert only 13 seats elsewhere to win, which would not actually require that much of a swing in the popular vote. The Conservatives could pick up that many seats even without gaining a single one in Ontario, and they'd get some more in Ontario, too.

What's different in Ontario from the last few elections is that Ontarians now have a provincial Liberal government they're already getting dreadfully sick of. Believe me, it does matter.

[Gorsnak]

The Conservatives could pick up that many seats even without gaining a single one in Ontario
Can they?

They can't gain any in Saskatchewan - in fact, they'll lose at least 2 is my prediction. Goodale is in no danger, and the Conservatives hold all the rest, but the NDP will win back a couple they lost by razor-thin margins last time.

In Alberta, let's say Landslide Annie loses her seat, but there's not a lot of room for the Tories to pick up anything here.

BC? The Liberals might lose a couple more, but whether that'd be to the Conservatives or the NDP is an open question. Probably not more than a couple seats can be gained here.

Manitoba. Only 3 Liberal seats, and again as likely to swing orange as blue if they swing at all.

That leaves the Maritimes, where the Liberals hold 21 seats that are theoretically vulnerable to Tory gains, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the region to comment on whether those seats are actually vulnerable.

It would come down to Ontario. Shocking, I know. ;)

[hathaway]

For those who have come across the American blog that has published the details of last week's testimony...

Err, um... just out of idle curosity, where would a person find this blog?

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

It's not a matter of ignorance. Many of us are well aware of the Liberal involvement in the scandal, and in fact, were aware of it during the last election. The Liberals are crooks, but they are also the only option for those of us who can not support the pro-labour economically backwards NDP, or the living-in-the-dark-ages socially backwards Conservatives.

[Polycarp]

The Maritimes were at one time amenable to P.C. candidates. The new leaner, meaner Alliance-fed Conservatives, I don't think so. There's still a strong tendency to Canadian liberalism (not Liberalism) there.

But don't write off Ontario for the Conservatives. I can remember when Kingston going P.C. was as assured as the area I grew up in across the St. Lawrence going Republican. And the North is, from what I've seen, tired of being the unwanted redheaded stepchild of the London-Hamilton-Toronto-Ottawa axis. Intelligent, non-ideological marketing of the Conservatives in Ontario could make all the difference. They won't do it, though.

(And while we're having pipedreams, it might be nice to see some national party taking a good look at what Quebec needs and wants, and seeing if an accommodation that works for all sections of the nation can be devised. And that will happen when palm trees grow in Nunavut!)

[Orbifold]

(And while we're having pipedreams, it might be nice to see some national party taking a good look at what Quebec needs and wants, and seeing if an accommodation that works for all sections of the nation can be devised. And that will happen when palm trees grow in Nunavut!)

Mulroney was the last person to try that, and look what happened to him. If Canadian politics has a "third rail", it's Quebec's needs and wants.

I think I'd heard of this sponsorship scandal thing before (barely -- as an ex-pat Canadian in the States I don't get as much Canadian news as I could), but I hadn't given it any thought at all until today. Now, to judge from a few breathless blogs, you'd think my home country was a heartbeat away from civil war and riots in the streets as a merciless jack-booted government crushed free speech in a desperate cover-up. Needless to say, I think I'll reserve judgement on the weight of scandal until the testimony is officially released.

But supposing the testimony really is that damaging, is any party going to risk dragging the entire country to the polls a year after the last election? I can't help but think that the voters' ire at having another campaign season forced down their throats will be greater than their ire about the sponsorship scandal.

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

And that will happen when palm trees grow in Nunavut!)

Global warming - give it time.

[ElvisL1ves]

Scandals that would bring down any politician in the U.S.Does the word Halliburton ring any bells?

RickJay is right - this sort of thing is business as usual down here. Wouldn't even make the major blogs, much less the Liberal Media. Consider yourselves fortunate that this is the biggest thing you have to get upset about.

[Grey]

That leaves the Maritimes, where the Liberals hold 21 seats that are theoretically vulnerable to Tory gains, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the region to comment on whether those seats are actually vulnerable.If I was a Liberal planner I'd heavily play up the Tories inclination to reduce subsidies and the threat that could pose to the “imminent Maritime economic renaissance” the Liberal party has “offered” through the recent oil/gas agreements.

But I’m still curious to understand how the election of the Tories immediately destroys Canadian social justice. There’s bureaucratic inertia through the civil service, Senate opposition via the Liberal majority, plus a Charter and judicial rulings that have helped form the liberal basis for social mores. Why people would rather have criminals with the political power to enrich themselves as the government, than a political party they disagree with leaves me scratching my head.

[RickJay]

Not to mention the fact that the Liberals have given separatism a major shot in the arm; we now face the extreme likelihood of the traitors gaining power in the next provincial election in Quebec, and calling another referendum. And with the Liberals making the federal government look worse than ever, they'll have a shot at winning.

Who's going to represent Canada in THAT referendum? Paul Martin?

[Grey]

But supposing the testimony really is that damaging, is any party going to risk dragging the entire country to the polls a year after the last election? I can't help but think that the voters' ire at having another campaign season forced down their throats will be greater than their ire about the sponsorship scandal.Elections are not a burden. Honestly, everyone expects a minority government to fall, it's only a question of when. Besides, how much work does an election force on anyone, aside from watching election coverage?

[Gorsnak]

Who's going to represent Canada in THAT referendum? Paul Martin?
You think Stephen Harper would do a better job? Especially considering the inevitable "oopsie" remarks from western Tory backbenchers about how they hope Quebec does go, and good riddance? Maybe, maybe a minority Tory government receiving support from "the traitors" might help the image of the federal government in Quebec because it would have to throw some sops to provincial autonomy in order to survive, but it could just as easily blow up in the other direction.
Besides, how much work does an election force on anyone, aside from watching election coverage?
Isn't that enough?

[Grey]

You think Stephen Harper would do a better job? Especially considering the inevitable "oopsie" remarks from western Tory backbenchers about how they hope Quebec does go, and good riddance?That's going to happen regardless of who's in power. I'd even wager that a Liberal MP could utter those very words...assuming there were enough Liberals out west to make a reasonable sample size.

The PQ getting back in power is tied more to Charest's (in)ability to manage the province than a resurgent Bloc.

[Kythereia]

Is there enough there to crumble the minority government?

This is where I wish it had been released to the public, because I haven't been surfing these blogs and I'd really like to hear what Brault said--especially if it's supposed to be government-shattering news.

If an election is called, do you expect the Libs to be crushed in the ensuing election? What happens next?

Honestly? IMHO, I doubt Harper--or Layton, or Duceppe--have enough popular support to win a snap election. Maybe if all these explosive inquiry results were published and people took a step back from the Martin gov't and said, "Whoa hey, things are really messed up here", but right now? It'd be political suicide.

[Orbifold]

Elections are not a burden.
Personally, I agree with that sentiment. I actually got to vote in the last federal election, which quite frankly rocked (I get a little sick of my Canadian-in-the-States disenfranchisement situation). But I suspect that more Canadians will echo Gorsnak's response than mine. Which is why I think that any party who actually calls a vote that brings down the government is going to take a hit in the polls afterwards.

Besides, how much work does an election force on anyone, aside from watching election coverage?

It forces work on the MP's. They have to campaign in addition to doing the jobs we elected them to do just last summer. I think most Canadians would much rather see Parliament keep doing its job instead of going out on the campaign trail again.

[kingpengvin]

There are times where I believe the entire Liberal party could be shown at a baby eating banquet and teh Liberal apologists will still say how we still have to vote for them because of no "Viable alternative".

I was a Liberal supporter. I even made the grievous mistake of voting for Norman Bates as our Premiere. I have not been a fan of the Tories, even less so to this changeling call itself the Conservative party. However, I can no longer sit back and just give these Liberal bozos another pass. A Conservative minority may be enough to get the old guard Liberals tossed on their ear.

I'd love to see the entire cabinet lose their seats in the next election. A good old fashioned house cleaning would fix things and then next election I can go back to Liberal as long as they show they've learned their lesson and reject their current raison d' etre (Staying in power no matter what) and adopt policies and a vision of what they want the Country to be.

But no.... this testimony will not overthrow the government.


The next election will likely be fought on social issues as a smoke screen. Gay marriage and whatnot being used to paint the Conservative as a bunch of red necked regional bigots. (Unfortunately there are a few of those in the party.... that party needs a vacuuming too) and tout the Liberals as teh defenders of Canadian rights. toss in Health care to court those Liberals who don't agree with SSM and bingo another mushy minority

Martin will claim another victory to appease his ghost daddy and we'll slump through another few years of Liberal medocrity.

[Gorsnak]

I think most Canadians would much rather see Parliament keep doing its job instead of going out on the campaign trail again.
My response above was rather flippant. This is closer to my true sentiment. So far this session of parliament hasn't actually passed much. Call an election now, and all the bills introduced die and they have to start over from scratch in another 4 months. There's work to be done, and I want them to do it, not campaign for six weeks and then return another unstable minority government to parliament so we can play the game again next year.

[Standup Karmic]

Having checked out with MEBuckner the permissability of posting a link to the blog posting summaries of the testimony, I now do so. For the record, it is my belief that posting a link to the blog does not violate the laws of the United States, the State of Illinois, nor the terms of the SDMB registration agreement. Furthermore, I do not believe that posting a link to the blog is a contravention of the laws of Canada, nor is it a breach of the publication ban. With that said...

Captain's Quarters Blog (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/cat_canada.php)

[Barbarian]

I don't think it'll do much, even in Quebec. My dad was one of the many outrageously pissed former Liberal supporters in Montreal, and switched his vote in the last election-- but who the hell is he gonna vote for? The anglos and allophones aren't going to vote for the Bloc, and as long as the Conservatives have actual god-fearing homo-hating social conservatives in their membership, nobody who lives in any large urban area is going to vote Tory.

Everyone who cares already knew how rotten the Grits were before the last federal go-round. Having Brault testify (and being under wraps because he's got a criminal trial coming up in Quebec) just confirms what had already been confirmed.

[Sam Stone]

Does the word Halliburton ring any bells?

RickJay is right - this sort of thing is business as usual down here. Wouldn't even make the major blogs, much less the Liberal Media. Consider yourselves fortunate that this is the biggest thing you have to get upset about.

Halliburton? Halliburton's nothing.

From Mark Steyn (http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=542):


Most of us know Paul Desmarais as the . . . well, let’s hold it there: most Canadians don’t know Paul Desmarais at all. You could stop the first thousand people walking down Yonge Street and I’ll bet no one would know who he is. But the few who do know him know him as the kingmaker behind Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin. Jean Chrétien’s daughter is married to Paul Desmarais’s son. Paul Martin was an employee of M. Desmarais’s Power Corp., and his Canada Steamship Lines was originally a subsidiary of Power Corp. that M. Desmarais put Mr. Martin in charge of. In other words, Paul Martin’s public identity--successful self-made businessman, not just a career pol, knows how to meet payroll, etc.--is entirely derived from the patronage of M. Desmarais.

That in itself is a remarkable achievement. Imagine if Jenna Bush married the chairman of Halliburton’s son, and then George W. Bush was succeeded by a president who’d been an employee of Halliburton: Michael Moore’s next documentary would be buried under wall-to-wall Oscars and Palmes d’Or. But M. Desmarais has managed to turn Ottawa into a company town without anyone being aware of the company. We’re a G8 economy; it would be reasonable to expect a prominent British or American businessman to number prominent political figures among his friends, but to have brought so many of them into his company and even family would surely excite some comment. Power Corp.’s other alumni range from Quebec premiers to Canada’s most prominent international diplomat, Maurice Strong. In fairness, you don’t have to work for M. Desmarais to reach the top of the greasy pole-Kim Campbell managed it, for about a week and a half.

But this is just the hicksville stuff. What’s really impressive is that, when one considers the epic events of the last three years, the truly Canadian content is not Toronto-born aid spokespersons, but the ubiquitous presence of M. Desmarais.

During the Iraq war, for example, I mentioned en passant that Power Corp. is the biggest shareholder in TotalFinaElf, the western corporation closest to Saddam Hussein (it has since changed its name to the Total Group). Total had secured development rights to 25 per cent of Iraq’s oil reserves, a transformative deal that would catapult the company from a second-rank player into the big leagues with Exxon and British Petroleum. For a year, the antiwar crowd had told us it was “all about oil”--that the only reason Iraq was being “liberated” was so Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and the rest of the gang could annex in perpetuity the second biggest oil reserves in the world. But, if it was all about oil, then the fact--fact--is that the only Western leader with a direct stake in the issue was not the Texas oilpatch stooge in Washington, but Jean Chrétien: his daughter, his son-in-law and his grandchildren stood to be massively enriched by the Total-Saddam agreement. It depended on two factors: Saddam remaining in power, and the feeble UN sanctions being either weakened into meaninglessness or quietly dropped. M. Chrétien may have refused to join the Iraq war on “principle,” but fortunately his principles happened to coincide with the business interests of both TotalFinaElf and the Baath party.
...
...getting on for two years later, we’re in the middle of the UN Oil-for-Fraud investigation, the all-time biggest scam, bigger than Enron and Worldcom and all the rest added together. And whaddaya know? The bank that handled all the money from the program turns out to be BNP Paribas, which tends to get designated by Associated Press and co. as a “French bank” but is, as it happens, controlled by one of M. Desmarais’s holding companies. That alone should cause even the droopiest bloodhound to pick up a scent: the UN’s banker for its Iraqi “humanitarian” program turns out to be (to all intents) Saddam’s favourite oilman.


Halliburton's got nothing on Desmairis and Power Corp. Half the power brokers in Ottawa are affiliated with this guy or one of his companies, including the head of the national news network, the CBC.

[ElvisL1ves]

Then perhaps you ought to learn more about Halliburton. Looks like the same story, but witih a helluva lot more money involved down here, and a helluva lot more people dead. Scandals that would bring down any politician in the U.S.You were going to tell us how you got that curious notion in your head, weren't you?

That cite is from the same Mark Steyn who made up the story about Hillary Clinton claiming to be named after Edmund Hillary, right? He should be believed, well, why?

[RickJay]

You think Stephen Harper would do a better job? Especially considering the inevitable "oopsie" remarks from western Tory backbenchers about how they hope Quebec does go, and good riddance?
My point is not that Stephen Harper would do a better job campaigning in a referendum.

My point is that you (like a lot of people) are repeating the tired and, frankly, ridiculous line that "well, this sponsorship thing isn't really important; we should still vote Liberal because they do everything else right. What's some wasted money? So they're crooks, so what?"

Or in your words:

Yeah, it's criminal, and yeah, it's rather a lot of money (though a lot more has been blown on the whole navy helicopter replacement fiasco, or the gun registry, or...) and yeah, if evidence came to light that the current leaders of the party were heavily involved I might well want them out. But what's the alternative...

...And they're apparently crooks, but I'll probably vote for them as the lesser of three evils.
There is the very real possibility that the result of the Liberal government's rule from 1993 to 2004 will be a successful referendum. Anyone who thinks that a Conservative government would be worse than the BREAKUP OF THE COUNTRY is insane. Stephen Harper is not Pol Pot, for Christ's sake.

Let's be honest; Jean Charest's government in Quebec is doomed, doomed, doomed. The PQ will win the next Quebec vote and call a referendum, and there's a good chance Gilles Duceppe will be PQ leader by the time that happens. And they've got a shot at winning. Maybe the "alternative" to the Liberals in 2000 or 2004 was not having a constitutional crisis and the breakup of the country in 2006. This is about a lot more than just the Liberal/Conservative non-positions on gay marriage.

You now see what can happen when you just elect crooks over and over; separatism has had new life breathed into it. THAT is what this sort of atrocious behaviour can cause. Fraud and corruption can cause a hell of a lot more damage than just losing a few bucks; they destroy the people's confidence in the government, with potentially horrible results.

[Gorsnak]

There is the very real possibility that the result of the Liberal government's rule from 1993 to 2004 will be a successful referendum. Anyone who thinks that a Conservative government would be worse than the BREAKUP OF THE COUNTRY is insane.
Certainly, but I don't see any reason to believe that a Conservative government would make a successful referendum less likely at this point. Are you saying Charest's huge drop in popularity is a result of actions taken by the federal Liberals? I confess I'm sufficiently isolated out here that I don't know. But it seems to me from what I do know that it's an issue of provincial politics, that the PQ will retake the National Assembly because Quebeckers are unhappy about Charest's governance, and not because they've become more sovereigntist. I don't see that a new referendum is any more likely to be successful than the last two. If I'm wrong about this, I'd be happy to be corrected.

But would potential 'Oui' voters change their mind because Ontario voted the Liberals out (because let's face it, most of the rest of the country already has)? That seems to be what you're saying, but I don't know why we should think that would be the case. It's not like the Conservatives are real popular in Quebec, in case you hadn't noticed. I don't see that there's any federal party I could vote for that would be taken by Quebecois as a sign I don't want them to leave. If I vote Liberal, they think I endorse the corrupt attempt to buy their loyalty. If I vote Conservative, they think I endorse the long tradition of Reform/Alliance contempt for francophones.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a Conservative minority would downplay its social agenda and focus on issues it has in common with the Bloc, such as decreased federal oversight of provincial programs, etc. Maybe the parties between themselves could improve the image of the federal government in Quebec, not least because the Bloc would hold the balance of power in such a situation. I don't know that I'd much mind such a government, given the sorts of things they would agree on, but I also think it has a good chance of going down in flames after the very tenuous policy areas the two parties hold in common are exhausted.

[RickJay]

Certainly, but I don't see any reason to believe that a Conservative government would make a successful referendum less likely at this point.
If you hear a loud banging, that's me hitting my head against the desk.

Once more, with feeling: I am not arguing Harper will do a better job in a referendum campaign. What I am saying is that it's the attitude of "Let's elect the Liberals, they're okay even though they stole our money" is what got us INTO this mess. I'm trying to illustrate what's happened, not writing a prescription; I am trying to use Santayana's advice, saying we have to learn from history in order to not repeat it.

What this entire horrible mess illustrates it that you are not going to win in the long run by electing thieves, because in the long run it's going to be about more than money. And now we're going to see how much more.

Are you saying Charest's huge drop in popularity is a result of actions taken by the federal Liberals?
In part, absolutely; this will be a tipping point.

Would a referendum win? I've got three words for you: Point six percent. That was how many more voted they needed to win last time. I like blackjack and poker, but only fools play Russian roulette.

But would potential 'Oui' voters change their mind because Ontario voted the Liberals out (because let's face it, most of the rest of the country already has)? That seems to be what you're saying
No, it's not.

My point is not that electing the Conservatives in 2005 will help win a 2006-2007 referendum. My point is that it was by NOT electing them before - in 2004 - that we got ourselves into this specific mess. Actually, it's not specifically that we didn't elect Conservatives, because we could have avoided this mess by voting NDP or Green or PC in 2000 or whatever; it was the "I Will Vote Liberal Because Stealing Money Doesn't Matter As Opposed To My Unfocused Fears About The Other Parties" attitude that got us into this mess. It convinced the Liberal Party - rightly - that Canadians didn't care about them stealing money and acting above the law.

Well, Canadians in English Canada may not care, but Quebecois sure do. And in the next couple of years, we're about to reap a whirlwind.

See, I'm not saying we have to elect Conservatives or we're fucked. I'm saying we're already fucked. I think it's too late to change our cavalier attitude towards crime and corruption - may as well do it, though, and cross our fingers. We may dodge this bullet now that it appears the publication ban will hold for awhile. If we don't, though, let's not pretend this isn't the fault of the Liberals. And this is, after all, a democracy.

[kingpengvin]

Ok so most of the ban has been lifted. Anyone wanna guess what the rea fallout will be. The only thing I like hearing right now is the Liberals claiming that "these are only allegations" especially after using allegations to Smear the the Bloc over the last few days over a couple of $100 000.

Bogus employees....
Paying kickbacks to Liberal party members in bags of cash??? Cripes!

Will the F$%#^ Conservatives do the right thing and let the Governement fall and stop propping it up!

[Gorsnak]

If you hear a loud banging, that's me hitting my head against the desk.

Once more, with feeling: I am not arguing Harper will do a better job in a referendum campaign. What I am saying is that it's the attitude of "Let's elect the Liberals, they're okay even though they stole our money" is what got us INTO this mess. I'm trying to illustrate what's happened, not writing a prescription; I am trying to use Santayana's advice, saying we have to learn from history in order to not repeat it.
So what in the blue blazes do you want from me, exactly?!? You want me to go back in time and work to get Stockwell Day elected? It's beginning to seem like it. Like it or not (and I don't), we're in the current situation, and it only makes sense to make political decisions on the basis of the likely consequences of our current actions. If we're really at the brink of a seperatist catastrophe in Quebec, it behooves us to vote for the federal government we think would be best able to deal with that situation. It makes no sense to vote based on the theory that if we'd voted that way two elections ago we might not now be in the current situation.
What this entire horrible mess illustrates it that you are not going to win in the long run by electing thieves, because in the long run it's going to be about more than money. And now we're going to see how much more.
Except that these goings on were not public knowledge during the '97 and '00 elections. Even it it had been, Reform/Alliance simply wasn't viable nationally. That's not the fault of Liberal supporters, it's the fault of the right's inability to get its act together. Maybe we should blame the whole mess on Mulroney. Or the people who voted against Charlottetown.
My point is not that electing the Conservatives in 2005 will help win a 2006-2007 referendum. My point is that it was by NOT electing them before - in 2004 - that we got ourselves into this specific mess. Actually, it's not specifically that we didn't elect Conservatives, because we could have avoided this mess by voting NDP or Green or PC in 2000 or whatever; it was the "I Will Vote Liberal Because Stealing Money Doesn't Matter As Opposed To My Unfocused Fears About The Other Parties" attitude that got us into this mess. It convinced the Liberal Party - rightly - that Canadians didn't care about them stealing money and acting above the law.
I'm having a hard time with this. What, exactly, were the reasons to vote against the Liberals in 2000? We knew nothing about Adscam. I honestly can't remember any issues that played against the Liberals. The gun registry in the west, of course. What else? In the 2000 election, there was no "I Will Vote Liberal Because Stealing Money Doesn't Matter As Opposed To My Unfocused Fears About The Other Parties" sentiment because we didn't know there was any extensive corruption (as opposed to garden variety corruption that has existed in every government in history). So I don't understand how it was this sentiment that got us into trouble. The Liberals won that one because they were so far as we knew doing a generally good job.

If it makes you feel better, I've seen the details of Brault's testimony now, and if it's true, there's no way I can condone the funneling of money back into the Liberal party. So they've lost my vote (well, if that makes sense given that I voted NDP last time).

[Sam Stone]

I'm having a hard time with this. What, exactly, were the reasons to vote against the Liberals in 2000? We knew nothing about Adscam. I honestly can't remember any issues that played against the Liberals. The gun registry in the west, of course. What else?


How about the gutting of the Canadian Armed Forces? That was issue #1 for me. During the Liberal's rule, we went from being one of the most respected militaries around (man for man) to being a laughingstock. As a consequence, we went from being players on the world stage to being a country that everyone simply ignores.

And the 2 billion dollar useless gun registry, which made criminals out of about 2 million Canadians, was a disaster. Oh, and remember how the Liberals were against the GST and promised to abolish it when they got into power?

How about Chretien's bypassing government procurement standards and ordering himself $100 million worth of personal jets from Bombardier, after having compaigned on the waste of the Conservatives for spending 1/100 that amount to refit the current Prime ministerial aircraft?

Do you know what his excuse was? "We acted quickly because we had money at the end of the year."

Or the fact that Chretien used those jets routinely to go golfing in Florida?

At what point do you stop giving that miserable collection of crooks and incompetents a pass simply because they happen to match up somewhat with your ideology?

[Gorsnak]

That's nice, Sam, but that's not very scandalous. It's mostly policy you don't agree with, but which was nonetheless supported by a great many Canadians. And it ignores the fact that the Liberals balanced the budget and have presided over a period of great prosperity. The only thing you've got there resembling scandal is the jets, which is pretty small potatoes. And you forgot that whole golf course/hotel loan thing, which would do more to support your case. I contend that re-electing the Liberals in 2000 was at the time a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given their record in government.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I've been lurking here for a few months now, and I waited to see if I could find a thread in which I could bring something new before registering. Since I'm a francophone Quebecer, and RickJay and Gorsnak have been talking about a possible referendum, I guess I can add a different point of view.



Are you saying Charest's huge drop in popularity is a result of actions taken by the federal Liberals?

In part, absolutely; this will be a tipping point.


I disagree. Grey is right, if Charest's government is so unpopular, it's because it doesn't seem to have any idea where it's going. In just the last few months, the government had to change its mind on Hydro-Québec's Suroît power plant project, the location of the University of Montreal's hospital and the financing of some private Jewish schools. Now, the major issues they face are the student strikes and the complete lack of police control in Kanesatake (though I must admit that they were able to present a deal that most student groups accepted). Charest's problem isn't the federal Liberals, it's his own government's work.


Let's be honest; Jean Charest's government in Quebec is doomed, doomed, doomed. The PQ will win the next Quebec vote and call a referendum, and there's a good chance Gilles Duceppe will be PQ leader by the time that happens. And they've got a shot at winning. Maybe the "alternative" to the Liberals in 2000 or 2004 was not having a constitutional crisis and the breakup of the country in 2006. This is about a lot more than just the Liberal/Conservative non-positions on gay marriage.


Duceppe could be the next PQ leader, but that's not obvious: there are many other pretenders. Also, no matter how unpopular Charest's Liberals become, they still have a majority government, and they don't have to hold elections before 2008. I don't think they will, either; unless they do something fantastic to restore their popularity, they will wait until the last minute.

However, RickJay, you are probably correct that if there is a next referendum, it could very well go to the Yes side. I think it was Landry who said that the simple passage of time helps sovereignism, since older people who tend to be more federalist die, while younger people who tend to be more sovereignist get the right to vote. It sounds a little macabre, but he's probably right. But on the other hand, if you'll excuse my asking so, what would be so awful with an eventual Yes vote? It might be problematic to the country's (countries') economy, but that doesn't seem obvious to me, and on the other hand, it would solve a lot of constitutional problems. If Québec isn't happy in Canada, and there is no way to change the current relations between the federal and provincial governments, well, separation could be a good solution for both countries.

[Sunspace]

I think this could mean the difference between a Liberal minority and a Conservative minority government, if a non-confidence vote in the Commons and a new election happen soon.

If the Conservatives can successfully sell themselves as a non-relogious but socially-conservative alternative, they could attract the socially-libertarian voters who desire financial prudence and transparency but want their personal lives to be left alone, and that could make the additional difference between a weak Conservative and a strong Conservative government.

The NDP and the Greens have their work cut out for them: laying out clear policy alternatives to attract disaffected ex-Liberal voters.

I suspect the next election will be the Conservatives' to lose.

[Sam Stone]

That's nice, Sam, but that's not very scandalous. It's mostly policy you don't agree with, but which was nonetheless supported by a great many Canadians. And it ignores the fact that the Liberals balanced the budget and have presided over a period of great prosperity. The only thing you've got there resembling scandal is the jets, which is pretty small potatoes. And you forgot that whole golf course/hotel loan thing, which would do more to support your case. I contend that re-electing the Liberals in 2000 was at the time a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given their record in government.

The Liberals promised the gun registry would cost no more than 2 million dollars. Then they said 10 million. Then they promised that they'd kill it if it went over some amount - I can't remember how much, but I think it was on the order of 100 million. It's at 2 billion and counting.

The Liberal red book promised the repeal of the GST if they were elected. Once they got in power, they never mentioned it again.

The liberals promise the moon, and break their promises with impugnity. Over and over again, and Canadians never wise up.

There have been several reports from the auditor general in the past ten years which were scathing in their criticism of the Liberal's financial dealing and poor controls over taxpayer's money.

And let's talk about that jet deal - you know, the one that you claim is 'small potatoes'. We're talking about 100 million dollars. Jean Chretien picked up the phone, called his buddy at Bombardier, and simply ordered himself some jets. He did it without the approval of cabinet, over the objections of senior ministers and the military, and pushed the deal through in one day in violation of federal purchasing guidelines. So why did he do it? Two reasons: Bombardier is in Quebec, and Bombardier is a heavy donator to the Liberal Party. This was a pure payoff for political favors, and nothing more. A couple of years earlier, Chretien lambasted the conservatives for spending 2.5 million to upgrade the current Prime Minister's jet. He called it a 'tremendous extravagence'. That jet is still sitting on the tarmac, perfectly serviceable, and completely unused. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Then there are the liberal patronage appointments - too numerous to count.

Then there's the HRDC (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/HUMA/Studies/Reports/huma01/16-cac-e.html) scandal:


Since the Liberal government came to power in 1993, $22.5 billion has been dispensed as grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development. Another $3.17 billion will be spent this year. Internal HRDC audits, the Auditor General, and witnesses before committee indicate that those funds have been used ineffectively, inappropriately, and perhaps illegally.

...

The Auditor General told the committee on 23 March:

Large amounts of public funds were spent without the appropriate controls, making it difficult to know whether the funds were used as intended, spent wisely and produced desired results.



Then there was the issue with Pearson Airport. The details are fuzzy now, but as I recall, Chretien had a meeting with some company that wanted to be involved in the privatization of the airport, and that company claims that Chretien demanded $25,000 for his campaign in return for his support. That company eventually got the contract for Pearson.

Then there was the cancellation of the Sea King upgrade, which cost Canadians over $500 million dollars.

The list is a lot longer, that's just the stuff I could come up with in a few minutes.

[Sam Stone]

I think this could mean the difference between a Liberal minority and a Conservative minority government, if a non-confidence vote in the Commons and a new election happen soon.

If the Conservatives can successfully sell themselves as a non-relogious but socially-conservative alternative, they could attract the socially-libertarian voters who desire financial prudence and transparency but want their personal lives to be left alone, and that could make the additional difference between a weak Conservative and a strong Conservative government.

The NDP and the Greens have their work cut out for them: laying out clear policy alternatives to attract disaffected ex-Liberal voters.

I suspect the next election will be the Conservatives' to lose.

But here's the problem. The Liberals can survive in a minority government because the opposition parties are split on the right and left of the Liberals. The NDP will not side with the Conservatives, and the Bloc tends to oppose the Conservatives as well. So there's never enough support to bring down the government.

A Conservative minority government is much more fragile, because all the other parties are to the left of them, and likely to vote as a bloc against the Conservatives. The worst-case scenario as far as I can see is that the Conservatives will win a minority government, which will then fall on a non-confidence motion in a short period of time - perhaps a few months. Then the spin will be that the Conservatives are amateurs who cannot be trusted to govern, and they'll be marginalized for another decade.

[kingpengvin]

Of course there is the scenario that we'll be flipping through minority Governments over the next few years until every get's their act together.

I really can't see the Liberals going busto like the the PC party did in the 90s but I can't see them ever getting votes again in Quebec.

[Raygun99]

Of course there is the scenario that we'll be flipping through minority Governments over the next few years until every get's their act together.

I really can't see the Liberals going busto like the the PC party did in the 90s but I can't see them ever getting votes again in Quebec.
We're at a political stalemate for the next 10-15 years unless someone gets their act together. The West and Quebec are dead set against the current crop of Liberals and Stephen Harper hasn't shown that he understand what it takes to win in Ontario. I wish I saw a way out of this soon, but I don't.

[Grey]

But here's the problem. The Liberals can survive in a minority government because the opposition parties are split on the right and left of the Liberals. The NDP will not side with the Conservatives, and the Bloc tends to oppose the Conservatives as well. So there's never enough support to bring down the government.Depends. Quebec may have changed since I last lived there but they're not politically stupid. They see the Liberal scandal as a provincial embarrassment, perpetuating the image of a province filled with crony patronage and people that can be bought off by the feds. In my view that means more Liberal blood on the floor.

However, Quebec gets very little from the Bloc now, they’d get even less should they have no Quebec cabinet ministers. If it looks like the Liberals will loose (and that means Ontario has to be willing to kick them out) then there’s potential for the NDP and Conservatives to pick up some seats in the Montreal/Gatineau regions.

As for a referendum, maybe a Quebecer could speak to that better than I can, but right now all I see is dissatisfaction with one of the two viable ruling parties. Unless the ADQ suddenly tap into a rich mother load of votes it’s either the PQ or the Liberals.

But again, given the choice between voting for crooks or people with differing views, why would you vote for the crooks?

[RickJay]

However, RickJay, you are probably correct that if there is a next referendum, it could very well go to the Yes side. I think it was Landry who said that the simple passage of time helps sovereignism, since older people who tend to be more federalist die, while younger people who tend to be more sovereignist get the right to vote.
Umm..

I do agree the Yes side could win, but that reason is just insane. As time passes, old people may die, but the people who stay alive GET OLDER. Those young people get older and more conservative. The population of Quebec is NOT getting younger.

It sounds a little macabre, but he's probably right. But on the other hand, if you'll excuse my asking so, what would be so awful with an eventual Yes vote?
Aside from the breakup of the best country in the world, a massive economic depression in Quebec with all the suffering that entails, tremendous violence and civil unrest, and the likely further breakup of both component nations?

[Gorsnak]

A bunch of ranting
Yes, I get it. You don't like the Liberals. Really, it's too bad they didn't have companies give shares to their wives at prices far below market value, or allow oil companies to underestimate project costs massively and intentionally to avoid paying royalties. Those sorts of scandals you can forgive. You're still voting for Klein, aren't you? Answer your own question then - At what point do you stop giving that miserable collection of crooks and incompetents a pass simply because they happen to match up somewhat with your ideology?

[Grey]

Gorsnak, when do you?

I mean, even if you can't force yourself to vote for the Conservatives over the crooks, could you at least see yourself voting for the Greens or NDP?

[Gorsnak]

Gorsnak, when do you?

I mean, even if you can't force yourself to vote for the Conservatives over the crooks, could you at least see yourself voting for the Greens or NDP?
I did vote for the NDP last time. Though to be honest, it wasn't out of opposition to the Liberals, per se. However, if you will check out post 33, I announced that I couldn't vote for the Liberals in the next election. So, does that answer your question? What tipped the balance was the routing of taxpayer money directly back into the party, in effect using us to fund their campaigns. For some reason this pisses me off far more than handing out sweetheart deals to cronies.

[kingpengvin]

I think what makes this worse is that at the same time they were lining their party pockets they were modifying legislation regarding the funding of the other parties. Essentially they made sure they could lock any election using laundered taxpayer Dollars.


I also think that while the Bloc may sweep Quebec it doesn't necessarily mean another referendum or that the entire province will vote Oui. They will oust the Liberals but hold off on assuming the country will be split up on this.... Unless of course my entire province keeps taking its stupid pills and votes these crooks back in.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

However, Quebec gets very little from the Bloc now, they’d get even less should they have no Quebec cabinet ministers. If it looks like the Liberals will loose (and that means Ontario has to be willing to kick them out) then there’s potential for the NDP and Conservatives to pick up some seats in the Montreal/Gatineau regions.


Well, I live in Gatineau (I see you're in Ottawa, we're quite close!), and the last survey I saw showed that if an election had been held at the time, the Bloc would have been elected here. I think this was at the beginning of the year. If the Bloc can be elected here, it means that the whole province has decided to go against the Liberals.

I think you're right that the Conservatives could possibly gain a few seats in Québec, especially in anglophone ridings, if it seems like they could win the next election. I don't see much hope for the NDP, though.


As for a referendum, maybe a Quebecer could speak to that better than I can, but right now all I see is dissatisfaction with one of the two viable ruling parties. Unless the ADQ suddenly tap into a rich mother load of votes it’s either the PQ or the Liberals.


The ADQ is doing a good job getting protest votes, but it doesn't seem to get translated into seats yet. And they really still have to clarify their platform. They are considered Québec's most conservative party, but when Yves Séguin was excluded from the government, they tried to recruit him, despite the fact that he was considered Charest's most left-wing minister. And they won a by-election in Québec City almost entirely on the strength of their support for CHOI FM. I don't think they deserve to get more seats, much less to govern the province, until we know what they really stand for. They still have a few years until the next election, so maybe they'll find something.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I do agree the Yes side could win, but that reason is just insane. As time passes, old people may die, but the people who stay alive GET OLDER. Those young people get older and more conservative. The population of Quebec is NOT getting younger.
Even if we accept that people get more conservative as they get older, which doesn't seem that obvious to me, at least not for all the definitions of "conservative", that doesn't mean that Québec sovereignists who get older become federalist. It's true that the nationalist movement is usually associated with the left, but it's not a necessity.

Aside from the breakup of the best country in the world, a massive economic depression in Quebec with all the suffering that entails, tremendous violence and civil unrest, and the likely further breakup of both component nations?
Best country in the world? Do you have a cite for that? ;)

We really don't know what would happen if Québec separated from Canada. You say it would lead to a massive economic depression, but I think that would mostly depend on how much both countries would be willing to cooperate. I'm sure there have been several neutral studies done on the subject, and I'll try to find one of them if I have the time.

Actually, I live in the region that might be the most affected by separation, given our economic dependence on Ottawa.

I doubt, though, that we would experience "tremendous violence and civil unrest". There would probably be pressure to further divide Québec and Canada, though; and that's one of the risks. I'm not saying independance is necessarily a good thing, I'm just saying it doesn't seem as bad an idea to me as it does to you.

[Hamish]

I don't know where this is going, though I'm quite worried about the statistics that are coming through (if statistics are to be believed). The idea of a Harper government scares me -- his homophobia, his use of ethnic stereotypes to promote homophobia, his Freidmannesque economics, and his kowtowing to US foreign policy all terrify me, and I think the country would fall into disaster under him.

No matter how corrupt the Liberals get, they'd still be better than the Conservatives if they were using solid-gold...

*checks forum. sees it's not the pit*

...toothpicks to pick their teeth, on public funds. I can't understand how Canadians would want to move over to the worst form of corporatist government when there are better alternatives in this country. But if we were really two-party system, and the NDP and Greens didn't exist, I'd vote Liberal -- petty evil beats the greater evils of hatred and the introduction of the Woeful State*, where the poor and the sick are left to fend for themselves

*the contrary of the Welfare State, as in "for weal and woe..."

[Sam Stone]

Yeah, look what a disaster the Conservatives have been in Alberta. We have no sales tax, low provincial taxes, one of the best economies in the world, we used our surpluses to pay off our debt rather than spend wildly, and as a result we have no provincial debt and no interest payments, giving us more money to spend on health care and infrastructure. We rank higher than all other provinces and half the U.S. states in economic freedom, and people are flocking here in droves from all over Canada and the rest of the world. We also have the lowest unemployment in Canada, and our real estate market is going up 11% per year due to population pressure.

But yeah, those Conservatives sure are scary. They must be, since Eastern politicians have been screaming about the dangers of them for so long, it must be true.

Alberta is far to the right of every other Canadian province, and farther to the right than most U.S. states. And yet, we're wildly successful. Go figure.

And before you say, "It's all because of oil!", I have to point out that Albertans get less money per capita from oil than Quebec gets from equalization payments (or at least, we did before the oil price spike. We might be doing better than them now, but that hasn't had a chance to trickle through the economy yet). So how come Quebec is such an economic basket case? Could it be perhaps because they have the highest taxes in Canada and the most regulated economy? Nah.

By the way, the last time I looked we weren't running a theocracy here, either.

[Gorsnak]

And before you say, "It's all because of oil!", I have to point out that Albertans get less money per capita from oil than Quebec gets from equalization payments
In 2002/03, the Alberta government received $7.1 billion in oil/gas revenues, for 30% of its total revenues. (cite (http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=675)) I believe I read somewhere that in 03/04 they came in at ~10b, or 40% of total, but I don't have a cite handy for that. With a population of 3.1 million, that's $2300 per capita in 02/03 and $3200 per capita last year (assuming my memory is correct).

In contrast, in 03/04 Quebec received $4.5 billion in equalization. (cite (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/equalization.html)) With a population of 7.5 million, that works out to $600 per capita.

That's a pretty substantial difference, if you don't mind my saying.

The simple fact is that Alberta's prosperity depends in large part on oil and gas. Sure, there are other factors, and sure, the massive resource royalties have allowed the Alberta government to institute a very low-tax regime which is conducive to business of all sorts. But you couldn't be running at such low tax rates without that essentially free money unless you racked up huge deficits, so it seems rather odd to suggest that the answer for a province without gobs of resource royalties is to imitate Alberta's tax policy. Sure, they could do it, and sure, everyone would love it while it lasted, but they'd be literally bankrupt inside a decade.

Now, I'm not inherently opposed to Conservative economic principles. But they need to be applied with a modicum of common sense. I'm not saying the Conservatives wouldn't, but it bears pointing out that the last PC government rang up successive $40+ billion deficits, and the Liberals have 8 straight years of budget surpluses. I doubt that Harper would return us to the bad old days, but aggressive tax cuts could quite easily send us back into deficits.

As for the whole social conservatism thing, I should hardly think you'd be surprised that Hamish, as a gay fellow, wouldn't be too keen on someone who wants to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to deny him his Charter rights. I know Harper isn't in line with Klein on this, but Harper's being awfully disingenuous about the whole gay marriage thing.

[matt_mcl]

Harper's being awfully disingenuous about the whole gay marriage thing.

Oh, not at all: it just depends where you look. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/09/same-sex-050409.html)

"I am committed, when I am elected prime minister – at the next election, whenever that may be – to bring in legislation that will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Harper said.

[RickJay]

As for the whole social conservatism thing, I should hardly think you'd be surprised that Hamish, as a gay fellow, wouldn't be too keen on someone who wants to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to deny him his Charter rights. I know Harper isn't in line with Klein on this, but Harper's being awfully disingenuous about the whole gay marriage thing.
Sure he is, because he plans on doing nothing to stop it. I mean, that's as clear as day; he's already talking about allowing his caucus a "Free vote," which is code for "allowing a vote I know full well will result in the total, crushing defeat of any attempt to stop gay marriage." The man isn't stupid; he can do the math, he knows the other parties will vote the party line AGAINST any attempt to stop gay marriage, and he knows that means the bill will be blown off Parliament Hill. Then he can shrug and tell the party faithful, "Well, I tried. Never mind that. On to the next issue!"

That's assuming the vote even happens, which it's likely it won't, since the impending and obvious doom of any such bill would allow him to declare it a pointless exercise, point out to his caucus that it would be embarassing for them even if it were formally declared a free vote, and just quietly kill it right there in caucus. A few dorks would complain, like that Myron Thompson guy who never takes off his comboy hat, but no biggie; he can convince enough of that power base that he tried, while pleasing the nervous Red Tory/Ontario caucus that the Neanderthals didn't get their way. He can save face (more or less) with the religious right and not piss off the populace.

It's really his only option. Attempting a whipped vote with a minority government means his government falls that very day, because you know the other parties would force an election over it. (Actually, it might cause his government to fall even with a small majority.) On the other hand, if he refuses to entertain a defense-of-marraige bill at all, the party faithful who care about it will determine he's a lying weasel, and the party will be split into two camps. By allowing the "DOM" bill to charge headlong into the machine gun fire, he looks blameless.

Make no mistake about it; Harper's talk, such as it's been, on this issue has been deliberate hot air. He's got about as much intent of seriously fighting a battle against gay marriage as he does of cutting off his own head.

[Gorsnak]

Oh, not at all: it just depends where you look. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/09/same-sex-050409.html)
I mean he's being disingenuous about not needing to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. I'm sure he'd bring in the legislation he's talking about (or at least, he'd try). But he knows full well it would be challenged and found unconstitutional, at which point he'd wring his hands about the courts, etc., before "reluctantly" trying to pass legislation invoking the NC (assuming he thought it remotely likely that he had the votes to do so). Barring a Conservative majority, there's no way he'd get past this last step. Maybe even with one he couldn't, as a majority would require a lot of Ontario MPs who might balk at the NC. But I think it's entirely likely we'd have to go through the first steps if he gets even a minority government, unless the Liberals invoke party discipline, which I don't think is likely.

On preview, I must completely disagree with RickJay. Harper wants to pass legislation that will, according to him, fully protect the rights of gays, while maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. Never mind that this is impossible under the current interpretations of the Charter. Harper will sell it as a compromise, and unless the Liberals invoke the whip, a lot of Liberal backbenchers will vote for it. Heck, there's enough Liberals now that are iffy in their support for Bill C-38 that its passage isn't a foregone conclusion. There are something like two Conservatives that will support it. In a hypothetical Tory minority, I'd think there would be a very, very good chance Harper's "compromise" would pass if the Liberal MPs are free to vote as they please. I see little reason to believe they wouldn't be.

Harper is completely sincere in his social conservatism, and you're a fool if you believe he's just playing to his constituents without intending to follow through.

[Sam Stone]

Gorsnak said:

In 2002/03, the Alberta government received $7.1 billion in oil/gas revenues, for 30% of its total revenues. (cite) I believe I read somewhere that in 03/04 they came in at ~10b, or 40% of total, but I don't have a cite handy for that. With a population of 3.1 million, that's $2300 per capita in 02/03 and $3200 per capita last year (assuming my memory is correct).


Yes, and we sent 3.5 billion out of province in the form of equalization payments, for a net windfall revenue of about 3.5 billion dollars. Quebec received 4.5 billion in equalization payments (5.4 billion in 2000-2001), which means the province received a windfall revenue a billion dollars higher than did Alberta.

As for the per-capita thing, I confused Quebec with one of the Maritimes provinces, but looking at the latest numbers, it appears that they aren't receiving more than Alberta on a per-capita basis.

[Gorsnak]

Yes, and we sent 3.5 billion out of province in the form of equalization payments, for a net windfall revenue of about 3.5 billion dollars. Quebec received 4.5 billion in equalization payments (5.4 billion in 2000-2001), which means the province received a windfall revenue a billion dollars higher than did Alberta.

As for the per-capita thing, I confused Quebec with one of the Maritimes provinces, but looking at the latest numbers, it appears that they aren't receiving more than Alberta on a per-capita basis.
And of course, this is restricting the scope of discussions to royalties alone, before we even begin to consider the myriad of other ways that the energy sector contributes to Alberta's tax base. Is it really so hard to admit that a significant portion of Alberta's prosperity is due to geological good fortune?

[Uzi]

Is it really so hard to admit that a significant portion of Alberta's prosperity is due to geological good fortune?

Both BC and Saskatchewan have oil and gas resources yet aren't as successful. BC has a huge wealth of oil off the Queen Charlottes, but has done nothing to develop it. And it has other resources that Alberta and Saskatchewan don't have. While being lucky enough to have the second largest oil reserves in the world is a stroke of good fortune it still takes the will to let people and business take advantage of it. The trick now is not to squander that resource and plan for the future for when it finally runs out. A good start was paying off the debt. Now is the time to build up the infrastructure for the long term and diversify the economy.

[Sam Stone]

Definitely Alberta is starting to have infrastructure problems. I read a report that said it was the largest risk to large economic growth in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor. We definitely need infrastructure investment.

Gorsnak: Sure, we are lucky to have the oil reserves. But we have also done a very good job managing this resource and the revenue from it. We didn't go on spending sprees (despite the screams of the opposition). We paid off the debt, lowered taxes, and then modestly increased spending after the debt was paid off and we were free of interest payments.

We could have pulled a California. California's problem is that when the dot-com boom hit and revenue in California skyrocketed, the government spent like drunken sailors. Then the money ran out, and California wound up with a huge structural imbalance.

[Quartz]

What a pity that some people don't accept blogs as valid sources of information.

[Quartz]

Sorry - that should be possibly valid

[Gorsnak]

Sure, we are lucky to have the oil reserves. But we have also done a very good job managing this resource and the revenue from it. We didn't go on spending sprees (despite the screams of the opposition). We paid off the debt, lowered taxes, and then modestly increased spending after the debt was paid off and we were free of interest payments.
Sure, and I don't disagree that Klein has been generally competant with his fiscal policies. But they're not the magic bullet you sometimes seem to be suggesting they are. Look at Ontario, for example, where Harris was doing a lot of the same stuff and it turns out sinking the province into debt. A large part of why Klein's tax-cutting worked is that energy revenues were on the rise while he was doing it. It was (and is) a very effective set of policies in that particular time and place, but not a panacea. In Saskatchewan, for example, it would have been insane. Now it might be possible to do that here, if (and only if) oil prices stay over $50, because now the increased energy revenues give our government a bit of breathing space. But Romanow would never have balanced the budget using Klein's policies.

[Hamish]

Sam Stone, my complaint about Alberta's Freidmannesque economics stands. There are a number of important aspects missing from your rosy picture of Alberta's economy.

From a 2003 Globe & Mail article (http://www.povnet.org/articles/philp_more_people_in_poverty.htm):

While Alberta followed Ontario as home to the fewest poor people, the median income of those who were poor was 29 per cent below the provincial poverty line, revealing deeper poverty than in most other provinces. (The median income is the point at which half of incomes are higher and half are lower).

According to the Edmonton Social Planning Council (http://www.edmspc.com/Uploads%5Cchild%20poverty.pdf) (working from Statistics Canada Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics), 31.3% of Alberta children in families where at least one parent is working full time are living in poverty, compared to a national statistic of 26.9%.

Here's a tidbit from a Maclean's article (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012648) about Klein harsh cuts to welfare in 1990s:
Tens of thousands were struck from the welfare rolls. Some fled to British Columbia, where monthly welfare payments were significantly higher, clutching one-way bus tickets supplied by Alberta social services.

That fits with anecdotal evidence from most of my friends out west -- everyone knows a poor Albertan. Driving out the poor and turning them into someone else's problem is hardly sound fiscal policy.

As for the employment level, it does nothing to measure the quality of employment. Most of the jobs that have been created in the last ten years across the country are low-income, soul-destroying, low-end service positions. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of new Alberta jobs are part-time, low-end service industry.

Lastly, there's no indication that these policies have worked so well in any other province. Mike Harris, applying the same policies even more harshly, made a disaster of Ontario.

And thanks Gorsnak and matt_mcl. I do apply the label of theocracy to any government threatening to use the notwithstanding clause to refuse equality to people like me on the basis of someone else's religious beliefs. And I don't buy that Klein wouldn't do it, either -- what's he got to lose? Would albertans elect a Liberal government or NDP government in his place if he did.

[Uzi]

[b]That fits with anecdotal evidence from most of my friends out west -- everyone knows a poor Albertan. Driving out the poor and turning them into someone else's problem is hardly sound fiscal policy.

Well, being poor isn't just an Alberta thing. Do you think it is the job of welfare to make people comfortable enough to not bother looking for work? If so that is the difference in our philosophy. If it is the duty of the government to support people in need, it is also the duty of the people receiving that support to limit the time they require it as much as possible. Keeping the rates low gives them incentive to do so if there aren't inclined to naturally.

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of new Alberta jobs are part-time, low-end service industry.

Given the housing boom and the oil sands development, a lot of those jobs are probably better than McJobs.
Unemployment rates Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050408/b040822.html)



Lastly, there's no indication that these policies have worked so well in any other province. Mike Harris, applying the same policies even more harshly, made a disaster of Ontario.

This is one of those differences between provinces. Albertans understand that government should be involved to a minimal degree in their lives only providing essential services. Government is a necessary evil, not something to run to everytime things get a little rough. Given the unemployment level here it is a wonder that people living on government subsidies don't get a lot of sympathy. If a person is willing to relocate to another jurisdiction to get better welfare payments they are probably able to get down the street to work. So why not give them a bus ticket if they want it?

Follow the link to the next page for some historical context.
Debt retired (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012648)

Some anecdotal evidence, not to say everyone is the same, but for you to understand my position. My cousin is mildly mentally handicapped yet she goes to work everyday at Wendy's and managed to help our grandmother in her last years every day while raising a daughter conceived during a rape. Doesn't receive a dime in welfare payments nor has had her soul destroyed working at Wendy's.
I worked at $6.40 an hour in the 80's. I managed to have my own apartment and buy a car. I never felt hard done by because of it. It did motivate me to finish my education and go from near the bottom of the wage scales to near the top today. If I had to work for that wage today, I'd get a room-mate or two, and still figure out a way to go to school and improve myself.

[Sam Stone]

Sam Stone, my complaint about Alberta's Freidmannesque economics stands. There are a number of important aspects missing from your rosy picture of Alberta's economy.

From a 2003 Globe & Mail article (http://www.povnet.org/articles/philp_more_people_in_poverty.htm):



According to the Edmonton Social Planning Council (http://www.edmspc.com/Uploads%5Cchild%20poverty.pdf) (working from Statistics Canada Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics), 31.3% of Alberta children in families where at least one parent is working full time are living in poverty, compared to a national statistic of 26.9%.



And who's to say the average isn't pulled down because we managed to remove the marginal cases from the roles of the poor? In other words, you have two types of poor people - those who are fundamentally productive people but who are poor because they can't find jobs, or because they are stuck in low income jobs, or because they choose to stay on welfare instead of work. Then you have the truly destitute, those who have mental issues, live outside of society, or have other problems. Street people, etc.

Now, if you manage to improve the lives of the marginal cases through job creation, disincentives to stay on welfare in the province, or a general rising standard of living, two things will happen: one is that you will reduce the total number of people in poverty, and the other is that the median average income of those in poverty will go down. So the assumption that the statistic you mentioned is a bad thing is not at all warranted.


Here's a tidbit from a Maclean's article (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012648) about Klein harsh cuts to welfare in 1990s:


That fits with anecdotal evidence from most of my friends out west -- everyone knows a poor Albertan. Driving out the poor and turning them into someone else's problem is hardly sound fiscal policy.


So you're going off of anecdotal evidence? As compared to the two Albertans in this thread who disagree with you?

Yes, there was some flight of hard-core welfare cases to BC when we reduced welfare. That's not our problem. We're not beholden to match other provinces' insane largesse. I remember at one time a welfare recipient in Ontario with two children was making the equivalent of a single mom who was making something like $35,000 when you factored in all the benefits like free child care, free health care and dental, rent subsidies, and other available programs. THAT is nuts.


As for the employment level, it does nothing to measure the quality of employment. Most of the jobs that have been created in the last ten years across the country are low-income, soul-destroying, low-end service positions. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of new Alberta jobs are part-time, low-end service industry.


And do you have any evidence that the jobs we've created fit the category of 'McJobs'? Or is that just a general complaint you get to throw out to dismiss the fact that we have perhaps the lowest unemployment rate in North America?

From The Government of Canada: (http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=715)


Employment in Alberta grew by 47,900 jobs in 2003, a figure almost equivalent to the population of Medicine Hat. This number represents a 2.9 per cent increase in employment — the highest in the country.

The 47,900 new jobs also created 14.3 per cent of Canada's overall employment growth in 2003, according to the 2003 Annual Alberta Labour Market Review. In addition, Alberta's average hourly wage continues to climb — it has increased from $15.14 in 1998 to $18.09 in 2003. The Canadian average hourly wage was $18.06 for 2003.

In 2003, Alberta's employment rate was 69.6 per cent, compared to the second highest rate of 65.5 per cent in Manitoba, and Alberta's youth (aged 15-24) had the lowest unemployment rate in the country at 9.3 per cent. The overall unemployment rate was only 5.1 per cent.

Other highlights of the report include:

Jobs in Alberta increased from 1,515,400 in 1998 to 1,721,700 in 2003
Occupations with the largest increase in employment were:

Sales and services (19,600)
[*[]Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (17,100)
Occupations unique to primary industries (13,200)




Lastly, there's no indication that these policies have worked so well in any other province. Mike Harris, applying the same policies even more harshly, made a disaster of Ontario.


Perhaps they didn't just see it through? Forget the tax cuts - what Alberta did was enact some pretty severe spending cuts. We actually rolled back salaries in the public sector - something unheard of at the time. My wife took several pay cuts as a nurse. The left was marching in the streets against the government, but Klein never backed down. At the time, we weren't even getting that much from oil revenue, which is why we had to cut so much. But we stayed the course, Klein didn't back down and raise spending, and we balanced our budget. This was before oil prices went up, when our revenue was really no better than it was in the 70's and 80's when we spent too much and ran up big deficits.

And since we've paid off the debt, instead of just blowing all the revenue we freed up we've been putting it in a trust fund so that when the oil revenue dries up we'll still have some savings.


And thanks Gorsnak and matt_mcl. I do apply the label of theocracy to any government threatening to use the notwithstanding clause to refuse equality to people like me on the basis of someone else's religious beliefs. And I don't buy that Klein wouldn't do it, either -- what's he got to lose? Would albertans elect a Liberal government or NDP government in his place if he did.

So let me get this straight: You're criticizing our government for something that we haven't done, but that you're pretty sure we would do, and on that basis you've decided that Alberta is a theocracy?

It's a pretty strange theocracy. I live in a pretty nice area, and within 20 blocks of here are half a dozen liquor stores, a few adult video stores, and if you go a little further two casinos. Our government makes more money from gambling revenue than from income tax. Oh, and a couple of years ago I was the photographer for the wedding of two lesbian friends.

I have never, ever, felt like anyone's religious beliefs were controlling my life in Alberta, or even affecting it in any way. The biggest intrusion I see is the existence of a Catholic school system, but that's common across Canada. Our Prime Minister is a guy who is known to enjoy adult beverages and parties.

As for that McLeans article you linked, its bias is obvious. They say things like, "Today, Canada's richest province boasts some of the lowest social assistance rates in the country." It doesn't even occur to them that perhaps one of the reasons we're so rich is because we expect welfare to be a last resort, that people who can work should, and that welfare should be painful enough that people choose it only as a last resort.

I understand that Alberta doesn't fit your notion of what good government is. We're not socialists. We expect people to work. We send our kids to work more than any other province. We don't have government programs to solve every perceived ill put forward by a special interest group. But the fact is, our economic performance dwarfs the rest of Canada's. People are moving to the province in droves. It's pretty hard to argue with success.

[RickJay]

Lastly, there's no indication that these policies have worked so well in any other province. Mike Harris, applying the same policies even more harshly, made a disaster of Ontario.
What about Ontario is "disastrous" as compared to 1995, precisely? You've said this before, I've asked you to explain it before, and you've always refused to. The province is in better economic shape than any other, save maybe Alberta. I don't see our cities burning or mass starvation. Unemployment is down; disposable income is up.

I wonder how much better Alberta and Ontario would be doing if they didn't have to give billions upon billions of dollars in equalization payments to the other eight provinces. Just in the last ten years. Ontario has paid more than $25 billion straight into Quebec's coffers - plus at least as much into the coffers of the other provinces. That's free money, for which Ontario receives absolutely nothing.

One wonders how much better we could do fighting poverty in Ontario if it wasn't for the fact we give so much free money to the other provinces. Over the course of the Harris/Eves administration, Ontarians lost at least $45 billion that was simply given to the eight "poor" provinces in equalization payments. Another seven or eight billion has been shipped your way since Dalton McGuinty took over. If we could have that money back, we could hire 10,000 new teachers at solid wages, attract 5,000 new family doctors into the province and pay them good wages, pump a billion dollars a year into public transit and infrastructure, increase health spending by about three to four percent AND have money left over to fight the deficit.

So don't knock Ontario's economic approach, because YOUR province relies on us. Or look at it this way; you know Quebec's fancy and much-praised provincial $5-a-day day care system? Ontario's paying for it. If you don't like the way we run things here, we would be happy to have our money back.

[Sam Stone]

I'm also amazed at the demonization of the Conservatives that seems to go on down east. Being in Alberta, I'm somewhat disconnected from that, so it surprises me. Those of you down east - are conservatives really portrayed this way? To hear Hamish tell it, Alberta is some backwards corporatist hellhole where the poor starve - "everyone knows a poor Albertan". She also seems to think we're living in a theocracy out here.

What do easterners really think of us out here? Are we a bunch of redneck hicks with straw in our teeth and dogs on the porch? Or renegade evil capitalists who screw the poor while we drive our Cadillac Escalades to work? Or what?

What in hell is so scary about Conservatives that would make you guys choose crooks over them? What exactly do you think will happen under a Conservative government?

[RickJay]

To hear Hamish tell it, Alberta is some backwards corporatist hellhole where the poor starve - "everyone knows a poor Albertan". She also seems to think we're living in a theocracy out here.

What do easterners really think of us out here? Are we a bunch of redneck hicks with straw in our teeth and dogs on the porch? Or renegade evil capitalists who screw the poor while we drive our Cadillac Escalades to work? Or what?
To be honest, I have never encountered this in real life. Hamish is prone to flights of rhetorical extremism; everything s/he (I'm sorry, I thought Hamish was a guy, so now I'm confused) is always a "catastrophe" or a "disaster." You would think Ontario and Alberta were post-apocalyptic wastelands overseen by mutant overlords. I half expect Mad Max to drive by any minute. S/he just tends to blow things up with somewhat extreme adjectives, that's all.

No, Easterners don't think Alberta's a hellhole, at least none I have ever met. (Winnipeg, now...) Anyone who's ever been there agrees it's a great place. Calgary and Edmonton are two of my favourite cities to visit on business. Lovely towns.

[Grey]

The idea of a Harper government scares me -- his homophobia, his use of ethnic stereotypes to promote homophobia, his Freidmannesque economics, and his kowtowing to US foreign policy all terrify me, and I think the country would fall into disaster under him.
<snip>
But if we were really two-party system, and the NDP and Greens didn't exist, I'd vote Liberal -- petty evil beats the greater evils of hatred and the introduction of the Woeful State*, where the poor and the sick are left to fend for themselves
True, much better to have criminals running the branches of government that make and enforce the law. Really, governments that blatantly use the mechanism of power to enrich themselves and deceive the public are a small and petty evil compared to people possessing opinions that differ from your own.

Small and petty evils are the best indeed.